"I mean, anyone who actually listened to what Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey were saying in 1994"
And now we have Reid and Pelosi. Wowser.
Posted by trade up? at May 21, 2009 08:36 AMModern Rightist movements all over the globe are usually nationalist, authoritarian and nativist, seeking a return to an (illusional) Golden Age of their tribe, which always occured in the past. They are usually emotional, irrational and anti-intellectual movements, substituting quasi-science for real science, whose logic and reason based conclusions they distrust (except when they aid weapons productions, of course).
They fear and despise the "future" and the change it (necessarily) implies. They fear and hate the "other" and the advent of the new. They oppose the future and progress, and are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history, because they are irrational and cannot see the inevitability of certain changes because they don't "want" them (as though such things as the greenhouse effect or peak oil can be "changed" or denied).
So, this means they revere existing wealth, militarism, force, soldiers, violence, "strong" males and now openly support torture of (unproven) evildoers, idiotically thinking "it's worked for centuries!" Could a brain be more cretinous and irrational?
They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot recognize objective failure and disaster, they frankly cannot reason---only feel: anger, rage, fear, hate. "Conservatives" are a personality type, and not a political "party". As a "party" their goal is solely for their tribe to retain power and control, else they are terrified. They have no vision of the future--how could they?---as they worship and are creatures of the (non-existent) past.
For America's rich to have intentionally cultivated millions and millions of these lamebrain cruds solely to enrich themselves is a social catastrophe, and our nation will not be able to survive it, nor does it appear that the planet's climate and millions of species will survive our "conservatism", either.
A blight, indeed.
Posted by euzoius at May 21, 2009 08:49 AMA modern leftist embracing global warming?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5001651.shtml
"If environmentalists get their way, Ken Salazar may one day join the ranks of endangered species.
In a move that has infuriated environmental groups, the interior secretary announced today that he will uphold the Bush administration's decision to limit restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions that imperil Artic polar bears.
Environmental groups said that they had hoped that the Obama administration would overturn the rule, which currently only restricts the burning of fossil fuels within the bears' natural habitat. These groups point out that failure to more broadly regulate carbon dioxide, even those emissions released thousands of miles from the Arctic, cripples larger efforts to address the effects of global warming. Studies show that the melting of Arctic sea ice threatens the polar bears. A spokesperson for Greenpeace said that the bears will be extinct by 2050 if stricter rules are not embraced"
Maybe Michael Moore should do a movie?
ken salazar is a leftist? who knew?
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2009 09:14 AM"ken salazar is a leftist? who knew?"
Everyone in Colorado knows, now you do too.
Posted by in the know in colorado at May 21, 2009 09:47 AMTurkana, as you already know, the Republicans are anti-democracy. They won't admit it, because they need to use exaggerated patriotic imagery to fool the rubes into supporting them. Too bad for them, most normal people are onto them now, and the only people who actually support them are way-old folks (soon to die off), asshole trolls on blogs hoping to get a rise out of people they hate because we're smarter than them, and snake handling godbots (slowly getting a clue that they're being used). If it weren't for the 24/7 media needing a hook to get viewers to watch their manufactured drama, the Republicans would be a regional faction no one cares about anymore. As the trolls have shown, they're too stupid to get the fact that progressives don't worship their "leaders" like the right wing sheeple do, so taunts about so and so not doing what we want don't really sting. But I guess they have to try, don't they? Otherwise, all they have is teabagging, and even that business model is retarded, since they're doing their leaders' bidding for free! Pathetic, yet hilarious!
Posted by Twinky P* at May 21, 2009 09:53 AMOh, and ape-man, we all know it's you changing your name over and over.
See? Stupid.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 21, 2009 09:54 AMThe latest troll-simpleton is pulling this "name change" over the last several threads.
As Twinky says, so stupid (and childish), it's literally not believable.
To think these are grown "men" acting this way. And one wonders how we can call "conservatism" (a better name would be "infantilism") a blight....
Posted by euzoius at May 21, 2009 10:21 AMIt's also useful to notice the pattern.
turkana writes an interesting post denouncing the conservative movement and its mental and moral bankruptcy over 30 years.
A single childish wingnut immediately appears, calling himself first "trade up?" and then "meet the new boss" then "in the know in colorado", posting irrelevancies designed to pollute the thread with worthless nonsense. SOP for brain-dead "conservatives".
We need to return to the banning of IP addresses, starting with this new wingnut clown-child.
Posted by euzoius at May 21, 2009 10:41 AMBetween Euzo and Krugman describing the results of the "policies" and "leadership" of the Authoritarian types not much is left to be said. John Dean has done an excellent job of disseminating the work of the social scientist whose research and work have described them.Simply google "authorian personality".
