My My My My..the repugs just won't give up

[Reeder]

I've never used repugs before, but with this it fits.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use “jurisdiction stripping” measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. [For an example of the legislative language that would be used, see below.]

For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts’ jurisdiction.

So lets just close off every channel a person that disagrees with has to take to present his point.

How can any free minded person support anyone who thinks its best to shut down all dissent?

Fuck the republican party and all it stands for.

[Atticus Finch]

Reeder, cite?

Also, I think "repugs" has specifically been mentioned by mods as an insult, like "Moore-ons". Why not just pit DeLay for being a fuckknuckle, rather than the entire Republican party and the Republicans round here? This seems to be an interesting topic (stripping jurisdiction from all but the Supreme Court), so let's not undermine it with gratuitous insults which will lead to yet another left-right shitfight, m'kay?

[Reeder]

Of course it's an insult. That why I made it a rant rather than a debate. I wanted to insult them.

Why not just pit Delay? Because he's not alone.

[Metacom]

I'll post Reeder's cite for him. (http://www.hillnews.com/news/071504/tactics.aspx)

[milroyj]

Reeder, you're still missing a link.

Or is it that you are a missing link?

[Metacom]

Of course it's an insult. That why I made it a rant rather than a debate. I wanted to insult them.
Don't you think you've done that enough? Is there anyone present who doesn't know that you hate the right, and enjoy insulting them? Do you have anything additional or insightful to add?

[milroyj]

Looks like Metacom snuck one in there for ya. Reeder, even december posted links with his "stuff".

[Reeder]

Thanks for posting the link. I don't hate the right. I hate those that try to quash dissent. Were the left doing it. I'd hate them too.

[dnooman]

Reeder you're a sad little monkey. Who cares which side you're on really, why devote so many of your brain cells to an inherently corrupt cause such as politics? I can't fathom trusting a single one of those liars on the Hill (John McCain is the exception, the kids all think he's a righteous dude, including myself). Why would you choose to take such an interest in something that will perpetually let you down?

No particular reason for picking this post to say this, but I'm genuinly curious. I can't say that I disagree with any of your statements, but that's mostly because I ignore these threads like the plaugue.

So, why the obsession?

[Lord Ashtar]

I don't hate the right.

Bullshit.

[Czarcasm]

I'll post Reeder's cite for him. (http://www.hillnews.com/news/071504/tactics.aspx)

Back to the topic at hand(which, believe it or not, isn't Reeder), I find Tom DeLay's "The ends justify the means" political philosophy totally disgusting. According to the link, it's not just Delay that is trying this repugnant method of screwing up the court system, by the way.

[Reeder]

So, why the obsession?

Because I love my country. I will not stand by and watch it be degraded without speaking out.

Would you?

[Reeder]

Back to the topic at hand(which, believe it or not, isn't Reeder), I find Tom DeLay's "The ends justify the means" political philosophy totally disgusting. According to the link, it's not just Delay that is trying this repugnant method of screwing up the court system, by the way.


Forgive them for they no not what they do.

[milroyj]

Forgive them for they no not what they do.

Jesus you're not, at least He can spell.

[Early Out]

Jesus you're not, at least He can spell.I'm unfamiliar with Jesus' written material, and am very curious about his spelling ability. Did he write fiction or non-fiction? Are any of his books available at amazon.com?

[Max_Castle]

How can any free minded person support anyone who thinks its best to shut down all dissent?Strange, that's the exact same thought I have when I look at the left.

[iampunha]

Jesus you're not, at least He can spell.

Don't you just hate it when Gaudere's comes and bites you in the ass like that?

I think, technically, it was not a misspelling but rather improper homonym use. FWIW.

[iampunha]

[quote=milroyj]Jesus you're not, at least He can spell.

That's my emphasis, not his. Sorry if anyone was confused.

[Albert Rose]

Strange, that's the exact same thought I have when I look at the left.
:confused:

I'm genuinely confused by this.

[cmason32]

Notwithstanding any discussion of Reeder's political leanings, I find this to be a rather deplorable tactic. I'm not comfortable with Congress interfering with the the Federal Courts' jurisdiction for political purposes.

[dnooman]

Because I love my country. I will not stand by and watch it be degraded without speaking out.

Would you?
I suppose I would. My speech does not change a thing. Does yours?

I know that you are not saying that I don't love my country, because I do, I think you feel the same way.

Your outrage is not without merit, actually I support it, but what good does bitching do? Is this some sort of underground movement that actually changes things? Let me know if I can help, otherwise "actions speak louder than words".

