Comment from geoff
Time November 6, 2009 at 2:24 pm

I can see why maybe the Floyds might want to label the Log Cabin Republicans as being “liberal,” but - among Scozzafava’s other prominent supporters - would they say the same about Newt Gingrich and the National Rifle Association?!?
Then again, from a historical viewpoint, I wonder how they spun Bush’s unpopularity.
The only thing they got right is the conclusion that “Voters are sick and tired of what is happening in Washington,” and that, supposedly, was why they voted for “change” & “hope” last year, not this watered-down, compromising attempt at bipartisanship with a party that just says “no.”
And interesting the teabaggers have become a “tea-party movement.” I somehow get the image of a pile of old matrons sitting down to “high tea” in some place like Bath, all smelling vaguely of mothballs while passing the cream & scones.

Comment from geoff
Time November 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm

ya ya, the republicans have lost. yes, they have lost.
I am a know it all. ya ya. eh.
And then again, republicans smelling as mothballs are worse than donkeycrats smelling as $h!t eh.

Comment from Steve Holden
Time November 6, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Working people voting for Republicans is like turkeys voting fot Thanksgiving. Just shows the power of media brainwashing.

Comment from Cal
Time November 6, 2009 at 9:13 pm

This is the GOP spin on things just like Donna Brazille’s article was the Democrat spin. Both see different parts of the elephant (not the GOP symbol but the old fairy tale/fable) and think they’re correct in their analysis. Time will tell.

Media brainwashing. Fabulous! Yep, Democrats are deep-thinking, well-read voters who make conscious decisions based on a solid base of knowledge while Republicans are zombies following the voice of Rush Limbaugh through an implanted transistor. Steve Holden is a freakin’ genius! Why I’ll just bet he’s one of them there city slicker smart Dem-o-krats! Dang, Steve. U shur r a smart feller.

Have you seen the video on your cerebral-giant friends lined up for blocks for “free Obama money” in Detroit? It’s a must see. Yep, those are your actual Democrat voters ’spektin’ Obama to give them sum free money. To quote their final line after admitting they didn’t know OR care where the money was coming from they sang, “And das why we luvz him!” O-BAM-a, O-BAM-a!

I–have–to–go. Rush–is–sending–new–orders. Yes–master–I–will–obey! Hit–send–now. Okay–I–will.

Voting for a turkey would be a step up from this guy.

Comment from Stug
Time November 6, 2009 at 10:07 pm

“To quote their final line after admitting they didn’t know OR care where the money was coming from they sang, “And das why we luvz him!” O-BAM-a, O-BAM-a!”
- Wow Cal, so, you got to take a jab at Steve by making fun of the way some under-educated inner-city resident speaks, cool. The, very pointed, difference though, is that your parody could be taken as being of the under-educated Democratic voter, or equally, as being of the former GOP Vice-Presidential candidate.
If McCain had picked a moderate Republican, or at least someone who could string coherent sentences together, he would probably have won the election, but the hard right insisted on a “true conservative” and it cost them the election. Not unlike the debacle in NY that cost them a congressional seat. Of the three races, they are hyping their gubernatorial wins, but they blew the only one that actually gets to vote on the health care bill by insisting on ‘conservative ideological purity’. Oops.

Comment from geoff
Time November 6, 2009 at 10:55 pm

And what an ugly ideology it is, Stug: “In spite of the current failure of this system, right-wing Republicans and their allies are more than willing to embrace a system that erases all vestiges of the public good, turning citizens into consumers, while privatizing and commodifying every aspect of the social order - all the while threatening the lives, health, and livelihoods of millions of working class and middle class people.”
Or: “If we listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and an increasing number of their ilk, free-market fundamentalism is not only sexy, it is an argument against the very notion of politics itself and the power of the government to intervene and protect its citizens from the ravages of nature, corrupt institutions and an unregulated market. In this discourse, largely buttressed through an appeal to fear and the use of outright lies, free-market capitalism assumes an almost biblical status as an argument against the power of government to protect its citizens from misfortune and the random blows of fate by providing the most basic rights and levels of collective security and protection. Before he died, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated precisely for such rights, which he called a “second bill of rights,” which included the right “of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection form the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment. The right to a good education.” That is, those social, economic and individual rights that provide a secure foundation for people to live with dignity and be free to become critical and engaged citizens, capable of both expanding their own sense of agency and freedom while being able to work with others to fulfill the demands of an aspiring democracy.”
Maybe they do believe “freedom is slavery”: total freedom for the corporations equals slavery for the rest of us. It’s all beginning to make sense now.
Rest here: http://www.truthout.org/1106095

