"It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.... We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that."He's absolutely right. And it's not enough merely to avoid stupidity — "legitimate rape" type stuff. They need to become the smart party, as well-grounded as possible in science and economics. The Democrats aren't that smart, but somehow they're able to pull off the appearance of being smart. Outsmart them. The other side will always try to portray anything the GOP stands for as stupid and not just stupid, but mean-spirited, sexist, and racist. If the party were firmly and reliably backed up with science and economics, Republicans could defend themselves (and they would be worth supporting).
January 25, 2013
"Stop being the stupid party."
Says Bobby Jindal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
329 comments:
1 – 200 of 329 Newer› Newest»Hahahahaha
Now just tell me what group of humans you think that suggestion would actually work on? Maybe mimes, but that's about it.
I think there's a typo in your article, Ann... "are that smart" was supposed to be "aren't that smart", right?
Smart means give in to the black racist agenda. And that's probably what the Republicans will do.
One issue is that when a Democrat says something stupid ("Guam might tip over!"), Republicans do not hound that Democrat with the quote for decades. As it is, people will be quoting Tina Fay as Palin until both of them die, and think they're quoting Palin correctly. Playing dirty works, that's why politicians do it.
"I think there's a typo in your article, Ann... "are that smart" was supposed to be "aren't that smart", right?"
Yes. Sorry. Fixed.
Stop being the other stupid party.
Be smart enough that you can make fun of them when they are stupid.
Yeah!! They need to get away from the "legitimate rape" stuff and into the "rape rape" stuff.
It worked for Whoopi.....
Its harder to quit being stupid than it to quit smoking......anyway that's what I've heard.
If Jindal didn't say "stupid party" the media would not have covered the story. That is the problem for republicans, the media's leftist bias and filter.
They'll never stop being stupid, but they will pretty much stop being a political party within a couple of election cycles.
Politically, Republicans need people like Harry Reid and Pelosi: People happy with where they are and willing to do the distasteful jobs that will keep them there while checking the other side. There used to be a time where Republican operations were efficiently managed top-down; we've lost that.
Like the lady said: 'Bobby Jindal: the soft bigotry of low expectations indeed.'
With all due respect, Democrats come across as smart and Republicans come across as dumb because the people doing the reporting like Democrats a lot more than Republicans.
Neither party's politicians come across as particularly smart or stupid, on average, if you listen to what they actually say instead of soundbites.
Our hostess is sometimes incredibly naive.
Also ... are exorcisms stupid?
Gosh, I wonder how hard it will be to undo six decades of leftist indoctrination and inculcation, but hey, what difference, at this point does it make?
Which one is the stupid party depends on what media you look at.
From Drudge, it's pretty obvious that Dems are the stupid ones.
It's hard to be grounded in science and technology when the democrats believe in so much that just isn't true. They'll never be dissuaded.
You can be smart and still be ineffective getting your message across and getting people to follow you. The level of incompeternce in the GOP is appalling. Yesterday's hearing only under scored that.
As long as the the Prog Left controls the Acadamy, major news and entertainment I don't see much change stupid or not.
As long as John Stewart and David Gregory get to summarize for everyone what has happened, no amount of intelligence is going to be sufficient to break through. There will always be a mixture of brains and goofballs in any sufficiently large group. As long as the media decide who to spotlight and who to ignore, Republicans are fucked.
Is this the David Brooks approach?
We don't need no stinkin' old timey religion, just some social science and a gig at the NY Times.
I see my "original" thought has already been nicely expressed a few times. Carry on.
Ann Althouse said...
Be smart enough that you can make fun of them when they are stupid.
Like Drudge and Rush Limbaugh do. So why are you suggesting a different course, Althouse?
Love or hate Glenn Beck, at least he's trying to build his own media venues.
"If the party were firmly and reliably backed up with science and economics, they could defend themselves (and they would be worth supporting)."
If you actually believe the Democrats are better in economics than the Republicans, there's literally no basis on which to have a conversation.
Granted, we're talking about which party is more disastrously ensconced in the completely erroneous "New Keynesianism" neoclassical claptrap than the other, but the point remains that the only sound economics coming out of Washington comes from the Pauls. That they're considered cranks today, when private gold ownership was illegal from 1933 to 1974, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined 94% between 1929 and 2009, we have $16T in debt, and a credit-rating downgrade tells you everything you need to know about who the actual cranks are.
It doesn't help when the bad guys control the messaging.
Ann Althouse said...
If the party were firmly and reliably backed up with science and economics
They are, but, if you believe the Demos won, and won honestly, you still have to get past the idea that they did by focusing on the low-information (read low intelligence) voter.
In other words, the Republicans had the facts on their side.
PS The idea the Demos are the truly stupid party may be playing out before us.
It just depends on whether Dictator Zero and the rest of the Supreme Soviet know when to quit (which they probably don't).
Here's an example, where if Republicans got shut down, there'd be end-to-end coverage on how stupid anyone could be to not understand the constitution. Messaging matters, and if Republicans refuse to score cheap, easy points on Obama for not understanding the definition of recess, for example, there's not much to help them.
"The Democrats aren't that smart, but somehow they're able to pull off the appearance of being smart."
Rich!!! Almost there...proff! Their voters wouldn't/don't know smart...takes too much thinking.They vote how Jon Stewart tells them to...period.
People with an ability to think see the Sham that is liberalism...declining breed.
Jindal/Paul or Paul/Jindal
Ask yourself who was smarter. Mitt Romney or the Jug Eared Jesus?
We all know the answer.
You need to run the best liar.
Jindal misses the point, also, on the Akin thing. He made a slip, but that can happen to anybody anywhere.
Lots of Lefties say worse stuff than that and get overheard.
The media will hush it up for a Lefty.
Go back through 4 years of Choom's "brilliance" or 8 years of Willie's "political acumen". If either of these morons had their words as carefully analyzed as Sarah Palin or Marco Rubio, they'd still be working in car washes.
Baron Zemo said...
Ask yourself who was smarter. Mitt Romney or the Jug Eared Jesus?
We all know the answer.
You need to run the best liar.
Or start getting the teacher unions out of the schools so you have a better educated electorate.
As I say, if you honestly believe the Demos won, it was only because there were enough stupids to vote for them.
The Democrats aren't that smart, but somehow they're able to pull off the appearance of being smart. Outsmart them.
"I think there's a typo in your article, Ann... "are that smart" was supposed to be "aren't that smart", right?
