# The Republicans are swine cunts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 1, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481 "2005-12-01T00:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/181 "2005-12-03T06:18:43Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Link please? Post 123 on page 3 of this thread. Sorry, but I don’t know how to link to a post. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/182 "2005-12-03T06:23:01Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Post 123 on page 3 of this thread. Sorry, but I don’t know how to link to a post. Dude, link that it’s against board rules. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/183 "2005-12-03T06:37:46Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6617547&highlight=liberaltarian#post6617547](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6617547&highlight=liberaltarian#post6617547) Post 257, a little before and after. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/184 "2005-12-03T06:43:56Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Semi-intelligent? Why semi? What fault do you find with the rest of it, that it’s only semi-intelligent? For example, you state that one cannot cut taxes without helping the wealthy. This might be true, if the only tax that existed was a flat income tax. But of course, our tax system—and the tax cuts—are far more complex than that. To believe that you cannot give targeted tax breaks to the middle class belies an utter lack of knowledge about the US tax system. That’s just from the first substantive paragraph. Shall I go on? In any case, I think the meat of your post was pretty good. Namely, that the economy really is doing half-decent given the circumstances (though, I think there can be legitimate argument about who is responsible for the circumstances). > [@Scylla](#): > > First off, this we “create” terrorists meme is a load of crap. They’re responsible for their own actions…Doing so, whether maliciously or irresponsibly is treason the way I see it. Thanks for re-stating your claim. I guess what I was looking for was some sort of support for hyperbole=help. Since you’ve failed to offer it, let me try to frame your argument charitably. Terrorists are emboldened by the left’s false criticisms of Bush. Feeling more righteous, they are therefore more likely to continue fighting Therfore, false criticisms aid the terrorists. Is this a fair summary? Assuming it is, here are the problems: 1)You cannot provide any meaningful distinction between false criticisms and true criticisms with regard to how they would embolden terrorists. If anything, it seems likely that true criticisms would embolden them more than false ones. 2)If you think terrorists need leftist criticism to feel self-righteous, you really don’t understand terrorism. 3)You believe that terrorists are ultimately responsible for their actions. If that absolves the US of creating them, why does it not absolve the left of aiding them? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/185 "2005-12-03T06:57:32Z")
It’s worth adding that the real reason your argument is flawed is that much of the left’s criticism is valid. And the extent to which it changes the policies that are helping terrorists recruit other terrorists is far more significant that the extent to which it directly helps terrorists. But I was just arguing within your own ideological framework. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/186 "2005-12-03T07:30:46Z")
> [@Ukulele Ike](#): > > Goodness gracious, I’m tired of you. I get it! [That’s what Donkeys said to Zeus](http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/568.htm)! Good to know some still read Aesop. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/187 "2005-12-03T07:58:49Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > First off, this we “create” terrorists meme is a load of crap. They’re responsible for their own actions. Much as a pyromaniac is not responsible for burning down a house? It’s just the fire’s fault? _Mujahedeen_ are streaming into Iraq as a direct result of Bush’s initiative. Bush was warned prior to the invasion that he was playing with fire. He needed to legitimize his actions through a relevant forum (the UN) and with sufficient **evidence** to prove his case. Instead he chose the idiotic cowboy path and I seem to remember you and others cheering him all the way and even arguing that here at last was a president with balls, principle, a man of action who can take the country into the new political landscape of the 21st century, etc. Now that the Bushite agenda has handed major PR victories to terrorist recruiters, you forget your past arguments? Civil war is brewing in Iraq, regardless of the feel-good news that are the emphasis of the Bushites and supporters. Many of the signs of another Bosnia are right there, right down to the influx of foreign Islamist fighters. Furthermore, Bush [energized al