I don’t know the historic details, but I’m not sure they’ve had a comparable opportunity to condemn a military training exercise. Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, USSOC [US Special Operations Command] spokesman, said, “Jade Helm 15 is the largest operation of its kind in the 25-year RMT [realistic miltary training] history.”
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/residents-outraged-over-jade-helm-15-training/nk4dx/
Here’s an article criticizing the crazies:
You might be a little unfair in including anti-nuke activism, given that nuclear power has had a number of severe accidents and the issue of waste disposal is still unsolved.
Other than anti-GMO groups, every other item on your list is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not subject to validation. You might just as well have included Jews and Mormons on your list.
But are liberals really anti-science when it comes to nukes and GMOs? I mean, anti-nuke, sure, but they’re not denying the existence of atoms.
How come the vegans aren’t on the Deeg Shitlist? So totally unfair.
Complete bullshit comparison.
When there are enough on the left who believe this stuff that Democratic presidential candidates need to pander to crystal-lovers, anti-GMO groups, and Gaia worshippers during election campaigns, when a Democratic governor announces that they will send National Guard troops to ensure that the “crystal balance” of the state is OK, then, maybe we can talk about any sense of equivalence between the anti-science of the left and the right.
And being anti-nuke is not anti-science. Overall, I am pro-nuclear power, but the people who are against it are so because they don’t want the negatives associated with it (e.g. getting rid of nuclear waste), and not because they don’t believe the science behind it. If the left wing people were to be against nuclear power in the same way as right wing people approach these things, they would be denying the actual science behind nuclear power, likely denying that it is even possible to split the atom, and stating things that the vast majority of nuclear scientists disagree with.
Jade Helm 15 = all right-wingers are nuts
“Her name is Snow, and she just wants to live.” = all left-wingers are nuts.
Is that the path this thread is headed down?
This + some fairly large integer.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah! So, we can fairly establish that the center for High Broderism, the sweet spot of moderate and sensible centrism lies with Deeg and Shodan, somewhere between the radical leftism of Calvin Coolidge and the calm conservatism of Nicholas II.
It is too many for me, I fold.
But it’s still an official state-sponsored and -funded outfit, under the control of the governor. It’s even got an air wing, according to your link. So yeah, Texas is gonna spend tax dollars making sure the U.S. military doesn’t take over Texas.
(And even the crazies that are pushing this stuff in the first place (the ones who aren’t the topic of this thread, since both sides do of course have random nutcases that don’t hold office or have massive audiences) should have the sense to realize that the U.S. military is a good deal more conservative than the American public at large. If Obama really were trying to take over America militarily, he’d have to invite China in, or something.)
So name names. Which Dem officeholders are crystal-lovers, Gaia worshippers, pagans, vortex-seekers, and the like?
Of those groups you list, the only ones that even get any attention are the anti-nuke and anti-GMO groups. And please tell me which Congresscritters are openly anti-nuke or anti-GMO, because I don’t know of any myself.
To say that they’re ‘damaging’ you’d have to be able to explain how they’ve negatively affected public policy, and what the impacts have been.
Because, you know, it’s pretty obvious that most GOP officeholders are climate change deniers of one sort or another, and the negative effects of climate change denial have been pretty obvious in keeping us from addressing the issue a lot earlier.
In fairness to the Texas State Guard, other states have similar organizations. Here in Pennsylvania, we have the even more ridiculous Pennsylvania Guard Reserve Force. They have been unsuccessfully trying, like an unwanted and unloved child, to get the state government to recognize them for 30 years. We have a provision for an actual state guard, but it has been inactive since the 1950’s. I’m mildly curious how much TX actually funds their state guard. The general trend for these collections of cartoon characters is that they are unpaid volunteers who have to provide their own uniforms and (if any) equipment.
Funny that the RWers should berate airy-fairy mysticism on the part of the liberals when I remember a US President who relied on advice from the first lady’s astrologer – and though he was a Republican, I guess one could say that he would be well to the left of the modern Republican pack and only barely to the right of today’s Democratic President. Funny how a senile old actor can seem sane when compared to today’s right-wing.
Maxine Waters. AKA Michelle Bachmann of the Left.
I don’t know if she actually fits any of the above categories but she is my go to answer for anyone wanting an example of a crazy-ass Dem.
Give us something to go on. I am having a hard time finding an example that depicts Maxine Waters as being anywhere near as demented as Michelle Bachmann.
(My emphasis.) This issue would be resolved if Obama hadn’t unilaterally killed Yucca Mountain due to pressure from the left. This is where the left (like Greenpeace and Sierra Club) is anti-science: YM is a well-studied answer to waste disposal that has the approval of scientists and engineers; it was squashed for purely political reasons. For all his faults one of (the few) things that Bush did right was support YM.
True. I was assuming (perhaps wrongly) that many Dopers include religious belief as part of conservative irrationality.
I was going to list PETA but I figured even you wouldn’t want me to include PETA under the liberal tent. “Sea kittens” and all that is it’s own level of crazy. 