LOL
We are going to run a clean looking beaner who will be busy saying "Hola" and as little else as possible.
That's the ticket.
I think Cruz is a better bet than Rubio.
Yea, it's not saying stupid things, because Mathew Sablan is right, how you gonna beat "Guam might tip over!" and lots of others by Dems?
The problem mostly is saying things that women and minority voters can find offence with by twisting it, not understanding it, or missing some nuance. That's the real problem.
The GOP is the grown up party, and Dems are the victim party, and in politics keeping your mouth shut is not an option, so "yes, your ass does look big in those jeans" is suicide.
Binders of women. Yea, how could he not see how offensive that was?
Tell us about an idea that you consider to be well-grounded in science (or economics), Ms. More-Than-Just-Appearances.
Betcha you can't.
Binders of women. Yea, how could he not see how offensive that was?
Because that's the way he looks at people in general - as two-dimensional objects.
Just like himself.
Embrace your dual-dimensionality.
The GOP may be dumb, but dumber won the election, so I think this is just missing the truth of it. There was stupidity at work, but it wasn't in the GOP or any other party.
I object to the idea that a scientific finding can ever be "well-grounded".
Consensus Appeaser!
"Tell us about an idea that you consider to be well-grounded in science (or economics)..."
There is no free lunch.
Lessee now, all manner of Lefties are going after Choom because he's only got white men around him (Cecil Rhodes, anyone?) and have even asked where are his binders of women?
(he could start with Flournoy at DOD instead of that slug, Hagel)
Over to you, Ritmo...
O Ritmo Segundo said...
I object to the idea that a scientific finding can ever be "well-grounded".
May I suggest you kiss a light socket in that case.
There is no free lunch.
Or network effects.
Or decreasing utility of increased discretionary income among the wealthy as opposed to that held by the less wealthy. Or that preferring the former to the latter is a way to grow the middle class.
Yep. Tell us about those well-grounded foregone conclusions of yours, Mr. Smarty Pants.
Well one thing you can say about edutcher is that he certainly doesn't understand sarcasm or irony very well.
Proceed as you were, Sir!
Oh well. Forget it. It was a good try, assuming Ms. Althouse meant it. I'm reasonably sure Jindal meant it. But the Republicans are too busy being offended to take any ideas seriously. They can't, and won't debate anything. They've discovered that being perpetually offended and sensationalistic is a better way to get them the sort of platform and short-term gain that they prefer, and they won't budge from that.
Politics just comes and goes, like society, in cycles. And I guess that now just ain't their time.
Nice try, though. At least you're trying to hit on what the actual problem is.
"Or decreasing utility of increased discretionary income among the wealthy as opposed to that held by the less wealthy. "
What is the utility of any "held money"? Personally I find goose down to make for a superior mattress.
What is the utility of any "held money"?
Well for someone close to the poverty line in bad times, it might mean spending more on food, utilities or other necessities, thereby stimulating the economy.
For someone with much greater assets, it might mean continuing to stash that extra amount away and not spending it on things with an immediate economic impact.
Personally I find goose down to make for a superior mattress.
I guess this must be an example of that untapped potential of seriousness that Jindal would like to convince us exists among conservatives. Nice try.
Ritmo, careful: don't upset bagoh20. he's a.....Job Creator!
bagoh20: 1
Ritmo: 0
Harrogate -1
Or so he'd like to convince us when he's not complain about how hard everyone else makes it for him to create a job. How mean they are to him! How the principles of economics revolve around whether his feelings have been hurt or not.
You voted for these turds. How smart is that?
[visualize 16.4 trillion dollars]
These examples are bad. I reject them. They start out with hundred-dollar bills because, I suppose, in the physical world that is the reasonable thing to do.
But not when you're trying to visualize a pile of sixteen point four trillion dollars. It's ineffective to show a stack of 164 billion hundred-dollars. You dummkopfs. I'm looking for a visualization, and you go, "Here, multiply this visualization by 100."
Geez Chickie. I know that autistics like to count things, but we're talking about concepts, not the quantification of feel-good talk for conservatives.
Anyway, here. If you're looking for fun things to count and quantify, here's a new idea.
Cheers -
Whatever keeps you distracted from considering the human element, right?
Ah, Chickelit still score keeping I see.
"Well for someone close to the poverty line in bad times, it might mean spending more on food, utilities or other necessities, thereby stimulating the economy."
Yes, this is why the Soviet Union buried us in the 20th century and continue to do so today. Those shrewd bastards, manipulating the velocity of money, WTF.
Jindal and Science...lol.
Creationism queen that he is.
Plus he is butt ugly-the hindu
gods did not smile on that mug.
And the hair, dear Lord.
Ah, Chickelit still score keeping I see.
He likes to count things, Inga.
Counting things helps him feel more calm about life in this confusing and chaotic human-world of ours.
People are scary!
I guess so, Ritmo.
Chip-
VISUALIZE THE DEBT!
Ritmo, careful: don't upset bagoh20. he's a.....Job Creator!
I don't say this often and I try to be civil, but fuck you. Seriously.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Well one thing you can say about edutcher is that he certainly doesn't understand sarcasm or irony very well
Better than Ritmo understands reality.
I don't say this often and I try to be civil, but fuck you. Seriously.
Why? Isn't that exactly the case made by the GOP in 2012? That the candidate and his Ayn Rand-devotee running mate were going to make sure that merchants were returned to their "rightful place" as the heroes of society? Wasn't that how they were going to convince us that the economic ship would be righted? That the money and jobs available to those spending at the margins didn't matter nearly enough as those with enough capital to decide whether or not to start or expand a business could go by their whimsy and whether or not the politicians simply gave them enough recognition?
Your angry response is revealing something here, EMD. Look more deeply into why you got so offended by that remark.
We'll hit on the science stuff later, if ever. But this is an example of why the Republicans weren't trusted to know what they were doing with the economy, if you're interested in looking into it.
Better than Ritmo understands reality.
Great comeback. Seriously.
Do you do stand-up, much?
Ritmo, Edutcher suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
For someone with much greater assets, it might mean continuing to stash that extra amount away and not spending it on things with an immediate economic impact.
"Stashing that money away"? Sheesh, I see we've got another person who believes the rich keep their money in a Scrooge McDuck vault.
Comedian Ron White spoke the truth when he said, "You can't fix stupid."
The only way to make the party smarter is to purge it of these morons. The trouble is, that includes the old guard moderate/northeastern Republicans as well as the Michelle Bachmann types. That's going to take a lot of Paul Ryans and Rand Pauls and Bobby Jindals. The folks at P J Media (for example) need a louder, stronger voice in running the party.
