10
   

The dumbing down of the GOP

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 04:25 am
@blatham,
There you go Bernie. Point proved. I'm tossing "batshit". So easy to say and so hard to justify. That was my point. An assertion and low wit suffices. It's ingrained. Possibly ineradicable. Anybody can do it.

Anti-IDers have no other way of debating and there's a long record of it for anybody who doubts it. It's a big problem here as well. The Comintern follows automatically as you are seeing live on TV. Marx predicted it.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2008 09:24 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
What's PUMA then?


I don't know either.

There seems to be a trend, especially pronounced among conservatives, to pounce on the latest acronyms so as to give the impression of being in the know. This saves them the effort of having to actually know anything.

nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 07:03 am
@Blickers,
PUMA was an organisation by diehard Hillary supporters who refused to vote for Obama and campaigned against them. (Havent heard much about them anymore for a month or two now.) Nothing to do with conservatives pounding on acronyms.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 09:01 am
@nimh,
Actually, nimh, that was the cover story for who they were. But actually the operation (along with a bunch of others, all interlinked and carrying the same "don't trust Obama/Obama is a muslim" etc talking points) look pretty evidently to be an RNC operation tied in with Limbaugh's operation chaos. Through June and July, myself and a number of others spent a good deal of time researching and exposing these groups.

There were, within the membership and particularly so through June/July, pissed off Clinton supporters but actually very few.

The goals of this operation were to strengthen the rifts within the Dem party and to attempt to pull women (particularly older women) towards voting for McCain.

But if you go through the message boards for these entities you'll find almost zero that validates the premise that these people are/were clinton supporters at all. Racist sentiments/images and 'support the troops' and "obama is a extreme liberal" and really nothing about policy, particularly about policies that Hillary has always supported.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 09:02 am
And on the topic of dumbing down of the GOP, how's this for a headline...

Ronald Reagan Returns in Form of Joe the Plumber


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=alg6mvMcNqpk
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 12:49 pm
@nimh,


Nimh and Blatham, thank you both for clearing that up. I had only come across the PUMA term a few times, and in all cases it seemed to be coming from a conservative source. Now I know why.

While the left is by no means acronym-free, the right seems to take delight in using them to a far greater degree.

Republicans masquerading as disaffected Democrats, huh? Guess we have to call them RMADD from now on. Razz
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 02:06 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
RMADD


I like it, Blickers.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 06:19 pm
@blatham,
Republicans masquerading as dead ducks according to the bookies.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 06:46 pm
@spendius,
Masquerading as live ducks?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 09:31 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

But if you go through the message boards for these entities you'll find almost zero that validates the premise that these people are/were clinton supporters at all.

Actually, there were real live Democratic Hillary supporters, racist or otherwise, in PUMA, who even met IRL -- just not in quite the same numbers as had been touted. (That's a hilarious link, do click it).
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 09:26 am
@nimh,
Nimh

I hadn't seen that. Delicious.

I had several online conversations with Bower (the author of the email noted in your piece), Cristi Adkins and Peter Boykin (the three of them and some others set up Justsaynodeal, PUMA, Clintons4McCain and lots more) that took place across a bunch of sites/blogs where they were pushing their project. It was a lot of fun, actually. Quite a few Dem supporters bought into the notion that these folks were actually Hillary supporters and often played into the hands of the propaganda effort, forwarding the "look at these stupid women" type of sexist commentary. So part of what I tried to do was to inform these people of what was going on. I'll paste in one bit I wrote just to fill in some blanks...

Quote:
Hi,
My name is Peter Boykin I am one of the founders of Clintons4McCain.com and I also came up with the slogan for justsaynodeal.com I want you to know we are not owned by the RNC nor is the site registered with them. I am right now a Democrat but I elect my leaders by the person not the party, neither side looks out for all the views I like totally but I identify with the Democratic party that Hillary came from. I do not like the NEW DNC nor do I like the OLD RDN.

I am not independent but I think that when it comes to our leader it is best to find someone who you know will protect America, I know McCain can do this and I will vote for him, I might not like him as the 1st choice but I WILL NOT vote for Obama (and it is not a race thing it is his charactor and unpatriotism I question)If anyone would like to talk to me feel free to email.

BTW the RNC does own the clintons FOR mccain site since May but that is not us we have the clintons 4 mccain but we are still hoping for Hillary to get her chance to run so we are half in for the McCain cause until we know for sure Hillary will not have a chance this year. Then we will be full in.
thanks
Peter Boykin
******************************

Attn: Peter Boykin

I'm sorry, but the claims you make here are simply not credible. There is every reason to assume that Cristi Adkins and you (along with others) are engaged in a covert RNC propaganda project. There is no convincing reason to assume that either of you are Democrats or Independents. There is no compelling evidence that you are or ever were supporters of Hillary Clinton. You make these claims but nothing supports them and all else contradicts them.


Some of what I'll address in the following has been noted or alluded to by earlier posters.

