Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 1, 2010
News George W. Bush...
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:00 AM
...is not going to be president at all this year or this decade.
1
Yes, that's a lovely thought, but the damage has already been done and it's not going to get fixed.
5
Dan has 9 fingers.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I have 10 fingers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For Dan, the decade starts on year 0. For Tom, the decade starts on year 1.
Thank you.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I have 10 fingers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For Dan, the decade starts on year 0. For Tom, the decade starts on year 1.
Thank you.
6
Don't say "George W. Bush", say "FORMER president George W. Bush". It feels so much better that way. Cheers, Dan.
8
To be the first thing that Dan chooses to post on Slog for this year... Sometimes I think I dwell too much on politics in general, or on him specifically. I guess I'm not the most obsessed, anyway.
9
Thank you, Dan, for making my petty bullshit seem so insignificant. Whatever is going on in my life, at least Bush has nothing to do with it.
10
Dan, when you listen to Avenue Q and they sing that song "For Now," then they get to that part where "George BUSH... is only for nooooowwwww..."
When they get to that part, do you remember the first time you heard that song and shudder? Maybe just me.
When they get to that part, do you remember the first time you heard that song and shudder? Maybe just me.
12
Honestly, his last year (which incidentally is when, Cheney complains, Bush stopped listening to him) He started doing at lease a mediocre job. Obama turned out to be a major suckfest, and we're stuck with two more years of him now. So I wouldn't get all giddy.
14
To mozTom: On December 31, 1930, I'm sure they didn't say good-bye to the Roaring '20s. That's because they had already done so a year before. On December 31, 1970, they didn't bid adieu to those turbulent '60s. Why not? Because that was the job of the revelers of New Year's Eve 1969. Like it or not, we commonly and legitimately refer to a decade as beginning at the start of the zero year and ending at the conclusion of the nine year.
17
Barack
"Farce Advocate"
"Bring the Boyz HOME"
"amen! Rev Rick Warren"
"Homosexuality=incest and adults marrying children"
"$1.8 TRILLION one year DEFICIT"
"DADT and STFU"
"I Never Campaigned on Public Option, SUCKA" Obama
WILL be President for three
long disappointing malaise filled years.
and that is WAY more relevant
than Dan's oh-so-cute
"look I'm posting at midnight!"
terrible two's tantrum.....
"Farce Advocate"
"Bring the Boyz HOME"
"amen! Rev Rick Warren"
"Homosexuality=incest and adults marrying children"
"$1.8 TRILLION one year DEFICIT"
"DADT and STFU"
"I Never Campaigned on Public Option, SUCKA" Obama
WILL be President for three
long disappointing malaise filled years.
and that is WAY more relevant
than Dan's oh-so-cute
"look I'm posting at midnight!"
terrible two's tantrum.....
18
An even better thought: More states will gain marriage equality this decade, perhaps even this year...
20
Also,
I promise to try
NOT to lick
doorknobs, doormats and toilet seats
at all this year.
or this decade.
The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine) > December 19, 2000
Journalist Dan Savage avoided a possible six-year prison sentence by pleading guilty to voter fraud charges November 7. The charges stem from an incident last year, when Savage, a Washington State resident, infiltrated the presidential campaign of antigay GOP candidate Gary Bauer and then cast a ballot during the Iowa caucus. Savage, a columnist for Out magazine, wrote an article for the online magazine Salon recounting how he had faked his way into Bauer's office to protest his antigay platform. In the article he also said he had licked doorknobs, doormats and toilet seats at campaign headquarters, hoping to give Bauer a bout of the flu. After pleading guilty, Savage was sentenced to a year's probation, 50 hours of community service, and a $750 fine.
I promise to try
NOT to lick
doorknobs, doormats and toilet seats
at all this year.
or this decade.
The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine) > December 19, 2000
Journalist Dan Savage avoided a possible six-year prison sentence by pleading guilty to voter fraud charges November 7. The charges stem from an incident last year, when Savage, a Washington State resident, infiltrated the presidential campaign of antigay GOP candidate Gary Bauer and then cast a ballot during the Iowa caucus. Savage, a columnist for Out magazine, wrote an article for the online magazine Salon recounting how he had faked his way into Bauer's office to protest his antigay platform. In the article he also said he had licked doorknobs, doormats and toilet seats at campaign headquarters, hoping to give Bauer a bout of the flu. After pleading guilty, Savage was sentenced to a year's probation, 50 hours of community service, and a $750 fine.
23
Well, better this than saying "Sarah Palin is not going to be president at all this year or this decade" on January 1, 2020.
25
@5. @14 is correct, decades go from 0 ~ 9 not 1~10. 1990 wasn't part of the 80's.. it was the beginning of the 90s and so on.
26
Not to piss on anyone's campfire, but while it's true that W. won't be President, there's still the Hot Latin George Bush- that's George P., son of Jeb- out there in the world. We could totally still have another George Bush as Prez. Be afraid.
27
Obama may not be all that he promised, but he was definitely the lesser of the evils. He's definitely a breath of fresh air, compared to Bush.
29
@26,
Have you seen him lately? He's looking less and less Latin and more and more like a Bush every day.
Have you seen him lately? He's looking less and less Latin and more and more like a Bush every day.
30
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES
I was soooo afraid this post would not happen. I've been waiting for it. I look forward to the next installment of "George W. Bush..." on January 1, 2100!
I was soooo afraid this post would not happen. I've been waiting for it. I look forward to the next installment of "George W. Bush..." on January 1, 2100!
31
@25, you might not have noticed, but there was no 0 A.D. year. Decades go from 1-10. @14, common belief doesn't make it so, just as popular opinion does not alter human rights. (well, ok, I guess it does as long as you have mob rule, the farce we now call democracy, where the strength in numbers determines your rights)
32
#5/Tom: Dan has 9 fingers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I have 10 fingers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For Dan, the decade starts on year 0. For Tom, the decade starts on year 1.
*
Think of it this way, Tom. You don't actually turn 1 until the end of year after you're born but during that year you're in your first year. Likewise while you're 9, you're actually in your tenth year, turning 10 at the end of that year. So, from 0 to 10 is your first decade. Your second decade begins when you turn 10, not 11.
So paper beats rock, scissors beats paper, rock beats scissors (and rap), and Dan's fingers beat your fingers.
I have 10 fingers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For Dan, the decade starts on year 0. For Tom, the decade starts on year 1.
*
Think of it this way, Tom. You don't actually turn 1 until the end of year after you're born but during that year you're in your first year. Likewise while you're 9, you're actually in your tenth year, turning 10 at the end of that year. So, from 0 to 10 is your first decade. Your second decade begins when you turn 10, not 11.
So paper beats rock, scissors beats paper, rock beats scissors (and rap), and Dan's fingers beat your fingers.
34
When Bush fucked us over, I at least understood why. It sounds stupid, but I believed in Obama. I'll never do that again.
35
It sounds much stupider to go from doe-eyed and idealistic to cynical and jaded in the course of one vote. What exactly sold you on Obama, Brandon? His promise to kiss your booboo and make everything better?
36
Not exactly, Christampa. Obama made promises to reverse DOMA and DADT, bring about decent health care reform, restore our image abroad, and increase government transparency. He went back on all of these things, among others. (read slog much?) Call me idealistic if you want, but what's the point of voting for a candidate you don't believe in? I wonder how long democrats are going to continue to snipe at Bush in order to distract themselves from the failures of their own party.
37
He has not gone back on restoring our image abroad and increasing government transparency. His administration has seen successful health care reform, unlike the many failed attempts by previous administrations. Some of these things may not have gone far enough to satisfy you. They don't satisfy me. But unlike you, I understand how politics normally work (Slowly), and how politics are working in our current climate (Not at all). Your problem is that you assumed that Obama was getting rid of the politicking altogether, and so you assumed that he would not make a promise that he could not keep. He will have to answer for his promise to repeal DOMA and DADT if in fact he does not do so in the next seven years. Until then, it might be prudent for you not to call him a liar.
Obama has made a massive shift in direction for our country. He needs to do much more than he already has. And guess what? He has three years to do it. And another four after that. And after that, if Obama has done his job correctly, we'll have an even more progressive president in office who will begin to make more changes in the right direction. That is how politics work, and that is what I expected Obama to do when I voted for him.
And I'm not disappointed yet.