Sheesh, I see we've got another person who believes the rich keep their money in a Scrooge McDuck vault.
I know you just fancy yourself a humble if lowly libertarian; one who relies upon the political welfare of even lowlier Republicans and conservatives, but you need not throw caricatures to feel better.
Be serious and use grown-up talk to make the case for why money invested into businesses that aren't hiring or expanding is better for the economy than simply hiring (or alleviating the unnecessary hardships of going without health care, or putting up with the prospect of allowing it bankrupt you if you do).
Your angry response is revealing something here, EMD. Look more deeply into why you got so offended by that remark.
I'm just tired of people shitting on hard work, ingenuity, individual sacrifice, and dedication to an idea that goes beyond eight hours a day.
The ones responsible for the livelihoods of others.
The ones who fret when the decision comes down that you have to cut payroll.
The ones who have to worry about the bottom line AND the well-being of those he or she employs.
If any one of you would actually read Bagoh's posts, you would understand his point of view. Unless of course, he's a fantastic liar.
Seriously. Enough.
HaHa Ritmo.
Speaking of autism, did you ever see my caricature of the Althouse blog: Portrait of an Autist?
The swirling arms represent the vortex. Inside are tentacle suckers having attractive or repulsive character: some are political--some are social. They hold or repel commenters.
Just read the majority of responses in the blog and it becomes quite apparent that "the stupid party" is an appropriate name.
When Althouse uncritically cited the Fox News pre-election narrative and declared "then came Benghazi" as justification for not supporting Obama, she demonstrated her qualifications to be high priestess to the clueless. Pathetic....
You see, the Democrats care and they believe all problems can be fixed by central planners who are Democrats. They also have Nate Silver.
It's science.
------Because that's the way he looks at people in general - as two-dimensional objects.
Just like himself. -----
There must not be many resumes to review in your fast food restaurant Rit-dye
Sheesh, I see we've got another person who believes the rich keep their money in a Scrooge McDuck vault.
IIRC, Ritmo tried hard to get the Scrooge McDuck meme to stick to Romney. Or maybe it was Andy R. I get the two confused. Anyways, Synova shot the nonsense down at the time.
I'm just tired of people shitting on hard work, ingenuity, individual sacrifice, and dedication to an idea that goes beyond eight hours a day.
The ones responsible for the livelihoods of others.
It's a two-way street, isn't it? And the employed (and the unemployed) can still vote - as is nearly anyone's right.
If they and the economists both feel that attending to their greater hardship (starving is worse than worrying about profits - which are at record highs in case you forgot) has greater impact on improving the economy, then isn't your selective respect for a certain class of people just a little vain?
The ones who fret when the decision comes down that you have to cut payroll.
Yes, horrible - innit it?
And yet, still not as horrible as being cut. Or is it?
The ones who have to worry about the bottom line AND the well-being of those he or she employs.
Yes, we know. They're quite the group of multi-taskers.
But how does this address the questioning of why their sense of self-respect is better for the economy than the self-respect (and ability to eat and buy health care) of the workers at large?
If any one of you would actually read Bagoh's posts, you would understand his point of view. Unless of course, he's a fantastic liar.
I understand his point of view and our disagreement is usually one of degree rather than kind. He overvalues certain things at the expense of things that I happen to believe are even more important (even if not capable of immediately engendering a sense of a certain kind of respect) and I use that disagreement, which has become more acute lately, to explain to him why his misplaced ordering of priorities is causing him to lose elections and not helping his business.
The Republican Party bears very little blame for Todd Akin; the party did everything it could to avoid him. Sometimes the voters do weird things in primaries.
As for Richard Mourdock in Indiana; he was very nearly Borked by the hostile media. Mourdock had a position on abortion that is absolutist, yes. But it was a thoughtful position, based on carefully-considered principle.
What the mainstream media avoided -- indeed, actively buried -- in Indiana was the fact that Mourdock's Democrat opponent held positions on abortion that weren't much different from Mourdock. Democrat Joe Donnelly is pro-life, from conception until death. He opposes all state funding for abortions, and he would allow for abortion only in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. That, as I said is the Democrat!
EMD, thank you for that considerate link.
I clicked on one. Again, the one example from a dozen I picked started with a hundred-dollar bill.
I hadn't seen that illustration of yours before, Chickie. It's interesting, though.
Two word response to "Stupid Party"
Elizabeth Warren
PS If I recall correctly it was THE REPUBLICAN PARTY that asked Akin to withdraw from the race after his legitimate rape comment.
Two word response to "Stupid Party"
Elizabeth Warren
You're not learning, Phil.
And I daresay that neither are a good majority of the others, EMD's gentle attempts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Anyways, Elizabeth Warren is not stupid. She's an accomplished and very qualified public servant. It's amazing how partisan some of you all are. I can't imagine ever saying something demeaning about Condoleeza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchison as a way to score cheap political points, but I guess there's a commitment to politics among many of you that go way beyond your interest in policy.
The Liberals trillion-dollar coin proposal is the most stupid idea of the year, to date.
"The Republican Party bears very little blame for Todd Akin; the party did everything it could to avoid him. Sometimes the voters do weird things in primaries"
Akin was in a three way primary and behind in all republican polls. That is till Sen. McCaskill and the unions spent over a million $ to insure his primary victory, he had no money. He was neither the establishment nor the Tea party candidate.
Ha ha. The Onion is funny. I just caught this clip on an investigative report over who ruined Thanksgiving.
make the case for why money invested into businesses that aren't hiring or expanding is better for the economy than simply hiring (or alleviating the unnecessary hardships of going without health care, or putting up with the prospect of allowing it bankrupt you if you do).
I'll be happy to. I was just mocking your use of the term "unproductive". "Unproductive" and "not hiring" are of course not the same thing at all; businesses exist to provide goods and services to customers and profits to investors, not jobs to employees. If I have all my money invested in a corporation that isn't hiring or expanding then my *investment* is unproductive, to *me* -- but the corporation itself isn't economically unproductive at all.
Anyway, to answer your new question: a business which is not hiring or expanding is a business which does not believe its customer base needs more than it is currently offering. There is nobody reliably knows better if a business should hire, than the business itself. The market is imperfect, but the experience of the 20th century showed us that no government can guess better how much labor is needed for what industries.
