Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
"That whole "citizen legislator" thing our country was supposedly founded on? That may have worked back during the Enlightenment when only the most educated citizens were eligible to vote, let alone run for office, but today it means that anybody can hold office."
Yet the Liberal solution to this mess has always been to try to get more of the unwashed, uneducated, masses on the voter rolls...
I agree with you! We need to once again restrict who can vote and govern. Exactly how do you propose we go about that?
A gay joke.
Really?
You're complaining about politics and you have to resort to a gay joke to do so.
Structural issue: The difficulty is that gerrymandering is coupled with the house leadership requiring a majority of their caucus to agree on their actions, meaning democrats have no say. Put that together and it means that the whole house can be controlled by less than 10% of the US population. It just requires at least 1/4th of the house (half the republicans) be mostly afraid of being primaried by a lunatic backed by at least 1/4th of their district's gerrymandered population.
Solution: I think a problem with Obamacare is that it messed with Texas. Frankly, the sooner people in Texas are dead the better. I think a compromise exists if Obamacare is changed to allow states to vote to opt out, coupled with some structural reforms that make it so that the house follows majority rule instead of 1 party rule.
...anybody, EVEN YOU(!) can suck a cock.
It's a slur to suggest that only gays suck cock.
Grow the fuck up asshole.
The USMC only takes the toughest soldiers. The Smithsonian Institution only takes the sharpest researchers. The US Olympic Team only takes the best-trained athletes. And yet whenever we try to hold our legislators to a high standard, the pseudo-populist fringe cries foul, that idiots and numbnuts should be allowed to drive the car.
Is anybody going to volunteer to go down to Westlake and recite Goldy's letter loudly? Help a dude out. He poured blud swet and teerz into this. Gotta get the word out to all those ignorant fools who don't read Slog.
I'm a pussy. I'm staying right here beside my desktop computer.
Our specific bullshit brand of crap-ass politics is to blame.
And don't forget the media for never holding US politicians' feet to the fire.
You've done better.
Are you sure you know what ""citizen legislator" means? Sounds more like your complaining about identity politics.
And Goldy how are the Dems stupid for not winning in deep red counties where the tea party is popular.
No, The liberal solution to this mess has always been to try to fucking wash and educate the masses. Lift people out of poverty. Teach them a thing or two. Make them better citizens who may then make better voting decisions.
It's the conservative types who seem to prefer their voters poor, dumb, and apathetic.
Starting by making everyone who ever edited the Harvard Law Review ineligible to hold office would be fine with me...
How about a compromise?
Wash them.
Educate them.
And then let them vote and govern.
According to NPR:
"Who would be blamed for a shutdown?"
"Generally speaking, no one comes out looking good if the government shuts down. A Pew Research poll conducted Sept. 19-22 shows 39 percent of Americans would blame Republicans if a shutdown were to occur, compared with 36 percent who would fault the Obama administration and 17 percent who would hold both sides responsible. According to a Pew poll from a comparable period during the 2011 budget battle, the public spread the blame around nearly identically."
Since when do you care about the opinion of the unwashed masses? By your own standards, their opinion is lower than shit.
This is a cruel and bigoted rant. Not only do you dehumanize people with mental disabilities and compare them to the caricature of the dumb evil Republican, you use terms that almost everybody agrees are slurs. I would delete this essay if I were you. These slurs are going to come back to haunt you every time you ask for tolerance on another issue.
No, Sweetie, that’s just where I hold your opinion.
What is going on over at The Stranger lately?
Your words, sweetie.
@35 I fucking hate it when you're coherent. Damn you. Anyway, bear in mind that futures markets are net-zero-sum games. For every dollar made, there's a dollar lost by another speculator. Individual investors need to stay away, because the trading desks at the big boys will shred you and steamroll the pieces before you can say, "Wha?"
Okay...
But I'm not sure how your soft little brain has confused any of those words to mean what you seem to think they mean.
Kinda early to be hitting the malt liquor...
(Even for a trashy whore like you).
Isn't it?
Fuck You back. With a Rusty Nail. Asshole.
Your Shitty Government is shutting down because your Shitty President steals 43¢ of every dollar he spends from the children. And from yet unborn children who are unlucky enough to escape the abortionist's blade. Moron.
How long did you really think that could go on? Asswipe.
You have met the Enemy. He is You. Dickbreathe.
In case you haven't noticed your civilization is in decline.
Actually, it is about two swirls from the bottom of the shitter. Congratulations.
American't Liberals are whiny lazy self-indulgent moochers who inherited a viable civilization and managed to corrupt and demolish it. Intergenerational Trust Fund babies who squandered everything GrandPa worked so hard to build and leave to them. LardAss. (your ass is so big astronomers mistake your asshole for a BlackHole...)
So again. Fuck Yourself. You're Welcome. PustleGut.
you are a Federal employee?
that, and a talking ad for government shutdown......