We all know your position, I'd be happy to join you if you actually did something. Lead by example, any retard can complain.

[dnooman]

There's no excuse for the wording in that last post.

[Early Out]

:confused:

I'm genuinely confused by this.You're not alone. Apparently, Max_Castle has failed to grasp that "dissent" can't come from the party in power, but only from those who are currently out of power. The right wing still thinks of itself as some sort of repressed minority, despite holding the White House, both houses of Congress, and, increasingly, the bulk of the Federal judicial positions.

[rjung]

How can any free minded person support anyone who thinks its best to shut down all dissent?
Strange, that's the exact same thought I have when I look at the left.
I'm genuinely confused by this.
Oh, don't mind Max, he's just pulling a random retort out of his ass. You can find folks arrested for wearing unflattering T-shirts (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=686) (and then getting fired (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/07/11/5066169) for it) or attempts to re-enable intelligence agencies to covertly spy on American citizens, (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5197014/site/newsweek/) or using massive federal databases (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/07/09/1520693) to find out everything about you and your family...

...before Max_Castle can find a credible example of "the left" employing similar tactics.

[Daisy Mae]

Reeder, cite?

Also, I think "repugs" has specifically been mentioned by mods as an insult, like "Moore-ons". Why not just pit DeLay for being a fuckknuckle, rather than the entire Republican party and the Republicans round here? This seems to be an interesting topic (stripping jurisdiction from all but the Supreme Court), so let's not undermine it with gratuitous insults which will lead to yet another left-right shitfight, m'kay?

I'm confused about this. Insults aren't allowed in the Pit?? The Pit is FULL of gratuitous insults of every kind. Some are insults directed at individuals, some at groups. Why are some okay and some are not?

[DMC]

Reeder, while I personally want DeLay in jail with 400 pounds of Texas testosterone named Bubba, and I do realize that insults are allowed in the Pit, if you avoid using them when unnecessary (as in this case, where it is obvious that DeLay is an ass of humongous proportions), then people will actually have to stick to addressing your rant, and not the way you presented it.

Back to the topic, I am truly becoming a bigger and bigger fan of DeLay on a daily basis. As long as he stays in power, he'll do more harm to the Republican party's ideals than even the Bush administration has done. While I'm a lefty, I actually enjoy having conservatives in the government, and lots of them. With people like DeLay attempting to strip away rights, the true conservatives will either abandon ship, or take their party back eventually. Happy days will be here again when that happens.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

With people like DeLay attempting to strip away rights, the true conservatives will either abandon ship, or take their party back eventually. Happy days will be here again when that happens.They haven't tried to take back their party yet-- what makes you think they ever will? They are addicted to the power they have now. They know they only have this power because the religious right has scared millions of dumb-fucks into voting Republican, but the true Conservatives don't care about that-- they just want to stay in control.

What we need is a true multi-party system. So the Conservatives could have their own party, and so could the Liberals. The ultra-religious nutjobs then would be left out in the cold, and as for the rest of the Republicrats and Demolicans they could just stay in the wishy-washy center as one centist party.

[DMC]

They haven't tried to take back their party yet-- what makes you think they ever will? They are addicted to the power they have now. They know they only have this power because the religious right has scared millions of dumb-fucks into voting Republican, but the true Conservatives don't care about that-- they just want to stay in control.

That's why I stated that one option is that they will abandon ship. I can see someone along the lines of a McCain starting a third party that might actually start a nice rift in the ranks. I do believe that folks will one day wake up and realize their party was stolen from them, but admittedly it might take some time. What good does it do me if my party is in power if it is no longer a party that represents my interests? Why would it be any different for them?

The folks in power now are not conservative in the true sense of the word, and I miss that part of the Republican party. While I'm often accused of being an across the board liberal, I'm a fan of smaller government and protecting the constitution at all costs. Hell, I don't even want to take their guns away from them, even though I am a fan of some gun controls. The true Republicans having some power is a good thing. We're just short on those types at the moment.

Unfortunately, after talking with several people at the office who are currently planning on voting for Bush, the only reason any of them gave was the tax cuts. They just don't care about the rest of the stuff he does. Once I explained basic accounting principles to them (and they all had children, so I painted a picture of who's going to have pay for the cuts), they were very quiet. We'll see where it goes from here.