Obama has made a massive shift in direction for our country. He needs to do much more than he already has. And guess what? He has three years to do it. And another four after that. And after that, if Obama has done his job correctly, we'll have an even more progressive president in office who will begin to make more changes in the right direction. That is how politics work, and that is what I expected Obama to do when I voted for him.
And I'm not disappointed yet.
39
Christampa @37, I appreciate your attempt to give a serious rebuttal to someone who has willfully chosen to be an idiot.
40
I just wonder about all these people who claim to be so disillusioned to discover that Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ and Josef Stalin and Santa Claus all rolled up in one. Are they really that phenomenally stupid, or is it all some petulant little act?
41
I just wonder about all these people who claim to be so disillusioned to discover that Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ and Josef Stalin and Santa Claus all rolled up in one. Are they really that phenomenally stupid, or is it all some petulant little act?
42
37
Chris, you precious naive boy...
it breaks our hearts to see you so trusting and so clueless.
Unfortunately your boy Barack is just as naive and clueless as you and has found the levers of power to be unresponsive to flowery speech.
He has failed miserably so far and has squandered what momentum and goodwill he had.
Shades of Carter!
Shades of Malaise...
Chris, you precious naive boy...
it breaks our hearts to see you so trusting and so clueless.
Unfortunately your boy Barack is just as naive and clueless as you and has found the levers of power to be unresponsive to flowery speech.
He has failed miserably so far and has squandered what momentum and goodwill he had.
Shades of Carter!
Shades of Malaise...
43
Hey, loser @42. So what exactly is your political agenda besides wanting to see Barack Obama fail?
44
43
Dear child, you cut be to the quick!
It grieves me to see the sad state our Republic finds itself in.
I pray for our President every day.
My agenda?
quite simple, really-
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Motherhood.
Rainbows and Pink Ponies.
Baseball, Hotdogs, ApplePie and.....
Dear child, you cut be to the quick!
It grieves me to see the sad state our Republic finds itself in.
I pray for our President every day.
My agenda?
quite simple, really-
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Motherhood.
Rainbows and Pink Ponies.
Baseball, Hotdogs, ApplePie and.....
45
@42 & @44, good to see your political agenda is merely to see America succeed. Never mind at what.
Hey, even though I called you a loser, I'll give you credit for being a pretty creative loser.
Hey, even though I called you a loser, I'll give you credit for being a pretty creative loser.
46
amazing how dumbocrats have this all set up:
1. everything is bush's fault
2. however, only policies that work are bush's (afganistan)
3. obama's policies decrease his popularity until he is most unpopular present
4. yet continue to blame bush
stupid
v. stoopid
amazing how dumbocrats have this all set up:
1. everything is bush's fault
2. however, only policies that work are bush's (afganistan)
3. obama's policies decrease his popularity until he is most unpopular present
4. yet continue to blame bush
stupid
v. stoopid
47
Torture, surveillance without cause, war at the pleasure of the President, regulated speech and state religion are all part of Allegedly's (@46, 44, 42, 20, 17) American dream.
Allegedly believes everyone in the US should be forced to look, act and think like Allegedly, and that is what is best for America.
Right, Allegedly?
Allegedly believes everyone in the US should be forced to look, act and think like Allegedly, and that is what is best for America.
Right, Allegedly?
48
I'm putting all the Yanks up to this one:
"Sarah Palin is not going to be president of any public office at all this year or the coming decade. Or ever."
Let's see if you all can pull it off.
"Sarah Palin is not going to be president of any public office at all this year or the coming decade. Or ever."
Let's see if you all can pull it off.
49
45
You know, after that last election there was a strong temptation to feel like a 'loser'...
our party was defeated all over and in disarray, a charismatic young President with a sweeping Liberal agenda had won by a landslide, a filibuster-proof supermajority Democratic Congress-
it looked grim.
(in fairness we must disclose that McCain inspired the conservative heart not at all and there was no breast beating over his loss- that angst had been worked out months before during the Primaries...)
But a year in things look very different.
What few things Obama has been able to accomplish have been by and large confirmations of Bush policies.
A great many easy to implement promises to the Left have inexplicably gone unfulfilled.
The proposed sweeping Liberal programs are diluted and stalled.
In fact it is hard for conservatives not to feel that an Obama presidency will be much better than a McCain victory would have-
the voters will be able to experience first hand that the Liberal policies for the economy, health care, national security etc are poor ideas.
The results of this year's Congressional elections and especially the 2012 election will reflect voter disillusionment with the Liberal Democratic agenda,
The obsession of the Liberal media and pundits with Palin will also work to the benefit- she is not a viable candidate but will soak up all the attention and bile of the Left allowing a good candidate to slip onto the scene under the radar.
So; No, not feeling like a loser at all-
the future for America looks bright and sunny.
And Republican Red...
You know, after that last election there was a strong temptation to feel like a 'loser'...
our party was defeated all over and in disarray, a charismatic young President with a sweeping Liberal agenda had won by a landslide, a filibuster-proof supermajority Democratic Congress-
it looked grim.
(in fairness we must disclose that McCain inspired the conservative heart not at all and there was no breast beating over his loss- that angst had been worked out months before during the Primaries...)
But a year in things look very different.
What few things Obama has been able to accomplish have been by and large confirmations of Bush policies.
A great many easy to implement promises to the Left have inexplicably gone unfulfilled.
The proposed sweeping Liberal programs are diluted and stalled.
In fact it is hard for conservatives not to feel that an Obama presidency will be much better than a McCain victory would have-
the voters will be able to experience first hand that the Liberal policies for the economy, health care, national security etc are poor ideas.
The results of this year's Congressional elections and especially the 2012 election will reflect voter disillusionment with the Liberal Democratic agenda,
The obsession of the Liberal media and pundits with Palin will also work to the benefit- she is not a viable candidate but will soak up all the attention and bile of the Left allowing a good candidate to slip onto the scene under the radar.
So; No, not feeling like a loser at all-
the future for America looks bright and sunny.
And Republican Red...
50
47
I must have been away when Congress authorized Obama to wage war on Pakistan- when did that happen?
Did you know Obama launched more Predator attacks in Pakistan in 11 months than Bush/Cheney did in 8 years?
Obama is probably too young to remember Nixon's secret war in Cambodia.
Someone should tell him how that worked out...
I must have been away when Congress authorized Obama to wage war on Pakistan- when did that happen?
Did you know Obama launched more Predator attacks in Pakistan in 11 months than Bush/Cheney did in 8 years?
Obama is probably too young to remember Nixon's secret war in Cambodia.
Someone should tell him how that worked out...
51
Did you see the New York Times article about "mounting alarm about an executive order by President Obama that extended privileges and immunities to Interpol."?
It addressed concerns about Mr. Obama ceding American sovereignty and an international police force operating on United States soil without legal restraints.
It quoted Andrew C. McCarthy who declared that an “international police force” could now operate inside the United States “unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law.” He also suggested that the order created in the Justice Department “a repository for stashing government files” beyond the reach of Congress and the public.
It featured an editorial that declared that “this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties.”
Obama's new directive grants Interpol immunity from tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure, according to the Times. Interpol also has immunity from lawsuits or prosecution for official acts, the Times said.
The order was issued on Dec. 17 without any statement, according to the Times.
The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as "uninteresting".
“There is nothing newsworthy here,” said Christina Reynolds, a White House spokeswoman.
It addressed concerns about Mr. Obama ceding American sovereignty and an international police force operating on United States soil without legal restraints.
It quoted Andrew C. McCarthy who declared that an “international police force” could now operate inside the United States “unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law.” He also suggested that the order created in the Justice Department “a repository for stashing government files” beyond the reach of Congress and the public.
It featured an editorial that declared that “this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties.”
Obama's new directive grants Interpol immunity from tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure, according to the Times. Interpol also has immunity from lawsuits or prosecution for official acts, the Times said.
The order was issued on Dec. 17 without any statement, according to the Times.
The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as "uninteresting".
“There is nothing newsworthy here,” said Christina Reynolds, a White House spokeswoman.
52
47
"regulated speech and state religion"?
Accomplished, by, oh say; "shutting up Fox News, or the LDS pulpit..."?
By shutting news outlets that the government disapproves off from access to the President and Administration?
By enshrining the Secular Humanist definition of marriage in the law of the land?
By brainwashing school children in the precepts of the Secular Humanist Religion?