Comment from geoff
Time November 6, 2009 at 11:36 pm

“The Conservative Resurgence Begins.” Sounds like something Lambro might have written, repeatedly.
Just the idea, though, of “conservative resurgence” seems oxymoronic: if a physicist was talking about conserving energy, it wouldn’t suddenly resurge.
Or maybe they’re sort of equating reelection with Iraq, and figuring if a “surge” was good once, it’ll be good again: “resurge, here we come.”
At any rate, I expect it to be some form of retrograde motion, retreating back into the idealised past of, say, 1890 or so, before all those nasty regulations creating the 40-hour workweek, banning child labour, creating all kinds of health & safety standards, etc.
Floyd and Mary Beth are just so proud to be dim: just look at them, grinning up there like it’s just a little too crowded in the photo booth.

Comment from dEdGrimle
Time November 7, 2009 at 1:53 am

Lemme get this straight… 2 wins equals a resurgence? Even when you lose a seat you’ve held for 152 years? No, once again, you get the dumbest spin imaginable, from 2 of the blindest political pundits the world’s ever seen.

Comment from OMG!
Time November 7, 2009 at 5:21 am

I agree with them, say what you want. The election results do say one thing. The public is dissatisfied. Very dissatisfied, and that’s how Obama won, but he is losing his sparkle, the polish has worn off, and the public has him pegged. Does this mean this election is a resurgence? Maybe, maybe not, but it definitely does signal opportunity for anyone with a coherent, marketable message. The Republicans are going to have to broaden their standards, contrary to what is thought by them to zero in on a conservative agenda, and sell that….sorry, that’s old news. They will have to lose the timidity routine, and start marketing something that has a ring and is inclusive. Newt is exactly correct, the policy of outcasting perimeter candidates is not going to win elections. It seems the Republicans are too idealistic about cloning the perfect candidates, and the result is a very narrow market appeal. I think of particular mention is to distance themselves from the far Right…..I don’t care any more for Republican Bible thumpers as I do Democratic environmentalist zealots. I am somewhat disappointed in the outline of the Republican healthcare plan, but it is easier to build on, in contrast to the Democratic plan, rather than seek ways to inhibit its power, magnitude, and direction.

I think the Republican party has a maturation process to term, and perhaps someone out of that will become eligible to lead this country. Perhaps Newt can, but it will take someone with a panoramic view, someone with the power of personality, and someone that feels a mission. The truth is that the door is open, wide open, and if McCain or some other dead animal seeks the candidacy, hopefully the party will then come to its senses and suppress such lackluster candidates.

Comment from drhill
Time November 8, 2009 at 1:25 am

R or conservative resurgence? probably…and if the Dems don’t take careful note - 2010 will be an undeniable message.

Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 2:03 am

I was wondering if anyone one the Left would focus in on my equal-opportunity jabs at speech. I guess mocking southern rednecks who say “You’re a smart feller” (written in the most mocking tone I could muster in print to see if anyone would take the bait) is funny as it supports your notion of how stupid southern, white males are. I made all that up. But I quoted the tape of the women the best I could who were among those standing in line for hours to get “free” Obama money. Somehow, that’s impermissable because you ASSUMED they are black. I never saw these women. I only heard/read the quotes. I wrote what I heard I as accurately as I could. Is it YOU who are assuming unfairness?

My point is that the Left criticizes Republicans as a shrinking party of angry, southern white men. I’ve read numerous articles asserting that. When I mock _them_, it’s okay. It’s actually funny because the Left believes it’s absolutely true! They are the “teabagging rednecks” you see in all of conservative America. How shallow are you people? When you do that are you really the caring, tolerant, compassionate people you claim to be?

Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 2:09 am

Stug, Your comparison of the former governor of a state to some inner-city women is appalling. This comparison is as feckless as was your attempt to link Timothy McVeigh to conservatives. (I always read the posts from bottom to top so as I said below to use your words) This is absurd. Unless, of course, you’re in the coffee shop talking with all fellow liberals. THEN it sounds pretty good. Sarah Palin wasn’t a polished, inside-the-beltway politician. She was a mom who got angry with the local PTA and ran for mayor of her small town. She won. She later won as governor of Alaska and did a great job taking on the establishment. Your hatred for such a nice woman is appalling. She’s a wife, a mother, and an American. Why do you liberals claim tolerance and yet espouse so much hatred? What am I missing here?

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 11:33 am

Cal: Timothy McVeigh wasn’t conservative? What was he, then? Please tell us, seeing as you seem to know everything, including all our motivations for why “liberals” hate everyone, why women have abortions, why Obama wants to run up a deficit, etc.
And Cal: we don’t hate Palin. She’s just stupid and pathetic: you can’t really hate someone like that. Just because hatred seems to be the only emotion your lot seems to understand, doesn’t mean you are justified in projecting it onto the rest of us.

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 11:47 am

“McVeigh’s only known political affiliations were his voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military. McVeigh self-identified as a libertarian in a statement that was reported by MSNBC.com and The Washington Post; and while in federal prison, he voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the 1996 United States presidential election.”
Given that, in America, “libertarian” is also part of what the rest of the world calls “conservative,” I still don’t see how it would be wrong to label McVeigh a “conservative.”
Please explain, Cal.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_mcveigh

Comment from OMG!
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm

geoff,

Your attempts at tying McVeigh to conservativism is ridiculous. The old saying, “one can rationalize anything” holds true.
In any sense of examination, McVeigh was a zealot, thus his association would be with other zealots, not conservatism. This is not a terribly difficult concept, there’s no strength or merit to your conclusions. No one has said anything about this pathetic creature, yet you broadly assume you have the righteousness to position yourself as diety to assign group association with anything that tears down rather than build. That’s despicable, and demonstrates as Cal suggested that there is absolutely no substance to your passion other than hatred and disgust. Your thought process holds as much water as a saying McVeigh wore Army fatigues…thus all military men and women wearing such clothing are also suspect. Geez, quit trying to sell this small minded BS will you?

Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm

OMG! I’m guessing geoff already believes those in uniform are basically just McVeigh’s waiting to happen. That’s what Janet Napolitano said about us in essence as veterans are seen as more threatening than young Muslim men making regular phone calls to “friends” in Pakistan.

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:33 pm

OMG: Notice, please, that it does not state he was a \"zealot,\" nor does zealotry usually appear on the usual political spectra. Conservatives, liberals, communists, atheists, Catholics, etc., can all be zealots. Don\’t be stupid: Republicans are usually proud to call themselves conservative (although some self-profesed \"conservatives\" do seem to try to distance themselves from the party when it\’s down in the polls), and I think I explained pretty clearly why McVeigh\’s label of \"libertarian\" would pass as \"conservative\" in most quarters, so you\’re way off there in your accusations of passion, small-minded BS, etc. Sure you\’re not catching Cal\’s disease, and talking about yourself?

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Cal: gee, seeing as you already know everything, why don’t you just take over posting on my behalf?

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:38 pm

‘As Fox kept insisting, all eyes were glued on Doug Hoffman, the insurgent tea party candidate in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. A “tidal wave” was on its way, said Sean Hannity, and the right would soon “take back the Republican Party.” The race was not “even close,” Bill O’Reilly suggested to the pollster Scott Rasmussen, who didn’t disagree. When returns showed Hoffman trailing, the network’s resident genius, Karl Rove, knowingly reassured viewers that victory was in the bag, even if we’d have to stay up all night waiting for some slacker towns to tally their votes.’
Pathetic.
Rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11.....8rich.html

Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Geoff,
Why do you have to have to have a say on every topic?
You are not American. You do not live in the US.
Then why do you want to control our lives? What is your benefit to you in this?
I think we Americans deserve the freedom to make our own decisions and freedom to discuss and come to our own conclusions.
Why do you have to always meddle in our ways of life?
You pose as a big supporter of freedom and choice, then why dont you leave us alone to make our own choices?
Do you really think being a A$$ makes you smart and intelligent? Nope. It only makes you look like an A$$

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm

fakegeoff: I don’t have to have a say on every topic, and don’t. I’m not Superman.
I’m not American, but I have lived in the US, but find the “discourse” interesting. As I’ve noted before, I started looking at historical parallels between the way the US media built up the war in Iraq & Afghanistan and Nazi propaganda in the 1930s. I don’t have direct access to the latter, but am able to see analogous processes at work here and elsewhere in the American media.
Why do I “have to always meddle in [y]our ways of life?” I don’t meddle, I make comments on bad logic, lies, deliberate deception, hypocrisy, etc. Whereas the US has a long record of meddling, direct and otherwise, in the lives of people in just about every country in the world. US economic policies, for example, caused an economic turndown worldwide: your banking crisis was not confined to your borders, your President’s response to that crisis has serious consequences outside your borders. Similarly, US environmental politics have serious consequences worldwide. As does your foreign policy: it wasn’t just Americans who were killed on 9-11, for example, and there is a long history of US intervention in elections in Canada, Germany, the UN, and most recently in Afghanistan. So: although I cannot vote in your elections, I do feel the right to defend my interests when your politics effects my life.
As for “freedom and choice”: so far as I am aware, this is a public forum, so that should mean that I am free to debate here, if I so choose. If you [collectively] are offended by my comments, why don’t you do a better job of either arguing and/or defending your own arguments? If I really am just an “ass” then why do so many posters feel threatened by me that they ask me repeatedly to be a “Good German” and leave, without either being able or bothered to post serious rebuttals to anything I’ve posted?

Comment from fakegeoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 12:50 am

-”I don’t have to have a say on every topic, and don’t.”
Check this website and you will see 8 out of 10 comments to be yours.

“the US has a long record of meddling, direct and otherwise, in the lives of people in just about every country in the world.”
If that is the case, then where the people of those countries sleeping to let this happen? If they allowed means they had some vested interest in that. In that case they are more guilty than Americans to let this happen their mother land.
That means people of those countries are afraid of people who allowed this to happen and hence they cry pointing to America rather than those people. Do you call that justice? It was the responsibility of those people to share their earnings with the rest of the people. They did not. so it is them and not USA that is responsible.

“As I’ve noted before, I started looking at historical parallels between the way the US media built up the war in Iraq & Afghanistan and Nazi propaganda in the 1930s. I don’t have direct access to the latter, but am able to see analogous
processes at work here and elsewhere in the American media.”
You mean to say you see parallels to Nazi propaganda without having direct access and knowledge about it. What does that mean? That means you think you are Superman who is the only savior of the people. is that not the case?

“I do feel the right to defend my interests when your politics effects my life.”
Then you better start at your local level. Because till you do not clean up your local politics, it is not going to matter.
You will always end up compromising your freedom for some local goon and local corrupt politician. Today it is USA tomorrow it will be some other country/organization, like the EU, which is and sapping its resources of the member countries for the benefit of the few governing it (EU).
If you cannot accept this truth then, I do not see you accepting any other argument based of events and facts.

“As for “freedom and choice”: so far as I am aware, this is a public forum, so that should mean that I am free to debate here, if I so choose.”
Yes debate with us, but on facts closer to our region and our issues and not on your issues because this public forum is for discussing issues published about USA and about Americans. Raving and ranting here about anything else is lunacy.
If you feel like debating about your issues, find a public blog which discusses and debates about issues related to the world as a whole, then all your views will make sense and called intelligent arguments. You have chosen the wrong forum for your views.

“why do so many posters feel threatened by me that they ask me repeatedly to be a “Good German” and leave, without either being able or bothered to post serious rebuttals to anything I’ve posted?”

