As a People’s Front of Judea guy, I tire of the knee jerk reactionism of the dominant JPF crowd on this board. You never really refute my (superior) arguments, it is mostly just a bunch of sneering. Wake up, sheeple!
As for Obama being a Republican, c’mon, all that is missing is the R. He gave us Romneycare because Romney couldn’t, shackled soullessly as he is to Fox News ideology. Obama was pragmatic and conservation-minded, Keynesian, and was also good at being a celebrity. If there were such a thing as a sane, smart R these days, Obama is it.
Nonsense. Chivalry as practiced in modern times was a way of showing respect toward women and caring for them if appropriate (I’m thinking of walking a female co-worker to her car after dark as an example of the latter). And I can tell you without reservation that it isn’t dead when I’m around. Surprisingly, it seems today’s young women are unaware that it was feminists of generations past who killed it. More than once a young woman who’s been the recipient of chivalry on my part has lamented the fact it’s so rare these days and questioned why this is so. They’re usually sorry to hear it when I point out that it was feminists of the past who are responsible and make gestures as if to say ‘how silly’ or ‘how unfortunate’.
Manners, including chivalry, were not designed by the rich to make poor people feel bad (as I’ve heard claimed on this board and you seem to think). Manners, courtesy and chivalry are a way of greasing society’s wheels and making life more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone involved. Go hang out sometime where wealthy people and those who aren’t so wealthy congregate and you’ll see wealthy people performing acts of politeness and manners and even chivalry all the time. I’ll guarantee you the aforementioned president of Shell Oil would be as quick to hold the door for a secretary or office worker he’s never seen before as he would for a woman equally as wealthy as he. Rich people (et least of the old money kind with nothing to prove) are often the most charming, likable and chivalrous (when the occasion calls for it) people you’ll see anywhere, and It’s regrettable that people around here seem to have so little experience with them.
:rolleyes: What you’ve got there is one instance (from 2008) when Waters in a hearing on questions of oil company profiteering suggested the potential necessity of nationalizing oil companies. She described it as “an extreme step” of last resort that might be required to cope with the economic burden of continuing exorbitant oil prices (accompanied by recordbreaking oil company profits).
That is so far from an actual socialist agenda that only a conservative snowflake could find it scary or appalling.
No, Clinton voters (both Clintons) generally did not find it insulting or distorting when somebody described their candidates’ policy positions as largely representative of their own views as voters.
Many Clinton voters had serious concerns about the personal behavior or character of one or both Clintons, but that’s not the same thing as generally rejecting their policy positions overall. I disagreed with both Clintons about several of their individual stances, but I wouldn’t consider it a “specious tactic” for somebody to claim that the political views of mainstream Democratic politicians are largely representative of the political views of mainstream Democrats.
So, again: If you consider it offensive or misleading to claim that the political views of mainstream Republican politicians nowadays are largely representative of the political views of mainstream Republicans, then you folks need to get yourselves some more representative politicians. Don’t keep supporting people whose openly expressed policy positions you’re ashamed to be associated with.
As has the Republican Party. The issue is not whether some office-holding individuals behave in such a way as to disgrace their professed principles. The issue is whether the office-holding individuals have ideologically diverged so far from the people they are supposed to represent that the voters are embarrassed not just by their behavior but by their professed principles themselves.
If you are constantly responding to criticism of official public pronouncements by Republican officials with “well, Republicans in general don’t think that and it’s disingenuous of you to keep trying to associate us with such views”, then y’all really need to get yourselves some Republican officials whose official positions you don’t have to keep repudiating every time they open their mouths.
And it’s something that Waters in her long career has shown zero interest in pursuing as a general policy goal.
The fact that what the conservative snowflakes are freaking out about on this topic of OMG TEH SOSHULIZMS is one remark made by Waters in passing during a Congressional hearing on oligarchic profiteering activities ten years ago shows how desperate they are for any excuse, no matter how feeble, to try to stick the “Red” label on Democratic politicians.