So, if you decide to dictate who should have jobs, by taking tax money (or borrowing against future tax money and hiring people), you destroy wealth. You make society, as a whole, poorer, even as you make those few lucky souls richer. This can be defended on humanitarian grounds, but not on economic ones. You cannot command an economy to improve -- you can only leave it the hell alone and it will inevitably recover on its own.
Sarah Palin/ Liz Warren
Compare.
On a side note regarding money for health care -- I hope you realize that handing out "free" cash for health care costs makes health care prices rise?
You may not. A sadly large percentage of Americans don't get the whole supply and demand thing.
Elizabeth Warren is probably a very nice person, she's just dishonest on so many levels and her scholarship is slanted and sloppy.
I was just mocking your use of the term "unproductive"
Um, I just did a FIND function on this thread for the term "unproductive" and received 4 returns, all within your own comment.
Usually you are more astute than this. What's going on? Are you seeing ghosts?
Anyway, to answer your new question: a business which is not hiring or expanding is a business which does not believe its customer base needs more than it is currently offering. There is nobody reliably knows better if a business should hire, than the business itself.
But it can't tell us and doesn't care where that low demand came from or how to address it. The macroeconomist (no less scientific in his methods than the microeconomist) does, however.
The market is imperfect, but the experience of the 20th century showed us that no government can guess better how much labor is needed for what industries.
But that government and its voters can tell us what is or is not an "optimal" or "tolerable" level of unemployment. From there, the macroeconomists (whom I'm not sure your scientific understanding can countenance) usually take over.
So, if you decide to dictate who should have jobs,
Again with this fear of "dictating" who or which industries should have jobs. Where is this coming from? I don't advocate "dictating" who should have jobs, other than perhaps a number of the unemployed when the U2 - U6 are high. But maybe you find that a little too heavy handed or Stalinesque or whatever.
by taking tax money (or borrowing against future tax money and hiring people), you destroy wealth.
The Republicans made the argument that public debt was a greater threat than some imagined lack of private wealth. The Democrats and the voters simply did the justice of responding by taking them up on that idea.
You make society, as a whole, poorer, even as you make those few lucky souls richer. This can be defended on humanitarian grounds, but not on economic ones. You cannot command an economy to improve -- you can only leave it the hell alone and it will inevitably recover on its own.
Well, at least your pabulum has an idea or two in there. Let's just say that you severe humanitarian outcomes from economic outcomes to a much greater degree than is necessary, realistic, helpful or empirically supportable.
I see Inga is drunk trolling again.
CEO-MMP, what makes you think so? Do you know me?
Or is it simply an attempt to drag me into a back and forth snark fest?
Fail.
You drag yourself about pretty well, troll-lady.
Fail. Heh.
You can always tell a defensive person, they throw out "fail" as though it's a combination of shield and sword. Now go have another drink sweetie.
The Democrats assert they are smart, and then focus on feelings.
The Republicans tried to stay on issues and "smart" and the idea that if only they do it right it will work, is pretty ridiculous.
Now, if Jindal keeps up this "be smart" thing (asserts) and then everyone talks about and runs for office on feelings... that might work.
"Yeah!! They need to get away from the "legitimate rape" stuff and into the "rape rape" stuff."
Ha!
upthread: The swirling arms represent the vortex. Inside are tentacle suckers having attractive or repulsive character: some are political--some are social. They hold or repel commenters.
[emphasis added]
Macro-economics is less scientific than micro. Macro knows nothing about how to run a business, macro is just the study of the aggregate of millions and millions of micro situations and transactions. Macro-economists come in many stripes, but most are Keynesian and Keynesians always fail, they have a knowledge problem, they are too far from the economic trenches. If Keynesians were correct our present economy would be booming and the great depression would have lasted only two years. All they seem to accomplish is dis-allocation of resources, mostly to political friends.
But it can't tell us and doesn't care where that low demand came from or how to address it.
Not with perfect accuracy, obviously, but their guess is as good as anybody else's. The market itself, of course, is the best determinant of how to address low demand.
The macroeconomist (no less scientific in his methods than the microeconomist) does, however.
Well, no, that's what people used to think back before they actually tried it. At this point, though, it is a faith-based belief unsupported by the historical record. The information problem turns out to be insurmountable.
But that government and its voters can tell us what is or is not an "optimal" or "tolerable" level of unemployment.
I went over this already. Sure, you can hire people for make-work jobs to keep the public happy, at least in the short term. It simply harms the overall economy when you do. The laws of supply and demand are not subject to amendment by democratic processes. :)
Again with this fear of "dictating" who or which industries should have jobs. Where is this coming from?
Observation. Come now, Rit, you yourself have been known to crow about how government money "saved" the jobs of Detroit autoworkers, and that's just one example of many.
The Republicans made the argument that public debt was a greater threat than some imagined lack of private wealth. The Democrats and the voters simply did the justice of responding by taking them up on that idea.
I'm not sure why you think "the Republicans liked the idea" is a winner. That aside, US government's policy has long been "borrow money and use it to implement wealth-destroying policies", so any argument over which is worse remains moot.
Let's just say that you severe humanitarian outcomes from economic outcomes to a much greater degree than is necessary, realistic, helpful or empirically supportable.
Far from it. My approach has historically led to much less suffering in both the short and long terms. I said you could make a humanitarian argument for your position; I didn't say I agreed with it. :)
"...and get on board with those free breast pumps like the Smart Party!"
It's amazing really, Althouse puts out an appeal to her readers to up their game, to not be members of "The Stupid Party", yet some of her commenters engage in the lowest common denominator behaviors which make them look quite stupid. Gratuitous insults, lies and stalker like behavior make some commenters here look not only stupid, but a bit insane.
Do you not have any arguments that reflect intelligence, sincerity, honesty and decency? Why do you try to make yourself look so bad? Why do you make it so easy for Democrats to shame you and make you look like the stupid party?
If Keynesians were correct our present economy would be booming and the great depression would have lasted only two years.
They are and compared to the control model, austerity-loving Europe, it is.
See, in science this is known as "evidence". You have two models: A stimulus embracing America and an austerity-attempting Europe. In the former the unemployment rate when down to between 7 and 8% over the last four years. In Europe it increased to 10% or more. And this is with the smarter, worksharing unemployment programs embraced by countries like Germany.
I challenge you to be a scientist and face the conclusions that follow from those facts.
So the 6.2% unemployment that we'd have had the Republicans not fired all that state and municipal employees that had traditionally retained their jobs is worse, economically, than the 7.8% unemployment we have because of it?
