Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Conservatism Succumbing to Mediocrity?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the Presidential Candidates Being Fielded by the Republican Party are Any Indication, Can We Say that Conservatism is Succumbing to Mediocrity?

What can one say about that dear heart, Herman Cain, the current surprise front-runner of the Grand Old Party? Aside from the fact that he's the Vidkun Quisling of African Americans there's his 9-9-9 plan (hey evangelicals, invert it and you get a 6-6-6 plan!), an economic plan that includes a dream tax for the richest among us, and a nightmarishly lock-stock-and-barrel abolition of the social safety net, including both Social Security and Medicare (grandma and grandpa ought to just die and decrease the surplus population anyway, hmm?). Okay, I guess he qualifies as an authentic "conservative" despite his stark racial inappropriateness for a predominantly Caucasoid camp.

Then there's that good ole Texan boy Rick Perry with his fond childhood memories of quality time with dad at the family's "Ni**erhead" hunting lodge. Incidentally, speaking of lodges, he's the same Rick Perry who's backed by religious rightists (Apostolic Reformationists, who make Billy Graham look like a secular humanist!) who a few years ago performed an exorcism on every Masonic lodge in the "Prophet state", as they've dubbed the state of Texas. Of course Governor Perry not only appeals to wannabe American ayatollahs who would earnestly like to transform the country into a totalitarian theocracy, i.e. a biblical Big Brother state, he also smarmily spouts the kind of pro-big business rhetoric that our society's corporations and their potentates enjoy hearing and that's become de rigueur for conservative Republicans. Well, corporations are people too, right Rick?

Should I even waste any characters on pray-the-gay-away Michele Bachmann? She and her husband can now fade from the electoral limelight to devote their time to psychotherapeutically curing homosexuals of their heinous-anus pathology and fighting the mock-noble fight in Congress for the imperiled special interests of the corporate benefactors of the working class. Likewise, her fellow anti-feminist female non-candidate Sarah Palin (yes, she's an increasingly self-parodic bad joke wrapped in oxymorons inside a hypocrisy we've come to expect from "conservatives") can return to unsportingly shooting bears and whorishly maintaining her celebrity on reality TV.

And then there's Mitt Romney. Well, according to Rush Limbaugh he's not really, truly, or sufficiently puristically "conservative". Hmm, Rush Limbaugh may be an iconic ideologue of the right, but he's hardly a universally acknowledged arbiter of the definition of a "conservative", so I'm going to respectfully disagree with his statement that Romney is a "nice guy" but not a conservative. I don't think that he's either a very nice guy (when he was in the private sector he certainly wasn't anyone's definition of "nice" to all the blue-collar workers he put on unemployment), or a moderate. Nope, he's most definitely and staunchly a pro-fat cat and anti-underdog type, and he's certainly not at all progressive on issues such as capital punishment and the environment.

So what, pray tell, in Mr. Limbaugh's skewed-to-the-far-right worldview, disqualifies Mitt Romney from being a real-deal fellow traveler of the conservative movement that he, the meister of mean, self-appointedly spearheads? What, does the fact that a Romney presidency would only threaten to cripplingly shoot Social Security in the foot and leave its recipients limping more pronouncedly to the proverbial poor house, rather than fatally shooting it in the back of the head à la Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, make Romney an unacceptably lukewarm excuse for a "conservative"? Or perhaps Romney isn't sufficiently anti-choice, after all he apparently would allow rape and incest victims to have access to legal abortion procedures. He also probably doesn't appeal much to right-wing gun nuts, since he would ban assault rifles. But hey, conservatives, he's anti-union and opposed to raising the minimum wage.

So, is this what the American conservative movement has finally and dismally degenerated into? The camp of heartless free-marketarian purists who view Social Security and any regulation of corporate avarice as insidious "creeping socialism", right-wing theocrats, anti-abortion zealots, NRAers who masturbate to images of .44 Magnums, telegenic lady politicos who condemn the women's movement, etc., etc.?

It certainly would appear, if the current slate of Republican presidential hopefuls is any indication, that the right has found its level, which turns out to be one of ideological mediocrity and unspiritual meanness, despite its advocacy of putatively logical and faith-based public policy. Once upon a time in this land the persons of note and notoriety on the conservative side at least had some integrity and intellect. Their integrity was of course misplaced in the form of loyalty to ill-conceived ideas & ideals. And their intellect served to rationalizingly dress up the benighted and uncompassionate attitudes lurking behind said ill-conceived ideals & ideals. But increasingly the self-vaunted integrity and intellectuality of conservatives is indeed flimsily faux integrity and intellectuality.