Do you really think that one can argue respectfully to lunatic and unrelated comments? And I still find a lot of people try, but then you end up with some non-issue and claim that you won the debate. NO Mister. You didnt win the debate, you derailed it and others left considering you to be a Lunatic.
Again I know you will come up with some non-issue and unrelated example and when we will not answer you will run around claiming you won.
Nope do not consider that. We just left a lunatic with himself. Like I am going to leave you after this posting.
You better book a hospital bed quick, because the only level left for your lunacy will require you to be hospitalized.
Remember geoff, you are sick and you need medication.
Good Luck.

Comment from JDog
Time November 9, 2009 at 5:10 am

I am amused that they claim a victory for Republicans because they won over moderates. Then a few paragraphs later denounce Scozzofava, a moderate Republican, as being a \"liberal.\" What\’s the deal here? Are Republicans trying to win over moderates, or purge them from the party?

Comment from OMG!
Time November 9, 2009 at 5:12 am

geoff,

No, I am not. Anyone, and I do mean anyone who is sinister enough to say McVeigh has anything whatsoever to do with the writers of this column or conservatism has a very disturbing association sickness. You may wish to taunt and comment sir…..but you have revealed one thing about yourself for all to see who post here. You, are indeed sick…and I do mean freakin mentally ill. As I said, quit trying to sell this BS, nobody is buying, and frankly, it doesn’t matter if anyone writes he was a zealot or not. What kind of evidence do you need to independently conclude he was? Does someone have to draw you a picture and place label under it for you to understand?

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 7:57 am

OMG:
Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 2:09 am
“Stug… This comparison is as feckless as was your attempt to link Timothy McVeigh to conservatives.”
Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 11:33 am
“Cal: Timothy McVeigh wasn’t conservative? What was he, then?”
Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 11:47 am
“’McVeigh’s only known political affiliations were his voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York.’”
And maybe you’re right, maybe I should have tried to link McVeigh to the GOP & NRA. Or maybe you should direct your accusations of “mental illness” to wikipedia, where I got the quote (follow the link). Or maybe you should consider the consequences of people like Phil Brennan damning “moderation” and praising extremists (or, in your words, “zealots” [is there a difference between an "extremist" and a "zealot"?]). Even Glen Beck realised he’d gone too far when someone took him at his word and tried to “drive a stake” through the gov’t’s (”bloodsuckers”) heart.
As I noted, “zealotry” is not a political ideology. Conservativism, liberalism and communism are ideologies. Denouncing someone like McVeigh as a “zealot” doesn’t explain anything. You could also argue that Mao, Ghandi and Hitler were also all zealots, but it should be obvious even to you that their political stances were all very different.
So apparently Cal doesn’t want to explain what McVeigh was, and you only provided the rather unhelpful “zealot” label. In the absence of any other form of evidence, and based on his one-time membership in the GOP and later incarnation as a “libertarian” (keeping in mind that it seems very unlikely that he was reading Chomsky, so he was probably somewhere on the right [conservative] end of libertarianism), it seems reasonable to conclude that he was a conservative. It is up to you to try to prove otherwise (and I know Cal would dearly love to be able to label him whith his catch-all & ultimately meaningless “liberal”).