Is that how it's done?
"regulated speech and state religion"?
Accomplished, by, oh say; "shutting up Fox News, or the LDS pulpit..."?
By shutting news outlets that the government disapproves off from access to the President and Administration?
By enshrining the Secular Humanist definition of marriage in the law of the land?
By brainwashing school children in the precepts of the Secular Humanist Religion?
Is that how it's done?
55
#32 Your tenth year ends when you turn 11 and THEN you start your second decade. #5Tom is right no matter how you others try to dumb it down.
56
@ 49,
If you know your American History, you'll recognize that it's too late. Even if your most feverish fantasies come true (ie, massive GOP victories in 2010 and 2012,) the pendulum has swung back to the liberal side, and it will be the liberal agenda driving politics for the next decade or two, just as the conservative agenda drove them for nearly 3 decades (yes, even when Clinton was president - even when he had Dem majorities in both chambers).
Don't kid yourself. Centrist Americans aren't naive enough to think that the GOP is offering any fresh ideas or real leadership. Unless Health Care Reform lives up to the most dire predictions that the most hysterical right wing pollyannas foretell, your work is done and your next real chance to do it your way will be well after the next decade turns. That's just how it is.
If you know your American History, you'll recognize that it's too late. Even if your most feverish fantasies come true (ie, massive GOP victories in 2010 and 2012,) the pendulum has swung back to the liberal side, and it will be the liberal agenda driving politics for the next decade or two, just as the conservative agenda drove them for nearly 3 decades (yes, even when Clinton was president - even when he had Dem majorities in both chambers).
Don't kid yourself. Centrist Americans aren't naive enough to think that the GOP is offering any fresh ideas or real leadership. Unless Health Care Reform lives up to the most dire predictions that the most hysterical right wing pollyannas foretell, your work is done and your next real chance to do it your way will be well after the next decade turns. That's just how it is.
58
@56
40% of Americans self identify as Conservative.
40% of Americans self identify as Independent.
20% of Americans self identify as Liberal.
The Independents went for Obama in 2008 but have been fleeing since.
As you note, even when Democrats occupy the White House and control Congress they must govern as moderates to enjoy any success.
That remains true in 2010.
Clinton got it.
Carter did not.
So far Obama isn't looking so good...
(Haven't you wondered why Obama caters to the Right so much even though numerically the GOP is helpless in Congress?)
Bottom Line: the Right Rules. the Left Drools.
(and btw- our most feverish fantasies WILL come true (ie, massive GOP victories in 2010 and 2012)
(and btw#2- Health Care Reform WILL live up to the most dire predictions that the most hysterical right wing pollyannas foretell...)
40% of Americans self identify as Conservative.
40% of Americans self identify as Independent.
20% of Americans self identify as Liberal.
The Independents went for Obama in 2008 but have been fleeing since.
As you note, even when Democrats occupy the White House and control Congress they must govern as moderates to enjoy any success.
That remains true in 2010.
Clinton got it.
Carter did not.
So far Obama isn't looking so good...
(Haven't you wondered why Obama caters to the Right so much even though numerically the GOP is helpless in Congress?)
Bottom Line: the Right Rules. the Left Drools.
(and btw- our most feverish fantasies WILL come true (ie, massive GOP victories in 2010 and 2012)
(and btw#2- Health Care Reform WILL live up to the most dire predictions that the most hysterical right wing pollyannas foretell...)
60
#55/Playing in Peoria: "#32 Your tenth year ends when you turn 11 and THEN you start your second decade. #5Tom is right no matter how you others try to dumb it down."
When it comes to a person's years, absolutely not. A person's tenth year of life ends when they turn 10, not 11, so that's when their second decade begins. On your 11th birthday, it's been 11 years since you were born. For a person the clock starts at 0, not 1.
However, I erred in comparing that to years. Unlike with a person, there was no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar -- the year AD 1 immediately followed the year 1 BC. -- so the first decade AD ended at 11 instead of ten and, therefore, the decade of the "aughts" began on 2001 and will end at midnight 2010.
Regardless of how technically correct that may be, it's traditional to celebrate the end of a "9 year" as the end of a decade. I remember the purists in 1999, wagging their fingers and saying that people should hold off on their end-of-the-millenium celebrations until the end of 2000, while revelers ignored them and partied like it was 1999 (because it was.)
So my apologies to mozTom. He is a purist, he is correct and his fingers beat Dan's fingers. But I and most other people celebrated the end of the "aughts" two nights ago and rock still beats scissors (and rap.)
When it comes to a person's years, absolutely not. A person's tenth year of life ends when they turn 10, not 11, so that's when their second decade begins. On your 11th birthday, it's been 11 years since you were born. For a person the clock starts at 0, not 1.
However, I erred in comparing that to years. Unlike with a person, there was no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar -- the year AD 1 immediately followed the year 1 BC. -- so the first decade AD ended at 11 instead of ten and, therefore, the decade of the "aughts" began on 2001 and will end at midnight 2010.
Regardless of how technically correct that may be, it's traditional to celebrate the end of a "9 year" as the end of a decade. I remember the purists in 1999, wagging their fingers and saying that people should hold off on their end-of-the-millenium celebrations until the end of 2000, while revelers ignored them and partied like it was 1999 (because it was.)
So my apologies to mozTom. He is a purist, he is correct and his fingers beat Dan's fingers. But I and most other people celebrated the end of the "aughts" two nights ago and rock still beats scissors (and rap.)
61
#58: "(and btw- our most feverish fantasies WILL come true (ie, massive GOP victories in 2010 and 2012) . . . Health Care Reform WILL live up to the most dire predictions. . ."
I believe that it's very common for the opposition party to pick up seats in the House and Senate during off-year elections, but I highly doubt that is going to mean "massive" GOP victories.
As for 2012, I think the main factor determining whether Obama will be re-elected or not will be the state of the economy during that year, leading up to the election.
It's possible that the majority of Americans will not like health care reform. But I don't think that's likely. I think it's much more likely that the majority will come to like it, and conservatives will end up looking foolish for trying to block it.
I believe that it's very common for the opposition party to pick up seats in the House and Senate during off-year elections, but I highly doubt that is going to mean "massive" GOP victories.
As for 2012, I think the main factor determining whether Obama will be re-elected or not will be the state of the economy during that year, leading up to the election.
It's possible that the majority of Americans will not like health care reform. But I don't think that's likely. I think it's much more likely that the majority will come to like it, and conservatives will end up looking foolish for trying to block it.
63
I disagree, Christampa. While the election of Obama may have temporarily increased our image abroad, sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and waiting 3 years to start pulling out of Iraq has certainly worsened it. Refusing to release prisoner of war abuse photos has damaged government transparency. Don't get ahead of yourself on healthcare reform, it's not even out of congress yet and will get even shittier as the house and senate attempt to reconcile their two bills.
Obama's first year in office has been extremely disappointing. At best he has been ineffective, at worst he has been hostile to his own supporters. I see no reason why he would change in the next 3 years, especially when people like Cressona expect him to act this way.
Obama's first year in office has been extremely disappointing. At best he has been ineffective, at worst he has been hostile to his own supporters. I see no reason why he would change in the next 3 years, especially when people like Cressona expect him to act this way.
64
Agreed that traditionally, a new decade (or millennium) starts on year one, the shift, I think, began when we started referring to decades as the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, etc., which began in reference to the roaring 1890s. Indeed, between the pending Y2K bug and the Year of the Dragon, 2000 was synched as the dawn of the new decade, even though the era is far better defined by 9/11/2001, between the kamakaze attacks, and the anthrax attacks which harbingered an unjust war and countless human rights violations at American hands (often on American citizens), to the point we even got blacklisted by Amnesty International. Whether Osama Bin Laden was recognizing the traditional new millennium by delaying his attacks, or if it just took him that long to organize them, I'm not sure.
You may be right, Allegedly (@49), that enough folks seem to have quickly forgotten the torture, the black sites and extraordinary renditions (i.e. disappearing) of random innocents, the burning of a spy for political reprisal (considered an unforgivable crime during the cold war), and a war based on unjust cause* that was conveniently tallied off the budget books. If you can continue to push that Clinton was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or pretend they never happened, you can probably blame the entire Iraq war on him, not to mention Abu Graib, the Black Sites, and so on.
