or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why is the RIGHT always so WRONG?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why is the RIGHT always so WRONG?

post #1 of 105
Thread Starter 
Seriously.

I mean, just sample the PO'ed posts from the rightwingextremenutjobs in PO to get my drift.

I'd almost call it an inherent "blind spot" of ignorance and stupidity, but it really is something much more insidious, mindlessness and senselessness.

It all starts sounding like dittoheads arguing amongst themselves, kind of like what happened on The Boss Dimbulb Show today.

They all seem to be caricatures of themselves, never capable of thinking outside their handler's dittoheaded box.

Think about it.

If one were to replace your favorite rightwingextremenutjob here in PO with an actual Rush or Sean or Bill or Glenn or Ann or Laura or <insert your favorite rightwingextremenutjob media hate show personallity here> the dialogue would be the exact same thing that your favorite PO rightwingextremenutjob already posts here.

Why are all rightwingextremenutjobs so transparently interchangable?

Today's rightwingextremenutjob is so 70's disco. Except for the shorter hair.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2 of 105
Come on, Frank. It's all strategy. Never underestimate the Republican party's abilities to be extremely effective at being the minority party.

Sure, they're pissed. Sure, they're frightened. Sure, they don't know where to turn to get a leg up. But one thing for I know for sure, these folks have an amazing ability to play politics with ANYTHING.

It's pretty simple. If Obama said it was sunny outside Republicans would issue a press release 12 hours later saying "Why does Obama hate evenings." Rinse. Repeat.

Plus I've recently learned they're all just a bunch of big liars. All this bloviating about "responsible political discourse" and "Bush derangement syndrome" and "Bush hatred" and "The Blame American First Crowd". It meant diddly squat. They weren't being serious. They were just playing politics. Because if they had been serious then they wouldn't be behaving exactly the same way... and in many circumstances, WORSE!

Last time I check Olbermann was an anti-Bush blowhard, but I don't ever remember him rallying his viewers to grab their guns.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #3 of 105
The Republican leadership is cunning, I'll give them that. I mean, the fact that they've retained any of their conservative base at all is quite a feat in and of itself. They can only continue the charade so long, though. Eventually people will realize that they are big government globalists just like the Democrats.

But I suppose the same could be said of the Democrat leadership in relation to their own base. A lot of Obama supporters are scratching their heads asking: "so where's the change...and why am I out of change?"

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But I suppose the same could be said of the Democrat leadership in relation to their own base. A lot of Obama supporters are scratching their heads asking: "so where's the change...and why am I out of change?"

I don't think that's true. Obama's "base" is extremely pleased with Obama's performance. Sure, we take umbrage from time to time over our pet issues. But one thing is for sure (as evidenced by links provided by both HuffPo and Drudge), liberal bloggers refuse to be stenographers for the White House like conservative bloggers were for the previous administration.

Most polls show that average Americans fully support Obama right now. Republican approval numbers are very poor. This will change, of course, if the current economic strategy works or fails. One thing is for certain, recent polls suggest that the American people are just happy that someone is doing something, anything... and a lot of it.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #5 of 105
Here's a prime example of how utterly stupid our discourse has become. Former Republican defense secretary William Cohen and the Obama administration have proposed a military budget 4% INCREASE. With that increase they want to kill some weapons programs and spend money on different weapons programs.

Link

Sounds reasonable, yes? Kill Cold War era programs and institute new modern ones.

But then you get idiots like Senator Inhofe and those idiots at Politico sayings, "Obama is gutting our military!" "Sweeping Cuts". "Obama needs money to pay for domestic spending."

Link

You know what. Kiss my ass! We're all getting a little tired of this childish phony outrage EVERY SINGLE DAY! The next election is 20 months away guys. You might want to save some of that for 2010.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Here's a prime example of how utterly stupid our discourse has become. Former Republican defense secretary William Cohen and the Obama administration have proposed a military budget 4% INCREASE. With that increase they want to kill some weapons programs and spend money on different weapons programs.

