> Olin wrote:
>>> Olin wrote:
>>>> Bottom line is the remaining wingnuts who post online would not
>>>> recognize
>>>> an actual liberal or conservative if one bit 'em on the butt.
>>>
>>> What exactly is a wingnut? The Republican party has never been
>>> particularly conservative, at least not from the point of view of
>>> limited government and fiscal restraint.
>>>
>>
>> Neocon. Neuveau Republican. Follower of Karl Rove.
>>
>
> Yup. It's about as polite a handle as you can get. Works for me.
> Wingnut is much nicer than the Freeper terms for what they call the
> opposition, for what it's worth.
>
Or, you try to opt out and remain "above it all."
BTW, it was apparently a "freeper" who mailed the now-known-to-be-harmless
powder and an obscurely threatening letter to several folks recently.
>
>> In the day of Goldwater and the years preceeding him, the republicans
>> most
>> assuredly DID argue for limited government, fiscal restraint. Now whether
>> they really meant it might be fodder for another argument, but THIS bunch
>> of
>> self-styled conservatives have made no bones about it. They want to order
>> society along strict lines, could care less about fiscal responsibility,
>> unless it's the middle class footing the bill for it and really wouldn't
>> mind selling off oil and gas leases in all the national park and forest
>> system.
>>
>
> I've mentioned it before, but I find it interesting that in countries
> such as Sweden, the party that identitfies as a "christian" party,
> there being "kristdemokraterna", those have often been the ones at
> the forefront of the green movement before there were proper green
> parties.
>
Political parties have always run a course. Joseph and I have been
discussing this for years, since long before I moved to Nashville.
He makes some valid arguments that the current system is broke beyond hope,
BUT until one, or more, parties come along to replace the current two it
doesn't much matter. It's all just tilting at windmills.
>>>>
>>>> That said, in their minds, yes you should quit complaining or having
>>>> any
>>>> original thought whatsoever. In a preverted kind of way, it's rather
>>>> comforting to see the wingnuts hopelessly hanging onto the smack
>>>> talking
>>>> they raised to an artform after the last election.
>>>
>>> Do you mean Republicans? The honor of sleazy campaigning tactics
>>> really must be shared by both parties, though, certainly the Rovian
>>> doctrine was effective for awhile.
>>>
>>
>> Never said it was merely one party. However, Joseph, unless you got some
>> bad
>> pasta and are suffering from temporary amnesia, the republicans have
>> taken
>> sleaze to an artform these past several years. Not only that, but they
>> have
>> been in charge of all three branches of the government for six years, and
>> two of them for the past twelve years.
>>
>> They've hired all the policy wonks. They've made the regulations and
>> blown
>> up the ones they didn't like. Pray tell, aside from opting out of this
>> system, precisely at who's feet would you lay the largest part of the
>> blame
>> for the current situation?
>>
>
> Why, the homosexuals, of course!
>
> ;-)
>
'Cept that we now learn some of the wonks and no few of the "right thinking
people" are a tad (how to put this... meaning to offend only those who
require and deserve frequent offending) light in the loafers themselves.
>> The democrats? Certainly, they've had their turn at screwing the pooch,
>> but
>> the republicans were "hired" to fix all that and they've failed miserably
>> at
>> just about everything except for demonizing the other side, even when the
>> "other side" was a member of their own majority.
>>
>
> Bingo! Seems that all the newtian revolution accomplished was to
> increase partisanship. Period.
>
Divide and conquer. I witnessed some of the beginnings back in the halcyon
days known as the '80's.
>>>
>>>> Here's the deal. This nation was set up on a system of checks and
>>>> balances, and in the main, it's worked fairly well. Frankly, I like
>>>> very
>>>> much that the wingnuts, ideological and pseudo-religious, have had it
>>>> explained to them that their notion that they, and only they, should
>>>> be
>>>> allowed a voice in governing this fair land is delusional at best.
>>>
>>> The checks and balances have never been paticularly effective, but
>>> now
>>> they may as well not exist.
