But in politics, as in so many areas of human endeavor, the choice is not between good and evil but between something not so good and something worse. Some of my conservative friends are so horrified by the prospect of a McCain Presidency that they have threatened to take their marbles and go home, i.e., to vote for Obama, or even for Lady Macbâ€â€, I mean, for Hillary Rodham Clinton should fate conspire to give the nomination to John McCain.
That seems to me to be little more than petulant grandstanding.
Well, you know what, Roger? You can bite me. I mean, look at your doofy bow tie! You look doofier than Tucker Carlson!
Also, I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me, so get a clue.
****
update from Jeff G: A shame to see Roger Kimball — if it’s the same brilliant Roger Kimball who writes for New Criterion — bemoaning the “petulance” of those who, in some circumstances, will eschew identity group pragmatism and instead stick to principle.
“Conservatism” has truly lost it’s way. Hell, if I was interested in joining a party just to keep power at all costs, I’d have stuck with the Donks. To them, the personal is the political — and so power is an end, a validation of the worth of the self.
A note to Roger, in case he’s reading this (and gets beyond the “bite me” bit): failure to engage in “petulant grandstanding” has taken the “conservative movement” over into leftwing territory (well, except that, unlike John McCain, JFK actually believed in tax cutting).
No more. Some of us actually think that McCain is the worse of the two evils, that a Hillary or Obama presidency might trigger another “Contract With America,” one propelled by classical liberal principles — an awakening, of sorts, to just how much control progressivism (or compassionate conservatism — pick your brand of “nice fascism”) has ceded to the federal government, from in-home smoking bans, to chips in our thermostats, to hate crime legislation and its attempt to regulate thought and normalize “acceptable” speech.
Right now, such attacks on personal liberty are, to a large extent, tethered to Democratic nannystatism. A McCain presidency, however, would give Republican (and so “conservative”) cover to all sort of statist interventions, from the official acceptance of junk science like AGW, to a return of a de facto Fairness Doctrine, to a further erosion of the First Amendment (McCain, recall, wants to keep a close eye on the kind of speech he sees on the internet; for our own good, naturally). Not to mention, McCain’s so-called military muscularity is confined to troop deployments; interrogations, incarcerations, adherence to Geneva protocols, border security — his positions on each of these issues weakens the war effort.
Which, in sum, will leave those of us who still believe in the foundational principles of this country without a party, should he manage to get himself elected.
“Petulant grandstanding,” you say? Well, it seems to me that excoriating those of us who refuse to compromise in this particular instance is itself the very definition of petulant grandstanding — this insistence that those Republicans or “conservatives” who don’t accept what the party machinery throws their way should just shut up and do what’s best for the GOP, regardless of how they really feel, and irrespective of what they truly believe.
Personally, I’m interested in what’s best for the country. And McCain ain’t it — no matter how intent people like you are on trying to shame me into voting for a progressive who happens to be wearing an elephant pin on his lapel.
I like my progressives like I like my women, Roger: without beards.
Does this Roger person know who John McCain even is?
It’s pretty certain he doesn’t know what fate is.
So, basically, Roger is encouraging us to be “Party” men. Doesn’t matter what the party does … BLINDLY SUPPORT.
I’m not a libertarian, mostly because I don’t smoke dope, but this could drive me in that direction.
I mean, smoking dope, not becoming a libertarian. Because I’m not a loser.
Romney more and more is my hero. At least til tomorrow morning.
Shit. If W had only let JohnnyMac win in ’00, this nightmare would almost be over!
Okay, listen to me very carefully. McCain is a RINO – that is undeniable. But RINO still starts with R. McCain is strong on the war – he will not pull out the troops, and with an R in the White House the result will be gridlock. Sweet, sweet gridlock. So McCain won’t be able to do any real damage.
The same can not be said for Clinton or Obama – Congress will be quite compliant to their wishes and it’ll be tax and spend until we squeal for mercy. Imagine three more Social Security-style programs sucking dollars out of your wallet for no benefit. Oh, AND they’ll pull out the troops. And of course there’s always the possibility of judicial appointments…
No. I don’t care how bad McCain is. We simply cannot afford to lose everything we’ve gained in the last eight years because he’s not “Republican enough”. Do NOT not vote and do NOT vote Democrat, for God’s sake! I don’t care how much it hurts – a Democrat in the White House will hurt far worse.
Fiddle-dee-dee!
Yay! Today’s Protein Wisdom is brought to you by the letter R. McCain is not strong on the war, silly. McCain is strong on McCain.
Viridian – It’s still my vote. I’m a conservative before a Republican.
In re: “gridlock”:
Viridian, what in McCain’s record makes you think that he won’t be signing every execrable bill Ted Kennedy forwards across his desk? He seems to love co-sponsoring legislation with the World’s Greatest Debate Club’s most liberal members, and he really doesn’t like it when we hoi polloi attempt to use our Constitutionally-guaranteed free speech to criticize him, so, you know, I don’t even trust him to deliver something even resembling gridlock.
You don’t have to fall in love, you just gotta fall in line.
Sure, you’d get gridlock. And a general destruction of the party that could last decades.
So, basically, Roger is encouraging us to be “Party†men.
Yeah. Like John McCain has ever given a rip about the Republican Party or anything it stands for. That’s irony so bitter it makes wormwood look like cotton candy.
Obviously a lot of us are not convinced of this, pal. I’m certainly not. See Dan’s update for a good argument as to why.
rawr.
he back.
;)
That update is Jeff’s, actually, kelly.
Everyone should make the choices that work best for them, however I believe that you should remember the odds of Hillary/Obama appointing even one conservative judge are roughly zero. Of course, it won’t much matter since the return of the Fairness doctrine will pretty much outlaw conservatism as a publicly acceptable ideology in any case.
On the other hand, Hillary might not pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, so silver linings and all.
Oops, sorry. I guess I should be more on the lookout for Jeff’s patented stealth posts/updates.
BTW, Limbaugh spent part of the first hour of his show making eLarson’s point about teh irony.
This whole idea that Republicans think they can just nominate anybody they want and we’ll turn out and vote against Hillary is just laughable. I got two words for Mr. Bow Tie: Fuck off.
If you think conservatives are going to vote for a man who has stolen from them their right to free speech, you have another think coming, bub.
If you think conservatives are going to vote for a man who refuses to enforce the immigration laws he swore an oath to uphold, you have another think coming, bub.
If you think conservatives are going to vote for a man who corrupted his own children with Charles Keating’s money, you have another think coming, bub.
I have zero intention of being browbeaten into voting for John McCain – bow tie or no bow tie.
Nominate McCain at your peril.
Thanks, layerguy. Now I’ve got Judas Priest running through my head.
Indeed. Today I found a remark by Ragnar at Jawa Report that highlights the depths to which conservatism in the GOP has fallen — the idea that anyone needs to be reminded of this, just sickens me:
Ronald Reagan’s GOP would never have had to be told that.
Ask not what your Party can do for you, but . . . aw, fuck it.
McCain’s lifetime ACU rating — 83.
Fred’s — 86.
Yet one was the “heir to Reagan!1!!!11!”
And the other is “a liberal!11!!!!!!!”
To add fuel to the fire:
Hillary’s lifetime ACU: 9
Obama’s: 8
Yeah, there’s “no difference between McCain and a Liberal!!111!!!”