Link

Sounds reasonable, yes? Kill Cold War era programs and institute new modern ones.

But then you get idiots like Senator Inhofe and those idiots at Politico sayings, "Obama is gutting our military!" "Sweeping Cuts". "Obama needs money to pay for domestic spending."

Link

You know what. Kiss my ass! We're all getting a little tired of this childish phony outrage EVERY SINGLE DAY! The next election is 20 months away guys. You might want to save some of that for 2010.

John Stewart called and wants his joke back.

Where is the phony rage when entitlement programs continue to grow at rates much higher than 4%?

Where is the outrage at an administration that is double the entire national debt in one term and tripling it in 10 years?

False outrage indeed!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Seriously.

I mean, just sample the PO'ed posts from the rightwingextremenutjobs in PO to get my drift.

I'd almost call it a inherent "blind spot" of ignorance and stupidity, but it really is something much more insidious, mindlessness and senselessness.

It all starts sounding like dittoheads arguing amongst themselves, kind of like what happened on The Boss Dimbulb Show today.

They all seem to be caricatures of themselves, never capable of thinking outside their handler's dittoheaded box.

Think about it.

If one were to replace your favorite rightwingextremenutjob here in PO with an actual Rush or Sean or Bill or Glenn or Ann or Laura or <insert your favorite rightwingextremenutjob media hate show personallity here> the dialogue would be the exact same thing that your favorite PO rightwingextremenutjob already posts here.

Why are all rightwingextremenutjobs so transparently interchangable?

Today's rightwingextremenutjob is so 70's disco. Except for the shorter hair.


They ignore the facts ( or make up their own ).
The way I see it is that they've been saying the same old rhetoric for so long they actually believe it. Believing anything else would shake up the way they view reality. It's really the same thing as tradition. They do it because it's the way they do it. Or it's kind of like joining a religious sect. The minute you join you're accepting a set of values and beliefs.
Thinking differently isn't an option. As a matter of fact uniform thinking is a necessity.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 105
Ann Coulter Quotes...

"Just as we're always told that schoolyard bullies are actually deeply insecure, liberals rationalize their own ferocious behavior by claiming to have been wounded somehow. What about the little guy our poor, insecure bully is beating the living daylights out of? How's his self-esteem coming along? That is the essence of liberals: They viciously attack everyone else, while wailing that they are the victims." -- P.2

"If Republicans were running black Republicans Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, or Condoleeza Rice for President, would liberals tell us that only racism could prevent them from becoming President? Say -- do we need to send federal civil rights monitors into Maryland and Ohio right now, on account of the fact that Steele and Blackwell lost recent elections in those states?" -- P.12

"It's a perverse world when the most aggressive people are always wailing about their victimhood. In what other place or time have people boasted about how wretched they are? Isn't it more natural to claim to be better than you are than to claim to be worse than you are? But instead of falsely claiming to be rich or of royal lineage, in modern America people seek rewards by falsely asserting they are victims -- of homophobes, hypocrites, Karl Rove, racists, Republicans, and oppressive Alaska governors." -- P.29

"Liberals seem to have hit upon a reverse Christ story as their belief system. He suffered and died for our sins; liberals make the rest of us suffer for sins we didn't commit. Their claims of how awful 'we' are never seems to encompass themselves in the 'we.' Saying America is a racist nation is never meant to suggest that the speaker is a racist -- it's his neighbors who are the racists." -- P.31

"Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involved -- someone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich. By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beings -- their own children -- as countless studies on the subject make clear. Not only do single mothers hurt their children, they also foist a raft of social pathologies on society. Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem of single mothers." -- P.36

"It never occurs to anyone to simply return to the original rule: Unless a man is married to a woman when she gives birth to his child, he has no rights to that child, and unless a woman is married to a man when she gives birth to his child, she has no right to his paycheck or his time." -- P.67

"What liberals mean when they complain about "attacks" is simply that it is unfair to point out the things the Democrats believe." -- P.72