However it is so thoughtful of mr troll to show up with examples of their modus operandi..
To correct my spelling..That's authoritarian..
Posted by headxray at May 21, 2009 11:01 AMThanks to headx for bringing up John Dean, whose latest book makes the point that "conservatism" is as much a "personality" type as a political policy movement, as headx notes.
Anyway, that's why I'm not too optimistic about their "demise". It's a massive long term education and denouncement process, which can't begin until we see that it's not just a failed political movement, but a fearful, irrational and ignorant way of "thinking". All enabled and encouraged by the richest capitalists to feather their golden nests still more.
As we sit today and watch the Great National Debate on "Torture Works!" between the newly elected prez and the most reviled (torturing) VP in history. Geez, any self interest in the subject of your speech, Dead Eye? And when exactly did a corporate cable news network carry an ex-VP Gore speech live again?
Finally, the silly troll does prove the point about the conservatiove MO of lying evasion and gameplaying, I agree with headx.
Posted by euzoius at May 21, 2009 11:23 AMthe creation of Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare.
Which are going bankrupt, like all liberal programs. Link.
The Social Security trust fund will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than previously forecast, the trustees said yesterday. Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago.
They fought the environmental movement.
A movement based on lies.
The greenhouse gas CO2 is necessary for life, a natural byproduct of human existence and never has been proven to increase temperature - except in computer models.
Posted by JFixx at May 21, 2009 12:13 PMeuzo-
it's manapp.
Posted by Turkana at May 21, 2009 12:23 PMWhich are going bankrupt, like all liberal programs.
Which could easily have been paid for by not allowing conservative ideas to be implemented.
Fixit troll merely reinfirces all the points about any sort of discourse or dialogue with the authoritarian, criminal cult
.They consistently demonstrate an inability to be reasoned with or discuss our
"differences" with them.
.They go far beyond any ability to reason, but do demonstrate criminal traits..e.g. No boundaries or willingness to address, in any useful manner,issue resolution. And finally no sort of honesty.
They deserve only contempt...
Contemplate 2 tremendous examples of right wing criminals
.dead eye dickhead cheney and T "exterminator" delay..need more be said?
They go far beyond any ability to reason, but do demonstrate criminal traits..e.g. No boundaries or willingness to address, in any useful manner,issue resolution. And finally no sort of honesty.
i.e. - Privatization will save Social Security.
What a joke... like anything else conservatives come up with... "How to get a hold of everyones money and steal it!"
At least with privatization of Social Security, you would retire with some money.
The only fix now is to reduce benefits or raise the retirement age. Benefits may be reduced or eliminated for those retirees who have other sources of retirement income, such as pensions and 401(k) plans.
Posted by JFixx at May 21, 2009 05:48 PMAt least with privatization of Social Security, you would retire with some money.
Sorry Fixx it man... there is no way that privatization would help anything... remember the greed factor of the "free market"? If it had been implemented in 2005, like bu$h and your friends wanted, it would have be gone in the latest economic collapse. Or was it going to be used to float the economy for a few more years because they knew how bad they fucked things up?
Good thing we will never find out. Remember, a "free market" capitalist society has failed. It's proven that we need some regulation. Just reinstate Glass - Steagall and the other laws before the savings and loan scandal of the 1980's. It would probably solve the crisis from ever happening again.
And yes, I disagree with the corporatist Obama on this issue... we need tighter regulations... in the case of republi-cons, we need strangulations!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 21, 2009 08:26 PMOr the most direct and effective plan; remove the "cap" on limiting the amount of taxable income SS tax is deducted from
.I don't know what amount it is limited to now, it used to be $90,000.This simple change would collect vastly increased revenues and from those who can most afford to support a safety net.
Or do nothing and the fixit.boys of the country can watch granny get by eating catfood, which they no doubt would enjoy...
At least with privatization of Social Security, you would retire with some money.
Like a 401K. 5% gain and 7% fees...wheeee! The private market at work. BTW: 401ks were losing money during the market runup. Go figure. Of course, the private market without interference from Mr. mean-old-nasty Gubmint is a miracle. You need not look farther away than Somalia to find your perfect r-KKKon paradise. No Gubmint, and rational self-interest powered by libertarian pixie dust!
Posted by phidipides at May 21, 2009 10:34 PMSpeaking of trolls, how do we get rid of Harry Reid? He really has to go. The Democrats have allowed the gopper thugs to fearmonger those scary Gitmo prisoners into undermining one of Obama's fundamental and symbolic demonstrations of Democratic values, no torture and respect for the law, and it just amazes me how gutless so many Democrats really are. Gutless and clueless on how to stand up and fight for your values.
My prediction is that they are going to lose Congress through their politcal incompetence, if not in 2 years, than in 4.
