Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42641 - 42660 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 7, 2013 - 06:57pm PT
that would explain their womens perchance for loiter at the bowling alley
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 7, 2013 - 07:12pm PT
Why do the Right wingers need so many guns?
so they can take on the Tyrannical Gov., meaning us, the majority of America that elected Obama.


Almost Half of Republicans Think an Armed Revolution "Might Be Necessary"


What does it mean for guns and democracy?
Salon / By David Sirota

May 1, 2013

There’s plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today’s conservative movement. There was the movement’s use of its judicial power to halt a vote recount and instead install a president who had lost the popular vote. There is the ongoing GOP effort to make it more difficult for people to cast a vote in an election. There is the GOP’s record use of the Senate filibuster to kill legislation that the vast majority of the country supports. There is a GOP leader’s declaration that what the American people want from their government simply “doesn’t matter.”

Up until today, you might have been able to write all that anti-democratic pathology off as one infecting only the Republican Party’s politicians and institutional leadership, but not its rank-and-file voters. But then this morning Fairleigh Dickinson University released this gun control-related poll showing that authoritarianism runs throughout the the entire party.

Take a look at the cross-tabs on page 3 of the national survey. That’s right, you are reading it correctly: Almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe “an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties.” Just as bad, more Republicans believe an armed revolution might be necessary than believe one isn’t necessary.

This poll raises two obvious questions, each more disturbing than the next.

The first question is about gun control and gun ownership, and more specifically, what the latter is all about.

Typically, GOP leaders say that their opposition to minimal gun regulations has nothing to do with helping arm those who want to commit acts of violence, and everything to do with wanting to make sure people can defend themselves. Based on the poll, of course, it is certainly likely that many are buying such weapons in an effort to defend themselves, both for day-to-day life and in the event of a sudden armed revolution. But here’s the scary part: How many are buying weapons to arm themselves in order to foment an armed revolution? Maybe none, but maybe a lot. I don’t have an answer, but this poll suggests the question should at least be aired.

The other question is about republican democracy: Can it survive in an age when almost one-half of one of the major parties seems to support the concept of violently thwarting it?

“Politics is war by other means”: That aphorism sums up the democratic theory undergirding the American idea for two centuries. Though we haven’t always lived up to that ideal, it is a pretty simple one: A civilized society should solve disputes through a democratic process and democratic institutions, rather than through the barrel of a gun. And while our democracy has been corrupted by Big Money, it still functions better than autocracy. In that sense, Churchill had it right when he said “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Incredibly, though, almost half of Republicans don’t seem to necessarily see it that way. According to the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, 44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren’t getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence.

Of course, GOP apologists will say that the poll just asked specifically about armed revolution “to protect liberties,” the idea being that almost half of Republican voters don’t support using violence to advance their own political agenda, they only support it in the face of a future dystopian nightmare whereby the population is terrorized by police-administered drone bombings and Waco-esque invasions of private homes.

But that’s the thing: We can’t be so sure that’s really true when conservative media voices and politicians are using the broad and incendiary language they now regularly employ. Today, those voices often claim that almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda — from Obamacare to taxes to environmental regulations to contraception policy — is an assault on “liberty.”

That means the poll might indicate something much more significant than understandable opposition to Big Brother turning our country into Oceania. It might show us that all the vitriolic language employed by the right is undermining the most basic nonviolent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
May 7, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
Republicans , at least the dumber ones , are sheep waiting for their sheppard dog , Rush , to bark and nip at their heels...
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 7, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
gun owners who think their stalwarts doing some anti-government duty are the easiest to spank...

"what are you concerned about the government doing to the people?!?!!?"

blah blah blah...

"didnt that happening 40 years ago????"

um, well, yes, but... blah blah blah

"so, your arms are to fight for the future loss of something you didnt even have when you were born???"

........

"really?!?!?!?"

.......

"so, hows that deal with the state about the home you lost to the bank going???"


......