We don’t live in a perfect world. McCain isn’t a perfect candidate. But what’s the alernative Slick Mitt?
Now, I’m with W and McCain on immigration, so that colors my views. And I’m also strongly pro-life, which some of y’all libertarians don’t care about, but for me is the #1 issue.
I don’t trust Mitt who was pro-abortion until the day before yesterday. I’ll go with the “Liberal!!!111!!” with the 83 acu rating thanks.
Jim in Chicago —
Karl covered this. You should check out McCain’s rating over the last several years (around a 63, I think. BECAUSE OF THE MAVERICKOSITY!). Again, I like my progressivism clearly labeled as such. Helps future generations taught to adore liberals by a largely liberal educational infrastructure make the proper ballet choices.
Oh. And just so’s you know: more than one exclamation point cancels out the earlier ones. So it’s almost like you’re whispering. ;)
And I’m also strongly pro-life, which some of y’all libertarians don’t care about, but for me is the #1 issue.
Abortion is your number one issue? You do realize, of course, that abortion will never-practically EVER be made illegal. I’m as pro-life as can be, but until conservatives realize that this shouldn’t be a litmus test for presidential candidates, we’re gonna keep getting people like Huckabee and Maverick.
If you are pro-life, do something useful. Donate to a women’s shelter. talk to kids about abstinence and adoption. Man the phones at the crises pregnancy center. But, remaing stalwart against those who don’t vote pro-life enough for you on R side of the isle is a recipe for disaster.
Give me a ring if Roger Kimball replies. Otherwise, I have some kettlebell lifting to do, and Roger has himself a one-armed man to catch.
Close enough.
Jim in Chi-town:
Please answer for me one simple question: what is the core philosophy that motivates John McCain’s actions?
Further, what is his personal operating philosophy? On what set of principles is he likely to govern?
My issues with the man are largely based upon the fact that “[what’s good for] John McCain” seems to be the answer to all of the above. The fact that actions predicated upon that principle occasionally benefit those of a conservative mindset is largely coincidental and, if I read it right, slightly distasteful to McCain himself.
since the return of the Fairness doctrine will pretty much outlaw conservatism as a publicly acceptable ideology in any case
And what makes you think that John “Protect the Innoc… Incumbents! Yeah, the Incumbents!” McCain isn’t going to bite on that little bit of leftist chum, especially the way L. Rushbaugh has been jumping all up in his shit? Vengeful, impulsive, incumbent-protecting and First Amendment-disregarding McCain gets into office, Rush is *toast,* along with Levin and a bunch of other less well known righties.
Me? I’d rather have a few more Mexicans around my town than having a having a few more Mexicans in my town while watching a massacre unfold in Iraq. I’m funny like that. Just ask Pete Wilson. He’s done so much for the Republican party in California. California is such a bastion of conservative principles.
McCain won’t give us conservative justices — he will give us candidates vetted by Schumer and Leahy and Kennedy and Feingold and Feinstein and Durbin and Biden and . . . .
He would rather side with these Dems and their priorities!
Al
McCain has been a stalwart opponent of the Fairness Doctrine, even going so far as to introduce a bill (“Broadcaster Freedom Act”) designed to prevent a Democratic Congress from trying to kill off talk radio.
Now, since we are playing nice, where do you suppose Hillary (the inventor of the VRWC) and Obama (all your everything are belong to us) stand on that issue?
Gary
Perhaps, but he didn’t oppose either Roberts or Alito, and I would want to see evidence that he would be predisposed to a Ginsberg type pick above a Bork, before I would make that jump. That said, I disagreed with his participation in the Gang of 14, as I thought he was too willing to throw other qualified judges overboard just to get a couple. I also saw it as a power play by 14 Senators, trying to increase their positions power above what is called for.
Education Guy —
McCain wanted to police the net. And McCain-Feingold is a kind of “Fairness Doctrine” writ large.
He puts himself above the Constitution whenever he feels it necessary. The Founding Fathers made a mistake, you see, and it’s up to a Maverick like McCain to fix things.
For your own good.
No sale.
Hillary is too sharp to pull out of Iraq. If Obama tries, it will take some time — and it’s likely to hurt him (before he reaches the inevitable compromise, and spins it in such a way that he tries to save face).
Bottom line for me is this: if we’re going to have progressives and statists in office, let them run as such, and self-identify as such.
Having the party of conservatives peddling such politicians is an abomination — and they know it, too.
So whats the difference if the Republican party is destroyed by a Democrat President importing massive waves of new entitlement voters (illegals) or if it is destroyed by running a candidate like McCain who would not only fracture the base but import massive waves of new entitlement voters?
Ill take choice number 1 thank you. Better to get stabbed in the front where I can possibly defend myself then stabbed in the back.
I will take choice number 1 thank you.
well then
this house is so divided
it appears this party foolishness will
be the conservatives downfall
can you say president Obama?
party fighting over who is more conservative
is fighting over which apple is more of an apple
Saying President Obama or President Clinton is about as distasteful to me as saying President McCain.
Not when one of the apples is really a pomegranate pretending to be an apple — and with a history of trying very hard to curry favor with oranges in exchange for a “Maverick” label.
President Obama would be like President Carter. Suffer through it, but in the end, we get either another Reagan, or the country embraces the permanent uber Nannystate.
Either way, we’ll have our answer. But watching Republicans nominate a progressive statist is just sad. And I won’t vote for one of those no matter what letter it has in front of its name.
No, “injustice prevails”, it is not a fight over which apple is more of an apple. It is a fight against a lemon pretending to be an apple. And the issue is whether or not you want the apple to take the blame for the taste of lemon after the nation takes a bite of it.
Guess what folks? The election isn’t going to turn on the opinions of the bunch of whiners on this website, who imagine themselves “experts” on how to be a real Republican. You want to vote for Obama, have at it….Hillary, go for it. Skip the election, more power to you. The country will survive despite your ravings. Get a life…
That’s fine Jeff, and there is a part of me that likes the notion that a principled stand must be taken. But then there is a larger part of me who thinks that everything you don’t like about McCain is also true about Hillary, only more so.
I just plotted myself on http://www.electoralcompass.com and came out between Rudy and Mitt, so perhaps I’m not as conservative as I thought. That said, Hillary and Obama are not even in the same neighborhood.
I’m curious why many of you seem to believe that a McCain loss will actually move the party towards the right again. Isn’t it just as possible that it will push the party even more to the left?
I honestly think it will be easier for the Republicans in Congress and the Senate to stop amnesty, new entitlements, and any other idiocy that a Democrat brings up then stop them if McCain is in office.
But then again maybe I am just stupid.
ALL OF THEM? You personally know every Democrat in the entire country believes the personal is political (just under the post where Karl claims Limbaugh’s assault on McCain’s character…”the personal”….might be bad for McCain with Republican voters).
The irony tastes almost as good as the hubris
For the record I think the GOP is going to get crushed in the general in any case, so this discussion is somewhat academic from my point of view.
Guess what folks? […] Get a life…
Good response, Tim. Puts to mind the line from Mr. Kimball’s post. Now what was that line again? Oh, yeah!
That seems to me to be little more than petulant grandstanding.
Pot meet kettle.
Pretty much.