Rapidly fading from the collective memory of our political culture are the likes of Barry Goldwater, whose politics were appallingly conservative but who still maintained real conviction and common sense. As have vanished the excellence, moral and mental, of William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk. Nowadays George W. Bush and Rick Perry (according to insiders Perry is actually a few IQ watts shy of being the dim bulb that Dubya is popularly perceived to be) represent the declining standards of intellectuality of the conservative movement. And Sarah Palin represents the rising appeal of vapidity to much of the right-leaning segment of the public. And if this isn't pathetically sad commentary enough, Newt Gingrich passes for a veritable conservative highbrow!

This decline in the caliber, characterological and intellectual, of conservatives and their movement was all quite inevitable of course, not at all a fluke or merely a result of the bigger picture of our society's trend toward mediocrity. Conservatism, alas, has always emanated from an unevolved, a morally, spiritually, attitudinally, and intellectually unevolved place in the human psyche that will predictably always bring it down into the gutter of such vulgarisms as fundamentalism, nationalism, racism, pro-capitalism, and partisan politics.

Say what?! At its stripped-of-rationalization core the conservative outlook is quite simply an unreconstructedly alpha male/female, social dominance-oriented, authoritarian mentality. A nearly Neanderthaloid mentality consisting of amoral and unspiritual mental positions that run much deeper than a conservative's conscious and sanctimonious opinions. The real conscience (if one can loosely call it that) of a "conservative", that is, is that of his/her inner caveman, which axiologically esteems raw strength and dominance, and which thinks in terms of morality and society being undergirded by the force of authority. Hence the conservative's wont to admire and identify with the interests of the rich, our society's latter-day dominant males (and females) – and the conservative's boosterism for capitalism, a system that permits individuals to attain to social dominance through the achievement of economic wealth and superiority. Hence also the conservative's unempathetic disregard for poor people and welfare recipients, who are viewed through caveman lenses as inferior losers who don't deserve society's compassionate support.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:02:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

And hence the rest of the motley mediocre positions of the conservative ideology. E.g., conservative moralism on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and pornography, which stems from self-righteous adherence to authoritarian ethical-religious beliefs and bestows on the conservative both a secure sense of being in the bosom of his/her moral authorities, and of personal moral superiority. And conservative nationalism, which psychologically involves identifying with the strength and espousing the authority embodied by one's national tribe. And the tough law & order, pro-death penalty stance of conservatives, which expresses the mentality that crime is to be dealt with by asserting the dominance of society's "good people" over the "criminal element" with law enforcement and harsh penalties. And the pro-military, support-the-troops jingoism of conservatives, which manifests their macho mindset's respect for their national tribe's warriors, its alpha males in uniform; as well as fulfilling an unconscious desire to partake of a sense of personal prowess by publically expressing affinity with manly military men.

And on, and on. All of the other views and stances of conservatives likewise cognitively-emotionally trace back to underlying crude alpha male thought patterns and psychological attitudes. The current crudity, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, of conservatism's crop of presidential candidates is no surprise at all then, conservatism really has found its natural level. The Rick Perrys and Sarah Palins of contemporary politics are the true if disappointing face of their movement and the feeble best that they can now put up to run against a Democrat for the highest office in the land. Tear-jerkingly sad commentary indeed.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:16:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

Thank you for your input. Good points. Although I think that racist Republicans are also voting for Herman Cain as a way of in effect saying to the other candidates "See, we're so dissatisfied with you lot that we've voted for a black man out of spite."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But I wanted to see why you though Ron Paul was a corporatist, racist, gun fetishist, abortion hating, fascistic piece of slime! Why no love to Paul?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:22:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

You don't think that Obama's color greatly influenced the black vote? How idealistic and foolish.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For a while I thought charles actually didn't throw in alpha male/female, but it turns out he just didn't italicize it.

Why didn't you mention Ron Paul? Because he's better than the rest and makes it impossible to paint conservatives as incompetent?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:21:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
But I wanted to see why you though Ron Paul was a corporatist, racist, gun fetishist, abortion hating, fascistic piece of slime! Why no love to Paul?