I’m sure Waters could come out tomorrow and announce that henceforth she’s devote all her energies into turning the U.S. into such a socialist paradise that all of Western Europe would be in envy and you’d find some way to try to minimize it. But, having said that, who gives a shit? It was an illustration of the tactic I was talking about…you know, the subject you’ve avoided talking about since the moment you decided to come riding to Waters’ defense. And who cares if it was eight years ago? Is it your opinion that she’s become less of a raving loon in the meantime and now rebukes the sentiments she held then. A hypothetical would have worked just as well. The point, and I think even you will have to admit it’s true, is that no comment or belief spoken by any politician is in agreement with most of his constituency. There’s a reason why Congress always has approval ratings in the teens and this is it.
Because Waters knows, as catching herself mid-word shows (while still letting the cat out of the bag by bumblingly suggesting that the government take over and run the nation’s oil companies, as if that made a difference) that actively advocating for socialism would be political suicide. She was pissed off and let her true feelings out of the bag. The fact she hasn’t continued to lobby for socialist takeover of the U.S. in the meantime in no way means she’s not in favor of it.
Uh, I don’t believe I’m the one freaking out about this. I merely used Waters’ remarks to illustrate the fact that a politician can be one’s official representative while at the same time holding opinions markedly different than their constituency. Your comments in response to it has not exactly been…measured.
And it’s so cute how some members of the left have decided to try to repurpose ‘snowflake’ to apply to conservatives, but everyone, including those members of the left, know perfectly well who the true snowflakes in society are, and it ain’t us.
As usual, your efforts to score rhetorical points have no support other than handwaving hypotheticals. You know, Starving Artist, if you don’t like my pointing out how feeble your pulled-out-of-the-ass hypothetical speculations are, you could always try making cogent arguments based on factual evidence instead.
Yes, I know. My point is, and has been throughout this conversation, that if you consider it an unfair “tactic” for other people to assume that mainstream Republican politicians’ documented officially expressed policy positions are largely representative of mainstream Republicans’ political views, then it’s Republicans who have a problem, not their critics.
But most of us non-Republicans aren’t so constantly embarrassed and/or disgusted by the official political views of our party’s elected representatives that we consider other peoples’ associating us with those views to be some kind of rhetorical dirty trick.
Hahahaha! It wasn’t hypothetical and it pulled nothing out of my ass. I posted a factual cite from freaking Snopes no less. Good grief! The friggin’ cite was right there in front of you and you even posted comments to try to minimize it. Should I have posted a Youtube video too? (In fact, I think I will now just so everybody can judge for themselves what she really thinks.) Here ‘tis, stating for all the world to see that she’s one liberal’ who’s all ‘about’ socializ…uh…uh…the government taking over and running all our oil companies! (Notice the smirks on the faces of those behind her. They know she stepped in it and are trying not to laugh.) So I ask again, what the hell is so hypothetical about this?
Well, let me say this. I have no more a problem with it than would a liberal being accused of socialist motives that they’ve denied because of what Maxine Waters said. In fact, that has been pretty much my whole point.
My, you do have a way with words. Who said anything about being embarrassed or disgusted? I think you’re engaging in a little projection there. My point (YET AGAIN) is that one’s argument is not rendered moot simply because an official of that person’s party said or advocated something at odds with that person’s argument.
Sorry - aren’t you the same Starving Artist who makes broadbrush statements about “liberals” in nearly every board post you’ve made? Including that one?
It seems to me that there could be an opening for a Democratic politician to propose a federal voter identification card, completely free and as easy to acquire as possible. Assuming federal law could mandate that such an ID be acceptable to states for voting purposes, and I’m not sure if that’s constitutional or not.
Looks like **Shodan **just wants reassurance that these laws that favor his party are legitimately based, not partisan subversions of democracy itself. But he himself can’t think of even a potentially legitimate reason, so he’s asking the rest of us to do it for him. Is that about it?
NBA stars LeBron James and Kevin Durant give an interview where they talk about becoming numb and scared to an impulsive and uncaring President. In turn, a Fox commentator addresses none of their content/concerns and simply degrades them.
The quality of professional/paid political commentary is not even at a high school level here. Both the media and politicians set the tone for public discourse.