I mean, look at yourself — going after Limbaugh on the personal matters.
And ericd clearly doesn’t get that the reason McCain has to worry about Rush is precisely because McCain’s base is all about the personal as the political.
As trolls go, ericd has not impressed me so far.
Exactly how far are these McCain SUPPORTERS willing to take this concept of voting for the lesser of two evils?”
Here’s a hypothetical:
If given the choice between voting for Hitler or Stalin – for whom would they vote? Clearly, these particular “conservatives” would STILL vote, if forced to choose Hitler or Stalin!
Let’s suppose that you feel that Hitler is THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS; well, congratulations, putz, you just pulled the lever and cast a vote for Adolf Hitler! Your vote for Hitler unequivocally indicates your SUPPORT for HITLER! Therefore, the consequences of voting for Hitler, THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS in this hypothetical, will be attributable to those who vote for Hitler. If you vote for Hitler simply because Stalin would be worse, YOU will carry the blame for the evils that will be done by Hitler.
(I’m not suggesting that either candidate is comparable to Hitler or Stalin — It’s a hypothetical)
So, go ahead & Vote McCain because he’s THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, you cannot change the FACT that you will be clearly indicating your SUPPORT for John McCain and his policies.
Oh, and just in case anyone was unclear — John McCain is a DEMOCRAT. If he wins the nomination, there will be no Republican in the general election. That’s what it means to be a RINO.
Also, re Jeff’s ACU point:
McCain’s ACU rating in ‘06 was 65.
The lesser
Don’t vote McCain! Don’t Stay home! Write-in Fred Thompson.
Don’t vote McCain! Don’t Stay home! Write-in Ronald Reagan.
Don’t vote McCain! Don’t Stay home! Write-in Daffy Duck.
If MILLIONS of Conservatives all vote for the same write-in candidate, neither politicians nor the media will be able to ignore it. Should McCain win the nomination, this is the only option remaining for TRUE conservatives to BOTH stand on principle, AND have our voices heard.
(and it may be the only way to save the Republican Party)
Eyas
I wouldn’t exactly call myself a McCain supporter, but I am playing the part of one on this thread. Hitler vs. Stalin? Really? Let’s just skip right over that madness.
So, go ahead & Vote McCain because he’s THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, you cannot change the FACT that you will be clearly indicating your SUPPORT for John McCain and his policies.
If this is true, which I don’t concede, wouldn’t voting for Hillary also be clearly indicating support for her policies? Also, what policies would one be clearly indicating support for if one does not vote? Wouldn’t it, according to your logic, indicate support for the policies of whomever it is that ultimately wins?
If that is the plan, my advice would be to write in someone who’s policies you do support, so that the message isn’t lost in the clutter.
Not to be taking a side in this particular dispute, but my plan is to broaden my November menu beyond the usual two major parties and find the candidate whose policies I could indicate support for, and still face myself the next day, from — if necessary — one of the 53,872 “third” parties out there.
Okay, fine…you guys do what you feel like you need to. Just don’t pretend when HillaryCare gets implemented that you weren’t active contributors to that fiasco.
I think Tim doesn’t quite get this whole blogging/commenting thing, but this should sound familiar: Don’t like the conversation? Don’t read it! Whatever. No one will care.
Education Guy,
Just to let you know, you DO have the option of actually READING my posts before responding.
Specifically the part that says “”(I’m not suggesting that either candidate is comparable to Hitler or Stalin  It’s a hypothetical)””
But, if you’re incapable of dealing with hypothetical situations, or of grasping the theoretical point of my post, feel free to continue thinking that choosing the lesser of two evils is a good thing, that standing on principle is “Madness”, and that voting for McCain will somehow further conservatism.
Also, I don’t plan to vote for Hillary OR to stay home.
I thought that it was pretty clear that I WAS, in fact, recommending a large scale write-in campaign by all conservatives.
Unless there is a large common movement to write-in some other acceptable conservative, I plan to write-in Fred Thompson when I VOTE.
Please! Read first, then respond. (First pants, THEN shoes.)
“Just don’t pretend when HillaryCare gets implemented that you weren’t active contributors to that fiasco.”
Sorry. A vote for JMacDaddy just gives the same thing with no cover for dissenting Republicans, (as if there will even be any of them left in Congress.)
Eyas
First, I wrote my comment while you were writing your second one. Hope that clears that part up. Second, screw you for even writing that whole Hitler vs. Stalin rant, I don’t really give a shit what reason you thought it would be relevant or convincing. If your not smart enough to figure that out, maybe you should just quit while you are behind.
Hai! So desu. (Konnichiwa Nishi – for no other reason than I wanted to parade out some nihongo.)
But regarding ericd, he also demonstrates his elan with mistaking the clever for the profound. To wit:
Masterful combination of petulance, self-congratulations and sophomoric prose. You can take your Onionesque Jon Stewartism and shove it up your hubris.
The trolls from the Left, and the Right, have been remarkably tedious recently.
Just don’t pretend when HillaryCare gets implemented that you weren’t active contributors to that fiasco.â€Â
I sure the fuck wasn’t. I voted for Fred here in Michigan. How about I turn it around on all those “Republicans” who voted for Huckabee and McCain in the primaries and blame THEM for backing an unacceptable candidate and putting us into this position?
First, I wrote my comment while you were writing your second one. Hope that clears that part up. Second, screw you for even writing that whole Hitler vs. Stalin rant
Bravo !
malaclypse
hajimemashite(pleased to meet u)
:)
watashi-wa gakusei desu(i am only a student)……of JeffieG!
If McCain is the nominee I’m not gonna vote I don’t think. I’m still asking off early that day though so if you hear different that’s why.
Let me get this straight. If I don’t vote for either McCain or Hillary, but HillaryCare gets implemented because she won (and she won because I didn’t vote for McCain), I’m more responsible for HillaryCare than either the Dems who support it, or the Republicans who gave us a nominee who has run roughshod over the first amendment and believes terrorists should receive Geneva protections?
Now THAT is ironic.
As to the idiotic remark taking me to task by literalizing the use of a standard generalization (liberal intellectuals — and progressivism in general — is based upon the premise that the personal is the political, so rather than try to rattle off the names of those Democrats who don’t abide the ideological underpinnings of their own professed political belief system, I find it easier just to identify the group’s overriding philosophy, and hope that the non-morons among us understand that there are of course exceptions to the rule), well, that’s about par for the course with some of the trolls around these parts lately.
And Education Guy, you are missing the point: it’s not that Hillary will be worse (in some ways she will; hell, maybe even in MOST ways she will); it’s that McCain gives Republican/conservative cover to progressive ideas and impulses. And that moves the entire country leftward, when a “conservative” begins his ideological situatedness on the left of center on a number of key issues.
I am not looking for the “most Republican” or “best conservative” (though it would be nice to have had a choice. I would hold my nose and vote for Romney, and I would have voted for either Giuliani or Thompson without hesitation).
But McCain? Not a chance. He is a statist and an arrogant demagogue who does not respect the Constitution. There’s nothing “conservative” about that, even if, as I mentioned before, he ends up lurching that way on a number of issues.
Also fuck Dick Armey too. Just in case that comes up.
sensei-sama……wud u ever vote for a dem?