[Liberal]

Reeder is rightly alarmed in this instance. And he is right to blame all lapdog Republicans in power who go along with this nonsense. And yet, he is foolish to believe that the Democrats will be his savior. These two parties together comprise a ruling cabal that controls everything from ballot access to legislation. And just like clockwork, every election cycle they go out and pretend to be different from one another, dividing the nation in half like bookies looking for the mean where they need to split the bets. This time, they have succeeded magnificently. There is practically a 50-50 split between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Whatever DeLay and other Republicans are doing, the Democrats are cooperating. It is not enough that the Democrats vote against this kind of crap (which, incidentally, they don't always do — consider the Patriot Act and DOMA, for example). If they gave a shit, they would raise holy hell. Use filibusters, bully pulpits, and every possible tactic at their disposal to wake people up and warn them that their freedom is slipping away. Even when the gay marriage ammendment was being voted on in the Senate, Kerry and Edwards were conspicuously absent. Yes, they knew that it could not pass, but rather than doing nothing, they should have been fighting the bastards who introduced this tooth and nail with an ammendment of their own that would prohibit Congress from defining marriage. Meanwhile, leftists and rightists toe their way up to their assigned lines and start screaming at each other. "Our guy is less horrible than your guy!" I'm voting for Kerry but only begrudgingly. I have no delusions about him. I've heard his speeches before. Same shit every election. A better America. Think of the children. Restore trust to the White House. The joke is on us, and Hitler was right: it is indeed lucky for rulers that men do not think.

[Colophon]

Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the Democrats. What y'all need in the U.S. is an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Dennis (http://www.kinetics.harvard.edu/people/tim/holy_grail_script.html) was right.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Yes, they knew that it could not pass, but rather than doing nothing, they should have been fighting the bastards who introduced this tooth and nail with an ammendment of their own that would prohibit Congress from defining marriage. But why should they so easily fall for the transparent tactic of pulling them off the campaign trail and off their message? Surely the best way to fight them tooth and nail is to unseat them, no? Won't their chances of doing so be hurt if they do actually rush back to Washington (or simply remain in Washington) to block and fight all the nonsense the conservatives want to throw at them. How many FMA's do you think Frist could come up with if Kerry gave him that chance?

And rather than formulate a pointless rant claiming that the Democrats and Republicans are the same on this issue, why not demonstrate such to us in a way that we might be convinced? Right now, I fully believe that the Democratic Party does best represent my interests, and does not work to stifle dissent in the same way that the Republican Party does. Your yelling that the two parties are equal moves me not one inch.

[Desmostylus]

Hey Reeder, I think iampunha is accusing you of homophonia.

[Liberal]

But why should they so easily fall for the transparent tactic of pulling them off the campaign trail and off their message?I rather think that the photo-op of a stern pair of liberals standing in the Rotunda, having just voted down this nonsense, and declaring how ridiculous it is would be exactly the sort of campaign they'd like to run and message they'd like to send.

[Jonathan Chance]

Curiously and amusing, Harry Turtledove had his neo-Nazi character, Jake Featherston, use just this tactic when he became president of the CSA in his 'Great War' series.

I wonder if someone in Delay's camp is a Turtledove guy?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I rather think that the photo-op of a stern pair of liberals standing in the Rotunda, having just voted down this nonsense, and declaring how ridiculous it is would be exactly the sort of campaign they'd like to run and message they'd like to send.Really? Do you think they want to spend all their time talking about gay marriage (or whatever BS the next "FMA" will be)? Do you think they would be given the opportunity to talk about the middle class squeeze, the effects of the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq or other such topics? Things such as these are often attempts to derail your opponents by choosing the message. I would prefer that they choose their own message in their own time, especially when they don't need to be there voting on cloture.

[Liberal]

I think they can talk about what they want to when they want to where they want to. The campaign press goes wherever they are. They had the opportunity to be seen doing the job that they were, after all, elected to do, and spin it into leadership, complete with the backdrop of the grand Congressional Rotunda and the whole nine yards. They could do as we have done on this board, and make it a message of civil liberty for all people. If I were they, I would be firing me some people.

[Apos]

. Even when the gay marriage ammendment was being voted on in the Senate, Kerry and Edwards were conspicuously absent. Yes, they knew that it could not pass, but rather than doing nothing, they should have been fighting the bastards who introduced this tooth and nail with an ammendment of their own that would prohibit Congress from defining marriage.

To be fair, it seems like the entire point of the vote was specifically to fuck with Kerry and Edward's campaign schedules, just like they did with the veterans vote they shifted around to screw Kerry. And, just like the Democrats did to Bob Dole. It wasn't a serious vote, and heck, it wasn't even a serious _proceedural_ vote.

Meanwhile, leftists and rightists toe their way up to their assigned lines and start screaming at each other. "Our guy is less horrible than your guy!"

You know, while I sympathize with this, I still think there are real, objective differences, and a real move in the wrong direction that needs to be stemmed. I think Chait does a good job in this article explaining what they are:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=TqpbUhQ%2FgtL9SmIvpLHkfw%3D%3D

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I think they can talk about what they want to when they want to where they want to. The campaign press goes wherever they are. They had the opportunity to be seen doing the job that they were, after all, elected to do, and spin it into leadership, complete with the backdrop of the grand Congressional Rotunda and the whole nine yards. They could do as we have done on this board, and make it a message of civil liberty for all people. If I were they, I would be firing me some people.One of us is missing the point.

What would they do the next day, Lib?

Besides that, how do you think the press would report their statement? Would it contain the message that they wanted to talk about, or would it be about FMA?

[Liberal]

To be fair, it seems like the entire point of the vote was specifically to fuck with Kerry and Edward's campaign schedules, just like they did with the veterans vote they shifted around to screw Kerry. And, just like the Democrats did to Bob Dole. It wasn't a serious vote, and heck, it wasn't even a serious _proceedural_ vote.Like I said, no one thought it would pass. And for the reasons I have already stated, I believe they missed an opportunity to make it backfire on the Republicans. In fact, in addition to what I already listed, they could have included a reference to the exact shenanigans that you mention. Consider these sound bites for the evening news, from the Rotunda:

Kerry: "John and I felt that it was important to take a stand. This administration has already done enough to trample our civil liberties, and we are drawing the line right here. Under my administration, Americans will have the security they seek without sacrificing the freedom they have always cherished." 1

Edwards: "The Republicans scheduled this vote to exclude us from the process. But we will not be excluded. We will fight for the American people no matter what obstacles are in our way. Our vote today demonstrates that we mean what we say."

1 It doesn't matter whether it's true. It's just a campaign promise.

[Liberal]

One of us is missing the point.

What would they do the next day, Lib?

Besides that, how do you think the press would report their statement? Would it contain the message that they wanted to talk about, or would it be about FMA?Oops. Looks like we passed in the night! :) Please see above. (The next day, they just continue the theme. We are at work for America. They can't stop us with their dirty tricks. They've shown they are not uniters. And all the rest of the bullshit.)

[Max_Castle]

Strange, that's the exact same thought I have when I look at the left.
The fact that my comment got several responses assuming that I was a right-wing nutjob pretty much proves my point.

For the record, I am not a Republican, don't support the current administration, and would really like to vote for Kerry, but every liberal I meet seems determined to convince me otherwise.

My point was that Liberalism's unquestionable correctness is one of it's central tenants; one cannot disagree in even the slightest and still be a good, decent human being, much less intelligent or informed. All good, rational, enlightened people must be liberals. Otherwise they couldn't be good, enlightened, or rational, right? If A->B, then B->A.

Before you all fire off heated responses about what a ridiculous assertion that is, please take a moment to read some of the threads on this board, or spend some time on a college campus, or at least try, just for a second, to look at the left and their policies impartially. Or maybe remember Nietche's warning about what can happen when you fight monsters.

(Personally, I don't think all liberals or leftists are jingoistic, just the extremely vocal ones. And I probably will vote for Kerry, but it really seems like were trading an obvious devil for a more subtle but much more dangerous one.)

[Gangster Octopus]

Seperation of Powers? Bah, that is so two centuries ago.

[GaWd]

but every liberal I meet seems determined to convince me otherwise.

If you're basing your decision on who to vote for by, "...every Liberal you meet...", well then you might as well vote for the current administration. Such a fickle opinion, in my eyes, is a sign of someone without terribly strong political ideals who is willing to let piddling little things(like the character of "other liberals"), get in the way of their vote.

Sam

[Max_Castle]

If you're basing your decision on who to vote for by, "...every Liberal you meet...", well then you might as well vote for the current administration. Such a fickle opinion, in my eyes, is a sign of someone without terribly strong political ideals who is willing to let piddling little things(like the character of "other liberals"), get in the way of their vote.
Did I say anything even remotely like that? I thought I said the opposite - that I planned to vote for Kerry inspite of the words and actions of other liberals. What did I say that implies that I have a "fickle opinion" or that I really gave a rat's ass about "the character of other liberals" or that such a thing would compel me to vote for an administration I don't support?