"Republican 'opposition research' mostly consists of trying to publicize relevant information the press refuses to report, inasmuch as the entire American press corps works tirelessly to unearth the scandals of Republicans, while aggressively suppressing Democratic scandals." -- P.137

"It was all very well for B. Hussein Obama to decry 'attacks' on his wife and swear off attacks on his opponent's family members, but those were just empty words, much like his speeches. He could count on the Liberal Attack Machine to abuse his opponents and their families for him without his ever having to get his hands dirty. For liberals to call for an end to 'negative attacks' is like a rapist coming out for gun control." -- P.138

"At least the Edwards' sex scandal proved him right about one thing: There really are two Americas. There's one for right-wingers, where every jaywalking offense will be covered like the O.J. murder trial, and one for left-wingers, where they can do anything and blithely count on a total media cover-up." -- P.181 Just ask Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's sister about this one.

"The moment John McCain introduced Palin as his running mate, liberals switched from being the primary advocates for stamping out sexism toward women in politics to being the primary perpetrators of sexism toward women in politics." -- P.240

"Bravery, as used in public discourse, bears no relation to what most people think of as bravery. No matter what liberals do, they are brave. No matter what abuse conservatives take, they deserved it." -- P.243

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #9 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Ann Coulter Quotes...

"Just as we're always told that schoolyard bullies are actually deeply insecure, liberals rationalize their own ferocious behavior by claiming to have been wounded somehow. What about the little guy our poor, insecure bully is beating the living daylights out of? How's his self-esteem coming along? That is the essence of liberals: They viciously attack everyone else, while wailing that they are the victims." -- P.2

"If Republicans were running black Republicans Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, or Condoleeza Rice for President, would liberals tell us that only racism could prevent them from becoming President? Say -- do we need to send federal civil rights monitors into Maryland and Ohio right now, on account of the fact that Steele and Blackwell lost recent elections in those states?" -- P.12

"It's a perverse world when the most aggressive people are always wailing about their victimhood. In what other place or time have people boasted about how wretched they are? Isn't it more natural to claim to be better than you are than to claim to be worse than you are? But instead of falsely claiming to be rich or of royal lineage, in modern America people seek rewards by falsely asserting they are victims -- of homophobes, hypocrites, Karl Rove, racists, Republicans, and oppressive Alaska governors." -- P.29

"Liberals seem to have hit upon a reverse Christ story as their belief system. He suffered and died for our sins; liberals make the rest of us suffer for sins we didn't commit. Their claims of how awful 'we' are never seems to encompass themselves in the 'we.' Saying America is a racist nation is never meant to suggest that the speaker is a racist -- it's his neighbors who are the racists." -- P.31

"Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involved -- someone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich. By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beings -- their own children -- as countless studies on the subject make clear. Not only do single mothers hurt their children, they also foist a raft of social pathologies on society. Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem of single mothers." -- P.36

"It never occurs to anyone to simply return to the original rule: Unless a man is married to a woman when she gives birth to his child, he has no rights to that child, and unless a woman is married to a man when she gives birth to his child, she has no right to his paycheck or his time." -- P.67

"What liberals mean when they complain about "attacks" is simply that it is unfair to point out the things the Democrats believe." -- P.72

"Republican 'opposition research' mostly consists of trying to publicize relevant information the press refuses to report, inasmuch as the entire American press corps works tirelessly to unearth the scandals of Republicans, while aggressively suppressing Democratic scandals." -- P.137

"It was all very well for B. Hussein Obama to decry 'attacks' on his wife and swear off attacks on his opponent's family members, but those were just empty words, much like his speeches. He could count on the Liberal Attack Machine to abuse his opponents and their families for him without his ever having to get his hands dirty. For liberals to call for an end to 'negative attacks' is like a rapist coming out for gun control." -- P.138

"At least the Edwards' sex scandal proved him right about one thing: There really are two Americas. There's one for right-wingers, where every jaywalking offense will be covered like the O.J. murder trial, and one for left-wingers, where they can do anything and blithely count on a total media cover-up." -- P.181 Just ask Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's sister about this one.

