Sometimes, as H. L. Mencken said, one horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.
Come to think of it, that demonstrates that laughter can indeed add something to the debate – it was only because of the laughter that they quit calling themselves “teabaggers”.
I would think be more enlightening to have the discussion focus on their issues and ideas, wrongheaded and stupid though they may be, rather than assigning cute pejoratives.
Just a suggestion…
We’re in the Stupid Republican idea of the day thread, and you think this is a debate?
I’m more than ready to give him a pass on “call a spade a spade,” but “just let them wither and die” cannot be shrugged off as merely tone-deaf.
There’s a time and a place for everything. And this is the place for calling them stupid names.
Enlightenment is down the hall. This is abuse.
We’ve already spent too much time trying to discuss issues with the pushmi-pullyu’s idiot brother(no heads, two assholes). All this did was give them enough legitimacy to gain the power they now have. Just look at the poor schlubs that are still trying to deal with them as if they have any point other than the ones on top their heads-the Republicans. I’ve said for years that I wished the Republicans would clean house and become a sane, and strong party again, because I would like to have a better choice at the polls than mediocracy vs. bull goose loony.
“Liberal Republican” ought to be distinctive enough, and could cover just about anything, policy-wise.
“Moderate Republican” used to be the name for your sort of views, but nowadays it seems to be a way of saying “We’re not actually the batshit-crazy ones, although we will go along with what the batshit-crazy ones want if there’s money or votes to be had”.
Rick Perry, who lately has been trying to look all serious and thoughtful and stuff by wearing geek glasses, has this to say about Those People:
Maybe that works among your own backward constituency, but California?
But there’s an obvious solution to this: make sure everyone has a gun. Then everything will fix itself.
I pretty much agree–silly name calling weakens the underlying intent to point and laugh. It does have its place (I’m not adept enough to suggest how), but generic substitution of one name for another fits in that thread from a while back about “if you use this, you’ve lost” (I can’t remember enough keywords to find it. I think it was a BG thread). Again, a well-placed use can add value (maybe the teajadist/Saudia Arabia example does work for this), but simple name calling is pretty inane.
Also, crossing party lines to fuck with a primary election is a shitty thing to do regardless of party affiliation. It undermines the democratic process and should be universally condemned.
So I’m not just whining, here’s a small contribution. Sorry I don’t have the time, patience or turpitude to wade through the enormous sea of stupidity to find something of higher quality (and I thank those of you who do):
Paul Gosar Cites Eric Cantor’s Defeat As A Reason House GOP Should Try To Impeach Eric Holder
Yes. Use the democratic process to justify bypassing a democratic process.
“Mostly sane”.
And as we all know, “scared and angry” is the very best possible basis for making rational decisions.
Perhaps this one’s not exactly on the GOP – it’s hard to tell, these days –
I would have thought a defense of purely random cop-killing beyond the pale even by Libertarian standards.
Then change the law.
John Boehner: “Cantor’s defeat is Obama’s fault.”
Joni Ernst, Republican nominee for the Senate from Iowa (she isn’t just running, she won the primary): “The UN wants to take away American’s property rights and force everybody to live in cities.”
Subverting democracy is a shitty thing to do, full stop.
There are plenty of rational, coherent reasons to vote in a primary of a party you do not support–reasons that are in accord with the underpinnings of the democratic process.
Voting for someone in a primary because you think it will fuck that party and make it easier for your party’s nominee is not one of them.
There are plenty of rational, coherent reasons to impose some sort of voter identification schemes.
Designing and passing a voter identification scheme with the intent to disenfranchise a statistically significant number of the opposite party’s voters is not one of them.
The status of the law is irrelevant to whether or not something should be universally condemned: **Subverting democracy is a shitty thing to do, full stop. **
This is strictly libertarian stuff. You may not have context here. Cops in our society are increasingly militarized, propelled by the War on Drugs and federal programs that encourage the rise of heavily armed SWAT teams even in small cities. In libertarian and progressive circles, there are regular stories of cops murdering unarmed civilians and getting away with it. Lots and lots of them. Check out Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop for more information.
If you have access to this information, you are much less of enamored of the police than if you don’t.
Of course, the vast majority of cops do NOT murder innocent civilians, they just do their job, so Kokesh’s statement is waaaaay out there over the edge even for libertarians, who tend to be a hidebound bunch.
(I’ll make an exception for vice squad cops, who, since they police mostly victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution) spend most of their time shaking down (and raping) prostitutes and shaking down drug users – vice squad cops are a truly useless group of human beings. If these two cops had been targeted as vice squad cops, I would have trouble shedding a tear for them. Not that random killings would have helped put vice squads out of business.)
Actually, I can’t think of any good reasons. I’m heartily in favor of most anything that sows chaos and discord amongst the GOP, but I have a hard time justifying the open primary concept.
I (as a Democrat) feel I have no more right to vote in a Republican primary, than I do to vote for president of the ILGWU or the 8th grade class president. I’m not a member of that group choosing their leader.
Perhaps. Strategic voting is intrinsic in many voting systems. If you limit people to vote only for members of their own party, isn’t that also subverting democracy?
There is no “perfect” voting system. All systems “subvert democracy” to some extent. Strategic voting works when there are more than two candidates and their support ratings are significantly different.
What if that happens within a party’s primary? Is it still “subverting democracy” if I vote for the weakest of Jerry Brown’s Democratic opponents, instead of voting for the weakest of his opponents from some other party?
(Personally, I don’t like “Open Primaries,” but they can be implemented by the democratic process. They don’t violate the principle of “majority rule.” They only move around the various advantages and disadvantages of minority blocs.)
(Also, what Litmus Test would you apply? How can you know I don’t really think that Loser McJackasshat is the “best man for the job?”)