Qaeda and opened the door to terrorist movements](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1331362,00.html) in Iraq (’ the invasion of Iraq had “enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida’s motivation” to mount terrorist operations’). After 9/11 and Afghanistan, al Qaeda was dealt a severe blow, in fact it appeared to be very nearly stunned, hitting only a few small soft targets wherever it could. The inavsion of Iraq, probably one of the greatest if not the greatest recruitment drive in al Qaeda history, quickly changed that, and the group expanded and reorganized to attack targets in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, the UK, Bali, and so forth (I think Italy may be next). Obviously one cannot blame Bush for the crimes of terrorists, but Bush is fully responsible for creating a climate where al Qaeda and similar ideologies fester. If you put a fool in charge how do you expect him to temper his foolishness? Better to avoid foolishness in the first place. > [@](#): > > Secondly, the idea of the wingnut left being the insurgents greatest ally is pretty unimpeachable. Maybe, if you’re talking about some _extremes_. But instead of debating the issues, you lump together extremists and moderates of the opposite camp in an attempt to discredit them all based on the faults and idiocy of a few. That is dishonest and low-handed, even if it is, on occasion, a tu quoque rather than a spontaneous sally. When the converse happens - when Republicans are being bashed - it’s not always quite the same situation in reversal (although your own sense of justice may disagree). That is because Bush supporters who remain supporters _today_ tend to be ideological morons and/or staggeringly ignorant and lacking in perspective. I do NOT support making fun of Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservatives _as groups_, but it is fairly evident that the (diminished but still substantial in size) core of bush supporters all share a similar (foolish) philosophy, and thus make a fairer target than most large groups. Until recently, the Republican party exhibited quite a high degree of ideological and philosophical unity on such issues, which made them fair targets (party devotion and blind faith in the party’s leader, which I find intellectually revolting). I do not believe that is the case any longer, as increasing numbers of Bush supporters appear to have their eyes pried open daily with the crowbar of reality. I reject statements such as “republicans/democrats are idiots” and the like, I want that to be very clear. But this administration is corrupt and mentally deficient, and by extension so too are its supporters. Until a short time ago, those supporters included the large majority of Republicans (due to disinformation, propaganda, ignorance, hoodwinking, or whatnot). I think this explains some of the vitriol expressed against Republicans, and it is not _completely_ undeserved. And I must say, I see much more mass-media hatred coming out of the far Right - from loathsome vermiforms such as the mentally blank Ann Coulter - than I do from anywhere else on the political spectrum. That much is completely undeniable, no matter how it stings those on the Right who are more moderate but who nonetheless feel they have to associate with a general concept of what the “Right” is. > [@](#): > > Terrorism does not seek to win through military victory. It’s a PR and morale battle. It’s on record that the Vietnamese consider the protestor’s their greatest ally. By what crazy logic do you assume that the protests currently occur only in a vaccum? Nonetheless, protestors may be protesting for very valid reasons, as many anti-Vietnam war protestors were. To deny such right you would have to subscribe to the doctrine (already advocated by the Bushites, especially Rumsfeld) that the government provides overriding authority and direction, with the result that you would advocate intellectually bankrupt foolishness like “my country right or wrong”. Otherwise, you make fair points about the dangers of excessive hyperbole. The only problem there may be your definition of excessive, because you seem to want to lump many objections into the “hyperbole” camp. It is quite difficult, however, to _exaggerate_ the idiocy and recklessness of the current administrationt. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/188 "2005-12-03T08:27:17Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Maybe, if you’re talking about some _extremes_. But instead of debating the issues, you lump together extremists and moderates of the opposite camp in an attempt to discredit them all based on the faults and idiocy of a few. That is dishonest and low-handed, even if it is, on occasion, a tu quoque rather than a spontaneous sally. There’s also the whole fact that not only is the idea that “the left is helping terrorists” plain stupid but to claim that it’s beyond debate is pure fantasy. As if some guy in another country who has decided to blow himself up and kill Americans sees a Michael Moore film and says “Yo, that’s what I’m talkin’ about! I was having doubts about this whole suicide thing, but now I’m gonna do it!” To hardcore terrorists, we’re all targets in America. It’s not like Al Queda is sitting over a map picking places to hit and saying “What, New York? Naw, there are a lot of Liberals there and they are our closest allies. Let’s attack Texas instead.” The most harmful thing that anybody can do to us, as a nation, is to criminalize dissent. Luckily that hasn’t happened, but some Coulter clones have that as their goal. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/189 "2005-12-03T08:29:04Z")