Advocacy for women's comprehensive reproductive healthcare is in the slight minority right now, Allegedly, probably because of the pervasive disinformation that was propagated through the Abstenance Only / Open Proslytization education programs (which also set gender stereotyping back thirty years), but many of these women turn right around when it's their pregnancy that needs to be terminated. Civil rights (a consistently liberal agenda) is best served by folks knowing those who are impacted by inequality; it's easy to dismiss peoples you've never met. Conservatism relies on the ignorance of the people, and either their unwillingness to check facts, or their inability to comprehend them. Contemporary conservative a culture is based on the fears of idiots, if the videos of the teabag protests are to serve as example. This is the shape of your America, Allegedly. I hope it makes you proud.
* perhaps, Allegedly (@50) you can enlighten us as to the purpose of the multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq; contrast it to our goals and figures in Pakistan. Note that Predator attacks aren't the best figure since they were mass produced and armed in the late Iraq war. Bush didn't have them to use. But you knew that already, didn't you Allegedly?
More...
You may be right, Allegedly (@49), that enough folks seem to have quickly forgotten the torture, the black sites and extraordinary renditions (i.e. disappearing) of random innocents, the burning of a spy for political reprisal (considered an unforgivable crime during the cold war), and a war based on unjust cause* that was conveniently tallied off the budget books. If you can continue to push that Clinton was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or pretend they never happened, you can probably blame the entire Iraq war on him, not to mention Abu Graib, the Black Sites, and so on.
Advocacy for women's comprehensive reproductive healthcare is in the slight minority right now, Allegedly, probably because of the pervasive disinformation that was propagated through the Abstenance Only / Open Proslytization education programs (which also set gender stereotyping back thirty years), but many of these women turn right around when it's their pregnancy that needs to be terminated. Civil rights (a consistently liberal agenda) is best served by folks knowing those who are impacted by inequality; it's easy to dismiss peoples you've never met. Conservatism relies on the ignorance of the people, and either their unwillingness to check facts, or their inability to comprehend them. Contemporary conservative a culture is based on the fears of idiots, if the videos of the teabag protests are to serve as example. This is the shape of your America, Allegedly. I hope it makes you proud.
* perhaps, Allegedly (@50) you can enlighten us as to the purpose of the multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq; contrast it to our goals and figures in Pakistan. Note that Predator attacks aren't the best figure since they were mass produced and armed in the late Iraq war. Bush didn't have them to use. But you knew that already, didn't you Allegedly?
65
Perhaps Secretary of State Clinton could explain the purpose of the War in Iraq. She voted for it as a Senator.
If she is occupied perhaps you could ask Vice President Biden. He also voted for it.
Or maybe 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Lieberman could explain it. Or the Democratic ticket in 2004- Senators Kerry and Edwards. They voted for it too.
btw, Illegal wars end up costing an administration much much more than the price tag of the bullets and missiles expended. Ask Nixon.
If she is occupied perhaps you could ask Vice President Biden. He also voted for it.
Or maybe 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Lieberman could explain it. Or the Democratic ticket in 2004- Senators Kerry and Edwards. They voted for it too.
btw, Illegal wars end up costing an administration much much more than the price tag of the bullets and missiles expended. Ask Nixon.
66
Thank you, Allegedly (@52) for reminding me of your commitment to your principles of accurate, honest and fair journalism and how they only apply here at SLOG.
You never got back to us on the innocence of the gun-toting pastor. Still afraid to do actual research?
But, as you know (and I pointed out), under progressive (hardly liberal) rule, the conservative mouthpiece is as loud as ever. And since you laughed at the mere thought of us liberals going Nazi and denying free speech to naysayers, why the heck are you ringing that bell now?
So tell me more about this Secular Humanist definition of marriage; in our country. Whose definition would you prefer us to use? The US Traditional definitions?
And tell me how Secular Humanism is a religion. Would you prefer we taught a revealed religion in our schools? Which one?
You never got back to us on the innocence of the gun-toting pastor. Still afraid to do actual research?
But, as you know (and I pointed out), under progressive (hardly liberal) rule, the conservative mouthpiece is as loud as ever. And since you laughed at the mere thought of us liberals going Nazi and denying free speech to naysayers, why the heck are you ringing that bell now?
So tell me more about this Secular Humanist definition of marriage; in our country. Whose definition would you prefer us to use? The US Traditional definitions?
And tell me how Secular Humanism is a religion. Would you prefer we taught a revealed religion in our schools? Which one?
67
"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
68
The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda a 1957 case in which an organization of secular humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.
69
The 1957 tax case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957) established secular humanism as a religion under the law. The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
70
I'm sorry, Allegedly (@65), I didn't ask for a referral. Is this to say you don't know why we went to war in Iraq in 2003? Is that to say you don't care enough to look it up? Since a conservative president decided we need to go to war, that's all the justification you need. Is that right, Allegedly?
What about the attacks in Pakistan? Can you bother to look a thing up? Guess not, eh, Allegedly?
Your devotion to the affairs of your country is overwhelming. A real patriot you are, Allegedly.
What about the attacks in Pakistan? Can you bother to look a thing up? Guess not, eh, Allegedly?
Your devotion to the affairs of your country is overwhelming. A real patriot you are, Allegedly.
71
So Allegedly (@68, 69), do schools quote from and refer to some Secular Humanist Bible, and encourage kids to seek out Secular Humanist Congregations, or recite Secular Humanist Affirmations?
Or is it that schools simply take the most universal ethic (that one about reciprocity) and extrapolate it to basic parameters (don't cheat, don't lie, don't hit, etc.), and you're just associating it with Secular Humanism because they look similar?
It seems you can study when you have a mind to, Allegedly. If you bothered to look at the opposition, you may be able to hoist a valid argument someday.
You never answered my questions about alternative models of ethics or of marriage you'd rather see taught in schools. Care to field that one, Allegedly? Or is it you don't care so long as it proclaims no fags!?
Or is it that schools simply take the most universal ethic (that one about reciprocity) and extrapolate it to basic parameters (don't cheat, don't lie, don't hit, etc.), and you're just associating it with Secular Humanism because they look similar?
It seems you can study when you have a mind to, Allegedly. If you bothered to look at the opposition, you may be able to hoist a valid argument someday.
You never answered my questions about alternative models of ethics or of marriage you'd rather see taught in schools. Care to field that one, Allegedly? Or is it you don't care so long as it proclaims no fags!?
72
Bush wasn't really all that conservative.
The Constitution grants the duty and power to declare war with the Congress. Congress did declare the war. Senators Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards seem to be bright folks and have been entrusted by their party with important positions.
As Patriotic Americans, we trust that the opposition Party Senators verified the information the President presented before voting to send the nation to war.
We wish President Obama would follow the righteous example of President Bush and share with the American People and the Congress that represents them his purposes in waging war in Pakistan and seek and receive legal authority before doing so.
The Constitution grants the duty and power to declare war with the Congress. Congress did declare the war. Senators Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards seem to be bright folks and have been entrusted by their party with important positions.
As Patriotic Americans, we trust that the opposition Party Senators verified the information the President presented before voting to send the nation to war.
We wish President Obama would follow the righteous example of President Bush and share with the American People and the Congress that represents them his purposes in waging war in Pakistan and seek and receive legal authority before doing so.
74
Allegedly (@72), it's time for you to go back to American Government, and Political Science. Maybe after that you won't act so much a fool.
So tell me, Allegedly (@73) are you against the foundation of our military, given that it is run by socalist doctrine?
Since you don't feel schools should teach ethics based off reason, can you think of another system by which they base their ethics? A revealed system, say?
This will be the third time I ask you, Allegedly: What system of ethics or morality would you rather be taught in our schools? Regulation of state marriages should be based on what model?
Perhaps Catholic tradition or the Southern Baptist Convention are to your liking. Because, after all, the Pope and Johnny M. Hunt know what's best for Americans than we do, right, Allegedly?
So tell me, Allegedly (@73) are you against the foundation of our military, given that it is run by socalist doctrine?
Since you don't feel schools should teach ethics based off reason, can you think of another system by which they base their ethics? A revealed system, say?
This will be the third time I ask you, Allegedly: What system of ethics or morality would you rather be taught in our schools? Regulation of state marriages should be based on what model?
Perhaps Catholic tradition or the Southern Baptist Convention are to your liking. Because, after all, the Pope and Johnny M. Hunt know what's best for Americans than we do, right, Allegedly?