Also I would like to take a moment to remember Johnny Carson. He retired. Actually retired. Before becoming an odious disgusting geezer. He just went away. Brilliant. Old people suck.
Kochirakoso, Shinji-san. Dozo yoroshiku.
Jeff G. ga sugoi imasu yo!
Seriously, I was pumping my fist at the screen as I read Jeff’s update.
<rant>I’ve been reading Arma Virumque for a few months and generally enjoy it. But this kind of sanctimony is one of the chief reasons I cannot call myself a conservative. Classical Liberal/Libertarian is a context-distinct political view. Conservatism is contextual; like what are you conserving exactly? That, and I occasionally smoke pot (Carin’s substantive and withering critique of said notwithstanding.) I see this kind of holier-than-thou shiat all over conservatism.</rant>
Dear WordPress dieties: please let the HTML entities I used in this comment actually render correctly. Amen.
It’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote for Mad Mac. Negatory, good buddy. 10-4?
If he wasn’t on the MSM’s “felch” list, he’d have dropped into a deep hole a long time ago.
lulz!
im shinji-chan!
Education Guy, and JD,
Guys, did you really STILL not read the part of my post that said: “(I’m not suggesting that either candidate is comparable to Hitler or Stalin  It’s a hypothetical)â€Â
It’s called Argumentum ad Absurdum, and it’s a fairly common form of argumentation.
You wrote: “Second, screw you for even writing that whole Hitler vs. Stalin rant.”
Are you kidding? Did you somehow think that I was calling you a Nazi or something?
The point was simply that choosing the lesser of two evils cannot always be considered a good idea, by taking the concept to its logical extreme.
I’m sorry that you STILL don’t get it. It would be obvious to any REASONABLE person that I was not intending to insult anyone, but instead trying to make a point by bringing up the most extreme example of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Again, it is called “Argumentum ad Absurdum” — you can look it up on google if you don’t believe me.
If that doesn’t clear things up, please allow me to say
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING RETARDED CANDY-ASS SCROTUM-SUCKING LOSERS.
LEARN TO READ FUCKING ENGLISH YOU NUMB FUCKS.
DID EITHER OF YOU SLACK-JAWED HALFWITS GRADUATE FUCKING HIGHSCHOOL?
FUCKING RETARDS!!!
that is all.
BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL LETTERS!
Note to self: don’t piss off Eyas.
there’s too much hate here. i’m gonna use all lowercase for a while to try to even things out.
Eyas
Your argument is unconvincing, but at least you have stubborn refusal to see reason and the ability to curse in all caps to fall back on. Which I hear some chicks dig. Hippies, but still.
Eyas, dude. Let me help you out a little. First, per your own suggestion, google Argumentum ad ignorantiam. (Wikipedia: Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
From the wikipedia entry:
And particularly apropos to your assertions:
Hope that helps.
Shinji-san, nani? Ko imasu ka?
Eyas, I’m ok with your Stalin/Hitler thing but might I suggest that next time to avoid confusion you replace them in your hypothetical with Scylla and Charibdis?
Jeff
I get that you won’t vote for McCain under any circumstances, and I also don’t find your reasoning unsound. That said, at this point I would rather have John than Hillary. Which I understand is not a convincing argument, and is likely, sadly not going to get any better.
They suck more. It’s all I got. Which pretty much means we suck too.
In case I wasn’t clear, I should add that you (eyas) managed neither argumentum ad ignorantium nor reductio ad absurdum.
Just so we’re clear, if it was Hitler vs. Stalin I would stay home. If it was Scylla vs. Charibdis, I might head to the emergency room to see if they could counteract the effects of the psilocybin that someone must have clearly slipped me. Failing that I would vote for the rock, more solid, less slippery.
I think what eyas means is just that McCain is a douche. I think he’s right.
Libertarian!
I’m reading JeffG’s posts, and they annoy the hell out of me, as they make my own views into potential plagiarism accusations.
All these (R) Lorax’s pronouncing “UNLESS” are more annoying, however.
My vote for NotMcCain will be in good faith and not out of spite. He’s not fit for the office and I won’t help him into it.
I’m guessing eyas isn’t all too confident with his html skilz which could explain the ALL CAPS!!!. (And that’s saying something coming from me whose same skilz could charitably be described as rudimentary.) Either that or he has some type of palsy in the pinkie finger on his left hand.
NOT FIT FOR THE OFFICE
Can I get an Amen?
Pussy.
Emergency room? Are you kidding me?
Do they have triage for uncontrolled giggling?
I don’t think it’s palsy, kelly.
ooo
i shuda said sempai-sama
Good one, jdm. Fitting.
I take back that part about not-voting cause of the compellingness of what Jeff says really. I think I would vote for Hillary. John McCain would use the offices of the presidency to elect non-threatening douche clones of himself among Republicans, and do all he could to stick iyt to those to the right of him. Hillary would just try to elect Democrats. I think McCain would actually prefer a Dem Congress. He’s a douche for real. Also not-voting is stupid cause of all the other wonderful politicians we get to pick that day.
Oh. *it* and also I can change my mind later cause I’m easily suggestible but really as long as the McCain is a douche message keeps getting reinforced by his own campaign I think I’ll be pretty constant.
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING RETARDED CANDY-ASS SCROTUM-SUCKING LOSERS.
LEARN TO READ FUCKING ENGLISH YOU NUMB FUCKS.
DID EITHER OF YOU SLACK-JAWED HALFWITS GRADUATE FUCKING HIGHSCHOOL?
FUCKING RETARDS!!!
I think I am in love …. ;-)
And, McCain still has to earn my vote. I like that “customer” analogy.
And, Kyoto.
Sooo – if McCain is such a douchenozzle RINO – who the fuck has been voting for him in the primaries? Democrats? Misled fellow douchnozzle RINOs? are they a majority in the Republican party?
Whoever they are, there seems to be an asscart full of them, for sure.
Someone please enlighten me.
“I think what eyas means is just that McCain is a douche.”
nah….ima amature falconer an he just baited off his handler’s wrist.
My bad. My Nihongo really rather sucks. I thought chan was only used with children. I forgot it could be used with friends and family. Whereas I’m probably more properly referred to with yaroi.
an now hes hangin upside down from his jesses twistin in the wind.
chan means young lady in my context….but alas..i am not very ladylike.
eyas means young hawk…just leavin the nest, new to trainin.
nevah been flown to the lure.
Old Texas Turkey,
Who has been supporting McCain? Before today, it has been a coalition made up of Democrats, Indpendents, a near-plurality of Republicans, those who consider themselves at most “somewhat conservative” instead of “strong conservatives.” He appeals to voters who value a candidate’s personal qualities over issue positions. I’ve blogged it about a dozen times now, so just type “changeyness” into the search box in the left sidebar.
Misled fellow douchnozzle RINOs?
Exactly. See, the media is very real. They make people think stuff. Let’s review. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan.
Slogans are blinding. The actually functioning “premise” — or mental defect, or power-lust — is weirder, worse, and way stupider than the cliche. And it goes a little something like this:
Your “personal” is already determined by some “political,” or is really only an unindividuated haze generated by that “political,” which you don’t recognize as such because it designed you so you can’t, and so this so-called “personal” of yours must be forcibly re-determined by my political, as I, bearing no such illusory “personal,” having overcome it and reached an authentic undetermined selfhood, when, my sophomore year in college, I learned that I am among the elect un-so-determined, or well-maybe-determined-but-by-a-better-than-yours-because-itself-not-so-determined-political, etc etc recursive contradictions blah, OBEY.