"The moment John McCain introduced Palin as his running mate, liberals switched from being the primary advocates for stamping out sexism toward women in politics to being the primary perpetrators of sexism toward women in politics." -- P.240

"Bravery, as used in public discourse, bears no relation to what most people think of as bravery. No matter what liberals do, they are brave. No matter what abuse conservatives take, they deserved it." -- P.243

And here we have a prime example of what I've been talking about. Break, bend, or twist the facts to fit their worldview.

They still don't get it's why they became unpopular. It's why people lost faith in them. It's ultimately why they lost the last election.

Epilogue : It's also why as long as they don't get it they won't be getting back into the Whitehouse.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

...where is the phony rage when entitlement programs continue to grow at rates much higher than 4%?

Where is the outrage at an administration that is double the entire national debt in one term and tripling it in 10 years?...

...+1
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #11 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Ann Coulter Quotes...

"Just as we're always told that schoolyard bullies are actually deeply insecure, liberals rationalize their own ferocious behavior by claiming to have been wounded somehow. What about the little guy our poor, insecure bully is beating the living daylights out of? How's his self-esteem coming along? That is the essence of liberals: They viciously attack everyone else, while wailing that they are the victims." -- P.2

"If Republicans were running black Republicans Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, or Condoleeza Rice for President, would liberals tell us that only racism could prevent them from becoming President? Say -- do we need to send federal civil rights monitors into Maryland and Ohio right now, on account of the fact that Steele and Blackwell lost recent elections in those states?" -- P.12

"It's a perverse world when the most aggressive people are always wailing about their victimhood. In what other place or time have people boasted about how wretched they are? Isn't it more natural to claim to be better than you are than to claim to be worse than you are? But instead of falsely claiming to be rich or of royal lineage, in modern America people seek rewards by falsely asserting they are victims -- of homophobes, hypocrites, Karl Rove, racists, Republicans, and oppressive Alaska governors." -- P.29

"Liberals seem to have hit upon a reverse Christ story as their belief system. He suffered and died for our sins; liberals make the rest of us suffer for sins we didn't commit. Their claims of how awful 'we' are never seems to encompass themselves in the 'we.' Saying America is a racist nation is never meant to suggest that the speaker is a racist -- it's his neighbors who are the racists." -- P.31

"Getting pregnant isn't like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involved -- someone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich. By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beings -- their own children -- as countless studies on the subject make clear. Not only do single mothers hurt their children, they also foist a raft of social pathologies on society. Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem of single mothers." -- P.36

"It never occurs to anyone to simply return to the original rule: Unless a man is married to a woman when she gives birth to his child, he has no rights to that child, and unless a woman is married to a man when she gives birth to his child, she has no right to his paycheck or his time." -- P.67

"What liberals mean when they complain about "attacks" is simply that it is unfair to point out the things the Democrats believe." -- P.72

"Republican 'opposition research' mostly consists of trying to publicize relevant information the press refuses to report, inasmuch as the entire American press corps works tirelessly to unearth the scandals of Republicans, while aggressively suppressing Democratic scandals." -- P.137

"It was all very well for B. Hussein Obama to decry 'attacks' on his wife and swear off attacks on his opponent's family members, but those were just empty words, much like his speeches. He could count on the Liberal Attack Machine to abuse his opponents and their families for him without his ever having to get his hands dirty. For liberals to call for an end to 'negative attacks' is like a rapist coming out for gun control." -- P.138

"At least the Edwards' sex scandal proved him right about one thing: There really are two Americas. There's one for right-wingers, where every jaywalking offense will be covered like the O.J. murder trial, and one for left-wingers, where they can do anything and blithely count on a total media cover-up." -- P.181 Just ask Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's sister about this one.