Even charleslb is blacking him out.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:25:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:16:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

Thank you for your input. Good points. Although I think that racist Republicans are also voting for Herman Cain as a way of in effect saying to the other candidates "See, we're so dissatisfied with you lot that we've voted for a black man out of spite."

...wat.

The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists. I believe that those who are voting for him are doing it base on his 9-9-9 plan and the fact he hasn't been in politics. I don't believe there is any attempt to dilute the black vote. And if you can use them voting for Herman Cain as evidence for them being racist, then that's taking circular reasoning to a whole new level.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:48:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM, mongoose wrote:
For a while I thought charles actually didn't throw in alpha male/female, but it turns out he just didn't italicize it.

Why didn't you mention Ron Paul? Because he's better than the rest and makes it impossible to paint conservatives as incompetent?

Didn't mention Ron Paul for a couple of reasons. Firstly, although he's running in the Republican primaries, and although I might consider him to be conservative, of the paleo- variety, I know that some of you-all consider him to be a libertarian and would go off on a tangent about how he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the conservative dross. Secondly, I simply didn't see fit to mention Paul because he's not as interesting to me as he apparently is to some others here. And btw, if some of you are primed to defend Dr. Paul, here's a little factoid on him. Ron Paul is a racist, he spent the 90s writing racist newsletters. Now you can set to rationalizingly wriggling your way out of this "inconvenient truth" about your political hero.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:53:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM, mongoose wrote:
For a while I thought charles actually didn't throw in alpha male/female, but it turns out he just didn't italicize it
Lol.

The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists.
Real white nationalists voted for Obama last election, true fact.

http://www.esquire.com...

So what, pray tell, in Mr. Limbaugh's skewed-to-the-far-right worldview, disqualifies Mitt Romney from being a real-deal fellow traveler of the conservative movement that he, the meister of mean, self-appointedly spearheads?
Romneycare, Charles. That's the biggest thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 7:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:22:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

You don't think that Obama's color greatly influenced the black vote? How idealistic and foolish.

lol I'm idealistic and foolish for simply stating a fact? There are a few Black people out there that only voted for Obama because of his skin color, but the majority of the African American voting community has historically voted Democratic for quite some time. The notion that you think his skin color GREATLY influenced the Black vote is actually quite foolish on your part.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:53:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM, mongoose wrote:
For a while I thought charles actually didn't throw in alpha male/female, but it turns out he just didn't italicize it
Lol.

Uninteresting personal observation.

The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists.
Real white nationalists voted for Obama last election, true fact.

Why use a euphemism for racists such as "white nationalist" unless one leans in the direction of the racist persuasion? And then there's your Germanic screen name. Hmm?

http://www.esquire.com...

So what, pray tell, in Mr. Limbaugh's skewed-to-the-far-right worldview, disqualifies Mitt Romney from being a real-deal fellow traveler of the conservative movement that he, the meister of mean, self-appointedly spearheads?
Romneycare, Charles. That's the biggest thing.

You folks on the right seem to think that it's snappy & clever to put down any proposed universal health care plan by neologistically adding the word "care" to the name of the individual doing the proposing.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:09:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:56:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

You don't think that Obama's color greatly influenced the black vote? How idealistic and foolish.

lol I'm idealistic and foolish for simply stating a fact? There are a few Black people out there that only voted for Obama because of his skin color, but the majority of the African American voting community has historically voted Democratic for quite some time. The notion that you think his skin color GREATLY influenced the Black vote is actually quite foolish on your part.

88% of negroes voted for kerry in 2004: http://www.cnn.com...

96% voted for Obama in 2008: http://articles.cnn.com...

I know that blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat, I was never denying that. But I would call an almost 10% difference pretty significant.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:10:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:23:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:21:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
But I wanted to see why you though Ron Paul was a corporatist, racist, gun fetishist, abortion hating, fascistic piece of slime! Why no love to Paul?

Even charleslb is blacking him out.

Lol, theres so much material on Paul for Charles to use and he goes with the discredited racist theory? Seriously? Paul is the most pro-market candidate running!
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:09:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:56:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

You don't think that Obama's color greatly influenced the black vote? How idealistic and foolish.

lol I'm idealistic and foolish for simply stating a fact? There are a few Black people out there that only voted for Obama because of his skin color, but the majority of the African American voting community has historically voted Democratic for quite some time. The notion that you think his skin color GREATLY influenced the Black vote is actually quite foolish on your part.