That experiment failed miserably in Wisconsin. But they will never ever admit it. But it wasn't supposed to "work", that part was irrelevant.
Sure, you can hire people for make-work jobs to keep the public happy, at least in the short term. It simply harms the overall economy when you do.
So the 6.2% unemployment that we'd have had the Republicans not fired all those state and municipal employees that had traditionally retained their jobs is worse, economically, than the 7.8% unemployment we have because of it?
Interesting argument.
Come now, Rit, you yourself have been known to crow about how government money "saved" the jobs of Detroit autoworkers, and that's just one example of many.
Well, thanks for reminding me of the single exception I can remember making.
But while you're at it, it's hard to see why an economy growing on the research of alternative and conservation of energy is a weaker one than one growing on the vapors of a housing-credit bubble.
Keep in mind that this occurred before, in the 1920s.
Just some more of that history you tell us you know so much about. ;-)
Far from it. My approach has historically led to much less suffering in both the short and long terms. I said you could make a humanitarian argument for your position; I didn't say I agreed with it. :)
Well, who knows what your basis for agreement would be. With constructions such as "my approach has historically", it's hard to get any less impersonal. "Your approach"? Really? Not really the kind of thinking that people with an authoritative and detailed understanding of history are likely to undertake, I'm sorry to say. It sounds more like an agenda of boasting than an interest in objective problem-solving.
Inga sez:
It's amazing really, Althouse puts out an appeal to her readers to up their game, to not be members of "The Stupid Party", yet some of her commenters engage in the lowest common denominator behaviors which make them look quite stupid. Gratuitous insults, lies and stalker like behavior make some commenters here look not only stupid, but a bit insane.
Do you not have any arguments that reflect intelligence, sincerity, honesty and decency? Why do you try to make yourself look so bad? Why do you make it so easy for Democrats to shame you and make you look like the stupid party?
***************
LMAO. It would be perfect self parody, but I believe it's serious.
You go girl.
That experiment failed miserably in Wisconsin. But they will never ever admit it. But it wasn't supposed to "work", that part was irrelevant.
They are not scientists, they are not objective, believing things feels better than understanding them and that's that. And while they sink into decline they also try to get in as many shots as they can in the states with ultrasound bills, right-to-work-for-less and free-ride off of unions bills, restructuring the electoral college vote according to house districts, and other ideological nonsense. Not practical, not pragmatic, not interested in helping their states or the country. Ideological parting pot-shots as they sink into the decline they experience and the fact that they never cared about any more than 0.1% of the country to begin with.
Goodbye to that.
Jindal came across to me as, well, stupid.
First, it's like he can't grasp that the media bias will always focus on what will damage Republicans most no matter what they do.
Second, as if to prove the point, he provides a series of damaging sound-bites that the media can use to damage the party.
CEO-MMP, you're doing a fine job of representing The Stupid Party, with just enough of the mean spirited thing for emphasis.
You certainly make it easy for us Democrats:) Thanks!
Revenant said:
:.....Republicans come across as dumb because the people doing the reporting like Democrats a lot more than Republicans."
Bingo! Althouse - the Philly paper ran a 1,500 word story about Hillary's testimony and the McClatchy reporter, Hannah Allam, omitted from the story that Hillary lost her cool and yelled "What Difference does it make".
Well, I don't know about you, Inga.
But for me, after a hundred comments in, I'm really not getting the impression that conservative Republicans are ready for rational problem-solving. I hold out some hope for Revenant, but then he's not much of a conservative Republican - as he loves to remind me. Just someone convinced that his political fortunes are best served with them.
Thanks Mr. Jindal. You've done a great job. But your party is just not ready for you.
“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
― John Stuart Mill
Bingo! Althouse - the Philly paper ran a 1,500 word story about Hillary's testimony and the McClatchy reporter, Hannah Allam, omitted from the story that Hillary lost her cool and yelled "What Difference does it make".
I think that Alex Jones might refer to distinctions this trivial as akin to asking how many chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin.
Ritmo, I know that if they continue the way they are behaving and have behaved for several years now, Democrats will continue to win elections and look like the BRILLIANT Party.
So all I can say to the Republicans is .....carry on.
Your two models are both Keynesian and both failures.
In both cases the stock markets and banks are being propped up by central banks over 80% of the time, creating false gains.
In both cases massive Debt is being incurred, future wealth and earnings are being disposed of.
In the European case there is a political situation based on class envy, something Obama has worked on hard here. Austerity means cutting or freezing outlays, not raising taxes at the same time. A freshman Econ 101 student could have predicted the dislocations.
In our case, the second our bond sales have a hic-up, it's game over. The further we continue the fall gets deeper.
Oop and Ritmo brag about how the only way the Demos can win is steal elections and hide behind the Ministry of Propaganda's manipulations to mask the fact the Demos can't win without them.
As Insta notes, what can't go on, won't.
In both cases the stock markets and banks are being propped up by central banks...
Oh, so now I see where you're going with this, McTriumph. Back to the gold standard of those amazingly stable boom-and-bust cycles and regular mini-depressions of the nineteenth century (1800s in non-science speak). Ok.
Anyway, I guess my reference to Alex Jones was right on schedule. No offense, but are we to take it that the rambling chalk board diagrams of the Glenn Beck set are the closest approximation to "science" that some of our conservative friends here will arrive at? If so, things surely don't look too hopeful for them.
Dunning - Kruger effect at work again.
Up next: Ritmo holds hands with garage mahal and adopts the "ol' dead-eyes" nickname for Governor Scott Walker.
...future wealth and earnings are being disposed of. ..
Can't be serious. Or at least not empiric. Americans are saving more of their income than in a very long time.
I never mentioned the gold standard and Alex Jones is a douche nozzle. I think I was calling for sanity.
Interesting, Inga. As was this quote I found on it:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Sure, you can hire people for make-work jobs to keep the public happy, at least in the short term. It simply harms the overall economy when you do.
So the 6.2% unemployment that we'd have had
I lack your clairvoyant access to alternate universe unemployment figures, so I can't confirm that claim one way or the other.
But in answer to the larger question of whether you can improve the economy by siphoning money from the private sector to fund superfluous government jobs, that'd be a big "no".
But while you're at it, it's hard to see why an economy growing on the research of alternative and conservation of energy
What an amusing delusion. Incidentally, the reason it is called "alternative" is because it isn't economically productive to use. And anyone who understands physics and math can tell you things like ground-based solar or wind power can't be economically productive, outside of select areas; the energy density isn't high enough.