"The moment John McCain introduced Palin as his running mate, liberals switched from being the primary advocates for stamping out sexism toward women in politics to being the primary perpetrators of sexism toward women in politics." -- P.240

"Bravery, as used in public discourse, bears no relation to what most people think of as bravery. No matter what liberals do, they are brave. No matter what abuse conservatives take, they deserved it." -- P.243

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

...+11
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #12 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And here we have a prime example of what I've been talking about. Break, bend, or twist the facts to fit their worldview.

They still don't get it's why they became unpopular. It's why people lost faith in them. It's ultimately why they lost the last election.

Epilogue : It's also why as long as they don't get it they won't be getting back into the Whitehouse.

Republican or Democrat in the White House, we'd still be in this mess. They are different in terms of the rhetorical tripe they spew forth, but quite the same when you take a look at the results of their actions.

Neither major party has any regard for the Constitution anymore. Any impartial study of the writings of the founding fathers confirms this. Too much power has been allowed to be concentrated in the hands of the "Washington Elite" and their special interest group lackeys.

We've been voting for the "lesser of two evils" for a long time now. Witness the result.

The ardent supporters of one major party blame the opposing party as directly responsible for all of the nations's problems while wilfully ignoring the blatant complicity of their own.

They are so intent on being vindicated in their fervent support of THEIR party over the other (a vindication that will, in fact, never come) that they are utterly oblivious to the corruption permeating both.

As long as we allow this vicious pattern to continue, we will see no lasting improvement.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

John Stewart called and wants his joke back.

Where is the phony rage when entitlement programs continue to grow at rates much higher than 4%?

Where is the outrage at an administration that is double the entire national debt in one term and tripling it in 10 years?

False outrage indeed!

You are changing the subject.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #14 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You are changing the subject.

Actually you owe me an apology for even suggesting THIS thread has a subject.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #15 of 105
I remember when Republicans were common thought of as the "grown up party".

I'm sure your fathers and grandfathers are proud of you now.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #16 of 105
"Entitlement Programs" is a phrase that only selfish people use. It needs to go away. No one feels entitled. Try "Social Responsibility" instead.
post #17 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Republican or Democrat in the White House, we'd still be in this mess. They are different in terms of the rhetorical tripe they spew forth, but quite the same when you take a look at the results of their actions.

Neither major party has any regard for the Constitution anymore. Any impartial study of the writings of the founding fathers confirms this. Too much power has been allowed to be concentrated in the hands of the "Washington Elite" and their special interest group lackeys.

We've been voting for the "lesser of two evils" for a long time now. Witness the result.

The ardent supporters of one major party blame the opposing party as directly responsible for all of the nations's problems while wilfully ignoring the blatant complicity of their own.

They are so intent on being vindicated in their fervent support of THEIR party over the other (a vindication that will, in fact, never come) that they are utterly oblivious to the corruption permeating both.

As long as we allow this vicious pattern to continue, we will see no lasting improvement.

And then you have the guys in the middle who say: " We're so different! We'd never be like that! " ignoring the fact that part of this is due to human nature and have little or no proof of any such thing.

I was a Libertarian in the 70's because that's the way my parents went. They used to be Democrats. The Libertarian party had good values back then but went pretty much nowhere. Third party groups have done little or nothing in recent years except help George Bush win when there was a close race. Fortunately America had finally had it with the Neocons and woke up.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #18 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And then you have the guys in the middle who say: " We're so different! We'd never be like that! " ignoring the fact that part of this is due to human nature and have little or no proof of any such thing.

I was a Libertarian in the 70's because that's the way my parents went. They used to be Democrats. The Libertarian party had good values back then but went pretty much nowhere. Third party groups have done little or nothing in recent years except help George Bush win when there was a close race. Fortunately America had finally had it with the Neocons and woke up.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Exhibit A".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Exhibit A".

Of someone who doesn't buy what you're selling.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 105
I consider myself a "centrist", so I'll just throw in my 2¢...and for the purposes of this post I'll address the political extremes.