@54 Mea culpa!
Why couldn't you have written the post without these negative stereotypes and slurs? Was it absolutely essential that you included them to convey your point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK91…
"Yes, the real problem with politics today is this post. Enjoy your government shutdown."
You've confused the symptoms with the problem.
Your post is a symptom.
The same as the shut down is.
You would rather spend your efforts attempting to demonize the opposition even if you have to resort to slurs.
Is there a reason why you cannot avoid using slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies in such discussions?
"Yes, the real problem with politics today is this post."
What did I say? Let me cut-and-paste it for you.
You've confused the symptoms with the problem.
Your post is a symptom.
But thank you for illustrating it again.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
@65 Yes, the real problem with politics today is this post. Enjoy your government shutdown.
"Yes, the real problem with politics today is this post."
Yes, that is the 3rd time you've cut-and-pasted that.
Even though I've specifically pointed out the difference between a symptom and the problem.
So you will just keep repeating your claim even though it has been disproven.
But it is those "clinically retarded" (your words) people who are the problem.
It's called a "mirror".
I can't wait until your next post asking for tolerance. It will be interesting if your hypocrisy will cause an implosion.
Sorry, the irony here is just too delicious to ignore.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
""Clinically retarded" (i.e. what Goldy actually wrote) is a neutral descriptive phrase."
I quoted him on that.
And it is not a "neutral descriptive phrase" when used in the context of describing politicians who disagree with Goldy.
"I apologize in advance to the mentally disabled for offensively comparing them to politicians."
It seems even Goldy recognized that when he posted it.
But you do not see it that way.
Even when Goldy explicitly stated that he was doing so.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
@72: And it is not a "neutral descriptive phrase" when used in the context of describing politicians who disagree with Goldy.
It wasn't a matter of agreement, it was a matter of politicians doing objectively stupid shit like shutting down the government in order to delay implementation of a law they already passed.
"I apologize in advance to the mentally disabled for offensively comparing them to politicians."
It seems even Goldy recognized that when he posted it.
But you do not see it that way.
Even when Goldy explicitly stated that he was doing so.
With regards to the direct quote, you apparently do not understand the concept of irony. Did Goldy "seem" to recognize he was being offensive or "explicitly [state] that he was doing so" or was it an obvious and clearly indicated rhetorical joke?
You said something about hyperbole and inaccuracies?
http://www.r-word.org/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26…
@75 No, I did not use the same excuse as Ann Fucking Coulter because I don't use the word 'retarded' or 'retard' as a slur to begin with. Neither did Goldy- he was simply referring to people who suffer from the condition. Coulter called Obama 'a retard' specifically to insult him by an association with the mentally disabled. Goldy "apologized" to the mentally disabled (in the very same post) for insulting them by an association with politicians. It's was an ironic play on terms from Goldy; it was an ignorant broadside from Coulter. Try again.
"With regards to the direct quote, you apparently do not understand the concept of irony."
So now you're attempting to imply that it is okay to refer to a politician you disagree with as "clinically retarded" if you're doing so ironically.
"or was it an obvious and clearly indicated rhetorical joke?"
Those words are not the same.
You seem to be throwing around any word you find in order to excuse Goldy's explicit and self-acknowledged comparison.
Again, here is Goldy's direct quote.
"I apologize in advance to the mentally disabled for offensively comparing them to politicians."
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
The concept of irony and the concept of a rhetorical joke are not mutually exclusive. The source of offense w/r/t calling someone/something retarded/a retard is that it is meant to insult them by association with the mentally disabled. Goldy "apologized" to the mentally disabled for insulting them by association with politicians. The subjects are switched here (the rhetorical joke) but the affect/outcome of that switch remains the same (the definition of irony is the expected affect/outcome achieved through unexpected means).
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
When did I insult you? When did I use slurs? When is cut-and-paste posting just grossly inappropriate?
"Goldy "apologized" to the mentally disabled for insulting them by association with politicians."
Which means that he also claimed that politicians he did not agree with were "clinically retarded".
And now you are trying to claim that he did so "ironically".
Didn't Sarah Palin try to excuse Limbaugh's use of "retarded" by claiming it was "satirical"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07…
"But the former governor went to great and sometimes awkward lengths to insist that when conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh used the same exact term to describe the same exact group, it was simply in the role of political humorist."
Goldy chose to use the word "retarded" and you're choosing to defend that usage.
Just like Coulter and Palin and Limbaugh.
Except that it is okay when you and Goldy do it because you aren't them.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
"I've never used the words 'retard' or 'retarded' except in their literal forms."
You must be very proud of yourself that you're able to make such a statement on the internet.
Now unless you are claiming that your real name is Coulter or Palin or Limbaugh you seem to have failed reading comprehension.
Because those were the three individuals I identified by name who, like Goldy, used the word "retard(ed)" as an insult.