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 7, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
The Chutzpah Caucus

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 5, 2013 NY Times

At this point the economic case for austerity — for slashing government spending even in the face of a weak economy — has collapsed. Claims that spending cuts would actually boost employment by promoting confidence have fallen apart. Claims that there is some kind of red line of debt that countries dare not cross have turned out to rest on fuzzy and to some extent just plain erroneous math. Predictions of fiscal crisis keep not coming true; predictions of disaster from harsh austerity policies have proved all too accurate.

Yet calls for a reversal of the destructive turn toward austerity are still having a hard time getting through. Partly that reflects vested interests, for austerity policies serve the interests of wealthy creditors; partly it reflects the unwillingness of influential people to admit being wrong. But there is, I believe, a further obstacle to change: widespread, deep-seated cynicism about the ability of democratic governments, once engaged in stimulus, to change course in the future.

So now seems like a good time to point out that this cynicism, which sounds realistic and worldly-wise, is actually sheer fantasy. Ending stimulus has never been a problem — in fact, the historical record shows that it almost always ends too soon. And in America, at least, we have a pretty good record for behaving in a fiscally responsible fashion, with one exception — namely, the fiscal irresponsibility that prevails when, and only when, hard-line conservatives are in power.

Let’s start with the common claim that stimulus programs never go away.

In the United States, government spending programs designed to boost the economy are in fact rare — F.D.R.’s New Deal and President Obama’s much smaller Recovery Act are the only big examples. And neither program became permanent — in fact, both were scaled back much too soon. F.D.R. cut back sharply in 1937, plunging America back into recession; the Recovery Act had its peak effect in 2010, and has since faded away, a fade that has been a major reason for our slow recovery.

What about programs designed to aid those hurt by a depressed economy? Don’t they become permanent fixtures? Again, no. Unemployment benefits have fluctuated up and down with the business cycle, and as a percentage of G.D.P. they are barely half what they were at their recent peak. Food stamp usage is still rising, thanks to a still-terrible labor market, but historical experience suggests that it too will fall sharply if and when the economy really recovers.

Incidentally, foreign experience follows the same pattern. You often hear Japan described as a country that has pursued never-ending fiscal stimulus. In reality, it has engaged in stop-go policies, increasing spending when the economy is weak, then pulling back at the first sign of recovery (and thereby pushing itself back into recession).

So the whole notion of perma-stimulus is fantasy posing as hardheaded realism. Still, even if you don’t believe that stimulus is forever, Keynesian economics says not just that you should run deficits in bad times, but that you should pay down debt in good times. And it’s silly to imagine that this will happen, right?

Wrong. The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to G.D.P., which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. So debt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments.

And there’s a reason for that association: U.S. conservatives have long followed a strategy of “starving the beast,” slashing taxes so as to deprive the government of the revenue it needs to pay for popular programs.

The funny thing is that right now these same hard-line conservatives declare that we must not run deficits in times of economic crisis. Why? Because, they say, politicians won’t do the right thing and pay down the debt in good times. And who are these irresponsible politicians they’re talking about? Why, themselves.

To me, it sounds like a fiscal version of the classic definition of chutzpah — namely, killing your parents, then demanding sympathy because you’re an orphan. Here we have conservatives telling us that we must tighten our belts despite mass unemployment, because otherwise future conservatives will keep running deficits once times improve.

Put this way, of course, it sounds silly. But it isn’t; it’s tragic. The disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives. And it’s time for a U-turn.
jghedge

climber
May 7, 2013 - 10:20pm PT

The most powerful evidence and argument for gov't cost controls on medical goods and services yet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/hospital-prices-cost-differences_n_3232678.html?1367985666


"The database released on Wednesday by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services lays out for the first time and in voluminous detail how much the vast majority of American hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures billed to Medicare. The database -- which covers claims filed within fiscal year 2011 -- spans 163,065 individual charges recorded at 3,337 hospitals located in 306 metropolitan areas."


Gov't cost controls on medical goods and services is the #1 economic, as well as moral, imperative facing the US today.

Vote the repub vermin out of DC, and we'll get them.


rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 8, 2013 - 04:27am PT
http://bradblog.com/

Once again, we have another 100% unverifiable faith-based election in the world's once-greatest democracy.



Just over two weeks ago, as news broke that Sanford was due to appear in court after his ex-wife claimed he had been caught trespassing at her home, PPP found that Colbert Busch's lead had expanded to 9 points in the race.