It sounds more like an agenda of boasting than an interest in objective problem-solving.
Physician, heal thyself. :)
EDH said...
Jindal came across to me as, well, stupid.
First, it's like he can't grasp that the media bias will always focus on what will damage Republicans most no matter what they do.
Second, as if to prove the point, he provides a series of damaging sound-bites that the media can use to damage the party.
Exactly right.
Peggy Noonan had a much better take on what's wrong with the Republicans in her WSJ column on Thursday. Her main points:
--Conservatives and Republicans feel a bit under siege these days because their views are not officially in style. But the Cringe is not the way to deal with it. If you take a stand, take a stand and take the blows.
--With regard to the Hillary Benghazi hearing: The senators weren't organized or focused, they didn't coordinate questions, follow up, have any coherent or discernible strategy...Minority parties can't act like this, in such a slobby, un-unified way.
--It became obvious this week that the Republican Party top to bottom has to start taking Barack Obama seriously...It will take guts and unity to fight him.
And a magic wand to turn the MSM into a responsible Fourth Estate wouldn’t hurt.
Well then if your criticisms of the central banks aren't revolutionary (or devolutionary), McTriumph, then I guess you're going to have to get more specific for me to understand what your proposed fixes are.
In any event, I now found a third item that attracted my attention:
In the European case there is a political situation based on class envy, something Obama has worked on hard here.
What's funny is that while Republicans got all Gordon Gecko on us and pushed as far as they could the "Greed is good" line, they keep imagining that the Americans are so obsessed with wealth that they can't stand it in others. Instead of being pissed about lacking a shot at opportunity, they are really just greedy about the wealth that Republicans keep convincing us that it's only right for the wealthy to have.
Well, if that's not a bunch of incoherent projection, then I don't know what is.
Good God, Ann. It's as if you learned nothing from the past two Democratic Campaigns.
Voters always respond to the appeal of the Lowest Common Denominator. Caesar, Hitler, and Goebbels knew this. So does Obama.
What's this bullshit about appealing to the "better angels of our nature", anyway? You think Saul Alinsky wasted any of his precious typespace on that crap?
I know you mean well, Ann, but politics today is the Eastern Front: all Stalingrad, all the Time. That's why Palin doesn't listen to the GOP idiotards who told her to go to a corner and start reading Position Papers.
They're the same idiots who drove the Reagan Coalition into the ground.
Inga & Ritmo: Why do you two birds of feather even feign an interest in what Republicans are or aren't? Don't you already have everything you want--an ascendent philosophy, a fast-recovering economy, fast-equilibrating rights, growing access to healthcare, a declining influence of the churches you loathe, 10 years of war finally over forever, etc., etc.? I just don't get your "concern" for the right or for conservatives. There's just something missing from the equation.
So what is it?
Ritmo." For someone with much greater assets, it might mean continuing to stash that extra amount away and not spending it on things with an immediate economic impact."
Give an example of this "stashing" you allude to.
'boom-and-bust cycles and regular mini-depressions of the nineteenth century"
In one sense, they are preferable to huge bubbles, very long weak recoveries and long, deep maxi-depressions. The course we are on now is unsustainable, no sovereign country in the history of the world has survived it, it's math.
I lack your clairvoyant access to alternate universe unemployment figures, so I can't confirm that claim one way or the other.
Well, it's not hard. You take the number of employable adults in the population as 100% and subtract from the proportion of currently unemployed those layed off by the Republican governors. Not all that hard to do, seeing as how those Republican governors now have to account for them with unemployment checks, instead. Most organizations have ways of accounting for who they've fired -- but maybe you're used to organizations not even competent enough to be able to do that. Whoa boy.
But in answer to the larger question of whether you can improve the economy by siphoning money from the private sector to fund superfluous government jobs, that'd be a big "no".
So you're on the record as saying that our 7.8% unemployment rate is better for the economy than the lower rate of roughly 6.2%.
Well, you're certainly a man of your convictions then, if nothing else.
The real kicker then, is why it was or was not good to keep them employed during previous recoveries (and flush times). Only you can answer that, Revenant. Only you.
And remember, an entire political party is counting on you answering correctly and in a credible way to an economically depressed nation.
Hope you're up for the job, Sir. We're counting on you.
Ritmo." For someone with much greater assets, it might mean continuing to stash that extra amount away and not spending it on things with an immediate economic impact."
Give an example of this "stashing" you allude to.
In one sense, they are preferable to huge bubbles, very long weak recoveries and long, deep maxi-depressions.
None of which we'd have had the Republicans of the 1920s and 2000s not worked themselves into an absolute tizzy over how wonderfully the market could work its wonders and how far the Dow could rise with nothing more than a couple credit-housing bubbles each time.
The only answer to the media issue was the one addressed on Insta a couple of weeks ago.
We need a few more gazillionaire Conservatives to fund 4 or 5 more Fox News channels as well as Lifetime Networks and Facebooks.
Whatever the depth of the data mining scandal at News Corp, it's becoming clear the Lefties have something on Murdoch and are using it to force him Left.
Inga said...
Dunning - Kruger effect at work again.
She-Wolf of the SS is going to keep beating that drum until someone acts impressed.
Why not repeat it again, Michael?
Are you like Romney or something? Just used to always getting your way and an immediate answer to everything?
Anyway, not stashing something away might mean purchasing a good or service that causes a business to see increased demand and reason for expanding rather than simply investing it.
But how would you know? You can't possibly fathom the idea of having so little that a little extra bread could make the difference between nourishment or hunger. So, like Romney, you lose the argument by pretending that the terms for understanding it are beneath you.
Now shoo! Others here who have constituencies other than just your own are interested in science and empiric problem solving. Or so they say. Your presence and assured disinterest discourages them.
Everyone here does realize that Gordon Gecko was a character in a movie , right?
Nice attempt at a strawman.
if they continue the way they are behaving and have behaved for several years now, Democrats will continue to win elections
I've no comment on the "durr they so stoopid" thing, because who cares.
I just wanted to observe that the last few elections went like this:
2008 Dems gain
2010 Reps gain
2012 Dems gain
Now, I don't mean to diminish the significance of your unbroken streak of 1 win in a row... I just thought it was kind of funny to predict an endless string of victories from it. :)
Of course, if the allegation is that the Republicans only turned stupid in 2011, I guess it isn't all that funny.
Everyone here does realize that Gordon Gecko was a character in a movie , right?
Two movies, now, although I'm not sure anyone actually watched the sequel.