Or are you claiming that you are Goldy's sock puppet account?
But it is okay, right?
Because calling someone "retarded" is okay if you only do so "ironically".
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Except that it is okay when you and Goldy do it because you aren't them. (79)
Since that is clearly you claiming that I (along with Goldy) use the word, perhaps it is your reading comprehension could stand some improving.
Apart from that, I refuse to entertain questions I have already answered and I refuse to get further sucked into another pointless back-and-forth who someone who refuses to listen. Bye now. May your false sense of righteousness keep you warm tonight.
"Since that is clearly you claiming that I (along with Goldy) use the word, perhaps it is your reading comprehension could stand some improving."
That is your 7th post defending Goldy's usage of "retarded" to describe politicians he disagrees with.
And you've already posted that it was okay because Goldy used it "ironically".
So you've already posted that you do consider it okay to use.
To quote a Project Manager I spoke to who just so happened to be a die hard democrat progressive:
"It took me only 15 minutes of talking to that man (Dow) to realize he doesn't know one fucking thing about running a county."
So does this his mean Dow is this "clinically retarded" politician, who btw just to remind you, your paper endorsed?
You're right Goldy, we should have the most educated and qualified in these offices, which in this case is Alan. It's too bad that you and your paper don't really believe that what you seem to be shouting about on your soap box here. Obvious hypocrites are obvious, but that's to be expected from, and I quote:
"the lying, the gerrymandering, the corporate money, and the smug, false equivalence cum bullshit of our mainstream media."
Yes Goldy, you.
"Goldy used 'clinically retarded' and 'mentally retarded', not merely 'retarded' and yes, there is a difference."
Unless you can show that Goldy is referring to someone who is actually clinically retarded then there is no difference.
And, again, back in your post #73 you seem to be saying that it is okay to use the term "retarded" as long as you do as "irony".
"With regards to the direct quote, you apparently do not understand the concept of irony"
So "retarded" is not okay.
Unless it is part of "clinically retarded".
And if it is done as "irony".
But you would never use it in any fashion other "except in their literal forms."
But as "irony" it is okay.
Just that you would never ever use it as such.
But it is okay. As "irony".
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
So it is completely okay for Goldy to use "clinically retarded" as "irony".
It's not something that you would ever do.
But there is nothing wrong with doing that.
Just that you get offended if someone ever accused you of doing it.
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
A good analogy would be "talking to a Canadian".
There's nothing wrong with talking to a Canadian.
But I can understand you taking offense if someone would suggest that you had ever actually talked to a Canadian.
Not that there's anything wrong with talking to them.
Nothing wrong at all.
But you are the kind of person who has never done it and would never do it.
But there's nothing wrong with it.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Another analogy would be going grocery shopping.
There's nothing wrong with grocery shopping.
But you are offended that someone would suggest that you had ever or would ever go grocery shopping.
Even though you admit that there's nothing wrong with grocery shopping.
Nothing at all wrong with grocery shopping.
But you are not the kind of person who would do such a thing as grocery shopping.
Nor have you ever done any grocery shopping.
Not that there's anything wrong with grocery shopping.
But you are offended that someone might think that you had ever done any grocery shopping.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
And another analogy would be going to the dentist.
There's nothing wrong with going to the dentist.
But you get offended when someone suggests that YOU are the type of person who would go to the dentist.
Even though you claim that there is nothing wrong with going to the dentist.
You just would never, ever do that.
But there's nothing wrong with going to the dentist.
You just would never do such a thing.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Time for a review of the issue.
lolorhone is defending an action taken by Goldy (action A).
lolorhone claims that there is nothing wrong with (action A).
lolorhone gets offended if I suggest that lolorhone also performs (action A).
If lolorhone is right then an analogy would be something like donating to a pet shelter.
There is nothing wrong with donating to a pet shelter.
But lolorhone gets upset when it is suggested that lolorhone donates to a pet shelter.
Because that is something that lolorhone would never do.
And has never done.
Even though lolorhone says that there is nothing wrong with it.
It just something that lolorhone has never done and would never, ever do.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Another analogy would be trying on shoes.
There is nothing wrong with trying on shoes.
But you get offended if it is suggested that you have ever tried on shoes.
But you do not believe that there is anything wrong with trying on shoes.
Just that you are the kind of person who would never, ever try on shoes.
But there is nothing wrong with it.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.
Another analogy would be referring to someone you disagree with as "clinically retarded".
Oh, wait, that is the original point.
Goldy compared politicians he did not agree with to people who are "clinically retarded".
And you defended that by saying it was okay to do that as "irony".
Not that you would ever do that. No not ever.
But you say that there's nothing wrong with it. Nothing at all.
You're just not the kind of person who would ever do that.
Even if you don't see anything wrong with it.
Instead of addressing the issue you will resort to slurs, insults, hyperbole and inaccuracies.