> [@pilot141](#): > > “Hey dumbass, why don’t you make some valid points!..” Well, in the Mr. T post Scylla wasn’t really making any points at all, he was just spewing insults in the style of Mr. T. Am I supposed to write a formal thesis paper to argue that such a post is bereft of any value in a debate? Fuck that. Now that he has posted something with actual content, I can go through it and see if there are any arguments I can make that someone else hasn’t gotten to first. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/190 "2005-12-03T09:20:39Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Tax cuts in recessions are sound policy. I agree that a tax cut _could_ be a good idea, but it depends on the type of cut. Bush’s cuts were crap. > [@](#): > > Tax cuts to the unemployed aren’t helpful economically for reasons that should be obvious. You are a such a Limbaugh parrot. Drop the talking points and start using your own brain. One option would be not to cut taxes at all but simply dole out money to the working poor. You should at least be familiar with the major arguments against Bush’s tax cuts before you blab. One of the main ones was that cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t encourage them to consume (they just end up saving the money), whereas cutting the taxes of, or giving out money to, the middle class and poor results in greater consumption and a bigger economic stimulus. Not to mention heightened social justice. > [@](#): > > It’s not so much screwing the poor, as it is simply not helping them. You don’t–like most of the right wing–understand how labor and pay really work, do you? You blithely assume that the labor input of the poor is worth _exactly_ what they get paid. But that’s not the case. In reality, the economy is structured to extract a lot of labor from the poor and middle class and disproportionately reward the upper class. So the status quo _is_ screwing the poor. > [@](#): > > A family of four needs to make about $50,000 before they pay any Federal taxes, after credits. Talking points, talking points. Meanwhile, they’re paying FiCA, regressive sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, etc. > [@](#): > > Seeing as cutting taxes and increasing spending is basic economics for getting out of a recession, how do you propose making tax cuts that don’t benefit the wealthy tax payer? Someone already said it, but dude, you really are imagination-poor. You raise exemptions for the poor and middle class while simultaneously raising tax rates on the rich. It’s pretty fucking simple. > [@](#): > > No. That’s just wrong. The unemployment rate is currently at 5%. First, Bush has the worst job creation record of any prez since Hoover. Second, I used the perfect tense: employment _has_ sucked, so the quibble is with whether employment sucks now or not, since you can’t quibble that it _has_ sucked for most of Bush’s term. I don’t think the 5% rate tells anywhere near the entire story. There are a lot of under-employed, miserable people out there, the job market is ultra-hyper-competitve, and there is a malaise that just can’t be denied–unless you’re willfully blind to it. I heard a stat on NPR that the percentage of employers offering health insurance has shrunk drastically. These are not nice, easy-going times. > [@](#): > > So, the unemployment data suggests an economy running at high optimum. Ooh, _high optimum_! That’s a double-plus-good situation! > [@](#): > > In fact, the growth signs have been so strong that the Fed has been taking steps for the last year to brake the economy so it doesn’t overheat. I think it’s called “fear of inflation.” > [@](#): > > If you think GDP is right where you would expect it to be, than how do you come off saying the economy sucks? Feel free to quote where I said “the economy sucks,” cuz I didn’t. I said Bush didn’t take us back from the crash, meaning, the bulk of Americans, the poor and middle class, are suffering. I declined to credit Bush with the GDP growth; it’s where you’d expect it to be based on the fundamental strength of the American economy. Read what I fucking write. > [@](#): > > Again, if the economy sucks, than where are all these huge increasing profits coming from? Duh again. You