So if I mention John Galt (or conservatorial darling Paul Ryan's admiration for him) is that also a straw man?
What of the people cheering Ron Paul to let the uninsured guy die?
At some point, certain narratives clamored for by a base are pretty hard to deny away, aren't they?
Did Atlas shrug or didn't he?
Now, I don't mean to diminish the significance of your unbroken streak of 1 win in a row... I just thought it was kind of funny to predict an endless string of victories from it. :)
Is it as funny as Republicans claiming a right to co-rule by retaining the House (the only race out of three, counting the presidency and the Senate) with a half million less votes cast than for the congressional opposition?
Because that would be pretty damn funny. And desperate.
You really aren't following the politics all that closely, are you?
Ritmo scolds: Now shoo! Others here who have constituencies other than just your own are interested in science and empiric problem solving. Or so they say. Your presence and assured disinterest discourages them.
Condescend much, Ritmo? You're sounding like Inga now.
You take the number of employable adults in the population as 100% and subtract from the proportion of currently unemployed those layed off by the Republican governors. Not all that hard to do
Indeed it isn't. And as a hint for future reference -- if you can do the math in your head in the time it takes to post a snooty comment, your macroeconomic model's probably a little on the simplistic side. :)
Just to point out the obvious -- you left out the people who would have lost jobs or never been hired because the funds that went to that purpose in the real world were, in your alternative world, siphoned off to keep government butts in government chairs.
I think "empiric" must have been today's word on Rit's word-a-day calendar.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be one of those word-a-day calendars that includes the definition. :)
Ritmo stuns with lies: What of the people cheering Ron Paul to let the uninsured guy die?
The guy died in a hospital, surrounded by family. The part you're bitching about is who was gonna pay. Cut the bullshit that anyone "let someone die."
Revenant, our country's demographics have changed and even more minorities and women will be eligable to vote in 2014 and 2016. Republicans are not connecting to this demographic, the are repelling them.
What happened in 2012 will only happen in a bigger more dramatic way in 2016.
...you left out the people who would have lost jobs or never been hired because the funds that went to that purpose in the real world were, in your alternative world, siphoned off to keep government butts in government chairs.
Which amounts to how much funding "siphoned" away from how many jobs, Mr. Mathematician?
Is this just math you do as a Republican (if in name only) to make yourself feel better?
No doubt Hoover fucked up responding to the market crash and then FDR doubled and tripled down on Hoover's fuck up. Keynesian economics worked wonders during the great depression, pulled us right out. When FDR's buddy Joe Kennedy was asked, why he got involved in government, he answered, "That's where the real money is."
Inga, has the male/female balance shifted somehow? How are more females suddenly able to vote?
The guy died in a hospital, surrounded by family. The part you're bitching about is who was gonna pay. Cut the bullshit that anyone "let someone die."
Bullshit. Play the tape. Read the transcript.
They cheered when asked "should we just let him die"?
They cheered, "YEAH!!!!"
Stop the denial. At the least, you haven't even familiarized yourself with the actual question asked.
Inga predicts What happened in 2012 will only happen in a bigger more dramatic way in 2016.
2014 will intervene. Let's worry about that first.
In which Inga demonstrates the folly of the 19th Amendment.
Link the evidence, Ritmo!
Condescend much, Ritmo?
Michael doesn't give a damn about you and he doesn't give a damn about the country. If you want to kiss-up to him, feel free. But challenging him is not condescension. It's called returning the favor.
Chickelit, Republicans are doing a fine job of losing independent women voters.
Oh brother.
Now GOOGLE searches for "let him die uninsured" are too much to ask.
I'll review two videos easily available from that search and post the one (or both) that lets you hear it for yourself.
I swear, would I also have to provide evidence of the moon landing? Aren't some things just common knowledge?
I guess not.
Ritmo, I realize from here and elsewhere that you're very smart. But if you were a friend I would warn you that condescension is your worst trait. You're almost as bad as Althouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yva0VSN1_T4
0:42 if you get bored waiting for it or just have trouble focusing in on the relevant part.
Again, it's here
"independent women voters"
That is, lovers of fascism.
@Ritmo: I remember the "scandal" it was mainly a trumped up allegation that Paul was responsible for his death because he didn't have health insurance. In truth he died getting the best care he could get.
Is it as funny as Republicans claiming a right to co-rule by retaining the House [whining snipped]
"Rule" is an interesting word choice for what the Democrats don't want to share. But yes, as it turns out the House IS allowed to vote against stuff it doesn't like and for stuff it does like, even if the President and Senate disagree.
I wouldn't call it "co-rule", though. I think of it as delicious, delicious gridlock.
But if you were a friend I would warn you that condescension is your worst trait.
Then I guess you must not be a friend of Michael.
You're almost as bad as Althouse.
Not sure what to say about that.
What of those of us who just plain think they're not respected enough and want to keep employment up as a result. If Bag fell in this category (I'm still not sure if he does or not), would that be condescending of him?
Pogo, seriously? One of the things that The Stupid Party does is call anyone who disagrees with them fascits. Another thing is continually disparaging women. You think you're going to get more Repubilcan voters doing that?
Ritmo. What is an example of the "stashing" of capital you believe the rich engage in? Can you give one or is this another high sounding phrase without meaning?
"Rule" is an interesting word choice for what the Democrats don't want to share.
It refers to the Republicans' idea of what they feel they have an absolute right to: Power!
But yes, as it turns out the House IS allowed to vote against stuff it doesn't like and for stuff it does like, even if the President and Senate disagree.
I know. Just for the sake of being unproductive.
Which is a great way for Republicans to admit that they wanted to keep unemployment high and CAN'T BELIEVE that the blame for the result didn't accrue to the president. They're shocked! Not rewarded for keeping unemployment high!
Well, I guess not all of their voters were Revenant - who thinks high unemployment is a good thing.
I wouldn't call it "co-rule", though. I think of it as delicious, delicious gridlock.
Yep. Your voice in government will be similarly regarded as irrelevant. Go "do nothing" somewhere else. My representatives are getting paid and I expect to see some results for that.
You go ahead feel free to argue for wasting their salaries on jobs not done to someone who cares for that kind of incoherence. Like, the 5% of the public who thinks like you when you point that out to them. Go on now, do it.
The first question is who should pay! Who indeed should pay for someone who willingly foregoes healthcare insurance?
Then Blitzer says "should we just let them die!" and an audible response says "yeah"! From this you concluded that "What of the people cheering Ron Paul to let the uninsured guy die?