88% of negroes voted for kerry in 2004: http://www.cnn.com...

96% voted for Obama in 2008: http://articles.cnn.com...

I know that blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat, I was never denying that. But I would call an almost 10% difference pretty significant.

lol Dude, you just proved my point. 10% difference = GREAT influence? I think not. That is a minimal influence, and the only reason it occurred was because there was a call for more people to vote in the 2008 election. How does that mean that skin color was a significant factor? If Obama was Republican, do you think even 30% of Black people would have voted for him?.... I rest my case. You have no case what so ever. Black people vote democrat, skin color is of minimal influence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:03:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists.
Real white nationalists voted for Obama last election, true fact.

Why use a euphemism for racists such as "white nationalist" unless one leans in the direction of the racist persuasion?
It's not a euphemism, it's a specification. All white nationalists are racists, not all racists are white nationalists. White nationalists, among other things, are significantly more committed. Besides, had I said "Real racists voted for Obama," people might be confused and think I was talking about pro-black racists. You see the problem? It would go from an unusual observation to a banal one.

And then there's your Germanic screen name.
Wow, what a racist, or nationalist, or ethnicist, or wtfever means of characterization :P.

Romneycare, Charles. That's the biggest thing.

You folks on the right seem to think that it's snappy & clever to put down any proposed universal health care plan by neologistically adding the word "care" to the name of the individual doing the proposing.
It's snappy-- one word. It's also a meme. Importantly, however, it should be entirely obvious that the "individual doing the proposing" is unqualified for modern conservatism in the neoclassical liberal sense.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:29:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:17:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 8:09:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:56:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:09:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
Herman Cain, I suspect, is just a pathetic attempt by the GOP to divide the Black American vote. Thats why he's rapidly becoming popular. The republicans honestly believe that Black people only voted for Obama because of his skin color, and think that throwing in Mr. 999 into the game would disrupt that voting block. If Cain does win the nomination, the GOP is in for a slap in the face from the African American community come November 2012.

You don't think that Obama's color greatly influenced the black vote? How idealistic and foolish.

lol I'm idealistic and foolish for simply stating a fact? There are a few Black people out there that only voted for Obama because of his skin color, but the majority of the African American voting community has historically voted Democratic for quite some time. The notion that you think his skin color GREATLY influenced the Black vote is actually quite foolish on your part.

88% of negroes voted for kerry in 2004: http://www.cnn.com...

96% voted for Obama in 2008: http://articles.cnn.com...

I know that blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat, I was never denying that. But I would call an almost 10% difference pretty significant.

lol Dude, you just proved my point. 10% difference = GREAT influence? I think not. That is a minimal influence, and the only reason it occurred was because there was a call for more people to vote in the 2008 election. How does that mean that skin color was a significant factor? If Obama was Republican, do you think even 30% of Black people would have voted for him?.... I rest my case. You have no case what so ever. Black people vote democrat, skin color is of minimal influence.

10% of blacks= 1% of the total population. I guess you don't really understand how elections work, but 1% is, believe it or not, highly significant. Look to the 2000 election for an example, Bush won florida by 537 votes.

If 10% more blacks (1.6% of the total) voted for Gore, he would've won the presidency. Do you see what I mean? It gets very very close sometimes. So yes, it is a great difference.

Your explanation for a bigger percentage of negroes voting for Obama than Kerry makes no sense.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:01:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:48:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM, mongoose wrote:
For a while I thought charles actually didn't throw in alpha male/female, but it turns out he just didn't italicize it.

Why didn't you mention Ron Paul? Because he's better than the rest and makes it impossible to paint conservatives as incompetent?

Didn't mention Ron Paul for a couple of reasons. Firstly, although he's running in the Republican primaries, and although I might consider him to be conservative, of the paleo- variety, I know that some of you-all consider him to be a libertarian and would go off on a tangent about how he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the conservative dross. Secondly, I simply didn't see fit to mention Paul because he's not as interesting to me as he apparently is to some others here. And btw, if some of you are primed to defend Dr. Paul, here's a little factoid on him. Ron Paul is a racist, he spent the 90s writing racist newsletters. Now you can set to rationalizingly wriggling your way out of this "inconvenient truth" about your political hero.