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 8:23 am

fakegeoff: I really think you are exaggerating the amount of my input. Among other things, I have noticed that Cal seems to be churning out Tolstoyan quantities of long, unreadable screeds that few seem to bother commenting on any more.
“If that is the case, then where the people of those countries sleeping to let this happen?” Well, let’s see: to begin with, it’s very difficult taking the US to court. Canada, for example, keeps taking the US to arbitration on various “free trade” matters; we almost always win, but litigation is costly, and after a while we give up. Then there are things we have little control over, in part because various Conservative gov’ts have sold the ground out from under our feet: 50% of Canadian oil production must, by law, be sold to the US. Canadian fresh water has been declared a US “strategic resource.” Our territorial waters have been declared (by American Presidents) as “open,” meaning we can’t regulate shipping through our Arctic.
Then there are weird things like the CIA spying on everything, right down to the Social Credit Party of Saskatchewan, various threats of invasion over the years (a big scare back during the 1970s, just when the oil crisis was hitting; read Richard Rohmer’s “Exxoneration”), etc. Not easy, especially when your gov’t refuses to recognise the World Court. Or threatens to put pressure on Wall Street if your people vote for the wrong (i.e. a “socialist”) gov’t.
After that, there have been more than enough “anti-American” protests worldwide in recent history for you to realise how effective just yelling “Yankee go home” can be. Only the Iranians seem to have found an effective response, but few (for obvious reasons) seem to be willing to go such extreme lengths.
As for local politics: again, sometimes hard to do anything about, for example, cleaning up lakes in Northern Quebec when acid rain blows in from the Ohio valley. Now that you’re not producing steel there any more, we might have a chance. In the meantime, we vote for more funding for schools, public transport, environmentally friendly development, but find out that the country is bankrupt because we had to bail out banks which were foolish enough to make loans to unregulated American banks. So it’s very easy for you to repeat some empty slogan, but things are much more complicated here in the real world.
And who nominated you to decide who does or does not debate on this forum? Until I get a message from Mr. Cagle himself, I will continue to think that this forum is open. When I was in the US I noticed how all forms of debate (i.e. attempts to actually exercise ones “freedom of speech”) were censored by accusations of being “liberal,” “commie,” “pinko,” or just plain “unpatriotic.” Now I am outside the US, attempts to discuss commentary posted regarding the news are, supposedly, none of my business. Strangely enough, someone tried to cite Niemöller in some defence of Fox “news” the other week, without considering the irony.
I have also been accused of “loving Nazis” because I now live in Germany, by people who seem to see no irony in my fighting what I see as nascent fascism in their borderline (or even blatant) racist comments, intolerance to alternate opinions, homophobia, inability to use their terminology consistently (i.e. equation of “liberal,” “socialist,” “Marxist,” “communist,” “Democrat” as though there was no difference between “fascist,” “conservative,” “Nazi” and “Republican”), endless repetitions of lies about things they don’t know about (history [especially of US ties with the Taliban and Saddam and the reasons for the invasion of Iraq], Canadian health care, reasons why women have abortions, etc.), a lot of which reflects a tendency to blame the victim and exonnerate (even worship) the strong and powerful.
And I do not recall ever having claimed to have won any debate. If you could provide me with an example, I will be happy to consider the evidence. As it was, Cal keeps making similar accusations (and others), but is unable to back them up with anything more than his usual “sweeping generalisations.”
So: please give me an example of any “lunatic and unrelated comments” in the above.

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 10:46 am

fakegeoff: also think I\’m a little disturbed by your suggestion that \"the people of those countries <were> sleeping to let this happen.\" In too many cases - in South America, for example - attempts to protest against dictatorships propped up by the US lead to hundreds or thousands of disappearances. There was a place called the School of the Americas where various paramilitaries were taught how to torture dissidents. In the case of South Africa, popular movements tried to get economic sanctions directed against Apartheid, but people like Reagan and Thatcher didn\’t play along (besides the fact that banning weapons sales to the S. African regime would have been bad for business). You could also consider Marcos, the Contras, the Saudis, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Noriega and Saddam (the last two before their egos got too inflated, and were still useful to the US). So I don\’t know if our comment reflects your ignorance of history or a callous disregard for human life; either way, as I said, I find it somewhat unsettling.
\"You mean to say you see parallels to Nazi propaganda without having direct access and knowledge about it. What does that mean? That means you think you are Superman who is the only savior of the people. is that not the case?\" No, it means that, not having been around during the 1930s, I was unable witness the whole ideological reform process, of which propaganda was but a small part. I can only experience it second-hand, by reading the texts, viewing films, looking at photos, talking to some of the people effected or by visiting some of the sites involved, but cannot see how this discourse permeated daily life. Watching a parallel process unfolding, here & now, is rather scary. And whereas - at the time - some Germans would have argued that this was all just an internal matter (kind of like the Chinese use this excuse to ward off all criticism of their practices, despite paying lip service to supposed \"universal\" human rights), others realised the folly of not helping Jews, for example, simply because they themselves were not Jews, because sometime or other everyone becomes involved. Some who were farsighted enough chose to fight the enemy early, in Spain. Others chose to stick their heads in the ground and ignore the menace until it was too late.