can have a _good_ economy in terms of dollar figures that distributes 99% of the wealth to the rich, or you can have _good_ economy with the same GDP that distributes it more equitably. My issue is with the method of distribution, not our level of production. > [@](#): > > The growth in standard of living has been in steady decline for about 40 years. It’s an interesting concern, and we can have a valid and in depth discussion of it, but even you can’t blame a 40 year trend on Bush’s presidency. No, I blame him for proactively fucking the poor and middle class and thereby exacerbating the trend. I don’t blame him for the entire trend. > [@](#): > > I think the war is very necessary. Then you are a Kool-Ade-drinking, Limbaugh-cock-sucking moron and there’s no hope for you. _Very necessary?_ ATTACKING IRAQ WAS _NECESSARY_?! Couldn’t fucking do without it? It was a _must_? You are an idiot. [quote] I don’t think your finger on the tap of the “national mood” is any more accurate than the economic acument you’ve demonstrated. [quote] What the fuck is an “acument” you babbling fuck? You wanna know what the national mood is? It’s FUCK OFF, you right-wing swine cunt! Fuck all you brain-washed brownshirt bitches, fuck your furher Bush, fuck that slimeball swine cunt Cheney, fuck Powell and Condi for selling their souls to the Devil (what a waste), fuck all you shits who are turning the country I love into a goddamn fascist Reich. > [@](#): > > Well, you’re free to editorialize. Personally, I think people that going around labelling whole groups as swine cunts are some pretty ignorant and malicious motherfuckers. No, I’m just a pissed-off and unforgiving motherfucker at this point. > [@](#): > > The **only** thing the terrorists and our enemies have going for them is the wingnut left. It’s their only asset. DROP THE TALKING POINTS, DUMBFUCK! I’ve got news for you: There _are_ no terrorists. There are no people who wake up in the morning and think, “Yeah, I’m a terrorist.” Their self-images and intentions are not circumscribed by your neat little definition of what you need them to be. The people you label “terrorists” are a fairly disparate group of ignorant, dangerous, and highly motivated people who happen to use methods to accomplish their goals that are sick, evil, and ultimately self-destructive. I hate them just as much as you do. The difference between me and the right wing, however, is that I want to get rid of them through intelligent means, whereas you want to engage in the very fight they are picking with us. Our attacking Iraq is the _ultimate_ fulfillment of Bin Laden’s desire for action on our part. It’s truly pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/191 "2005-12-03T09:22:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think the war is very necessary. Really? Why is that? Is it because Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks? Plenty of evidence says that Saddam never had close ties with Al-Qaida. Is it because Saddam had WMD immediately prior to US invasion? Where the hell did they go? Where the hell did the manufacturing capabilities go? Is it because we’re spreading democracy? Bush sure as hell didn’t say anything about spreading democracy in his initial list of reasons to go to war, and we’re hardly doing a good job of spreading democracy there now. Too many people are trying to _supress_ democracy here at home, by calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them unpatriotic and such. I found this [detailed economic argument](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#p2c) that the real reason we are at war is for control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves: > [@William Clark](#): > > Summary > > Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking – it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration’s goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global “Peak Oil.” This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band’ with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century. Yeah, yeah, it’s all just paranoid left-wingnut conspiracy theory, right? Well, Clark has plenty of supporting cites of his own, so you can’t just say he’s making shit up. He also points out that the US could decouple itself from oil to a large extent by spurring research in alternative energy sources - something which our Oilman-In-Chief is loathe to do. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/192 "2005-12-03T09:40:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6617547&highlight=liberaltarian#post6617547](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6617547&highlight=liberaltarian#post6617547) > Post 257, a little before and after. I urge a careful rereading. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/193 "2005-12-03T13:06:07Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > DROP THE TALKING POINTS, DUMBFUCK! I’ve got news for you: There are no terrorists. There are no people who wake up in the morning and think, “Yeah, I’m a terrorist.” Their self-images and intentions are not circumscribed by your neat little definition of what you need them to be. The people you label “terrorists” are a fairly disparate group of ignorant, dangerous, and highly motivated people who happen to use methods to accomplish their goals that are sick, evil, and ultimately self-destructive. I hate them just as much as you do. The difference between me and the right wing, however, is that I want to get rid of them through intelligent means, whereas you want to engage in the very fight they are picking with us. Our attacking Iraq is the ultimate fulfillment of Bin Laden’s desire for action on our part. It’s truly pathetic. _::applause::_ Truly, an excellent summary of what we’re dealing with. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/194 "2005-12-03T14:22:03Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > For example, you state that one cannot cut taxes without helping the wealthy. This might be true, if the only tax that existed was a flat income tax. But of course, our tax system—and the tax cuts—are far more complex than that. To believe that you cannot give targeted tax breaks to the middle class belies an utter lack of knowledge about the US tax system. That’s just from the first substantive paragraph. Shall I go on? Not if that’s what you have. The dichotomy I was responding to was rich versus poor, not poor versus middle class. > [@](#): > > In any case, I think the meat of your post was pretty good. Namely, that the economy really is doing half-decent given the circumstances (though, I think there can be legitimate argument about who is responsible for the circumstances). The American people, Greenspan, the tax cuts. > [@](#): > > 1)You cannot provide any meaningful distinction between false criticisms and true criticisms with regard to how they would embolden terrorists. If anything, it seems likely that true criticisms would embolden them more than false ones. Untrue, I already did. False criticisms serve only the terrorists. True criticisms serve the American people > [@](#): > > 2)If you think terrorists need leftist criticism to feel self-righteous, you really don’t understand terrorism. Perhaps better than you. What is a terrorist’s goal and how do they achieve it? They are essentially fighting a fear and PR battle. They simply seek to make what their opponents are doing so unpopular that they give up. So, they absolutely count on criticism. > [@](#): > > 3)You believe that terrorists are ultimately responsible for their actions. If that absolves the US of creating them, why does it not absolve the left of aiding them? Because those are two different things that don’t equate with each other. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/195 "2005-12-03T14:23:47Z")
> [@sturmhauke](#): > > Well, in the Mr. T post Scylla wasn’t really making any points at all, he was just spewing insults in the style of Mr. T. Am I supposed to write a formal thesis paper to argue that such a post is bereft of any value in a debate? Fuck that. Now that he has posted something with actual content, I can go through it and see if there are any arguments I can make that someone else hasn’t gotten to first. There was quite a bit of content in the MR T. post. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/196 "2005-12-03T15:04:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I agree that a tax cut _could_ be a good idea, but it depends on the type of cut. Bush’s cuts were crap. It’s not helpful to say that unless you tell me why. > [@](#): > > You are a such a Limbaugh parrot. Drop the talking points and start using your own brain. It wouldn’t be fair. > [@](#): > > One option would be not to cut taxes at all but simply dole out money to the working poor. I think I said, you work your way out of a recession by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Handing out money to the poor would be the latter. > [@](#): > > You should at least be familiar with the major arguments against Bush’s tax cuts before you blab. One of the main ones was that cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t encourage them to consume (they just end up saving the money), whereas cutting the taxes of, or giving out money to, the middle class and poor results in greater consumption and a bigger economic stimulus. Yes. I’ve heard that argument. It’s not necessarily true. The other side of it is that poor and middle class people have large amounts of debt. Rather than spending it, a large part of it goes to paying down that debt. What I think is that both arguments are true to degrees. Which will be the larger operating force depends on the economic circumstances prevalent at the time. If debt loads are high, and consumer confidence is low, than tax cuts to the middle class will likely go to reducing debt. You have to realize that tax cuts affect