Pretty much nobody believes that Ron Paul actually wrote those newsletters. It's been completely discreditted. I think the real reason you don't include Ron Paul is because he's invincible to anything you can throw at him. If you take out the best of conservatism, paleo- or not, then of course conservatism is "Succumbing to Mediocrity." Not counting the top 10% of anything will make the average quality of the remaining whatever lower .
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 7:53:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:22:48 PM, mongoose wrote:
The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists.
Real white nationalists voted for Obama last election, true fact.

http://www.esquire.com...

...wow. That's interesting, though I'd prefer more statistics. However, all of the white racists who voted for Obama weren't racist against blacks, they were separatists. The only dissenter from that was in fact anti-black.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:12:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://reason.com...

The entire racist letter fiasco is long discreditted. Just admit it, you have nothing true on him.

Regarding what you say about plans for Social Security, honestly, we have to make some changes. What choice do we have? The government of decades ago promised people money, and now that money is gone, spent on various government projects without increasing the deficit, and we can't punish those who spent the money because they're long gone, leaving us in a very awkward situation financially. The money isn't there. How do you propose we get the money? More taxes? Raisng tax rates doesn't generate more revenue, paradoxically enough, due to its disincentives. Less spending? We'd have to cut to the bone, and then cut into the actual essentials of government, like the police or court system. More borrowing? Like that hasn't led to a large enough problem already.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:14:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, did you really just compare Herman Cain to Vidkun Quisling? How did you react when that one guy compared Obama to Hitler, and not even to imply similar policy or ideology?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 1:41:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:14:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
Also, did you really just compare Herman Cain to Vidkun Quisling? How did you react when that one guy compared Obama to Hitler, and not even to imply similar policy or ideology?

Well, any comparison of Obama to Hitler would be rather inapt and on an intellectual level I would take issue with it, but I certainly would have little emotional reaction, since I'm no Obama booster. I view Obama as just another conventional politician, i.e. a glorified minion of the moneyed elite, a kowtowing courtier of the corporate establishment.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:12:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
http://reason.com...

The entire racist letter fiasco is long discreditted...

Oh yeah, perhaps to the satisfaction of his right-libertarian supporters, but certainly by no means to everyone else's satisfaction. Even if Lew Rockwell actually penned the newsletters in question, we still have a sordid and cynical tale of pandering to the identity politics of angry white men, and of profiteering (I quote from the reason.com article you cite: "The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates...").

And certainly Dr. Paul's response to this dreadful blemish on his record of "public service" has lacked integrity and consistency. Again, according to the article that you cite, in 1996 Paul initially defended and stood by his racist newsletters, then in 2001, when he came to appreciate what a political liability then had become he attempted to disown them!

Quite simply, no individual with any degree of enlightenment on the issue of race & racism would be able to tolerate for a New York minute being associated with the antiblack comments contained in Dr. Paul's infamous newsletters. That he didn't renounce and repudiate being affiliated with said newsletters does in fact say something, and something significant about his character. When Jimmy Swaggart stood in front of the cameras and crocodile-tearfully said "I have sinned" he demonstrated more character in dealing with his scandal than pass-the-buck Paul.

http://newsone.com...

Regarding what you say about plans for Social Security, honestly, we have to make some changes. What choice do we have? The government of decades ago promised people money, and now that money is gone, spent on various government projects without increasing the deficit, and we can't punish those who spent the money because they're long gone, leaving us in a very awkward situation financially. The money isn't there. How do you propose we get the money? More taxes? Raisng tax rates doesn't generate more revenue, paradoxically enough, due to its disincentives. Less spending? We'd have to cut to the bone, and then cut into the actual essentials of government, like the police or court system. More borrowing? Like that hasn't led to a large enough problem already.

Come now mongeese, let's get honest here. Conservatives don't really and merely wish to save Social Security, they don't believe in it, on ideological grounds, and wish to abolish it. Shame on you for being dissembling here about this.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 2:51:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 10:01:58 PM, mongoose wrote:

Pretty much nobody believes that Ron Paul actually wrote those newsletters. It's been completely discreditted. I think the real reason you don't include Ron Paul is because he's invincible to anything you can throw at him. If you take out the best of conservatism, paleo- or not, then of course conservatism is "Succumbing to Mediocrity." Not counting the top 10% of anything will make the average quality of the remaining whatever lower .