75
I think you nailed it right there, Allegedly (@72) when you admitted "As Patriotic Americans, we trust..."
It's been my experience that to conservative America, patriotism is trust in the government to serve their interests, forgetting the latter half of Carl Schurz praise "My country, right or wrong..."
Those of us liberals whom you so gleefully and monotonously disparage Allegedly, regard patriotism as a duty to vigilance. Our continual criticism about our own, which you, Allegedly, relentlessly mock and dismiss as whining, is our voicing of what can be done better. But do not confuse our comments with mere disgruntlement. Whereas you, Allegedly assume our nation is great solely on nameless intrinsic merits, we strive to make it worthy of the attribution of greatness.
Remember, Allegedly, it was your man Bush who showed us the consequences of the absence of vigilance, of trust without merit, and when the watchmen are too disempowered to respond. Do you imagine that the most disgruntled of us will vote against Obama when the alternative is Cheney, or Palin or Huckabee, or anyone who will follow in the Bush legacy?
The country your associates fractured and corrupted, Allegedly, is ours to repair. Our only wish is that you keep your nose out of the way while we go about setting things right. I expect, though, Allegedly, you and yours just cannot help yourself to that effect.
It's been my experience that to conservative America, patriotism is trust in the government to serve their interests, forgetting the latter half of Carl Schurz praise "My country, right or wrong..."
Those of us liberals whom you so gleefully and monotonously disparage Allegedly, regard patriotism as a duty to vigilance. Our continual criticism about our own, which you, Allegedly, relentlessly mock and dismiss as whining, is our voicing of what can be done better. But do not confuse our comments with mere disgruntlement. Whereas you, Allegedly assume our nation is great solely on nameless intrinsic merits, we strive to make it worthy of the attribution of greatness.
Remember, Allegedly, it was your man Bush who showed us the consequences of the absence of vigilance, of trust without merit, and when the watchmen are too disempowered to respond. Do you imagine that the most disgruntled of us will vote against Obama when the alternative is Cheney, or Palin or Huckabee, or anyone who will follow in the Bush legacy?
The country your associates fractured and corrupted, Allegedly, is ours to repair. Our only wish is that you keep your nose out of the way while we go about setting things right. I expect, though, Allegedly, you and yours just cannot help yourself to that effect.
76
75
Yes, like all good Conservatives I place my Trust and Faith in the Holy Trinity of Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.
. . . *...sigh...*
.
(is there anything more tedious than explaining sarcasm to the dull witted?)
Yes, like all good Conservatives I place my Trust and Faith in the Holy Trinity of Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.
. . . *...sigh...*
.
(is there anything more tedious than explaining sarcasm to the dull witted?)
77
The current definition of marriage that is the product of our society's rigorous separation of Church and State has worked well. We just need to be vigilant to protect it from contamination from either end of the religious spectrum (polygamy or homosexual marriage...)
Likewise with the values taught in our schools- we need to go back to what was taught before Secular Humanists began infiltrating their beliefs into public education. Religious training should be left to families and not co-opted by the state run school system.
Likewise with the values taught in our schools- we need to go back to what was taught before Secular Humanists began infiltrating their beliefs into public education. Religious training should be left to families and not co-opted by the state run school system.
78
"trust in the government to serve their interests..."
Like a government health insurance program?
Like a government health insurance program?
79
75
You keep forgetting, Bush wasn't Our Man, not nearly conservative enough to suit us, actually- he was, however twice elected by the people (impressively, by wider margins after four years on the job than the first time around...) and we accept their judgement.
You keep forgetting, Bush wasn't Our Man, not nearly conservative enough to suit us, actually- he was, however twice elected by the people (impressively, by wider margins after four years on the job than the first time around...) and we accept their judgement.
80
If our dull wits frustrate you, Allegedly (@76), feel free to take your refined sensibilities where they'd be more appreciated. I'm sure Americans For Truth would welcome your regular input with open arms.
I suppose it is typical of a true conservative that you would cling to the status quo, concerning marriage. I guess it's just too bad for those arbitrary sects who aren't provided for by current law, eh, Allegedly (@77)? Are governments no longer instituted amongst persons to guarantee their rights? Or do you figure your right to exist in a gay-free world supercedes the right for gays to exist? To be sure, it is darned convenient to you, Allegedly, that neither you nor yours are excluded by the law as it currently is.
And, Allegedly (@77), can you specify the Secular Humanist values presently taught in schools that you would rather not be? And what you would rather teach in their place? Until you do, I'm going to have to call bullshit; no values taught in our education system were derived from Secular Humanism so much as the universal basis of cooperation, hence, they're not based on religious grounds. But feel free to do some research and prove me wrong. Don't forget to include links.
I suppose it is typical of a true conservative that you would cling to the status quo, concerning marriage. I guess it's just too bad for those arbitrary sects who aren't provided for by current law, eh, Allegedly (@77)? Are governments no longer instituted amongst persons to guarantee their rights? Or do you figure your right to exist in a gay-free world supercedes the right for gays to exist? To be sure, it is darned convenient to you, Allegedly, that neither you nor yours are excluded by the law as it currently is.
And, Allegedly (@77), can you specify the Secular Humanist values presently taught in schools that you would rather not be? And what you would rather teach in their place? Until you do, I'm going to have to call bullshit; no values taught in our education system were derived from Secular Humanism so much as the universal basis of cooperation, hence, they're not based on religious grounds. But feel free to do some research and prove me wrong. Don't forget to include links.
81
@77: Your example doesn't really prove that secular humanism is a religion as much as it establishes that a group of secular humanists who form a church, hold Sunday meetings and generally engage in all the activities associated with being a church are entitled to the same tax-exempt status as any other church.
It does not follow that any belief that you deem to be of a 'secular' or 'humanist' nature (say the belief that womens' constitutional rights trump any particular religious group's claims that they should not have rights) is by definition a "religious" belief and therefore subject to the same restrictions in the public sphere as other explicitly religious beliefs. It is one thing to propose that it would be a good idea for people to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated, for example, and quite another to declare that (X) is the One True God and all who deny this will suffer eternal torment. Even though some version of the Golden Rule is present in most religions, that does not make it an explicitly religious belief; To my knowledge even the most fervent atheists are not attempting to restrict the teaching of this principle in public schools.
It does not follow that any belief that you deem to be of a 'secular' or 'humanist' nature (say the belief that womens' constitutional rights trump any particular religious group's claims that they should not have rights) is by definition a "religious" belief and therefore subject to the same restrictions in the public sphere as other explicitly religious beliefs. It is one thing to propose that it would be a good idea for people to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated, for example, and quite another to declare that (X) is the One True God and all who deny this will suffer eternal torment. Even though some version of the Golden Rule is present in most religions, that does not make it an explicitly religious belief; To my knowledge even the most fervent atheists are not attempting to restrict the teaching of this principle in public schools.
82
80
If we get back to focusing on making laws that serve the common good and don't get sidetracked trying to satisfy the self serving whims of every arbitrary sect that comes along inventing imaginary "rights" for itself we will be all right...
(feel free to call, spew or wallow in bullshit; as you see fit)
If we get back to focusing on making laws that serve the common good and don't get sidetracked trying to satisfy the self serving whims of every arbitrary sect that comes along inventing imaginary "rights" for itself we will be all right...
(feel free to call, spew or wallow in bullshit; as you see fit)
83
@79: If you conservatives respect the will of the people, why is it that you think that opposing the will of the people on health care is the right thing to do? A USA Today/Gallup poll from July 13th, 2009, showed that 56% of those polled favored a major health care reform bill being passed in 2009, whereas only 33% opposed it. (61% favored fining employers who do not provide coverage, with only 35% opposed.)
link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/…
And yet the Republicans and their new friend Joe Lieberman have relentlessly filibustered to prevent any bill from passing that does not cater explicitly to their ridiculous agenda, preventing the elected representatives of the people from exerting the people's will.
link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/…
And yet the Republicans and their new friend Joe Lieberman have relentlessly filibustered to prevent any bill from passing that does not cater explicitly to their ridiculous agenda, preventing the elected representatives of the people from exerting the people's will.
84
@ 79, your retroactive rejection of Bush is a perfect example of why no one trusts conservatives. Everyone remembers how much you all licked his asshole from 2000 til 2006, so lying aout him "not being your guy" only underscores all the reasons why you'll remain on the outs for the foreseeable future. You'll say fucking anything.