Posted by Duckman GR at May 21, 2009 11:05 PMAnd how are the Obama cultists any different from the right wing cultists?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Well, Carolyn, when we find some, we'll tell you. In the meantime, let's try and figure out how the pumas are any different than the right wing nutbags, eh? How's that search for Michele Obama's "whitey tape" coming along? Yeah, thought so.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 22, 2009 05:39 AMNext time I see a Puma, I'll ask and let you know. TwinkyP.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
It's called a mirror, hunny bunny! But you didn't say when we can expect the "whitey tape."
Posted by Twinky P* at May 22, 2009 05:55 AMFor God's sake, carolyn, why do you bother?
Do you so enjoy being thrashed that you just can't resist? Get help, now. We care!
Posted by euzoius at May 22, 2009 08:07 AMTurkana, as you already know, the Republicans are anti-democracy.
No, they love Democracy, as it was defined in the Constitution.
Whites only. Black slaves count as 3/5ths so that the redneck states get more votes in Congress.
Men only.
Property owners only.
Small populate states (read: redneck slave states) are overrepresented in the Senate.
And just to be triply sure that the elites don't have to deal with the rabble doing any rousing, like happened with the Shay's rebellion in Rhode Island under the Articles of Confederation (look it up), don't let the peons directly elect the President or Senators -- allow that to be done only by their betters who can fend of the "passions of the masses", as James Madison put it.
Yes, indeed. Democracy of, by, and for the weathly elite.
Posted by Anonny at May 22, 2009 09:13 PMWhen I lived in Western Europe and studied their various democratic institutions it quickly became apparent that Great Britain was an anomoly. While any democratic structure is inherently a study in trade-offs, most of the parlimentary systems generally strike a good balance of the competing forces. Most countries which created their parlimentary structures afresh after WW2 seem to have made a good job of it. The obvious exceptions are: Israel, which gives far to much power to their extreme fringe due to the 1/120th rule of represenation; Japan, which has a system designed to be essentially run by the corporations; and Italy, which never could agree on a basic set of principles due to the large communist movement, so allows for wild change in policies when new coalitions take power.
But unlike the other countries in Western Europe, Britain has not been occupied by a foreign army in the past century. In fact, the last occupation they suffered was in 1066. As a result they still have remnants of historical structures and laws dating back nearly a millenium. This is most notable in their still rigid class system (I always thought it was the height of hypocracy that they outlawed the Indian caste system as unjust), but also in strange judicial and legal customs, which still get in the way (just as the Canadians, who had the queen recently agree to prevent a no-confidence vote).
What's worse, perhaps, is that despite the obvious failings of their archaic system most Brits seem to think that it is better than the other systems that surround them in Europe.
The point of this long-winded approach is that I see the U.S. is getting near Britain territory in terms of our increasingly archaic system. The electoral college anachronism gave us our worst President in history, even if he did need help from his daddy's friends on the court. The whole Senate system needs to be wiped out and restarted from scratch, starting with the horrible unequal representation, then wiping out the filibuster, the "blue slips", the "holds" and every other bit of craziness. Actually, there really is no need for two houses, so just dump the whole institution.
And then there is our crazy winner-takes-all system for represenatives, which GB still has too. Granted, multi-party systems tend to give too much power to fringes, which is why in Germany they a) have both local represntatives and national party reprepresentatives -- the local reps are essentially two-party, winner-take-all seats, so this give the mainstream parties extra seats, and b) you have to have 5% to get any representation at all. (b) was fine until they merged with the east -- now all the eastern neo-nazis have enough votes to get into parliment, so perhaps a 20% minimum would be better.
Using an electoral system like Germany woudl definitely improve things in the U.S. For one thing, party platforms would become importnat becuase they would actually be followed. Outcast party members like Snowe or Zell Miller would be things of the past. Instead there would probably be a NE conservative party and a South conservative party, who may or may not be part of a coalition (the NE conservatives might also join a Democratic coalition, depending on the issues of the day). It would also be much less likely for a non-business party to win election then turn around and help the business community, as the Democrats are want to do and as Tony Blair did in Britain. The reason the Democrats and Blair could get away with this was that their core supporters had no where else to go. Give us a true multi-party system and that changes. (Yes, I know Britain has multiple parties, but in truth they are still Labor and Tories, with the others competing only in local regions.)
Finally, when campaigns are more about party platforms and less about individual personalities two other good things happen. First, automatic incumbancy dies. Second, campaign funding changes drastically, greatly reducing the influence of the funds. Ideally you can get to a situation like Sweden, where elected legislators get the national average income and if they take so much as a penny more from any other source it is a national scandal.
Posted by Anonny at May 22, 2009 09:35 PM