Ha! Clearly you have an exaggerated idea of Dr. Paul as some sort of pristine political paladin. I, on the other hand (the left hand, shall we say), view him as just another ideologically hardcore, totalistic advocate of free-market fundamentalism, i.e. of recklessly unfettering capitalist greed by abolishing any & all regulation, and of heartlessly eliminating the entire social safety net for working-class victims of said capitalist greed. No, he may be an "invincible" and superficially Teflon Tea Party icon, but that's only within Tea Party circles of course. Venture outside of his ideological fan base and you'll find that he's not at all such a universally recognized and immune-to-criticism champion of the people.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 3:06:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 2:20:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/15/2011 11:12:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
http://reason.com...

The entire racist letter fiasco is long discreditted...

Oh yeah, perhaps to the satisfaction of his right-libertarian supporters, but certainly by no means to everyone else's satisfaction.

Then who else still thinks that he wrote them?

Even if Lew Rockwell actually penned the newsletters in question, we still have a sordid and cynical tale of pandering to the identity politics of angry white men, and of profiteering (I quote from the reason.com article you cite: "The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates...").

Except that the pandering was by Lew Rockwell, not Ron Paul. There's no evidence that he agreed with the pandering, since he didn't recall anything about them.

And certainly Dr. Paul's response to this dreadful blemish on his record of "public service" has lacked integrity and consistency. Again, according to the article that you cite, in 1996 Paul initially defended and stood by his racist newsletters, then in 2001, when he came to appreciate what a political liability then had become he attempted to disown them!

He didn't attribute them to a ghostwriter because it would have been too confusing.

Quite simply, no individual with any degree of enlightenment on the issue of race & racism would be able to tolerate for a New York minute being associated with the antiblack comments contained in Dr. Paul's infamous newsletters. That he didn't renounce and repudiate being affiliated with said newsletters does in fact say something, and something significant about his character.

I think you're also blowing out of proportion just how bad the letters are. Yes, they discussed blacks, but to my recollection it wasn't quite at the level of racism. He used studies to back his claims; is stating facts that happen to reflect poorly on a particular race racist?

When Jimmy Swaggart stood in front of the cameras and crocodile-tearfully said "I have sinned" he demonstrated more character in dealing with his scandal than pass-the-buck Paul.

Note that Swaggart had actually sinned, and rather badly, too.

http://newsone.com...

Just reading the letters, they sound very little like Ron Paul and much more like Lew Rockwell.

Regarding what you say about plans for Social Security, honestly, we have to make some changes. What choice do we have? The government of decades ago promised people money, and now that money is gone, spent on various government projects without increasing the deficit, and we can't punish those who spent the money because they're long gone, leaving us in a very awkward situation financially. The money isn't there. How do you propose we get the money? More taxes? Raisng tax rates doesn't generate more revenue, paradoxically enough, due to its disincentives. Less spending? We'd have to cut to the bone, and then cut into the actual essentials of government, like the police or court system. More borrowing? Like that hasn't led to a large enough problem already.

Come now mongeese, let's get honest here. Conservatives don't really and merely wish to save Social Security, they don't believe in it, on ideological grounds, and wish to abolish it. Shame on you for being dissembling here about this.

They wish to privatize it, but they don't want to abolish it as long anyone who has put money into the system is still owed money that no longer exists. It's a financial problem, and there's no easy solution, period. If we had the money, I'd say to give it to them in full as planned, but we don't. What do you think we should do about the situation?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 3:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 2:51:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/15/2011 10:01:58 PM, mongoose wrote:

Pretty much nobody believes that Ron Paul actually wrote those newsletters. It's been completely discreditted. I think the real reason you don't include Ron Paul is because he's invincible to anything you can throw at him. If you take out the best of conservatism, paleo- or not, then of course conservatism is "Succumbing to Mediocrity." Not counting the top 10% of anything will make the average quality of the remaining whatever lower .