85
83
HA!
Go ahead!
Take you "Peoples Will" and teach us a lesson!!
We Dare You!!!
Your polls are about as useful as your limp dick.
The Republicans have a much better finger on the pulse of the Public Will. (as opposed to your typical clueless credulous know-it-all slog hipster whose finger is firmly up his asshole...)
The Republicans will tell Obama to shove his polls and his plan and make him like it.
And the voters will reward them with control of the Congress in just 11 short months.
btw- no one has "relentlessly filibustered" anything.
Just the prospect of a filibuster has the feckless pussy Democrats shitting themselves.
Cowards.
HA!
Go ahead!
Take you "Peoples Will" and teach us a lesson!!
We Dare You!!!
Your polls are about as useful as your limp dick.
The Republicans have a much better finger on the pulse of the Public Will. (as opposed to your typical clueless credulous know-it-all slog hipster whose finger is firmly up his asshole...)
The Republicans will tell Obama to shove his polls and his plan and make him like it.
And the voters will reward them with control of the Congress in just 11 short months.
btw- no one has "relentlessly filibustered" anything.
Just the prospect of a filibuster has the feckless pussy Democrats shitting themselves.
Cowards.
86
84
now Mattie-pie-
"no one trusts conservatives"?
surely you jest!
40% of Americans self identify AS conservatives.
40% of American WANT to be conservatives (they self identify as Independents- not brave enough to come out of the closet. yet...).
20% of American FEAR conservatives (that's right, the Pussy Liberal Left.)
now Mattie-pie-
"no one trusts conservatives"?
surely you jest!
40% of Americans self identify AS conservatives.
40% of American WANT to be conservatives (they self identify as Independents- not brave enough to come out of the closet. yet...).
20% of American FEAR conservatives (that's right, the Pussy Liberal Left.)
87
84
If you're old enough to recall you'll remember that Conservatives had issues with W all along.
The difference is that we work with and support our Presidents, even the imperfect ones.
It is the Dan Savage Liberals that whine, bitch, cry and piss themselves 24/7 when their President doesn't meet their infantile expectations.
If you're old enough to recall you'll remember that Conservatives had issues with W all along.
The difference is that we work with and support our Presidents, even the imperfect ones.
It is the Dan Savage Liberals that whine, bitch, cry and piss themselves 24/7 when their President doesn't meet their infantile expectations.
88
83
Get a current poll,
Mr "Respect the Public Will"-
A majority of Americans want the present plan flushed.
Get a current poll,
Mr "Respect the Public Will"-
A majority of Americans want the present plan flushed.
89
@88 et al: It's hilarious how conservatives gloat loudly when they win and even more loudly when they lose.
90
Too bad all those conservatives out there don't care enough to finance their party. It turns out they're broke:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/…
Maybe the Repugs won't be taking back control of anything after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/…
Maybe the Repugs won't be taking back control of anything after all.
91
@ 86, your figures are false too. Keep it up; every post you make is just one more little contribution toward extending liberal hegemony.
92
@ 87, if that's true, then you sure were quiet about it. All I heard was the unmistakable slurping sound of anal tonguing from every self-identified conservative and the pleasurable and appreciative moans from W.
93
Allegedly (@86) without more information, your poll statistics are nothing but crap.
First of all, Allegedly, there are few pure liberals or pure conservatives. If one asked me about gun control, I'd say there are better solutions, and everything that is available to the military should be available to civilians. (Much is, and most of what isn't has near equivalents.) On the other hand, I'm ragingly liberal only because my once liberal representatives moved to the right of my position.
Secondly, as Dan pointed out not long ago, no-one is really pro-death so a poll can be bent to say anything, so long as the question is asked in the right way. Are you a stand-up patriot or a wishy-washy sniveling pussy. I mean, even for a guy who sees lunatics who gun down Jews in a memorial museum as stand-up patriots, Allegedly, it should be evident that some polls are not impartial.
Thirdly, Allegedly, thanks to our media, which only proved liberal relative to their owners. The term liberal has become a disparaging term to those who don't remember what it is to be one, hence you're going to find plenty of non-liberals who still have comparatively liberal views. (Some call themselves progressives, which are traditionally leftist Republicans.) So the labels, especially when confined to conservative, independent and liberal are crap themselves.
Seek out a poll with a sampling of over ten thousand that has, say, two hundred questions about specific, common controversies running the gamut (i.e. do you believe first-trimester abortions should be available on demand? yes, no, not sure?) and you might get a better idea of how conservative, moderate (not independent) or liberal our nation's demographics are. In the meantime, feel free to provide links and details of the poll you quote. Until then, it's bullshit.
More...
First of all, Allegedly, there are few pure liberals or pure conservatives. If one asked me about gun control, I'd say there are better solutions, and everything that is available to the military should be available to civilians. (Much is, and most of what isn't has near equivalents.) On the other hand, I'm ragingly liberal only because my once liberal representatives moved to the right of my position.
Secondly, as Dan pointed out not long ago, no-one is really pro-death so a poll can be bent to say anything, so long as the question is asked in the right way. Are you a stand-up patriot or a wishy-washy sniveling pussy. I mean, even for a guy who sees lunatics who gun down Jews in a memorial museum as stand-up patriots, Allegedly, it should be evident that some polls are not impartial.
Thirdly, Allegedly, thanks to our media, which only proved liberal relative to their owners. The term liberal has become a disparaging term to those who don't remember what it is to be one, hence you're going to find plenty of non-liberals who still have comparatively liberal views. (Some call themselves progressives, which are traditionally leftist Republicans.) So the labels, especially when confined to conservative, independent and liberal are crap themselves.
Seek out a poll with a sampling of over ten thousand that has, say, two hundred questions about specific, common controversies running the gamut (i.e. do you believe first-trimester abortions should be available on demand? yes, no, not sure?) and you might get a better idea of how conservative, moderate (not independent) or liberal our nation's demographics are. In the meantime, feel free to provide links and details of the poll you quote. Until then, it's bullshit.
94
So tell me Allegedly (@82), who gets to define the common good? According to Bush, it was Evangelists, Halliburton and big oil. According to you, I suspect, it's Allegedly. We secular liberal types like to have a rule that solidly defines that set that is the common good. It's kinda like having a fast rule that defines what is a planet. You conservative types prefer to keep it ambiguous but I know what it isn't when I see it. Right, Allegedly?
96
It may come as a surprise to you girls but the troll has better things to do than spoon feed morons.
Gallup:
Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group
Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative”
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conser…
Gallup:
Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group
Compared with 2008, more Americans “conservative”
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conser…
98
91
Liberal Hegemony!
good one.
Liberals are a teeny tiny scared of their own shadow 20%.
They don't even have "hegemony" in the Liberal Wing of the Democrap Party...
Liberal Hegemony!
good one.
Liberals are a teeny tiny scared of their own shadow 20%.
They don't even have "hegemony" in the Liberal Wing of the Democrap Party...
99
Aren't you the Sweet Home Alabama guy, Mr. 96? That's right. Here we are.
If you weren't so outright rude, I might have taken you seriously once. I keep wondering why you're here rather than, say, over there. Not enough fags to bash?
If you weren't so outright rude, I might have taken you seriously once. I keep wondering why you're here rather than, say, over there. Not enough fags to bash?
100
Don't worry, just kick back and enjoy the next 10-20 years. Things are rocky for liberals right now but our agenda will not stop dominating politics for a long time. The pendulum only just shifted in our favor, and it doesn't just shift back. All the biased polls in the world won't change that.
102
Yep, Bush is out, the Center is back in!
That leaves you Sloggers shit out of luck with your politics of genitals, free healthcare and weed.
That leaves you Sloggers shit out of luck with your politics of genitals, free healthcare and weed.
103
Yeah, the moderates really love getting left to die when the insurance boards arbitrarily decide to cut their insurance. Or when they get dismissed from one job so that the next time they're covered it's all preexisting conditions. Or being forced to moonlight because no-one wants to hire you full time and let you be qualified for coverage. The moderates dig all that stuff, right Allegedly (@102)?
Do you redefine centrists as fringe as soon as they have a health issue? Is that the way it works, Allegedly, so you can separate those pathetic sick ones from the Beautiful People?
Republicans are as nice to the cripples and crazies as they are to the gays. If only we could sweep them all into a closet somewhere. It's not like they can't choose to discontinue their perverse disabled lifestyles. Right, Allegedly?
Speaking of politics of genitals, according to our conservative neighbors, everyone who doesn't have the right ones (i.e a penis) are also automatically on the fringe. Isn't that so, Allegedly? The Y-Chromosome challenged have those weird complicated bits that bleed sometimes and they just don't deserve comprehensive health care, or equality in the military, or equal pay. Do they, Allegedly? Shouldn't them women-folk all shut up and get back into the kitchen where they belong; It's not like the feminists aren't Dianic witches and lesbians and lesbian witches down to the last little girl. Is it, Allegedly?
Do you redefine centrists as fringe as soon as they have a health issue? Is that the way it works, Allegedly, so you can separate those pathetic sick ones from the Beautiful People?
Republicans are as nice to the cripples and crazies as they are to the gays. If only we could sweep them all into a closet somewhere. It's not like they can't choose to discontinue their perverse disabled lifestyles. Right, Allegedly?
Speaking of politics of genitals, according to our conservative neighbors, everyone who doesn't have the right ones (i.e a penis) are also automatically on the fringe. Isn't that so, Allegedly? The Y-Chromosome challenged have those weird complicated bits that bleed sometimes and they just don't deserve comprehensive health care, or equality in the military, or equal pay. Do they, Allegedly? Shouldn't them women-folk all shut up and get back into the kitchen where they belong; It's not like the feminists aren't Dianic witches and lesbians and lesbian witches down to the last little girl. Is it, Allegedly?
105
Actually, Allegedly, (@104), it doesn't matter whether the post @102 comes from the same source as this guy, this guy, this guy (who was offensive enough to get yanked, and probably is some stray berserker hatemonger) or this guy (who probably is the original Allegedly).
Allegedly has taken liberties with quoting others, including me, sometimes out of context. I, thus, don't see it fit that he is allowed to hide behind his anonymity, only to claim later that [he] didn't say that. Hence, I regard any comment signed with a snarky addendum as originating from Allegedly, even when it appears he's arguing with himself.
(On the other hand, Allegedly's seemed pretty honorable so far about owning what's his, hence I won't tend to follow up on that which he's openly denied.)
There is, of course, a solution. Heck, you don't even need to sign in, just choose a unique name and consistently sign your articles by it. I'll call you by that name instead.
Until then, you're Allegedly. He likes to imagine himself as legion anyway.
More...
Allegedly has taken liberties with quoting others, including me, sometimes out of context. I, thus, don't see it fit that he is allowed to hide behind his anonymity, only to claim later that [he] didn't say that. Hence, I regard any comment signed with a snarky addendum as originating from Allegedly, even when it appears he's arguing with himself.
(On the other hand, Allegedly's seemed pretty honorable so far about owning what's his, hence I won't tend to follow up on that which he's openly denied.)
There is, of course, a solution. Heck, you don't even need to sign in, just choose a unique name and consistently sign your articles by it. I'll call you by that name instead.
Until then, you're Allegedly. He likes to imagine himself as legion anyway.
106
George W. Bush got his then girlfriend, Robin Lowman (now Robin Lowman Garner), an illegal abortion back in 1971 when she was just 15 years old. A witness to this event was silenced by a Bush supporter named James "Jim" Bath (of BCCI scandal) and the man who arranged the abortion, Robert Carl Chandler. The abortion was performed at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston, TX (now the Bayou City Medical Center).
107
@95/96: If you look at what you linked to, you'll see in the comments some quite good refutals of your bullpucky. Care to make our points for us?
@88 (I assume same as above): 6 months old is quite current in terms of what people want in general. (BTW, the poll 95/96 mentioned was almost as old.) You know why people don't like the current bill(s)? Many because the public option has been brutally excised, and just about all because the bill has been laden down with the private agendas of people (mainly on the right) who are milking it for all it's worth. It's not health care reform that people dislike, it's all the riders that have latched, leech-like, onto its supple, humanitarian flanks.
@85 (again I assume same as above): Make no mistake (too late, I suppose), I despise hipsters as much as anyone. BUT:
We have taught you a lesson; people who think like the majority of America (i.e., those who think at all) are in power. And if President Obama wasn't in such a hurry to work with you guys rather than just shove it down your throats (like was done in the Bush 43 years), your marriages (if you could convince any sort of low-down wench to marry you) would already be threatened by homosexuals sharing the right to marry with those they love. The will of the people brought the Democrats to power and took out the trash. QED.
Speaking of, you dumbasses HAD control of Congress up until a few years ago. What made the American public switch their loyalties, anyway? I dunno...maybe it was two unfinished wars, a stark flip from Clinton's budget surplus to Bush's gargantuan deficit, attacks on personal freedoms of citizens (PATRIOT ACT w00t), and more tax cuts to the rich (who tend to sit on their fortunes rather than invest). If you guys have your finger on the pulse of public opinion, it is only because you are trying to choke out all rational thought from the arena of politics.
You know it's a sad time for you when instead of arguing the points, you are making lofty predictions of right-wing triumph in the next elections. Guess what? Your kind was saying the same thing back in 2008. "McCain will win, and usher in a glorious new victory of conservatism!" Did he? No! Because in the end, all the Republican Party has to offer is the same-ol'-same-ol' of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, interfering with the freedom of the press, invading the privacy of its citizens, running up deficits, causing civil rights to stagnate under a thick layer of fundamentalist Christianity, and generally making a balls of the situation.
In Conclusion:
You are a thundering dumbass, all however-many of you, and your use of a different quasi-witty nick on each post does nothing to disguise your fearful blustering or your critical concentration of ignorance. As a proper education is necessary in today's world, I suggest that you attend night school or an online college; I suggest an associate's degree in Arrogant Windbaggery with perhaps a minor in Modern Anencephalic Thought.
P.S. @85: Of course my dick is limp, you leotarded yokel. What, you think I'm turned on by the semi-literate ravings of bilious trolls? Ew. You must be confusing me with somebody else. And yes, "my" polls are just as useful as my dick: neither is particularly useful on its own, but when properly applied, both can work wonders on the audience. (In some cases an audience of 2.)
More...
@88 (I assume same as above): 6 months old is quite current in terms of what people want in general. (BTW, the poll 95/96 mentioned was almost as old.) You know why people don't like the current bill(s)? Many because the public option has been brutally excised, and just about all because the bill has been laden down with the private agendas of people (mainly on the right) who are milking it for all it's worth. It's not health care reform that people dislike, it's all the riders that have latched, leech-like, onto its supple, humanitarian flanks.
@85 (again I assume same as above): Make no mistake (too late, I suppose), I despise hipsters as much as anyone. BUT:
We have taught you a lesson; people who think like the majority of America (i.e., those who think at all) are in power. And if President Obama wasn't in such a hurry to work with you guys rather than just shove it down your throats (like was done in the Bush 43 years), your marriages (if you could convince any sort of low-down wench to marry you) would already be threatened by homosexuals sharing the right to marry with those they love. The will of the people brought the Democrats to power and took out the trash. QED.
Speaking of, you dumbasses HAD control of Congress up until a few years ago. What made the American public switch their loyalties, anyway? I dunno...maybe it was two unfinished wars, a stark flip from Clinton's budget surplus to Bush's gargantuan deficit, attacks on personal freedoms of citizens (PATRIOT ACT w00t), and more tax cuts to the rich (who tend to sit on their fortunes rather than invest). If you guys have your finger on the pulse of public opinion, it is only because you are trying to choke out all rational thought from the arena of politics.
You know it's a sad time for you when instead of arguing the points, you are making lofty predictions of right-wing triumph in the next elections. Guess what? Your kind was saying the same thing back in 2008. "McCain will win, and usher in a glorious new victory of conservatism!" Did he? No! Because in the end, all the Republican Party has to offer is the same-ol'-same-ol' of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, interfering with the freedom of the press, invading the privacy of its citizens, running up deficits, causing civil rights to stagnate under a thick layer of fundamentalist Christianity, and generally making a balls of the situation.
In Conclusion:
You are a thundering dumbass, all however-many of you, and your use of a different quasi-witty nick on each post does nothing to disguise your fearful blustering or your critical concentration of ignorance. As a proper education is necessary in today's world, I suggest that you attend night school or an online college; I suggest an associate's degree in Arrogant Windbaggery with perhaps a minor in Modern Anencephalic Thought.