The "left" seems to me to be emotional wrecks, basing their position on intangibles like "fairness". Logic need not apply. Everyone has a right to be treated fairly, we're all special, and they demand government issue pacifiers to every Tom, Dick and Harry. If the world hands you lemons, it's the government's fault. War is good if someone does something bad, but there's never a good reason to do more than a harsh word and a stern lecture - and the judgement value of "good" and "bad" are abitrary. The "left" pays total attention to the results of polls.

The "right" seems self centered and emotionally isolated. You have to expect folks to earn every meal they have, and there's no free lunch. "Fair" is whatever you earn from hard work and don't expect them to have any compassion whatsoever. The government is just there to enforce their particular philosophy, not a whit more. War is natures way of separating the chosen from the rest of the world. Good and Bad are black and white, as long as you keep in mind that black = bad and good = white.
post #21 of 105
I think a better question is whether these broad often poorly defined (and subtly changing definitions) and inappropriately applied names and labels (e.g., liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, left, right, etc.) are an effective pathway to truly understanding individual people, their ideas and opinions.
post #22 of 105
Bingo!

Give up the box and labels and engage the person. Hell on here, people are more interested in arguing with ghosts of users past then dealing with the people here now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 105
involuntary_serf, that's a brilliant question.

You deserve a cookie.

It's difficult to wade through the muck of prejudice and stereotypes to reach the shores of mutual understanding.

I suppose it's a matter of wanting to understand--rather than summarily dismiss--new and different ideas that may throw our own into question.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #24 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I consider myself a "centrist", so I'll just throw in my 2¢...and for the purposes of this post I'll address the political extremes.

The "left" seems to me to be emotional wrecks, basing their position on intangibles like "fairness". Logic need not apply. Everyone has a right to be treated fairly, we're all special, and they demand government issue pacifiers to every Tom, Dick and Harry. If the world hands you lemons, it's the government's fault.

Bullshit.

The left (at least those that believe the way I do) believe that if life hands you lemons, then it's no one's fault, maybe even your own, or maybe that of someone who took advantage of you.

But we strongly believe that if life hands you lemons, and NO ONE OFFERS HELP, then it IS the fault of the selfish people. And there's nothing wrong to use government as insurance that there will be someone who offers help.

Helping the poor helps more than those who directly benefit. It reduces crime per dollar spent more than increased policing does. It improves the overall economy, which can do its part to help rich people stay rich or get richer, if that's what they want to do. It improves society and reduces conflict, besides crime. It improves international relations. And it's generally the right thing to do.

That is the major point where the "right" is absolutely wrong.
post #25 of 105
To say that those on the "right" have no consideration for helping the poor improve their situations is not only utterly false, it is insulting.

If you are talking strictly in terms of the 2 major political parties, Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats.

The "right" believes, as did our Founding Fathers, that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to take money away from one group of people to give to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877])

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

To say that those on the "right" have no consideration for helping the poor improve their situations is not only utterly false, it is insulting.

If you are talking strictly in terms of the 2 major political parties, Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats.

The "right" believes, as did our Founding Fathers, that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to take money away from one group of people to give to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877])

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

You're only going to confuse the leftists here with this.
post #27 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

...+11

And yet you don't refute any of these quotes. Quotes that are taken out of context by the way.
post #28 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

...+11

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit.

The left (at least those that believe the way I do) believe that if life hands you lemons, then it's no one's fault, maybe even your own, or maybe that of someone who took advantage of you.

But we strongly believe that if life hands you lemons, and NO ONE OFFERS HELP, then it IS the fault of the selfish people. And there's nothing wrong to use government as insurance that there will be someone who offers help.

Helping the poor helps more than those who directly benefit. It reduces crime per dollar spent more than increased policing does. It improves the overall economy, which can do its part to help rich people stay rich or get richer, if that's what they want to do. It improves society and reduces conflict, besides crime. It improves international relations. And it's generally the right thing to do.

That is the major point where the "right" is absolutely wrong.

It isn't charity if it is required.
post #29 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit.

The left (at least those that believe the way I do) believe that if life hands you lemons, then it's no one's fault, maybe even your own, or maybe that of someone who took advantage of you.