At some point, certain narratives clamored for by a base are pretty hard to deny away, aren't they?"
Quite a leap from "the people cheering" to comprise the entire "base"
___________________
BTW,
In my comments above, I thought you were referring to the ex-campaign worker of Paul's who died. My mistake
More Republican voters?
Hell no. Women seem to love them some love fascism, so I doubt they'll ever vote Republican.
Not sure what to say about that.
Ritmo, Just file it away like I did your bizarre comment about me the other night :)
Ritmo typed. "Anyway, not stashing something away might mean purchasing a good or service that causes a business to see increased demand and reason for expanding rather than simply investing it."
Hilarious. So it is "stashed" by being spent. I see.
Your sentence above is one for the ages, outstanding example of ignorance poorly disguised with a mask of stupidity.
Quite a leap from "the people cheering" to comprise the entire "base"
Were there or were there not cheers (from your base) at Wolf Blitzer's question?
Most of us were shocked, but it confirmed our worst fears.
You must be dodging the question or denying its conclusion for a reason.
Ritmo. What is an example of the "stashing" of capital you believe the rich engage in? Can you give one or is this another high sounding phrase without meaning?
To Pogo, fascism = anything he doesn't like. And he hates America. It's unfortunate.
Michael:
You're being ignored.
Don't worry, this doesn't mean instant death. It just means you're not as important to the conversation as you wish you were.
Anyway, an answer was given to your twice-asked question. You just either ignored it or didn't care to acknowledge it.
This is why people don't like you: You're a bit of an asshole. Read the answer if it's so important to you.
Revenant, our country's demographics have changed and even more minorities and women will be eligable to vote in 2014 and 2016. Republicans are not connecting to this demographic, the are repelling them.
That's fascinating, Inga. Run along now, and read up on the history of political parties capturing each others' demographic groups over the course of this country's history. In a two-party system there is never anything resembling a long-term victory, because both parties are coalitions of competing interests and will adjust their ideology to capture votes.
This is how the Democrats went from being the party of the Klan to the party of the NAACP in one decade, for example.
Michael - you seem to be having a reading comprehension problem. The word "not" actually means something.
Isn't that incredible? It means "the opposite of what's in the sentence".
Michael, do you read much? Ever? Do you know what the meaning of the word "is" is?
How about the word "not"?
This is your "hero", conservatarians. Get used to him. He can't even read.
Pogo never got over the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obama Care, he's bitter.
Pogo, it's not all gender, it's largely single/married. And I hate fascism : )
Pogo never got over the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obama Care, he's bitter.
At least he read Alan Lichtman's "Keys to the White House". That's something. And almost empiric.
He hates the obvious finding in there, though. Generational power-shifts in 40-year cycles. It's just a fact of life. 1968 - 2008 was the conservative heyday. Now it's time for them to fade away.
Come again another day. Reinstitute 1928 and 2008 in maybe another predictable 80-year long absence. 2088 is when the Republicans will precipitate the next Depression, if history is a guide. It's amazing how these things are coming right on schedule.
Ritmo. Your thesis then is that "simply investing it" is the stashing to which you Refer? Is that what your sentence says you economic moron? Because that is what you wrote and that is why I am mocking you. You stupid hillbilly.
I'm a widow and by God I hate fascism too!
I know. Just for the sake of being unproductive.
Well yes, Rit. When the options on the table are "unproductive" and "counter-productive", the former's the way to go.
Your voice in government will be similarly regarded as irrelevant.
I'm a libertarian in California, Rit. I am the very definition of "person ignored by politicians". :)
somefeller said...
To Pogo, fascism = anything he doesn't like. And he hates America. It's unfortunate.
Projection.
The Lefties, like some phony folksy, have been screaming fascism since the 60s at anything they wanted to take down.
True, Erika. Very true.
Inga, you're a fascist, a lover of fascism, a voter for fascism. It's what you are, but you believe otherwise. It can't be helped, because you're easily swayed.
When the options on the table are "unproductive" and "counter-productive", the former's the way to go.
Which if you vote for the party that believes it should get paid for holding office by doing nothing, will be your only two choices.
Feel proud of your "do-nothing" Republican House!
The only question is, why are you agreeing to pay them for doing nothing?
Yes, Mr. Economics. Why?
OK Pogo, whatever you say..... Hey wat a minute! You just swayed me!
somefeller said...
"To Pogo, fascism = anything he doesn't like. And he hates America. It's unfortunate."
Projection.
Nah, Eddie Alzie. I think somefeller's right.
Pogo is the very definition of a BIrcher. He is the character Stephen Colbert modeled his persona off of.
If a right-wing caricature in the guise of Pogo didn't exist, you'd simply have to invent him. He just is that much of a hackneyed exercise in self-parody.
He has no opinion or philosophy that can't be reduced to a bumper sticker.
His ideas on life are simpler than a cartoon strip in a piece of Bazooka Joe chewing gum.
That is the Pogo.
It's almost an art, being him.
He's a Zen Christianist.
Pogo never got over the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Obama Care, he's bitter.
Actually, I think he never got over FDR beating Alf Landon back in 1936. The country's gone to hell in a handbasket since then. Hell in a handbasket!
Yup, ya got me. O_o
Inga. I'm a widow and by God I hate fascism too!
Can you define it, though?
@Ritmo said: You must be dodging the question or denying its conclusion for a reason.
I didn't deny or evade the question; I answered it at 10:03. Yes, people cheered. But no, this isn't representative of the base. You obviously want it to be true.
An authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government.
@Ritmo: speaking of ignored questions, I asked up at 9:28: "Why do you two birds of feather even feign an interest in what Republicans are or aren't?"
Yes, people cheereded. But no, this isn't representative of the base. You obviously want it to be true.
Ok, so then if only a few people felt emboldened enough to have cheerlead (cheered?, cheer led?) the idea of letting an uninsured guy die, how much of the base do you think would agree?
Remember, we're talking about the party that hated transforming healthcare delivery by making insurance more widespread, that thinks compassion is overblown and fascist (or communist, who can keep up with their labels?) and who believed that efforts to the contrary were purely satanic and good for nothing but a rallying cry and presidential overturn.
Remember that. Then answer.
Inga. What would you call an authoritarian and nationalistic left wing government?.
"Why do you two birds of feather even feign an interest in what Republicans are or aren't?"
Because they want such ridiculous things. How is this about us? Significant majorities in America agree?
What about them?
Post a Comment