>>>>
>>
>> Maybe not, but they're better than no checks and balances at all.
>
> The first six months of next year will be an interesting sideshow. I do
> think that the dems will eschew revenge in the beginning at least, and
> try to govern a bit. Optimistic and naive, but time will tell.
>
Being mathmatically closer to the end than to the beginning, it doesn't
really much matter to me... but I'd like to think this experiment in self
government ain't quite done yet. Though, it may well be.
>>
>>>> There's one good thing about the Democratic Party the Republicans have
>>>> not been able to say for decades. They actually welcome diverse points
>>>> of
>>>> view. Real conservatives probably have little to fear from the new
>>>> majority, as a goodly number of pro-gun, anti-abortion and pro-family
>>>> values democrats got elected as well, and as much as the dems' own
>>>> lunatic fringe wanted, the dino named Joe Lieberman is being welcomed
>>>> back into the fold.
>
> I'd love to see real big tent politics make it back! My world lets a
> woman have her reproductive bidness to herself, and it lets MK own a
> gub if he really wants to. "Pro-family values", on the other hand, is
> just an empty meme.
The big joke back in the '80's regarding "family values" was, which
family... Manson's?
The repubs then thought it great sport to hang Dukakis with a criminal he
pardoned, but would accuse you of everything under the sun if you brought it
up that Ronald Reagan closed California mental institutions and set free
none other than Charles Manson.
Let's let it go. Discriminating against families
> that don't look like Ozzie and Harriet does nothing for society. Times
> have been a' changin'. What's better for a 8 y/o parentless black male
> kid? A childhood of questionable foster care, or adoption by a legally
> recognized couple who sing songs from "South Pacific" while making
> brunch?
>
Oh, a friend who's decidedly conservative and just as decidedly
anti-homosexual, one wrung his hands and inquired of me what would be the
effect of all "those faggots" getting into the insurance pool?
I asked him if he thought they were incapable of, or not allowed the luxury
of, buying policies on their own, OR for that matter, eligible for insurance
benefits where they worked?
IOW, "they" are already IN the insurance pool.
'Course now, it's ramped up even more, with folks wanting fat people or
smokers, or diabetics or pregnant ladies out of "their" insurance pool.
Humanity has become essentially the same political problem as garbage.
Everybody wants it picked up, but nobody wants it put back down anywhere.
>>>
>>> It will be quite interesting to watch the interaction between the
>>> Democratic machine politicians like Clinton, Lieberman, Pelosi, Boxer,
>>> Feinstein, Schumer etc. when the new members of the legislative branch
>>> like Jim Webb, who were actually elected mainly on the Iraq issue, come
>>> into the mix. This election was significantly about the Iraq war and
>>> the
>>> economy...if the machine politicians ignore that, they have no
>>> principled
>>> leg to stand on. Should be interesting. Recall, that the Demos fully
>>> supported the Iraq involvement in the main, as well as the so-called
>>> patriot act.
>>>>
>>
>> Of course, and there's a time when such should be supported. In fact,
>> once
>> the decision is made to go to war and the beast has been unleashed, you
>> really have no choice but to support the soldiers you've sent to do your
>> bleeding and dying for you.
>
> Wasn't the vote an unconstitutional authorization to give the president
> the power that should have remained with congress? The "Demos"
> supported giving the prez this authority so they wouldn't look like
> pussies to their constituents. End. Stop.
>
Yep. It was taken from the executive branch, if memory serves, when Congress
finally started bucking Vietnam.
>>
>> And, we've never been very good at supporting our soldiers either...
>> under
>> republicans OR democrats.
>
> Post WWI sucked for GIs, but post WWII we did pretty well from my
> understanding of history and that was part of the big push that
> created the large middle class. No such luck today.