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 7:58 pm

And fakegeoff (and others): it’s not as if I force you to read my postings, is it? You can just skip ‘em & go to something else.

Comment from geoff
Time November 9, 2009 at 8:09 pm

“The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
“And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.”
More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11.....ugman.html

Comment from Stug
Time November 9, 2009 at 8:59 pm

LOL, Cal, you are truly amusing at times. Do you make a concious effort at that?
\"I was wondering if anyone one the Left would focus in on my equal-opportunity jabs at speech. I guess mocking southern rednecks … is funny as it supports your notion of how stupid southern, white males are.\"
- I grew up as a \"southern redneck\", even had the stars and bars on my \’69 Chevelle as a teenager. I wasn\’t commenting on that, because I still talk like that, I just don\’t type it out. My wife and I have a running argument on whether or not \"ain\’t\" is a word, and whether the meaning of my sentences is at all unclear if I happen to use a triple negative, none of my friends growing up would have questioned it.
The amusing part is this though: \"I quoted the tape of the women the best I could … you ASSUMED they are black.\"
- My first reaction was \’Did I really do that?\’, so I checked: my comment: \"Wow Cal, so, you got to take a jab at Steve by making fun of the way some under-educated inner-city resident speaks, cool.\" - So no, I didn\’t. As is obvious from your comment though, you did.
\"My point is that the Left criticizes Republicans as a shrinking party of angry, southern white men.\"
- Well, I can\’t speak for the Left as authoritatively as you seem to for the Right, since I don\’t consider myself as being all that far left of center. And I certainly wouldn\’t characterize the whole of the Republican party as you seem to think. I would characterize the majority of the hard-core Right, the \"tea-baggers\", as angry and white, but not necesssarily as southern or male.
\"Stug, Your comparison of the former governor of a state to some inner-city women is appalling. … She’s a wife, a mother, and an American.\"
- And that would make your definition of inner-city women… what exactly?
\"Your hatred for such a nice woman is appalling. She’s a wife, a mother, and an American. Why do you liberals claim tolerance and yet espouse so much hatred? What am I missing here?\"
- You aren\’t missing anything, in fact, you are adding stuff quite liberally. My only reference to Palin was: \"The, very pointed, difference though, is that your parody could be taken as being of the under-educated Democratic voter, or equally, as being of the former GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. If McCain had picked a moderate Republican, or at least someone who could string coherent sentences together, he would probably have won the election,…\" and from this you discerned some form of hatred? I think Geoff may be correct on this one and you are projecting one of the few emotional concepts you understand. I don\’t like or dislike her, I don\’t really know her. I did see her speak several times on TV and wasn\’t impressed by her lack of eloquence or apparant intellect much. It\’s true, the prospect of her being in a position of power in the WH does concern me, as it should any rational person, but I wouldn\’t equate that with hatred so much as common sense.
As to your comment regarding McVeigh, I vaguely recall making that comparison in response to your making a similar attachment of someone to the Left. The point being at the time, that McVeigh was as much a poster-boy for the Right as whoever you were attempting to imply was a poster-boy for the Left. That McVeigh is a zealot goes without question (OMG), that he was firmly on the conservative side of the political spectrum does as well. Is he representative of the average conservative, no, of course not, and that was the point. The comparison was no more feckless (good word btw) than your original comparison, whatever it was., or I wouldn\’t have made it.
\"Why do you liberals claim tolerance and yet espouse so much hatred?\"
- Once again, I can\’t speak for the liberals. I claim tolerance because I actually practice it, and I rarely, if ever, espouse hatred. More than I can say for Rush, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, and other prophets for the Right. Perhaps you should stop defending and espousing the very principals that you project onto others.
\"How shallow are you people?\" - LOL, that is funny!

Comment from mole
Time November 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Floyd and Mary Beth gloat over the beginning of the “Republican resurgence”. Let them dream on.

Comment from geoff
Time November 14, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Mole: I just think it’s funny that they’re so desperate for something positive to write that they’re reduced to cribbing notes from Donald Lambro, of all people.
LOL.