P.S. @85: Of course my dick is limp, you leotarded yokel. What, you think I'm turned on by the semi-literate ravings of bilious trolls? Ew. You must be confusing me with somebody else. And yes, "my" polls are just as useful as my dick: neither is particularly useful on its own, but when properly applied, both can work wonders on the audience. (In some cases an audience of 2.)
109
no one,
and we mean NO ONE,
thought McCain would usher in a glorious new victory of "conservatism".
During the primaries McCain wasn't in the top 3 choices of most conservatives.
And factually it is probable that a McCain trying to appeal to "moderates" as he liked to do would have been more Liberal on some social issues (including homosexual issues) than Obama trying to reach out to Conservatives has turned out to be.
and we mean NO ONE,
thought McCain would usher in a glorious new victory of "conservatism".
During the primaries McCain wasn't in the top 3 choices of most conservatives.
And factually it is probable that a McCain trying to appeal to "moderates" as he liked to do would have been more Liberal on some social issues (including homosexual issues) than Obama trying to reach out to Conservatives has turned out to be.
110
107
you should share this information with Obama.
because he has gutted the plan and enraged and disheartened his base to no purpose whatsoever, if your numbers are correct.
if.
you should share this information with Obama.
because he has gutted the plan and enraged and disheartened his base to no purpose whatsoever, if your numbers are correct.
if.
111
107
The GOP got voted out of control of the congress because they were acting like democrats.
they deserved it and this Conservative was not sorry to see them go.
and if they have not learned a lesson I hope they do not retake congress in 2010.
If congress is going to spend the country into ruinous debt let the democrats do it- that is what THEY believe in.
(most of the debt that was run up during Bush's term came during the democratic congress, and Obama/democratic congress have more debt in one year than Bush did in eight...)
The GOP got voted out of control of the congress because they were acting like democrats.
they deserved it and this Conservative was not sorry to see them go.
and if they have not learned a lesson I hope they do not retake congress in 2010.
If congress is going to spend the country into ruinous debt let the democrats do it- that is what THEY believe in.
(most of the debt that was run up during Bush's term came during the democratic congress, and Obama/democratic congress have more debt in one year than Bush did in eight...)
112
@ 111, I'd believe conservatives if only one of them - just one - would talk about cutting the Defense budget. Because I've never met any kind of conservative who didn't seem to be just fine with throwing money into that pit and not questioning whether we really need, say, 12 supercarrier groups when the sum total of supercarrier groups that all the rest of the world's navies have is zero.
113
@109: Again, the ConSmurfatives retroactively reject somebody whose butt they could not lick enough. Though perhaps Caribou Barbie appealed to you guys more than McCain, seeing as she's just a regular Main Street American who can see Russia from her window.
@110: Obama already has this information, you imbecile. He has a hell of a lot of staff devoted to keeping information straight for him. I'm 100% certain that the White House has heard about that poll. What makes me curious is your assertion that Obama has gutted the plan, as he does not write the bills. It's asshole turncoats like Joe the Bummer who insist on petty modifications that sap the bill's impact. The only thing Obama's done wrong is not galvanizing his party enough to act as one and give their bill the support it needs.
@111: I'd say that the Republicans are the ones mortgaging our children's "futute" (whatever that is), considering that in a typical year in the Bush Presidency, roughly 50% of the budget went to defense and only 8% went to education. And if the GOP lost the elections because they were acting like Democrats, then why did they lose seats to Democrats themselves, if liberals have such poor priorities? Pardon my French, but What The Holy Fuck Are You Saying?
Do you somehow think that because the Democrats controlled Congress, that the budget was under their control? They conceded to the Bush regime because, since they did not have enough votes necessarily to override a veto, it was make some capitulations, or don't pass a budget at all. In the interest of keeping the nation running in the short term, the Democrats were forced to go along with the reckless spending.
And no shit, Obama's been spending a lot. It takes a lot of spending to get an economy out of A FUCKING RECESSION/DEPRESSION OF THIS MAGNITUDE. Which Bush caused with his deregulation of Wall Street.
And you dare dispute my numbers? I posted a LINK. Read it, assuming you are literate and not just dictating to your cousin Bubba. It's a USA Today/Gallup poll, with questions having a margin of error of either +/-2 or +/-3 percent. It's accurate, so shut your fucking gob.
Now, Democrats do not believe in ruinous debt. They do believe in spending a lot to help the country and its people, and the reforms and programs we want would be financed quite easily by a slight tax hike on those who can afford it (the ultra-rich) and by cleaning out the morass of needless bureaucracy left by the Bushies.
Needless to say, none of you cock-mongling queefburgers will even consider any of this, as opposing viewpoints, rational debate, and even logical thought cause the heads of people like you to explode in severe allergic reactions. OH YES I WENT THERE! JUST LIKE WHERE I WENT WITH YO MOMMA LAST NIGHT!
More...
@110: Obama already has this information, you imbecile. He has a hell of a lot of staff devoted to keeping information straight for him. I'm 100% certain that the White House has heard about that poll. What makes me curious is your assertion that Obama has gutted the plan, as he does not write the bills. It's asshole turncoats like Joe the Bummer who insist on petty modifications that sap the bill's impact. The only thing Obama's done wrong is not galvanizing his party enough to act as one and give their bill the support it needs.
@111: I'd say that the Republicans are the ones mortgaging our children's "futute" (whatever that is), considering that in a typical year in the Bush Presidency, roughly 50% of the budget went to defense and only 8% went to education. And if the GOP lost the elections because they were acting like Democrats, then why did they lose seats to Democrats themselves, if liberals have such poor priorities? Pardon my French, but What The Holy Fuck Are You Saying?
Do you somehow think that because the Democrats controlled Congress, that the budget was under their control? They conceded to the Bush regime because, since they did not have enough votes necessarily to override a veto, it was make some capitulations, or don't pass a budget at all. In the interest of keeping the nation running in the short term, the Democrats were forced to go along with the reckless spending.
And no shit, Obama's been spending a lot. It takes a lot of spending to get an economy out of A FUCKING RECESSION/DEPRESSION OF THIS MAGNITUDE. Which Bush caused with his deregulation of Wall Street.
And you dare dispute my numbers? I posted a LINK. Read it, assuming you are literate and not just dictating to your cousin Bubba. It's a USA Today/Gallup poll, with questions having a margin of error of either +/-2 or +/-3 percent. It's accurate, so shut your fucking gob.
Now, Democrats do not believe in ruinous debt. They do believe in spending a lot to help the country and its people, and the reforms and programs we want would be financed quite easily by a slight tax hike on those who can afford it (the ultra-rich) and by cleaning out the morass of needless bureaucracy left by the Bushies.
Needless to say, none of you cock-mongling queefburgers will even consider any of this, as opposing viewpoints, rational debate, and even logical thought cause the heads of people like you to explode in severe allergic reactions. OH YES I WENT THERE! JUST LIKE WHERE I WENT WITH YO MOMMA LAST NIGHT!
114
@113: Allow me to translate. It goes like this:
"We didn't lose because the American public disagrees with us, man, we lost because they agree with us TOO MUCH."
"We didn't lose because the American public disagrees with us, man, we lost because they agree with us TOO MUCH."
115
@114: Wow, it's good to know that someone here can translate from Dumbass to English, since I seem to be unable to find a dictionary for that. So, you guys lost the support of the voters because they agree with you? That's just as fucked as the rest of what you've been saying. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up, all right? We don't need to be educated by the profoundly uneducated, of which yourself is a shining example. Don't let any of your stupid rub off on us, you gibbering twathead.
117
I pick apart your arguments and, finding plenty of time left over, decide to insult you a little. So...you're the one spouting inanities and faulty logic...but I'm the one who "got nuthin"? Wow!!! It is suddenly all clear to me now!
Not.
You know what? Not only are your arguments nonsensical, but YOU'RE A DUMBASS!
Not.
You know what? Not only are your arguments nonsensical, but YOU'RE A DUMBASS!
120
Here's a resolution that I'm sure a lot of people can get behind. I resolve to not get into endless, pointless debates with others whose political beliefs are different from mine.
Oh, yeah, and ditto on the W, Dan.
Oh, yeah, and ditto on the W, Dan.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (120) RSS