Everyone sucks more than you give them credit for.
One thing I have noticed you do not see Romney supporters going around saying “You must vote for me or we will have Hillary.”
Just saying
For those of you in the “Vote for McCain he is the lesser of two evils” camp let me ask you a question.
If it came down to it Ron Paul vrs Obama would you vote for Ron Paul?
I’d still leave early that day.
LFFLR-I’m voting for McCain later today (as soon as my house clears out). I would vote for Obama. I think he would actually be a good president. I would be satisfied to have McCain, Romney, or Obama as president. That doesn’t mean I would agree with much or most of their choices, but I think they could do the job and I can handle not being agreed with. The one person I loved is out of the race, because others didn’t love him.
I even think Hillary would be fine president, although she would drive me crazy and I’d have to be one of the millions of Americans who simply no longer watch the news or follow politics.
I don’t think Ron Paul would be a good president in any fashion.
If you vote for Romney you can have one of my turtles.
I get to pick though.
I think my dog would end up having the turtle.
#104
It won’t so don’t worry. Hillary isn’t going to be president. Not that we’re not ready for a woman president, just not that woman president.
Now if you said Gulliani and Obama. Then I’d have to say Gulliani.
Oh. Ok. Well if it ’twere done, ’tis well ’twere done quickly and all that. You should maybe pick up some yogurt on the way back.
I get all of the discomfort with McCain, but where I come completely unstuck with the “if we’re going to have progressives and statists in office, let them run as such, and self-identify as such” argument, is the Supreme Court nominations which will very probably occur in the course of the next Presidency. Yeah, McCain might not nominate an Alito, but I cannot believe he would nominate a Ginsburg. Since it is next to impossible that there will be Republican majorities in the House and the Senate (I would say that there is even the possibilty of a filibuster-proof (D) Senate at the moment!), conservatives could have absolutely no influence at all. That is as bad for the Constitution as anything else I can think of. All the other issues can be worked through: I would like to think that when given the reins of power neither Hillary nor Obama would really pull the plug on Iraq precipatately, laws can be repealed, etc. Relinquishing the Supreme Court nominations screws you for a generation, at least.
Perhaps we should be willing to put off this showdown for four years to get a shot at some new constructionist appointees to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, might I suggest that the many eloquent voices for conservatism here and througout the blogosphere think about helping to find and promote the next generation of conservative candidates – you know these things have to start locally…
And yes, I realize that McCain might not win in November anyway, but people who are thinking of staying at home/pulling the lever for the Ds/writing-in a candidate maybe ought to spare a thought for the potential makeup of the Supreme Court before making their final decisions. Thanks for listening.
oh rusty u dunno anythin.
You know, for when you watch the returns later.
i mean…..rusty thinks pomeranians are hawt.
lulz.
Exactly. See, the media is very real. They make people think stuff. Let’s review. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan.
Sigh. I miss BSG.
Who are the likely Supreme Court vacancies in the next 4 to 8 years?
Probably John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It would be tempting to vote for the Republican–even John McCain–if there were any kind of guarantee that the replacements for these two would be Constitutional originalists in the mold of Scalia.
The thing is, I don’t think John McCain would nominate someone like that for fear for creating controversy among his natural constituency: Big News.
Supreme Court nominations are a complete crapshoot.
Eisenhower appointed Brennan. nuff said.
As usual, I am agreeing with Jeff and the others who just don’t trust McCain and don’t want to vote for a statist who may be running as a republican but is in name only. However, did these same people have the same thoughts in regards to President Bush? I’ve always thought similar things in regards to him. Outside of his social conservatism (of which I share personally, but not politically) the man is hardly a conservative. I realize that McCain is to the left of Bush, but, imo, Bush isn’t too far to the right of McCain. If President Bush was running against this same group of Republicans, who would vote for him? Would the same thoughts/feelings/words that are being directed towards McCain be directed at Bush, too? For me, the same concerns, maybe to a lesser extent, that I have for McCain, I would have for Bush. Just curious, what your thoughts would be.
Interesting question, and one a commenter offered to me on my own site a few days ago.
My reply was that timing matters. Whereas in 2000 the Republican Party had shown some success in countering and even reversing some of the more statist impulses of the Clintons, over the last eight years we’ve had Bush redefining “conservative” into something unrecognizable.
A McCain presidency would only continue that trend, and I for one am not in favor of that.
The irony tastes almost as good as the hubris
But not as good as the pie.
What McGehee said. Plus, Bush isn’t a self-serving liar out to win media plaudits.
To address another point, though, I have troubled over the SCOTUS thing, and it is McCain’s (and the Republicans’) one saving grace. But given McCain’s policy beliefs, I’m not convinced he’d give us a Thomas (who is preferable in my mind to a Scalia); instead, I think he’d give us a conservative who’s been thoroughly vetted and agreed upon by Democrats like Schumer. That is, we’d get an O’Connor, or even a Harriet Miers.
Who, by the way, was the last person I was told that my refusal to support would destroy the Republican party.
Justices are a crap shoot, but if there is ONE reason to vote for someone I despise, it’s the makeup of the court. I would never forgive myself, however, if McCain pushed through the “conservative” Justice who for the next 25 gives us Kelo, or the sanctification of “diversity” as a Constitutional means for determining social organization.
It’s just all so sad. I wanted to be a Republican forever and ever. I have t-shirts and stuff.
ALL OF THEM? You personally know every Democrat in the entire country…
Well do ya’?
Punk.
Oh. Drudge says Romney has a pulse. This is good news t-shirt-wise.
Someone tell me it turns out that ericd @ #42 is pulling our chain.
Please?
I would, but in fact he’s just yanking his dick.
Old people suck
Like a Hoover, ‘feet.
Jeff,
“Justices are a crap shoot”. Can’t argue with that, but it seems to me that a “not Republican” is almost certain to load the dice for an outcome conservatives would abhor. I think the argument is set out rather well here:
McCain and the Supreme Court
As always, it is a pleasure to read your blog.
@ #71
No, really.
C’mon, who is it?
I would never forgive myself, however, if McCain pushed through the “conservative†Justice who for the next 25 gives us Kelo, or the sanctification of “diversity†as a Constitutional means for determining social organization.
It would be interesting to know what kind of favors McCain is owed by the judiciary committee.
“Hell, if I was interested in joining a party just to keep power at all costs, I’d have stuck with the Donks. To them, the personal is the political  and so power is an end, a validation of the worth of the self”
“Right now, such attacks on personal liberty are, to a large extent, tethered to Democratic nannystatism.”
I like to point out the comments that reveal Jeff “classical liberal” and enemy of identity politics for what he is: Republican political advocate. The idea that being power hungry and trampling on individual rights is the sole province of either party can only be described as absurd – but it does tell us alot about the nonsense that is Jeff’s purported political philosophy.
You’re a party guy, my man, and it’s all good until you try and wrap it up in the BS. That’s why this whole response is so friggin’ funny.
Well, that’s the thing about “lifetime” appointments’ ain’t it?
Up to then, the candidate has been a normal person, who probably keeps his/her radical opinions to themselves, or near enough. Politics.