Over the weekend, in their final polling, PPP found the gap had closed, and Sanford was leading by 1 point in a race they described, one again, as "a toss-up".

Tonight, South Carolina's same 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems that declared the unknown, unemployed, never-once-campaigned-anywhere Alvin Green to have somehow defeated four-term state legislator and circuit court judge Vic Rawl to win the 2010 Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, declared Mark Sanford the winner over Elizabeth Colbert Busch by a 9 point landslide...


The unverified and unverifiable computer-reported results tonight led PPP's Tom Jensen to tweet: "I feel bad about our SC-1 polling, I'd feel worse if there had been any indication from any other polling that Sanford landslide was coming".

Neither Jensen nor PPP should feel bad. There was no more indication that a "landslide was coming", than there is proof tonight that it actually came.

We explained last month, in detail, why the votes cast in this race on SC's oft-failed, easily-manipulated ES&S iVotronic touch-screen voting system would be 100% unverifiable. As Vic Rawl, a Colbert Busch supporter and the man who inexplicably "lost" to Alvin Green told us at the time, no matter what the results would be tonight, no matter how inexplicable they might be, "the fact is, there's not a darn thing that anybody can do about it."

While it's completely possible that PPP's pre-election numbers were entirely wrong, or that the disgraced Sanford legitimately, somehow, achieved an 18 point turnaround in just two weeks, the voters of SC will never know one way or another if he did or didn't.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 8, 2013 - 09:48am PT
Below is an excerpt from the Benghazi hearings and "whistle blowers".

Finally the light will dawn on the bungling idiots that were in charge of this debacle..






12:09 p.m. – Eric Nordstrom, one the whistle-blowers, thanked the oversight committee for their continued efforts, "specifically the committee's labors to uncover what happened prior, during and after the attack matter."

In what seemed like a response to Hillary Clinton's Senate testimony–in which she said said "what difference, at this point, does it make" over how the violence started–Nordstrom stressed it was important to get to the bottom of the attack.

"It matters to me personally, and it matters to my colleagues, to my colleagues at the Department of State," he said, growing emotional. "It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on September 11, 2012."



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/08/the-latest-on-benghazi-hearing/






edit: and if i were billary,, i too would be yapping "what difference does it make" - as that is the only "CYA" maneuver she possibly could invent. Which was as weak as her lying about that stupid video from the git go.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 8, 2013 - 11:17am PT
BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111
dirtbag

climber
May 8, 2013 - 11:53am PT
BENGHAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz...zzzzzz...zzzz...zz...z...
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
May 8, 2013 - 11:53am PT
Ron, upthread we already noted Nordstrom's lack of credibility:

"'It was abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,' said Eric Nordstrom, who served as a regional security officer in Tripoli until July. Nordstrom said he was turned down when he requested that a 16-member security support team that was scheduled to leave Libya in August be extended.

Describing his frustration with officials at the State Department in Washington, he said he told a regional security director, 'The Taliban is on the inside of the building.'

Utah National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, a former military security officer in Libya, echoed Nordstrom’s view that requests for security weren’t met.

'We were fighting a losing battle,' Wood said. 'We couldn’t even keep what we had.' "

Nordstrom was asked how many extra security agents he had requested. He requested 3, he was given 5.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 8, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 8, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
jghedge

climber
May 8, 2013 - 12:57pm PT

"Finally the light will dawn on the bungling idiots that were in charge of this debacle.."

The terrorists were in charge of this debacle. That's how terrorist attacks work.

Nobody on our side was in charge of their attack.


Understand, idiot?
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 8, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
There is no question more critical to the United States of America than

BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 8, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
It wasn't terrorists, it was a "spontaneous demonstration" over a youtube video.


You can't even keep to the party line.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 8, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Rupert Murdoch just anounced that Fox News will be changing it's name to BNN.

The Benghazi News Network

All Benghazi, all the time.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 8, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
There is no question more critical to the United States of America than

BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111


Was to them!



Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 8, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
That's your move?

Dude,

It is so played.


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
May 8, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
Messages 42641 - 42660 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews