I think the McKinney shtick deserves its own thread. Not being a principal in this, I figure that option rests with John C or with Hentor. Looking at the full quote, I admit I find myself embarassed, because I bought the story as reported, without seeing the whole context. The whole context, while not an example of non-partisanship at its finest, in no wise reflects the quote as commonly given. Twisting an opponents words to fit an agenda is repugnant, and deserves rebuke.
After all, a quote is a quote. If it isn’t, it isn’t. It was offered as a rather weak rebuttal to the troglodyte statements of the newly elected Senator from Oklahoma, who appears to be a thoroughgoing asshole of neutron density. Since I am not a Republican, I am not especially embarassed, not from Oklahoma, so a pass on that. As an American, however, I could puke my guts out.
You know, this is exactly the kind of thing we’ve been talking about. All that matters in relation to this discussion is that she DID NOT SAY THE QUOTE THAT WAS MALICIOUSLY AND FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO HER. Period. *
But even if everything they said about her was true, and even if we could all agree that she was out of line to backhandedly accuse the President of profiting from the 9/11 attacks, that’s hardly the point here. She was brought up in this thread in an effort to somehow “tit for tat” my disgust over the likes of Tom Coburn representing Republicans from Oklahoma. If one disagrees with her policies on Israel or asking the Saudis to direct the money they offered to other causes she supports, that’s one thing. As Bricker is so fond of saying, “reasonable people can disagree.” But I don’t see her calling for the DEATH of anyone, nor do I see her pandering to gay haters by painting gays as a bigger threat to our country’s freedom than, say, terrorists. That makes her and Tom Coburn galaxies apart in my book.
(*Though calling for an investigation into what the administration knew before the 9/11 attacks was obviously the right thing to do, seeing as how that investigation actually did take place, afterall.)
What quote? The linked article didn’t show any direct quotes attributed to her, falsely or otherwise, did it? The author just said there was a direct quote and then denied that she said it without saying what it was.
Don’t any of you mofos sleep??? Man. Bricker, yer on. Just to let you know, I already made a metric crapload betting against this guy, and I’m sitting here mulling whether the cycle will overwhelm all the bad stuff he’s going to pile on over the next four years.
Not that that means anything in the longer view: a metric crapload squared now or four years from now when the economic cycle runs out of steam is no sweat. Either way, this idiot’s breaking the bank and I plan to be there with a vacuum cleaner for all the coins that fall out when it happens.
So, name your terms. (I just finished talking to my mom, btw, who informs me that a Republican brother-in-law of mine is so despondent over the fact Bush won he won’t even turn on the TV. God, I like my family.)
I agree with Shayna’s point here. McKinney is obviously not my favorite person, and I thought her interaction with the Saudi Prince was boorish. But there are lines, and she crossed one or two; Coburn’s death-penalty-happy attitude is repugnant to me, a pro-lifer. McKinney is an embarrassment; Coburn is six steps beyond embarrassment.
OK. Your claim was: “Bush will follow the fate of LBJ. By the time 2008 comes around, he’ll be hated by two-thirds of the nation. The right, and the Republicans, will spend the next half-century recovering. Count on it.”
Obviously that’s a subjective prediction, but I assume we can agree that there will be objective measurements as a result. If he’s hated by two-thirds of the country, for example, I find it hard to imagine the GOP winning the White House, House, or Senate.
So here’s my first proposal: you win the bet if the Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House in the first term following the election of 2008. If that doesn’t happen, I win.
And he took it. That’s not nice. We’re not here to take advantage of the liberals, we’re here to help them.
Remember, Xenophon thinks Sherman didn’t use total war in his march to the sea. Minty Green thinks George Soros is not a Democrat. Hentor the Barbarian thinks the NYT is right wing. Redfury calls me a “sick fuck” and when asked to quote the justification, he says it’s because I’m strong handsome and intelligent. Stoid thinks the voices in her head are on her side, and Elucidator is… you know… special.
Now I find your bilking pantom without odds because he doesn’t realize two thirds does not equal a perfect hatrick, nor does he realize how rare what he is betting on is.
It should be quite clear to you now that harnessed, the collective brainpower of this group might make toast.
Remember. We are here to help these people, not exploit and take advantage of them.
Now be good. Either let the boy have two out of three to reflect the two thirds majority proposed, give him odds, or, failing that, at least show the decency to lay off some of that action my way.
Scylla, you bloodthirsty piece of shit, and believe me, I’m being kind.
The man offered up a compromise: all I have to do to win is have the White House be Democrat, and the House and the Senate be Democrat by a margin of one.
I’m not sure why, but Bricker is actually being reasonable. At this point, given how I feel about Republican Southern evangelicals, I’m willing to say it’s because the man’s a Catholic, and therefore open to reason.
Regardless, the odds amount to very close to even. In my book, four years from now, this bet is a lock. If not, sweat it not, I’m still quite sure I’ll make my metric crapload squared, so $100 ain’t exactly going to make me cry.
So, you can crawl back into the hog lagoon you crawled out of. You and I both know you were just looking for me to reply to something from you.
Yes, I know. How often, historically, does one party control all three branches?
You gave him even odds on this.
Forget politics for a second because a lot can happen in four years. Look at it as a coin toss. Your coin has to come up Democrats three times in a house. All things be equal, your odds are one out of 8. It’s worse than that though, because incumbents are entrenched once they’re in and harder to outroot.
There’s a little more than luck, obviously. There’s also the result that both Houses are nearly evenly split, reflecting a near-even split in public sentiment. But that was not the point, as a responsible reading of my post would have told you. Instead, it seems you share Jodi’s simple triumphalism, claiming that even 50%+1 constitutes a sweeping mandate that does not require even hearing, much less listening to, the views and needs of as many as 50%-1.
Her idea of respect for the strengths of the two-party system is nothing more than that; is it yours too? Would either of you feel the same if a few thousand Ohioans had voted the other way? Would you be content to be totally shut out of any discussion whatever? I doubt it. You’re both simple partisans who lack the courage to admit it, not patriots with any full understanding of or respect for the nature of democracy.
Scylla, Sclla, Scylla. You’re using logic in an attempt to sway a Democratic True Believer? You pathetic fool. Logic, history and the mathematics of probability are not relevant here. Pantom knows the Truth, and the Victory of the Truth is inevitable.
Sort of like the inevitability of communism forecast by someone buried in a London cemetary.