1) On May 15, the domain name "clintonsformccain.com" was registered to the Republican National Committee (as noted earlier, easily verified at register.com, whois lookup).

2) Sarah Lai Stirland, a reporter at Wired, got wind of this registration and sent two inquiries to the RNC. Those inquiries were not answered. (At this point, I don't know whether she picked up this information from another reporter and whether anyone else had earlier made similar inquiries). She wrote up the story and it went online June 5… http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/republican-nati.html

3) On June 4 a second registration was entered, this time with the slight modification of the digit 4 replacing 'for' and now with the registrant's name hidden.

4) These coincidences, considered in tandem with the unusual and semantically awkward construction of "clintons for/4 mccain" suggests the high probability that the registrants are the same party or are functioning cooperatively.

5) The content of all of Cristi Adkins' statements in her Fox interviews (of course it is Fox) or the content of what can be found on 'clintons4mccain' or 'justsaynodeal' or any of the related sites is manifestly a compendium of RNC and anti-Obama talking points. The sites, particularly the myspace pages you have put up, are marked by images and comments which portray Obama in a deeply racist and bigoted manner. They are as ugly as anything one might find anywhere on the internet. They are, in a word, typical rightwing smears. You even follow this pattern in your post above..."when it comes to our leader it is best to find someone who you know will protect America". Obama can't/won't protect America but McCain can/will. There's no RNC talking point more predictable than that one.

6) In high contrast, there is NOTHING to be found in Cristi's comments or on your sites which suggests ANY affinity for Democratic/liberal/Clinton policies or values. There is nothing to suggest agreement with a SINGLE Clinton platform position. There is, to be clear here, absolutely nothing at all to suggest you agree with Clinton on anything at all...how very odd indeed for such passionate supporters of Hillary.

7) Likewise, your sites and interviews while ceaselessly and predictably taking every opportunity to derogate the DNC, the Democrats and Obama somehow manage to avoid any substantive criticism of the RNC, Republicans, conservative political ideas or McCain. Again, rather an odd outcome, if you really are Democrats or Hillary supporters or even independents.

8) Indeed, as Hillary's platform stands 180 degrees the converse of fundamental McCain platform positions (on healthcare, on a woman's right to choose, on Supreme Court nominees, on the constitutionality of "unitary executive theory", on Iraq, on immigration, on education, on the economy, on issue after issue not least on WHO her supporters now ought to cast their support over to) it becomes logically and politically incoherent that you and Adkins would suddenly turn to McCain for political deliverance. The far more compelling and rational solution to this incoherence is that you are lying through your teeth precisely as we could predict were you functioning in alignment with Limbaugh's "chaos operation" or fronting a covert RNC operation.

9) You have two myspaces up, profoundly similar in rhetoric, content and design, one of which has the URL noted on the page as clintons4mccain and the second as, golly goodness, clintonsformccain... here http://www.myspace.com/clintons4mccain and here http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=386894652

10) You will insist, as you and Cristi have done elsewhere, that your support for Hillary arises out of respect for her character and her experience, thus conveniently forwarding two more absolutely predictable RNC/conservative talking points - McCain is a man of character and experience but Obama is neither. How convenient.

Over the last number of election cycles, RNC marketing/propaganda has pivoted on notions and claims regarding “character”. Democratic party candidates always lack “character” while Republican candidates are in all cases awash in this “character” stuff. Why? For the same reason that Chevy markets its trucks (inferior products compared to, say, Toyota) with a meaningless term such as “tough”… our trucks are tough but Toyota’s trucks are wimpy. Then ya just pray no one checks Consumer Reports.

11) And there’s a final absolutely non-credible aspect to your operations and your claims. The rhetoric, common to all your related operations, regarding the sexist savaging of Hillary by the DNC and by the Obama camp is shown to be hollow pretense given John McCain’s (that gentleman of character?!) statements and behavior:

- he laughs when asked “How do we beat the bitch [Hillary]?” Boy, that’s a yuk for all Hillary supporters.

- he refers to his wife (in front of five witnesses) as a “c*nt” and “trollop”. Straight talk?

- he cracks the deeply respectful to Hillary and all women joke, “Do you know why Chelsea is so ugly? Janet Reno is her dad.”



Not much of a ruse, is it?
http://forum.newshounds.us/viewtopic.php?t=22119&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&sid=1a85bce785cfdf62366201279cada58f
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:36 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
he refers to his wife (in front of five witnesses) as a “c*nt” and “trollop”. Straight talk?


I would say so Bernie. It seems scientifically accurate enough for me.

Do you not agree?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 11:55 am
I was reading in CNN this morning and came across this from Palin.

Quote:
Brody asked Palin if she supports “something like” an amendment banning gay marriage.

“I am,” Palin said. “In my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage.

“I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do,” she said. “But I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/palin-and-mccain-disagree-on-federal-gay-marriage-ban/

I don't know I just thought it belonged in this thread of dumbing down of the GOP on so many levels.