It’s become a tradition for the Talking Heads of political television shows to solemnly wag their fingers and proclaim “Tut tut, isn’t it sad when both sides do it” whenever Republicans shit the bed. What they’re trying to do is look at a scale with boulders in one pan and pebbles in the other pan and pretend that the scale is in balance. In truth there is nothing remotely close to balance. Consider the following:
Jan 20, 2009. Republican Party leaders met in secret on Inauguration Day and vowed to try to obstruct every single thing that the new president would try to do. Never before in US history has the minority party set as its agenda the destruction of a presidency from day one. The apologists will say that Democrats are not always cooperative with Republican presidents, but Democrats never vowed to oppose every single thing a new Republican presidemt would do from the first day.
Obamacare. There are some legitimate improvements that could have been made to the law when it was written, but the defamation of it by the right wing has to be the most hysterical overreaction in US history. Death panels! Socialism! Government takeover of health care! Job killer! Tax increase! 100,000 new IRS agents! Illegal aliens get benefits! How many times has the House voted to repeal since Boehner became the figurehead Speaker? Sixty? All while knowing it faced certain death in the Senate and an even more certain veto. The hill that every Republican wants to die on is health coverage for more Americans. And the best you’ve got to counter this is “if you like your plan you can keep it”. Sure, Obama could have put some caveats in there. Like “If your plan is compliant and your insurer chooses to keep it, so can you.” If this equals “both sides do it” to you, then you’re quite out of touch with reality.
Obama. Never before has a president been so vilified for who he is rather than what he does. Kenyan socialist Muslim! Sure, Democrats hated Bush, but it was for what he actually did. Republicans hate Obama for shit they make up. He painted Air Force One with his campaign logo! He raised our taxes! He canceled National Prayer Day! OMG Executive Orders! He’s after our guns! He organized Muslim prayer rallies! Waaaahh! He closed the WW II Memorial! Yes, Democrats hated Bush. For starting a war under false pretenses. For being an incompetent boob. For foolish tax cuts. We didn’t hate him because of his race nor did we lie about his religion.
Hostage Taking. The Republicans used both the debt ceiling and government funding as hostages to use to try to browbeat Obama into submission. Only one party has ever done this.
Filibusters. While the filibuster has been around forever, it is only in recent years that Republicans have used it for EVERYTHING. Any bill, any appointment has to get 60 votes. A quick glance of filibuster statistics over the years shows that one side has done it far more than the other.
Rigging Elections. Gerrymandering has been raised to an art form by Republicans following their 2010 fluke. States like Michigan and Pennsylvania that are reliably blue presidential states send majority Republican delegations to Congress. Voter list purges and voter ID schemes are done for one purpose- restricting the number of Democratic voters. Only one party has ever tried to maintain a permanent majority by nefarious means.
No, both sides don’t do it. If you think that, either you aren’t paying attention or you’re a blind partisan.
Specifics please? Also, is Waters as influential as Bachmann? Does she do as much time on the media as Bachmann does?
Because otherwise, I’d say, she isn’t much of an example at all.
Simpler: Was Waters ever the party’s leading candidate for President?
Your first three points are baseless opinion. #4 is the first one where you give an actual concrete example that can be examined. So let’s by all means take a look at what you consider equivalence and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Let us, indeed, see where the bias really is in these discussions.
“conservatives believe that Gore took credit for inventing the internet”:
They sure do. But the reality is that Gore was a visionary in many areas and was instrumental in funding and promoting the Internet through Congressional initiatives. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn wrote a strong defense of Gore’s contributions in which they said, among other things, that “Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development” and that “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time”. Snopes has a pretty good summary. This is why, in fact, Al Gore was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame along with pioneers like Vint Cerf, Robert Kahn, and Tim Berners-Lee.
So where did this bizarre “invented the Internet” story come from? It was, as usual, a deliberate fabrication by the right, in this case by a libertarian blogger named Declan McCullagh who wrote an article for Wired, and, as usual, the right-wing media delightfully picked it up:
The tale was first hatched by the Wired News, the “online home of Wired Magazine.” On March 11 1999, Wired’s Declan McCullagh posted a nasty article mocking Gore for his little-noticed comments to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” Inelegant wording perhaps, but Wired treated Gore’s statement as an outrageously false claim. (McCullagh later bragged, “I was the first reporter to question the vice president’s improvident boast.”)
McCullagh, incidentally, has since gone on to write hit pieces promoting the right-wing agenda against initiatives on climate change.
So in summary: Al Gore was right, and the claim was the result of a right-wing smear campaign.
“liberals believe that Palin said she could see Russia from her porch”:
Palin’s actual claim was in response to a question about her foreign policy credentials, of which she has none. So she claimed that she knew all about Russia because she lives in Alaska, for heaven’s sake, and there’s an island in Alaska from which you can actually see Russia! Tina Fey turned this into “I can see Russia from my house” in a satirical skit on SNL.
If any liberals somehow confused Tina Fey’s parody with the original and concluded that Sara Palin is an imbecile, they’re perfectly correct. Palin’s original statement was hilariously asinine. The only difference is that Tina Fey’s version is even funnier.
So in summary: Yes, Sarah Palin really is an imbecile.