profit margins. It increases them. That incentivises business owners to hire. > [@](#): > > Not to mention heightened social justice. Heightened social justice assumes that the person implementing it is qualified to do so. You don’t–like most of the right wing–understand how labor and pay really work, do you? [/quote] I’m absolutely positive I have a stronger grasp on it than you. > [@](#): > > You blithely assume that the labor input of the poor is worth _exactly_ what they get paid. But that’s not the case. I never said that. Don’t create strawmen. To make that assumption is to endorse the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis. Pretty much only an idiot does that. > [@](#): > > In reality, the economy is structured to extract a lot of labor from the poor and middle class and disproportionately reward the upper class. This is too vaguely worded to be meaningful. You need to define the terms you are speaking in. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, they’re paying FiCA, regressive sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, etc. The earned income tax credit basically dispenses with payroll taxes. You’re second point is valid though. Sales taxes disproportionately penalize lower income levels. I would have no problem with a repeal of most sales taxes accompanied with a commensurate increase in income taxes. Sounds fair and appropriate to me. I don’t think you can argue property taxes are necessarily regressive, though. > [@](#): > > Someone already said it, but dude, you really are imagination-poor. You raise exemptions for the poor and middle class while simultaneously raising tax rates on the rich. The middle class **did** get a tax cut. The poor are basically exempt from Federal taxes up to about $50,000 for a family of four (which is no longer poor.) Let me try it this way: The poor don’t make a lot of money. Exempting them from taxes doesn’t help. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty fucking simple.First, Bush has the worst job creation record of any prez since Hoover. Second, I used the perfect tense: employment _has_ sucked, so the quibble is with whether employment sucks now or not, since you can’t quibble that it _has_ sucked for most of Bush’s term. No. Employment has been pretty strong even through the post bubble/ 9/11 recession. Go check unemployment rates for the last five years, and compare them for previous five year periods and then tell me it sucked. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the 5% rate tells anywhere near the entire story. There are a lot of under-employed, miserable people out there, the job market is ultra-hyper-competitve, and there is a malaise that just can’t be denied–unless you’re willfully blind to it. Quantify “under-employed.” Quantify “ultra-hyper-competive” and while you’re at it, explain to me what it means and why it’s bad. As for your “undeniable malaise,” perhaps you might quantify that as well. The term you may be looking for is “consumer confidence.” If it is, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but I don’t really think you have your finger on the pulse of the economy. > [@](#): > > I heard a stat on NPR that the percentage of employers offering health insurance has shrunk drastically. These are not nice, easy-going times. They seldom are. What is it that you make of the former statement. I accept it’s true. Considering the environment it **should** be. Health costs and insurance costs have been skyrocketing. It makes it a harder benefit to offer. > [@](#): > > Ooh, _high optimum_! That’s a double-plus-good situation!I think it’s called “fear of inflation.” Yes. High optimum is good. And there is governmental fear of inflation. I said that. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Feel free to quote where I said “the economy sucks,” cuz I didn’t. I said Bush didn’t take us back from the crash, meaning, the bulk of Americans, the poor and middle class, are suffering. I declined to credit Bush with the GDP growth; it’s where you’d expect it to be based on the fundamental strength of the American economy. Read what I fucking write.Duh again. You can have a _good_ economy in terms of dollar figures that distributes 99% of the wealth to the rich, or you can have _good_ economy with the same GDP that distributes it more equitably. Why don’t you define equitably? > [@](#): > > My issue is with the method of distribution, not our level of production. What exactly is your problem here. > [@](#): > > No, I blame him for proactively fucking the poor and middle class and thereby exacerbating the trend. I don’t blame him for the entire trend.Then you are a Kool-Ade-drinking, Limbaugh-cock-sucking moron and there’s no hope for you. _Very necessary?