Supporting a constitutional amendment saying gays can't get married is telling gays what they "can and can't do" and "should and should not do" as well. They can't get married if they want to. The rest is just incoherent. She seems to like the word "that."





revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:09 pm
@revel,
The worst part of all these distracting topics Palin is bringing up, they worked for Bush in 2004. I hope they don't have time to work this time. But I wouldn't be surprised.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:16 pm
@revel,
Possibly she has in mind how ridiculous the US would start to look in the eyes of their military allies once gays started really getting into the full range of marriage ceremonials. They do have a reputation for over-acting and need very little encouragement to camp it up as far as imagination can go.

The bearded blushing bride in white in hob-nailed boots sort of thing.

One always has to bear in mind where something might go once it gets established.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:10 am
@spendius,
Apparently there are other countries which allow gays to be open in their sexual prefrence with no negative impact resulting from it.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/4882.htm

Quote:
Impact of Lifting the Ban: Other Agencies and Countries that Allow Open Service
Although the United States prohibits service by openly gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women in the armed forces, many U.S. security agencies and foreign militaries have lifted their bans without negative impacts.


In recent years, restrictions have been lifted on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual service in U.S. civilian law enforcement and security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, NASA, the National Security Agency and the Secret Service. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these organizations have suffered a decrease in unit cohesion or performance.[1]


Hundreds of state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies, such as police and fire departments, also have eliminated prohibitions on lesbian and gay employment, without any reported negative effect on unit cohesion, morale or performance.[2]


Among the 19 NATO member countries, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Turkey and the United States are the only six that do not allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly. Foreign militaries that have lifted their bans include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.[3]


Since 1983, Israel, hailed by many as an unparalleled fighting force, has allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly, with no adverse effects.[4]There have been no identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance in Australia or Canada since both countries lifted their bans in 1992.[5] Britain lifted its ban in 2000 and the new policy has been classified by Britain's Ministry of Defense as a "solid achievement," with no perceived effect on morale, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness.[6]


Gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the armed services have served openly in the United States while awaiting discharge with no effect on their units' performance, readiness or morale. Moreover, U.S. military personnel already serve alongside openly gay service members in and from countries throughout the world in U.N. peacekeeping and other joint missions.

0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:13 am
Quote:
Does Palin Know What a Precondition Is?
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Doesn't sound like it according to this exchange with Brian Williams.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Gov. Palin, yesterday, you tied this notion of an early test to the president with this notion of preconditions, that you both have been hammering the Obama campaign on. First of all what in your mind is a pre-condition?

PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, or one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or our allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a leader like Ahmadinejad, and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them, that's some ill-preparedness right there.

Ummm.. What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiatins until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. In the case of Iran, McCain insists that the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment program before we can even begin to negotiate. Obama opposes this preconditions. The basic argument against preconditions is that you can't ask your adversary to give up a big negotiating point in exchange for absolutely nothing and expect them to actually sit down at the table. Doesn't happen. Didn't happen when we dealt with the Soviets or the Chinese. And so then you have no exchange of information whatsoever and can't find points of common interest or negotiate. You end up in a total stalemate.

Anyway, this is not very complicated. It also happens to be the crux of one of the most important foreign policy issues being debated between Obama and McCain. You'd think Sarah Palin would understand this. But at least its comforting to know that she is against sitting down for a major international summit without first doing some preparation. I guess that qualifies her to be President.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/10/does-palin-know.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:50 pm
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The stupid.

Quote:
You may have seen that the head of a New Mexico GOP women’s group sent a letter to a local newspaper this week calling Obama a “Muslim socialist” and saying that “Muslims are our enemies.” When the letter generated an outcry among Democrats and Muslims, the letter's author, Marcia Stirman, told the AP: “I don't trust them at all. They've sworn across the world that they are our enemies. Why we're trying to elect one is beside me."

link

I mean, that cjhsa writes this kind of stupidity, ok. But the head of a state-wide GOP group? Jesus.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 06:54 am
@nimh,
It's not difficult to imagine what this lady thinks of McCain's rejection (at the rally 10 days or so ago) of this claim. Assuming an Obama win, McCain is going to be utterly savaged from republicans who think and from those who don't.

0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 06:57 am
@nimh,
It seems local politicians can get away crap like that more than those running for congress or president; it also depends on the demographic I guess. In Kentucky you probably would almost have to say stuff like that to show you are not an Obama supporter and all it entails (being pr0-abortion, gays rights....).

Speaking of the abortion issue.

Palin: 'I Don't Know' If Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hu1NeI4M1k

(without those helpful little boxes we had on the old format I don't know how to embed.)

 

Related Topics

What makes people vote Republican? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
The 2008 Republican Convention... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Another Republican Scum-Bag - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Republican Moron Jim DeMint - Discussion by BigEgo
Another Silly, Stupid Republican! - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans hate the working class - Discussion by BigEgo
Republicans Dumb and Dumber - Discussion by BigEgo
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 02:02:27