Lifetime job comes along – Hey, why hide the “real me”? (thnx, Pete Townshend)
OI,
If Bush was running against these same Republicans, he would be winning because he is: (a) to the right of McCain (hello 2000); (b) better on economic and foreign policy than Huckabee; and (c) more genuine on social issues than Romney.
Old Texas Turkey @ #94
In Illinois, any voter is free to request any ballot (Dem, Rep, Ind, Moderate, Undeclared, Silly, Extremely Silly, Green) iirc, no prerequisite.
steve is calling a guy who is refusing to vote for the likely GOP nominee a Republican political advocate?
Some folks aspire to telephone poll status.
“pole” actually, though “poll” sorta works.
steve – happyfeet’s turtles have smarter shits than you.
Goddamn right, baby. Eyes on the prize!…
any voter
Registered, of course.
…
However, did these same people have the same thoughts in regards to President Bush?
Yep, didn’t vote for W either election. Voted Libertarian in 2000, would’ve voted Democrat if they had flipped the ticket. I didn’t like Bush at all then. In ’04 I had just moved and didn’t bother to register since W had Georgia sewed up. I would have had to vote for him over Kerry if it had been close, but I have never been a fan of Bush politically, just for different reasons than the moonbats. Personally, I think I would like him.
No shit. Steve, did you actually read the quotations you purport to gird your thesis? Abnegate much?
For that matter, did you miss the post to which this thread is attached?
Abnegate … great word !
Fuckabee won a state. I have to go run around a parking lot naked. BRB
ericd @ #42 1:29 pm
Eyas @ #71 3:24 pm
steve @ #132 7:33 pm
HAT TRICK !!!
C’mon, knock it off. I’m losing a spleen here.
Steve: “The idea that being power hungry and trampling on individual rights is the sole province of either party can only be described as absurd”
Not at all. Progressive is — at core — collectivism.
Let’s look at the individual liberties that progressives trample as a matter of philosophy, even as a matter of obligation:
Property rights — to progressives, this is a lesser right. Which side of the court came up with the execrable Kelo decision?
Likewise, if a mall *owner* wants to ban protesters at the mall he OWNS, progressives consider his property rights to be subordinate to the “greater good” of providing a platform for someone else’s speech (which was never infringed upon).
Free speech — See campus speech codes. See European anti-hate-speech legislation. See continued attempts to clamp down on who says what during the political season (including that ***hole McCain). See Canada’s HRC putting people on mock trial for what they SAID.
Basic personal choices — Who is behind attempts to restrict serving fat people? Put remote-controlled thermostats in people’s houses? Require recycling? Prevent home-schooling? Ensure that schools teach so-called tolerance (aka, group rights)? Outlaw traditional displays of religion? Require “green” behavior?
It’s all supposedly “for the greater good.” But totalitarians always say that.
I like my progressives like I like my women, Roger: without beards.
I like my progressives from afar. Way far.
Thanks to all who pointed out the myriad problems with what I can only assume was steve’s longstanding desire to call me a party man, and to doubt my classical liberal bona fides.
In fact, so anxious has he been to get that out, I reckon, that old steve shot his load in the comments to a post that rebuffed a call for party loyalty, and contained the following passage:
I bolded the important part for steve.
I’ll leave it to him to reconcile it with his thesis that I believe being power hungry or trampling on individual rights is the sole province of any party — rather than the province of a type of political philosophy, namely, progressivism (which draws its grounding principles from fascism and totalitarianism — at least, back when those words weren’t considered taboo by American progressives, or demonized from the left by Stalinists). Unless he thinks by “compassionate conservatism” I was pointing to Democrats.
And of course, I’ve had my say on Huckabee — who I wouldn’t vote for either, under any circumstances.
Man. Saved it up all that time and then…splurt. Barely left a stain, did it steve?
I am afraid to turn on my TV. Last time I did they were calling a state for Fuckabee. Then I saw Barry O with over 80% of the vote somewhere. Then I saw McCain kick a dog. I turned off the TV quickly.
Jeff G – Good to see you back.
“American Idol” is on here.
You’re welcome.
Every time I think that steve is a decent well meaning prog that just wants “dialogue” he fucks it up. Oh well….Anyhow, thanks guys for your responses. One of the reasons, and it is pretty shallow, that I find myself defending Bush so much from the never ending zombie idiots that I unfortunately work with, is the fact that the left is populated by fucking morons. I don’t really favor President Bush at all, save for the reasons that Jeff articulated, such as Bush being pretty real and not fake. I believe he believes in how he governs. Anyhow, Jeff, I had a dram of 12 year old Macallan tonight (followed by a few Budweisers) and it was very yummy. A nice Speysider with a smooth delivery.
NPR is wanting me to hear a whole Huckabee speech. He wants to sing Rocky Top. Fucking hick.
The media showed that? Damn, that must mean he’s clinched it.
Huckabee has won 3 fucking states. The skin folds talk, and people vote for him. Now, far be it from me to bang on the south, but so far today we have Barry O’ clobbering Hill/Bill in GA, and Fuckabee winning in WV, AL, and AK. What in the sam hell is wrong with you?!?!?!
#133 #
Comment by mojo on 2/5 @ 7:36 pm
Thanks, David Souter (appointed by George H.W. Bush).
Thanks, Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan).
A crapshoot, indeed. On that note, McCain is FAR more likely to go along with his long-time Democrat friends in the Senate than say, a Mitt Romney.
G.W.* ‘the brand is a little tarnished now’ (as to Jeb Bush)…another neoFascist twit.
*George Will, not GW
face it, most Republicans are really, really embarrassed by GW Bush. I note it when they duck their heads and whisper that he’s their President. (not mine)
We are all screwed. Right in the poop chute. No KY. No foreplay. Just a good old fashioned assbanging.
“NPR is wanting me to hear a whole Huckabee speech.”
I tried to watch him on Fox, if that sonuvabitch gets any greasier they are going to have to start carrying him around in a bucket.
dd – He is your President, you little fucking socialist hippie loonwaffle. Unless you are French, which would explain a lot.
“…most Republicans are really, really embarrassed by GW Bush.”
But hardly any Democrats are embarrassed at all by the Clintons, so the Republicans win.
And the Dems are fucking proud of Barry O’Changeyness.
Is Oliver Willis still running around, I mean waddling around, saying it is racist to call someone articulate?
Damn, dd, if he was really a neo-fascist, your stupid ass would already have been strung up and skinned. Now shut the fuck up old man and thank gaia you’re still breathing. Fucking hyperbole spewing dick.
Oh. I don’t like old people. Or Rick Perry. Nothing personal.
Or mullets. Or midgets.
Christ. I’m too young to be a curmudgeon. I think I’ll wear a hoodie to work tomorrow.
Hmm. So we can now add Huckabee to my list of choices for Pres? This just keeps getting better and better!
JESUS HATES CHEEZ-WHIZ AND SO MUST YOU!
It’s like a cosmic joke. Hell, bring it on. I’ll happily shoot it with spitballs and drag its undies up over its ears for the next four years.
I am become Mark Twain, the Mysterious Stranger years.
The only thing that could make this night worse is if the NFL overturned the Giants win, and gave Bellicheat, aka The Hoodie, a perfect season. And if McCain announced that Fuckabee will be his running mate.