>
Post WWII was "successful" mostly because of the quality of that particular
generation. Veterans were treated just as badly as in any other war... they
simply overcame it and looked after one another. Same for Vietnam vets. They
refused to take the VA bullshit dance lying down, even though the other vets
begged 'em to not rock the boat. Rocking the boat won some concessions, but
Uncle Sugar don't take kindly to paying out benefits to banged up combat
vets, and avoids it at every opportunity.
Better to have the cash on hand to write another check to Haliburton, or
whomever else is feeding at the public trough without shedding so much as
one drop of blood.
>>
>> But again, it's the republicans in charge at this moment. That'll change
>> in
>> January.
>>
>>>> I'm no Lieberman fan, but I find his treatment by his party to be much
>>>> more humane than that gotten by any republican who dared to buck the
>>>> party line the last twenty years or so.
>
> Yup.
>
>>>
>>> Yet another good old boys network....of course they welcomed him
>>> back,
>>> he's part of the machine. Look at his record and at Clinton's....
>>> they fully supported the war and their actions would bear investigation
>>> just as the Bush junta needs to be held responsible for its perfidy.
>>>
>
> Clinton was just a talking head in this context. I didn't like his
> opinions at the time, but he was entitled to them.
>
Me neither, but it still boils down to, "it's the economy, stupid," and the
economy worked. Whatever the reason, it worked.
>>>>
>>>> So, let the wingnuts stay the course.
>>>
>>> Here's a bit of irony. You talk about the "wingnuts" demonizing
>>> their
>>> opponents, but the use of the term wingnut seems to me a pretty
>>> demonizing
>>> term.
>>>
>>
>> "Wingnuts" also seems to be the term du jour. If you'd prefer another
>> term,
>> lemme know.
>
> Beats "libtard" and "defeatocrat" at any rate.
>
>>
>> But, Karl Rove and the ilk hardly need me to be demonized. They're doing
>> a
>> pretty good job of that with simply their own words and deeds.
>>
>>>> It makes it easier to remember just how THEY got us into this mess in
>>>> the
>>>> first place... a horribly divided nation that is borrowing money from
>>>> China and Mexico to pay for a war that likely should never have been
>>>> waged (or at least finished nearly fifteen years ago when another
>>>> republican invaded Iraq on mostly valid grounds). Let 'em rant, while
>>>> even old Rummy admits a change of policy and direction is now required
>>>> in
>>>> Iraq.
>>>
>>> I don't remember Gulf 1 being particularly valid. It was started
>>> based
>>> on the same types of lies and propaganda as used to involve the U.S. in
>>> Gulf 2 and Kosovo.
>>
>> I'm not so sure I'd totally agree. You can certainly make an argument
>> that
>> Gulf 1 was not totally necessary, but I'm still pretty well convinced
>> that,
>> given the opportunity, Hussein would have tried to become "the next
>> Hitler"
>> as he was described. Pretty good case for that was, in point of fact,
>> made
>> back in the day.
>
> That war made a bit of sense. Senior was aware of the consequences of
> going all the way into Baghdad and the strategy was sane whether or not
> it was justified.
>
>>
>> Non-defensive wars simply are not in the
>>> interest of the people in this country. It seems easy to justify
>>> because
>>> the price paid does not, mostly, come due for decades. Unfortunately,
>>> the people who involve us all in such wars will never have to take
>>> responsibility for their actions. I don't think the Democrats will take
>>> an active role in investigating the Bush administration and how it got
>>> us involved, because the Democrats are also culpable in this case.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, they won't take the responsibility. You forget, I worked for
>> the
>> Johnson family for a whole bunch of years, and even then, more than ten
>> years after LBJ's death, a talk show host had to walk softly in assessing
>> criticism for how that war was fought.
>
> Hell yeah, they're culpable. From the vote to give the president
> authority alone to wage war I was left scratching my head.
>
Previously, the president had the power to make war, but it had to be
ratified by Congress. It's been a good number of years since I even thought
about the War Powers Act, but I believe all Congress really did was take
back its ratification powers... THEN it handed them back over to this bunch
of, and I shall endeavor to be polite here, the GAWDAMNED WINGNUTS!
