Good question. When was adaher born? 
Does she? Or are you jumping on a verbal slip because actually arguing her positions is hard?
If you don’t understand what he means when he says socialist, you should educate yourself before comment. Because from here it looks like you want to associate him with communism, and that’s not what I would call talking clearly.
Oh no, teh kids!
This is such absurdly incoherent nonsense, I don’t even want to address it. If your house is on fire, and I say, “Sam Stone’s house is on fire.” do you stand up defiant and cluck out, “ALL HOUSES ARE ON FIRE!11”
The very notion that pointing out a problem in one area, suggests that you don’t care about other areas is goofy.
You’d prefer ignoring marginalized groups?
No, they don’t believe that. The GOP believe that all tax cuts are good, and that, via magic, the more you cut, the more the govt. makes. It is to laffer. Dems want to raise our historically low taxes to something they resembled when America had upward mobility.
*Seem *is a pretty flexible word.
It’s still a problem. And nothing the dems want to do is unconstitutional.
Individuals want some harsh things. So? We’re talking about policy, not what some scientist wants, because the GOP and RW media have been lying about his life’s work for decades.
In some ways it’s not. The GOP wants to undo regulations that are proven successful. Regulation isn’t a dirty word. Only a fool thinks we don’t need any.
Horseshit.
Of course you could, because this entire post is just wind. An attempt to take the perfectly justified criticism of the GOP and the American Right, flip it around, and cry helplessly that, “Both sides are the same!”
No, it really hasn’t. On social issues society has evolved, and the left has spearheaded it, but on the economy or defense?
You again are trying to paint Sanders’ position as the same as communism.
The country has evolved socially. It is a good thing that gays can marry, and that sickening bigots gnash their teeth over it. The Dems lead social change, because the GOP is generally full of angry assholes that want to keep the prejudices of the past alive and well.
He was a bit of a twat.
Your perspective is not in comport with observed reality.
Many are. He is, however, adjusting the playing field. Pulling that Overton Window to the side of sanity.
His beliefs are backed by the other first world social democracies. It’s the libertarian goofballs that want to instill a nation that has never existed, and has no example in all of history.
No. Because he advocates proven policies that work the world over. Trump is a racist cunt who knows nothing about policy and is just acting the buffoon for the angry, ignorant base of the GOP.
Mostly on the right though.
Both sides aren’t the same. I can see why you want them to be, because you don’t want to accept that you’re a booster for the morally bankrupt team.
Did Lobohan just mic drop?
If that were even partially true in the past, it certainly isn’t true now.
There may be signs of improvement, crazy Ted Cruz had a denial of science hearing that was made less defective because many Republicans failed to show up, so democrats had more chances to support the only defender of science and he was a no take prisoners Admiral.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Navy-climate-change-expert-sees-opponents-6401711.php
Cruz in the end just told everyone that he learned nothing. Will have to wait if other Republicans were just avoiding being on the record now or if they continue to be as deniers as ever, but not just as rabid as Ted Cruz.
Having been persuaded that this well was truly poisoned right from the get-go, I’m moving this to the Pit.
Let’s look at McCarthyism in the 1950s. Wasn’t this an instance of insanity on the part of Republicans?
I think “Hamster King” nailed it.
Yeah, they’ve always had their crazies, so have we but on their side the inmates are now running the asylum.
I don’t think the Republicans are insane. But the major problems the party has started when we got in bed with the religious whackjobs. The whackjobs now dominate the party and true conservatives are in the minority.
High five!
Raises hand. Is the mod instruction in post #45, now rescinded because this is now the pit?
Oh, this is in the pit now? Oh goodie.
Sam, I’m no expert on Libertarian policy. As a result, I used to give some of your screeds on the subject more credence, because you seemed to know what you were talking about, and gave really deep, detailed analysis.
This post proves that that was wholly unwarranted. You’re a massive dunce, the needle of whose political compass is stuck firmly in his mind’s arse, who knows nothing about any of the issues you expound on here. You know nothing about anything you speak of here. You do not even show the most cursory understanding of Black Lives Matter, of Sanders’ political views (or, alternatively, of the political reality in places like Denmark and Sweden), or anything else you expound on. You lie about what democrats believe, much in the same way that that shit-for-brains Waymore did.
If your posts on climate change weren’t enough of a giveaway to everyone else (and lord knows, they should have been for me), this damn well should be. You’re a complete nincompoop.
I’ll take this shit from Waymore, because he never fucking posts and/or is a new poster, and his bullshit is at least amusing. From you? From you I expected better. Now my expectations are at least reasonably adjusted, thank you for that at least.
:mad:
The stupidest bit (although there’s a lot of stupid to choose from in that post) is this, IMHO:
First, Sam, it’s “Democratic Party”: it’s odd that so many of you conservatives don’t know how to spell it correctly.
Second, it’s flat-out ridiculous to think that you can reconcile that statement with the fact that the other national politician occupying the White House during the Clinton Administration, who was closely associated with that administration’s policies and ideas, is currently the frontrunning Democratic candidate for President.
In what crazy parallel reality do you imagine that Democrats support Hillary while rejecting Bill? Politically, ideologically, pragmatically, they’re basically the same entity. Every voting-age Democrat knows that a new Clinton White House would be a combo of Bill and Hillary, just like it was the last two times.
And that’s not even taking into account the fact that Bill Clinton is the most favorably viewed living ex-President, with 64%/34% pos/neg ratings.
I think that’s dumb, but really? Dumber than the bit about Sanders’ political views? That was some grade-A retardation, right there.
Just this little tidbit, if you’ve got the time, seems to cry out for some citation and specifics. If you’re not too busy.
He must be talking about Rep. Raul Grijalva a Democrat that asked for information about outside funding for seven university professors who stake out skeptical or controversial positions on climate change, He gave up his request for their correspondence with funders and others was an “overreach.” He is still defending his request for information about external funding for research and consulting.
What it is asinine is that the Republicans are not only threatening more than that to the NOAA scientists, the Republicans declared that the scientists are committing fraud. And never mind that the Democrat pulled off at the recommendation of scientists too,** the republicans are not listening** to even more scientists that told Lamar Smith and others to deal with the science and not personal emails.
Finally, what remains is that the request from scientists and others to get investigations going into the funding of denial does not mean that scientists are silenced, the targets are the ones funding disinformation. It is very important for a democracy to point at the conflicts of interest that contrarian researchers are getting money from when clear shoddy denier science is the result.
As I said, the republican party has gone full Lysenko.
It is interesting to me to see a few posters finally awakening to the fact that Sam Stone is nothing but the definition of a Very Serious Person, specifically definition c).
It started around the same time when Rush Limbaugh and FOX news started. Was that the early 90’s?
Yeahbut, the Sanders thing is mostly just an ignorantly simplistic conflation of different definitions of “socialism”. I would argue that claiming that Bill Clinton “couldn’t get elected dogcatcher” by Democrats today because of an alleged Democratic leftward shift is not only factually wrong but creatively stupid. It takes some truly ideology-inspired idiocy to be able to shut one’s eyes to easily observable facts long enough to come up with a hypothesis like that.
Well, it also takes a willingness to ignore how time marches on – most notably with gay rights, but also with many other things such as how we view the real and important subtleties of structural and cultural racism.
These are shifts in SOCIETY since the Bill Clinton administration, not shifts in any one political party. It’s a little different than pointing out his Nixon or Reagan would be far too liberal for today’s Republican Party. That does also reflect societal shifts, but mainly counter-trends to the bigger shifts – to paint a broad brush, fearful reactions to a changing world.