Cheez Whiz for everyone !
Or Gulliver. I just want to live with horses.
Oh, and a McCain/Huckabee ticket? Let’s see Roger Kimball try to get me to swallow THAT for the good of the party.
Oh. That’s actually heartening really. I will become Subsubsubcomandante happyfeet. From my secret jungle fortress I will make rueful remarks and link occasionally to the Republican Main Street Partnership site to no particular effect. While wearing an age-inappropriate hoodie.
I simply do not believe you Jeff.
At the heart of all your comments is the side you’ve picked. You ignore Republican trespasses like the unitary exec and forgetting about the 4th amendment, but then (rightly and selectively) point to lefty infringements on our rights. You talk about power hungry democrats as if the same can’t be said of the Republicans. You are a politico, and the Repubs are your team. It’s just a bit much for me to listen to all the high minded ideals and then read the double-standardin’, that’s all.
That’s not to say you’re in lock step. I’ll acknowledge that you differ on social issues and science (that I’ve read, anyway). So there ya go. But the fact that you don’t hold both parties and their cast of characters to the same standard tells me that you’re a Repub. No shame in it. Maybe you can get one of their jackets or hats or something. Maybe one of those ‘black version’ game jerseys – those are always big sellers.
How did it go again?
“Conservatism†has truly lost it’s way. Hell, if I was interested in joining a party just to keep power at all costs, I’d have stuck with the Donks. To them, the personal is the political  and so power is an end, a validation of the worth of the self.
Spoken like someone truly above the fray – a classic liberal, if you will – that believes that only Republicans aren’t after power as an end to itself or for personal aggrandizement. Nice.
You talk about power hungry democrats as if the same can’t be said of the Republicans.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS THREAD IS ABOUT YOU DROOLING FUCKING MORON?
Sorry, but steve seems to be a little hard of reading.
happyfeet – Hoodies are the clothes of the devil. McCain would wear a hoodie if he didn’t have to wear politician clothes on the campaign trail.
Did Jeff really just say “Bring it on?”
NEO-CON!!!!eleventy!!!
Steve – “You ignore Republican trespasses like the unitary exec and forgetting about the 4th amendment”
Maybe if you kinda actually tried to develop an argument you might be worth listening to, but since you don’t, I won’t.
JD,
McCain may be wearing a hoodie under his suit. Those NH sweaters always seemed a little bulky.
Because steve can read your miiiiiinnnd. As if anyone gives a rat’s ass about what some random steve thinks.
I simply do not believe you Jeff.
steve, FWIW, calling the host a liar is not a good way to start off your “argument”.
You ignore Republican trespasses like the unitary exec and forgetting about the 4th amendment,
No, they are not ignored, it is just that these mythical steps towards tyranny only exist in your fevered mind.
But the fact that you don’t hold both parties and their cast of characters to the same standard tells me that you’re a Repub.
This one might have been my favorite. The list of things that are acceptable for Dems to do but not R’s is practically endless. Grand Kleage, anyone?
This would be entertaining stuff, but he believes this drivel.
steve, that’s kind of zany. It’s pure semantics on your part or something. Believing that these people will do what they say they will do is really a lot not zany. It’s very sincerious really. You’re projecting or something. It’s weird and kind of hard to follow.
Oh crap. I bought two hoodies in New York. The one for sure is really spiffy cause at the bar NG said it looked good on me.
Karl – You are right. That would account for much of what I believe about him. And, the bloodletting. But, let’s give the codger his props, that is one fine daughter.
feel better, loser. that was really nice vituperative batshit you throwing you driveling, slobbering wingnut. And I am older but with lieno toupees like Fred or dyed hair ala Raghead Reagun. You never seem to have any logic at your disposal, just force of spite.
nah, neoFascists don’t need that hard stuff…just rigged elections w/ a mascara MeatHead as Sec. of State
Huckabee, Huckabee, Huckabee….that hurt?
thx for approximating my sense of grammer, dojo of one. lol
gram pa McCain humbly accepting his laurels as we speak.
steve —
This probably won’t come as a particular shock to you, but whether or not you believe me is of no moment.
Also, maybe I should have used bold AND all caps?
“Maybe if you kinda actually tried to develop an argument you might be worth listening to, but since you don’t, I won’t.”
too late for that , ha?
Is NG getting any more tolerable ?
Jeff drinks steve’s milkshake.
…trespasses like the unitary exec…
What other kind of executive branch would you prefer, steve?
What other kind of executive branch would you prefer, steve?
One subordinate to a democratic controlled legislative branch, at least when a Republican is in office, as a start, of course. Silly of you to ask.
Holyshit, dave managed to spell at least seven words in a row right. That’s got to be some kind of record.
daleyrocks – No need to develop an argument. They just repeat it over and over and over until the weak minded just assume it to be true, and then the media runs with it for them.
dd – Good to see that you have utter and complete incoherence down pat.
Yes. I adjusted. She’s not a bad kid at all. Not a bit. We did an all-nighter bar-bar-breakfast thing and sorta kinda bonded. Still kinda wish she brought more game, and sometimes listening to her on the phone is kinda painful, but she’ll get there. Also she really is pretty.
“This probably won’t come as a particular shock to you, but whether or not you believe me is of no moment.”
Nor should it be. If it’s any consolation (and per your comment, it is NOT) I don’t think you’re asttempting ot decieve. I just think you have eleohant colored glasses on and claim you don’t.
Or maybe you get daily emails form the RNC – what do I know…
“Also, maybe I should have used bold AND all caps?”
You can recount all the comments you want, but they cannot negate other comments. At best, this strategy can back up the assertion that you’re inconsistent or conflicted.
I’m too young to be a curmudgeon.
Yes, the threshold is 16, isn’t it? ;>
And Karl, I come tonight to testify at the altar of organization, because there is no way McCain is getting these votes with his speechifying. That was painful to watch tonight.
I’m so buying a scion.
Ok, make that seven syllables. Sosume.
You can recount all the comments you want, but they cannot negate other comments. At best, this strategy can back up the assertion that you’re inconsistent or conflicted.
steve – showing the comments in question can back up your assertion that Jeff is inconsistent or conflicted. Where are they?
I’m all for the trilateral executive, myself. Because nothing winds up the moonbats like trilateralism.
Or maybe you get daily emails form the RNC – what do I know…
I hear they fly the dispatches out by special courier. Eyes only and whatnot, steve.
eleohant colored glasses
Is that a gay color or what? It ain’t on my Dupont paint chip chart.
“Is that a gay color or what? It ain’t on my Dupont paint chip chart.”
In all seriousness, it probably is.
sciontology
Maybe not.
Hey! My hoodie is elohant. I’ve been looking for shoes.
“steve – showing the comments in question can back up your assertion that Jeff is inconsistent or conflicted. Where are they?”
Follow the osts. I quote him re: his partisanship, and then he refutes the point with quotes where he’s critical of Republicans. It’s all up there.
…or follow the posts.
The osts go somewhere REALLY special though.
osts?
Ok, then. Posts? Which posts?
You do understand how to link to what you’re talking about, so people aren’t left scratching their collective heads, wondering what the hell you’re talking about, don’t you?