And I don't see how you're in the position to coment on the strength of my political ideals. If I didn't have strong ideals I probably would be a liberal (which is not to say that I think liberals lack strong ideals; they're just different from mine).

But of course, since I'm not a liberal, you have license to make any negative assumptions you want to about me, even when they are in complete contridiction to the things I've said.

[GaWd]

Did I say anything even remotely like that? I thought I said the opposite - that I planned to vote for Kerry inspite of the words and actions of other liberals. What did I say that implies that I have a "fickle opinion" or that I really gave a rat's ass about "the character of other liberals" or that such a thing would compel me to vote for an administration I don't support?

Yes, yes you did. What you said was:


For the record, I am not a Republican, don't support the current administration, and would really like to vote for Kerry, but every liberal I meet seems determined to convince me otherwise.,

Now what about that statement says that you are planning on voting for Kerry? What about that statement implies anything remotely having to do with other "liberals" actions? Simply "meeting" other liberals apparently is tempting you away from a democratic vote, and that would be character-based and fickle, IMO.

Maybe an apology is due you, but your comments certainly aren't clear.

Sam

P.S.- I don't give a rat's ass whether you are a "liberal" or not. Hell, I work with nothing but Righties, Conservatives, Libertarians and outright political loons so I've learned to tone down judgement of other peoples political leanings-especially jingoistic ones.

[Voyager]

My point was that Liberalism's unquestionable correctness is one of it's central tenants; one cannot disagree in even the slightest and still be a good, decent human being, much less intelligent or informed. All good, rational, enlightened people must be liberals. Otherwise they couldn't be good, enlightened, or rational, right? If A->B, then B->A.


Two words. John McCain. Hardly a liberal, yet hardly demonized by them. It seems that men of integrity who disagree are treated with respect. Those who treat the Constitution as toilet paper perhaps don't deserve as much respect.

[SPOOFE]

::sigh::

We have a political system that is like a chessboard. Every piece of legislation is geared towards being a tool that someone, right or left, up or down, backwards or forwards, can twist and turn and tilt to their advantage to put them where they can do what they want.

Congress has control over Federal Court jurisdiction? Well, sounds like a nice Checks 'n Balances idea. Trying to use it to prevent people suing over "Under God"? Stupid. Sure, I think people are too sue-happy over it (as well as many issues), but that's their right. They have the right to sue.

Criminy. With 99% of the politicians out there, there're two things I hate about 'em for every one thing I like.

Two words. John McCain. Hardly a liberal, yet hardly demonized by them. It seems that men of integrity who disagree are treated with respect.
And we need to focus on these respectful men of integrity, whichever side they identify with. That'll encourage other politicians to not be douchebags. Change starts with us, man, at the bottom. You're not gonna fix things by using a broken system, tryin' to fix things from the top down.

[/silly angsty idealistic baloney]

[MaxTheVool]

My point was that Liberalism's unquestionable correctness is one of it's central tenants; one cannot disagree in even the slightest and still be a good, decent human being, much less intelligent or informed. All good, rational, enlightened people must be liberals. Otherwise they couldn't be good, enlightened, or rational, right? If A->B, then B->A.


I must admit I'm baffled by this.

Sure, there are some people who are simple-minded jerks who view the entire world in black and white. There are some die-hard Republicans who think every democrat is a traitorous communistic namby-pamby flag-burning probable-homosexual. There are some die-hard Democrats who think every Republican is a rich, evil, white, business-owning, Cheney-shmoozing, racist bastard.

There are see-the-world-in-black-and-white idiots of that sort in just about every belief system you could come up with.


What makes you think that the modern American left engages in that kind of blanket condemnation more than average? Or, for that matter, more than the modern American right?

(For what it's worth, the single most heinous example of that kind of thinking that I can think of is Anne Coulter's vitriolic waste of paper, Treason.)

[Jackmannii]

The way things are going between the Repugs and the Demonizocrats, there could be lots of write-in votes for Nader.



Just in passing, I should note the towering disappointment I felt recently when, after receiving the joyous news that DeLay had been indicted, it was subsequently made clear that they were talking about Ken Lay.

[Albert Rose]

Thanks, Max_Castle.

I guess the best thing to do is to vote your conscience, and not worry about what "nutjobs" from any extreme think. I'm looking at the candidates' platforms and trying to re-evaluate my beliefs on the Iraq War, then seeing where that puts me.

[Squink]

trying to re-evaluate my beliefs on the Iraq War, then seeing where that puts me. This daily fatality listing (http://icasualties.org/oif/) is good for focusing one's thoughts on Iraq.