But we strongly believe that if life hands you lemons, and NO ONE OFFERS HELP, then it IS the fault of the selfish people. And there's nothing wrong to use government as insurance that there will be someone who offers help.

Helping the poor helps more than those who directly benefit. It reduces crime per dollar spent more than increased policing does. It improves the overall economy, which can do its part to help rich people stay rich or get richer, if that's what they want to do. It improves society and reduces conflict, besides crime. It improves international relations. And it's generally the right thing to do.

That is the major point where the "right" is absolutely wrong.

How can "life" and you lemons and then have it be no one's fault?

If there was never an ideal state, how can you have damages that need to be remedied to get you back to that ideal state?

This is the "religious" element that many leftists don't seem to realize sits in the middle of their worldview. If there wasn't a perfect state, then there can't be a fall from perfect state. How can there be lemons?

Who determines exact what is "lemons?" My house had no air conditioning growing up. If your house did does that mean I was given "lemons?" What if I had a dad in the home and you didn't, is that "lemons?"

If there was never a state where we all had homes with air conditioning and two parents, then how did not having one of those become "lemons?"

You call the people who don't have or help with the lemons... selfish.

My kids have two parents and obviously a lot of kids out there don't. Are my kids selfish? Your child will have a divorce in her background. Does this make her unselfish? If some other child had their parents divorce on bad terms, or not remarry, or even if they never divorced but just care less, how does that determine anything with regard to your child or my child? How does it determine anything about us as adults?

If my parents grew up in an 800 sq ft house and I own a 2000 sq ft house and my friends grew up in a 1000 sq ft home and now own a 4000 sq ft home, was I given lemons? If they own a 2000 sq ft home were they given lemons? If they own a 1400 sq ft. home have they been harmed? What if they end up in my parents 800 sq ft home? Has life somehow shit all over them?

What if the choices that have them renting the 800 sq ft home make them resentful and thus they feel compelled to steal. Why am I under an obligation to fix that?

Your lemons sound a lot like paying off the mob to avoid envy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #30 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by taskiss

Everyone has a right to be treated fairly, we're all special, and they demand government issue pacifiers to every Tom, Dick and Harry. If the world hands you lemons, it's the government's fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

if life hands you lemons, and NO ONE OFFERS HELP, then it IS the fault of the selfish people. And there's nothing wrong to use government as insurance that there will be someone who offers help.

I don't think there is as much difference between these positions as I think you'd like there to be. The government is of, by, and for the people, after all - all people, including the selfish ones.
post #31 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

To say that those on the "right" have no consideration for helping the poor improve their situations is not only utterly false, it is insulting.

If you are talking strictly in terms of the 2 major political parties, Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats.

The "right" believes, as did our Founding Fathers, that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to take money away from one group of people to give to another.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877])

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

... for proving my point.

You would need to take up these "issues" of our federal government with the SCOTUS if the "creepy" ideology of the Constitution Party (United States) has any standing whatsoever.

Paleoconservatism

Quote:
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1] right-wing movement in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2]

Dominionism

Quote:
Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States of America, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political actionaiming either at a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy.

AFAIK and IMHO The CP stands for The Creepy Party.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #32 of 105
Thanks for the acroynym-Wiki fest!

You really could have said "I don't agree with the platform of the Constitution Party" and that would have been just as effective.

At least you're acknowledging that I am not a Republican.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #33 of 105
It's funny how many of our friends in the left desert these boards when real issues are being discussed and constantly claim that the PO forum is dead.

Then, when one of them posts a thread with a derogatory title about Christians, Republicans or conservatism, their AI accounts suddenly spring to life.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #34 of 105
A new poll finds that the GOP members of congress, already not held in high esteem, have sunk lower: from 36 to 30 in a single month. (Will find linky... was on a different computer)

The "right" is is dire straights.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #35 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A new poll finds that the GOP members of congress, already not held in high esteem, have sunk lower: from 36 to 30 in a single month. (Will find linky... was on a different computer)

The "right" is is dire straights.