_ ATTACKING IRAQ WAS _NECESSARY_?! Couldn’t fucking do without it? It was a _must_? Off to gibberish land. I said “necessary.” > [@](#): > > You are an idiot. I don’t think your finger on the tap of the “national mood” is any more accurate than the economic acument you’ve demonstrated. Thank you. > [@](#): > > What the fuck is an “acument” you babbling fuck? A misspelling of “acumen.” > [@](#): > > You wanna know what the national mood is? It’s FUCK OFF, you right-wing swine cunt! Fuck all you brain-washed brownshirt bitches, fuck your furher Bush, fuck that slimeball swine cunt Cheney, fuck Powell and Condi for selling their souls to the Devil (what a waste), fuck all you shits who are turning the country I love into a goddamn fascist Reich.No, I’m just a pissed-off and unforgiving motherfucker at this point.DROP THE TALKING POINTS, DUMBFUCK! I’ve got news for you: There _are_ no terrorists. Hmmmm. Blew a gasket, did we? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/197 "2005-12-03T15:23:02Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Not if that’s what you have. The dichotomy I was responding to was rich versus poor, not poor versus middle class. No, what you said was: > [@Scylla](#): > > …how do you propose making tax cuts that don’t benefit the wealthy tax payer? The implication being that you cannot. This is false. > [@me](#): > > You cannot provide any meaningful distinction between false criticisms and true criticisms **with regard to how they would embolden terrorists.** > [@Scylla](#): > > False criticisms serve only the terrorists. True criticisms serve the American people I realize you’re being piled on here, so I’ll cut you some slack, and wait for a genuine reply here. Surely you understand why the above is not an argument, but rather a restatement of your conclusion. > [@me](#): > > You don’t understand terrorism > [@Scylla](#): > > Perhaps better than you. What is a terrorist’s goal and how do they achieve it? They are essentially fighting a fear and PR battle. They simply seek to make what their opponents are doing so unpopular that they give up. So, they absolutely count on criticism. Fine. But the terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting seek to make us give up on things not remotely affected by leftist criticism (Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion, historical incidents (!)). If your argument is that the insurgency in Iraq is served by us withdrawing from Iraq, and that this is made more likely by leftist criticism, I think we agree. That is indeed the point of the criticism–but this would be a very disingenuous a poorly communicated point indeed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/198 "2005-12-03T15:40:31Z")
And there remains the problem of defintion. We are advised that legitimate criticism is healthy and wholesome, but exagerration and hyperbole are treasonous. But where does one draw the line? We are futher given to understand that friend **Scylla** would be willing to be elected to the post of Censor, and offers his proven track record of probity and wisdom. Alas. That record is a record of ferocious resistance to truth and fact, a series of rearguard defenses, each crumbling more ignomiously than the last. “A is A, and B is B” we said. “Hold on! A may not be A, you haven’t proven it, albino monkees may yet fly out of my ass and sing ‘Dixie’!” Offering yourself as such an arbiter would be akin to Jubiliation T. Cornpone offering himself for Chair of the Joint Chiefs. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/199 "2005-12-03T15:50:14Z")
As to the “Mr. T” _schtick_, its not quite up to your standards, as evinced by the long-forgotten “pirate” _schtick_. That was wittier, in the same way a brick floats better than a cannon ball. A less generous man might be moved to point out that you have a clear inclination to hyper-masculine imagery, and wonder if you like gladiator movies. A less generous man, that is. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481/200 "2005-12-03T16:08:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And there remains the problem of defintion. We are advised that legitimate criticism is healthy and wholesome, but exagerration and hyperbole are treasonous. But where does one draw the line? We are futher given to understand that friend **Scylla** would be willing to be elected to the post of Censor, and offers his proven track record of probity and wisdom. > > Alas. That record is a record of ferocious resistance to truth and fact, a series of rearguard defenses, each crumbling more ignomiously than the last. “A is A, and B is B” we said. “Hold on! A may not be A, you haven’t proven it, albino monkees may yet fly out of my ass and sing ‘Dixie’!” Offering yourself as such an arbiter would be akin to Jubiliation T. Cornpone offering himself for Chair of the Joint Chiefs. Underlining in order to separate out the main points. Hyperbole and treaason: Bush - Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. Cheney - aid and comfort to the enemy Where to draw the line: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republicans-are-swine-cunts/333481.md?page=11)