Ha! Clearly you have an exaggerated idea of Dr. Paul as some sort of pristine political paladin. I, on the other hand (the left hand, shall we say), view him as just another ideologically hardcore, totalistic advocate of free-market fundamentalism, i.e. of recklessly unfettering capitalist greed by abolishing any & all regulation, and of heartlessly eliminating the entire social safety net for working-class victims of said capitalist greed. No, he may be an "invincible" and superficially Teflon Tea Party icon, but that's only within Tea Party circles of course. Venture outside of his ideological fan base and you'll find that he's not at all such a universally recognized and immune-to-criticism champion of the people.

Then why didn't you say anything about him in your initial post? Here's a challenge for you. Write a paragraph about why Ron Paul is bad without calling him a racist using only logic.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 3:27:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:17:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2011 8:03:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
The few racist Republicans, whoever they are, wouldn't vote for Cain, being racists.
Real white nationalists voted for Obama last election, true fact.

Why use a euphemism for racists such as "white nationalist" unless one leans in the direction of the racist persuasion?
It's not a euphemism, it's a specification. All white nationalists are racists, not all racists are white nationalists. White nationalists, among other things, are significantly more committed. Besides, had I said "Real racists voted for Obama," people might be confused and think I was talking about pro-black racists. You see the problem? It would go from an unusual observation to a banal one.

This tack all reminds me somewhat of Bill Clinton's lawyerly sophistry regarding the definition of "having sex". He also used specificity to equivocate and evade the shameful truth.

And then there's your Germanic screen name.
Wow, what a racist, or nationalist, or ethnicist, or wtfever means of characterization :P.

Well, let's say I chose as my screen name something Russian and commie-sounding, such as "Vladimir Ilyich". If folks then put that together with my distinctly anti-capitalist viewpoints and inferred that I might be a radical leftist, well, I wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if I cried "You're being small-minded Russophobes" (and those inferring that I'm a radical leftist would of course be correct to boot). Likewise, a rightist, such as yourself, who chooses an obtrusively Germanic screen name is fair game for certain imputative speculation.



Romneycare, Charles. That's the biggest thing.

You folks on the right seem to think that it's snappy & clever to put down any proposed universal health care plan by neologistically adding the word "care" to the name of the individual doing the proposing.
It's snappy-- one word. It's also a meme. Importantly, however, it should be entirely obvious that the "individual doing the proposing" is unqualified for modern conservatism in the neoclassical liberal sense.

Firstly, "Romneycare" simply isn't that witty. Secondly, so what you're really saying is that if someone isn't a neoclassical liberal purist he's not in the ideological club of conservatism?! Who died and left you to define conservatism so narrowly? Do you realize that your doctrinal purism would destroy all diversity in the conservative movement and leave it boringly and vitiatedly monolithic? With narrowly dogmatic friends like you conservatism doesn't need external foes like me.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 5:06:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/16/2011 3:06:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/16/2011 2:20:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/15/2011 11:12:06 PM, mongeese wrote:
http://reason.com...

The entire racist letter fiasco is long discreditted...

Oh yeah, perhaps to the satisfaction of his right-libertarian supporters, but certainly by no means to everyone else's satisfaction.

Then who else still thinks that he wrote them?

You appear to be conveniently or downright willfully missing my point below, that Ron Paul is still tarnished by his racist newsletters because he failed to muster the stalwart character and integrity to unequivocally disown them, and because he didn't demonstrate a visceral aversion to the mentality that they express.

Even if Lew Rockwell actually penned the newsletters in question, we still have a sordid and cynical tale of pandering to the identity politics of angry white men, and of profiteering (I quote from the reason.com article you cite: "The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates...").

Except that the pandering was by Lew Rockwell, not Ron Paul. There's no evidence that he agreed with the pandering, since he didn't recall anything about them.

Ah, again, I'll repeat that Dr. Paul in effect signed onto the content of the newletters by not forthrightly and consistently disowning them. Add to this the fact that he profited from them financially to the considerable tune of $940,000 and, well, he can claim to have washed his hands of his race-baiting newsletters, and his conservative-libertarian apologists can continue scrubbing away at his grubby mitts on his behalf, but alas his hands and character will never be clean again.

And certainly Dr. Paul's response to this dreadful blemish on his record of "public service" has lacked integrity and consistency. Again, according to the article that you cite, in 1996 Paul initially defended and stood by his racist newsletters, then in 2001, when he came to appreciate what a political liability then had become he attempted to disown them!