Most GOP members of congress are not true conservatives. That's why.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #36 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Most GOP members of congress are not true conservatives. That's why.

Well whatever. It doesn't change the fact that if all republicans and their mouthpeices don't stop bleating the nonsense they've been saying ( really since the middle of the 90's because I'm thinking of dear old Newt ) it'll be a really long time before they're back in the Whitehouse.

And yes you guessed it! It's why they lost the election. They need to get what's wrong before they can change their tune and maybe get back into favor again. That'll be awhile in any case as the wound is still fresh in everyone's mind.

And please don't say " What wound ? " I'm speaking of the Bush legacy that he's left us all to deal with.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It's funny how many of our friends in the left desert these boards when real issues are being discussed and constantly claim that the PO forum is dead.

Then, when one of them posts a thread with a derogatory title about Christians, Republicans or conservatism, their AI accounts suddenly spring to life.

The reasons they left are well known. Hint : They have nothing to do with that.

And I wouldn't exactly call this " Springing to life ". Several of your left minded friends just got banned again.

After awhile there'll only be trumptman and the like I suppose. Then they can call it CO for Consevative Outsider or TO for.........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 105
I would add two points to that. First the source of the poll is important. While all polls have house effects, as fivethirtyeight.com notes, the effects are so bad for certain polls, most specifically CBS/NY Times as to render them no better than propoganda.

Second, Rasmussen has some very good news for Republicans. Call them the glimmers of hope or green shoots for the party. First general approval for the president remains good but Rasmussen breaks it down by showing the range between those who strongly approve and disapprove. I consider that important because strong disapproval is more than just disagreement. It says someone is willing to protest, donate money, or vote in a direction different from the current solution.The number willing to do this has already doubled since the first of the year. That is some strong movement.

As I loved noting with Democrats, that doesn't mean they are FOR Republicans yet. Being against something doesn't make one for something but it is movement away from the Democratic position and solution.

Another point is the number of people calling themselves Democrats is down.


Finally, the generic ballot is even or nearly even which it has not been for a very long time. You look back to September of 2007 and see it at 50-32. It now sits at 40-39.

There are people who do not want to go where Obama is leading them. I'm not claiming they are Republican or will vote for Republicans, but they are looking for something else. If Republicans can put together the right solutions and craft an alternative they can exploit this.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I would add two points to that. First the source of the poll is important. While all polls have house effects, as fivethirtyeight.com notes, the effects are so bad for certain polls, most specifically CBS/NY Times as to render them no better than propoganda.

Second, Rasmussen has some very good news for Republicans. Call them the glimmers of hope or green shoots for the party. First general approval for the president remains good but Rasmussen breaks it down by showing the range between those who strongly approve and disapprove. I consider that important because strong disapproval is more than just disagreement. It says someone is willing to protest, donate money, or vote in a direction different from the current solution.The number willing to do this has already doubled since the first of the year. That is some strong movement.

As I loved noting with Democrats, that doesn't mean they are FOR Republicans yet. Being against something doesn't make one for something but it is movement away from the Democratic position and solution.

Another point is the number of people calling themselves Democrats is down.


Finally, the generic ballot is even or nearly even which it has not been for a very long time. You look back to September of 2007 and see it at 50-32. It now sits at 40-39.

There are people who do not want to go where Obama is leading them. I'm not claiming they are Republican or will vote for Republicans, but they are looking for something else. If Republicans can put together the right solutions and craft an alternative they can exploit this.

Quote:
Call them the glimmers of hope or green shoots for the party.


Kind of like watching plants trying to grow in a low oxygen, radiation filled enviroment ( like the surface of Mars ) isn't it?

This won't change until they figure out what they've been doing wrong. Hint : It's not about " Exploitation ". I'm telling ya!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Kind of like watching plants trying to grow in a low oxygen, radiation filled enviroment ( like the surface of Mars ) isn't it?

Don't look now -I think we've found..... LIFE ON MARS!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why is the RIGHT always so WRONG?