He didn't attribute them to a ghostwriter because it would have been too confusing.

No, he didn't initially attribute them to a ghostwriter because that wouldn't have sufficiently exonerated him of responsibility for them. And it would have left people with the obvious question, "How is it that Dr. Paul, his organization, and ideological camp harbors racist ghostwriters, and how is it that one was chosen to speak the mind of good ole Ron?"

Quite simply, no individual with any degree of enlightenment on the issue of race & racism would be able to tolerate for a New York minute being associated with the antiblack comments contained in Dr. Paul's infamous newsletters. That he didn't renounce and repudiate being affiliated with said newsletters does in fact say something, and something significant about his character.

I think you're also blowing out of proportion just how bad the letters are. Yes, they discussed blacks, but to my recollection it wasn't quite at the level of racism. He used studies to back his claims; is stating facts that happen to reflect poorly on a particular race racist?

Oh my, mongeese! The newsletters in question clearly pander to bigoted stereotypes. And as for "studies", well, what halfway intelligent racist these days doesn't fall back on studies and statistics?!

When Jimmy Swaggart stood in front of the cameras and crocodile-tearfully said "I have sinned" he demonstrated more character in dealing with his scandal than pass-the-buck Paul.

Note that Swaggart had actually sinned, and rather badly, too.

Note that Ron Paul actually sinned, and rather badly, too, in not promptly and honorably rising to a public and characterological moment of truth and owning his accountability for the ugly content of his newsletters.

http://newsone.com...

Just reading the letters, they sound very little like Ron Paul and much more like Lew Rockwell.

Hmm, are you waffling a wee bit and actually acknowledging here that the content of the newsletters sounds at least a little like Ron Paul? And, once again, even if they were written by Lew Rockwell, Dr. Paul's inconsistent and dissembling responses have made him morally complicit in the publication of racist attitudes. Sorry, but scapegoatingly assigning the sin, as it were, to Lew Rockwell doesn't at all absolve your precious Ron Paul.

Regarding what you say about plans for Social Security, honestly, we have to make some changes. What choice do we have? The government of decades ago promised people money, and now that money is gone, spent on various government projects without increasing the deficit, and we can't punish those who spent the money because they're long gone, leaving us in a very awkward situation financially. The money isn't there. How do you propose we get the money? More taxes? Raisng tax rates doesn't generate more revenue, paradoxically enough, due to its disincentives. Less spending? We'd have to cut to the bone, and then cut into the actual essentials of government, like the police or court system. More borrowing? Like that hasn't led to a large enough problem already.

Come now mongeese, let's get honest here. Conservatives don't really and merely wish to save Social Security, they don't believe in it, on ideological grounds, and wish to abolish it. Shame on you for being dissembling here about this.

They wish to privatize it, but they don't want to abolish it as long anyone who has put money into the system is still owed money that no longer exists. It's a financial problem, and there's no easy solution, period. If we had the money, I'd say to give it to them in full as planned, but we don't. What do you think we should do about the situation?

"It's a financial problem", nope, "privatizing" Social Security is an ideological agenda, and an exceedingly lucrative proposition for Wall Streeters and bankers. And of course "privatizing" Social Security is conservative code talk for abolishing it in favor of a system that would be more ideologically acceptable to the sort of folks who persist in vowing to complete the Reagan Revolution. That is, "privatization" of programs such as Social Security and Medicare would actualize the dogmatic dream of latter-day Reganites of a society utterly shorn of any public social safety net, and a society in which billions and billions (to channel Carl Sagan for a moment) of new dollars would flow to financial firms and the capitalist elite. Mm-hmm, this is what we're really, if cryptically, debating in the rhetorical guise of the issue of the "privatization" of Social Security. Again, I say let's get honest here.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2011 5:33:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:10:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:23:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/15/2011 7:21:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
But I wanted to see why you though Ron Paul was a corporatist, racist, gun fetishist, abortion hating, fascistic piece of slime! Why no love to Paul?

Even charleslb is blacking him out.

Lol, theres so much material on Paul for Charles to use and he goes with the discredited racist theory? Seriously? Paul is the most pro-market candidate running!

Yes, of course my most fundamental problem with Ron Paul is that he's pro-market, i.e. pro-unfettered capitalism. I was just being offhandedly glib, I suppose, when I tossed out the barb about his racist newsletters.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.