Uh, first off, what I recounted was in the post, and it specifically and intentionally tied together the kinds of Republicans who are as troublesome to me, in the context of Constitutional principle, as the Dems.
I suspect you have no idea what a classical liberal is, steve. Which doesn’t surprise me, and is, again, of no moment.
But what DOES need correcting is this idiocy about a “unitary executive” and the trampling of the 4th Amendment. It’s like you’ve learned a few conspiratoid buzz words and now you use them as placeholders where actual thought should go.
Andrew McCarthy had a list (linked here somewhere) of common 4th Amendment violations (sobriety stops, airport luggage searches, etc) that I’m quite sure have never bothered you. Yet when the NSA does huge data dumps and network analysis — the product of which is not admissible in court without first having secured a warrant — you suddenly become a civil libertarian?
Now THAT’S something nobody here is buying.
As to separation of powers, it’s my contention that the Executive has been stripped, over the years, of powers that belong to it, and that both Bush (but especially Cheney) were fighting to win some of that power back. If your idea of a “unitary executive” is one that more closely resembles the executive as envisioned by the founders, then yeah, I’m for that.
Now do yourself a favor and look up classical liberalism. Then go through the archives here carefully.
Repeat as necessary until you feel duly shamed.
I think that’s gonna require something in the way of reading comprehension, Jeff.
Dan, Jeff –
I’ve been trying to articulate my rejection of McCain across several different forums… but I can’t do better than what the two of you have done with this post.
In the blur of the last few days I saw a commenter elsewhere say “you vote the lesser of two evils long enough, one day you end up knowing you are voting for evil” or something very similar….
Back when I was in the service one of the institutional things you heard a lot was a variation on “It ain’t nuthin’… ain’t nuthin’ but a thang”…don’t mean nuthin'”.
You score orders to the school you’ve been trying to get in to for literally your entire enlistment… and they get canked because you need to go to the desert and shoot at sand dunes. Again.
The battery works three six-day weeks getting everything ready for the Inspector General’s inspection. You lay everything out, every man falls in, perfectly uniformed, every piece of equipment the unit owns is parked, laid out with all it’s gear… and the IG team is two hours late, time enough for the southern California June rainstorm to turn the whole thing into a “count noses and call it good” farce.
Your best friend, who left the Corps but came back in after exchanging letters with you, gets his ass buried in a building in Beirut. And your government runs away.
I voted for George W. Bush, twice. At first I believed that at his worst he would bring ethics and some sort of adult normalcy back to at least a small part of the freak show the last eight years had reduced Washington to. I was impressed with his tactical political skills; anyone who could defeat the Clinton’s heir and their media was defacto nobody’s fool. The opening stages of our response to 9/11 were heartening, as well. The second term was an easy call to make, given the other option.
I believe that the pursuit of the ideals of American representative democracy is the first best hope for the survival of mankind. Our system, when it is faithfully adhered to by all citizen parties, replaces the impulse to kill for personal gain with the higher faith that compromise and cooperation are more profitable for everyone in the long run.
We are a sad and vicious crew. We still don’t think much past our next meal – not much past the next piece of ass for males between the ages of fifteen and twenty five – or whatever the next distraction is. We thirst for entertainment today; yesterday, we thirsted for a better life and worked hard to get it.
Looking at the crew before us – Obama, Clinton, McCain… I am reminded of the era of Praetorian Emperors of Rome. They, too, were chosen by the insulated elite of their time. The Guard was not so much military as it was the remaining functional, effective power in the empire.
The Praetorians selected their caesers based on the ineterests of the Praetorians. But the press releases always emphasized “for the good of Rome”.
I’m done with the Republicans. I could have voted for Romney based on his demonstrated high ethics and superb business accomplishments. I also believe he would be at least as effective as Bush has been in fighting the war we are able to fight in this atmosphere of lotus eaters and hacks. The continued successful prosecution of the war, especially under ANY Republican adminstration, will demand an executive impervious to childish and bad-faithed naysaying by political opponents and one iron-willed in carrying the fight to the enemy where ever and when ever he is found.
The GWOT is going to end one of three ways:
1. The West surrenders incrementally over the course of the next three generations, and the world returns to a kind of Ottoman Empire blur until the oil runs out.
2. Europe wakes up and world war four shifts into high gear. Trains are involved.
3. The United States continues democratization as long as we can afford to, and the budding democratic republics in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the moderate emirates, generate a sect of Islam that serves as that religion’s Reformation.
There’s fourth option, but I am not going to go there. If we go to a hot war with China, option four becomes a sideshow to the real fight.
And ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake aboutit: it will be financial/civic collapse that destroys this country before any bearded child killer plops a Koran on the desk in the oval office. And McCain, Obama, and Clinton, and the majority of the parasites infesting that swamp near Baltimore are contributors, not remedies, to the coming collapse.
John McCain isn’t going to meet in the middle with any Democrats. He’s going to slip them the club handshake and get busy getting on with the business of managing the peasants so that they can’t hurt themselves or, more importantly, incumbent office holders. That means nurturing victim classes, legislating curbs on that pesky political speech stuff, erasing those meaningless lines on the map and those pages in the dusty old history books that used to tell us who we were. The pages that used to tell us how we got here, and what the road looked like.
That’s all done with. We get what’s good for us – as decided by those oh so more qualified to dole it out.
That’s John McCain’s way, and if you can find the difference between Mr. Changeyman and Ms. Rodham -Borgia, you go right ahead and do so. The differences will be tactics; the end strategy, and results, will be the same.
I’m not voting for a Republican candidate whose entire resume is a democratic platform primer.
I cast my vote for Gov. Romney in Utah’s primary today.
I do not expect to cast a vote for the office of president in November, and am prepared to not have a candidate for the foreseeable future.
This refusal to choose where there is no choice is not a futile gesture. It does mean something. At the very least, my hand is not pulling the rope tied to the noose around my neck.
steve – Try reading the original post on which the comments are based. Others have made this suggestion. Dan did not write the entire post you will not if you read closely.
Persistence will be rewarded.
daleyrocks,
What you seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that if steve has a milkshake, and Jeff has a milkshake, and Jeff has a straw, his straw reaches across the room and starts to drink steve’s milkshake.
Nicely put Tmj. This is what psychologizer said earlier…
This is true. I feels it.
Both of which are in the same post. The one attached to this comment thread.
Give up, steve. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Besides, I have a head cold, and I’m done with this nonsense. Believe what you want to believe about me. I don’t much care. But do know that going through life intentionally misreading someone — or bracketing out things inconvenient to your thesis — is not the sign of an honest or refined mind. It’s rather indicative of some sort of desperate need for validation — and worse, it’s one that you seem to be demanding of yourself, even if you don’t realize that is precisely what you’re doing.
Actually Tmj that was really beautiful. Elegiac. You kinda captured my mood tonight.
Read John Yoo, and tell me how the exec is different from a dictator. Tell me what recourse any institution has in that plan. The battlefield is everywhere (literally), the war is over whenever the POTUS says it is, and any and all actions that the POTUS unilaterally declares as being neccessary to prosecute the war are legal ipso facto that the pres issued them. You tell me how that’s constitutional. Inherent powers, right? Just like the the federalist papers talked about it. YOu defend the exec (and this is alot of Clinton et al. too) using signing statements as a line item veto.
this I gotta see – probably tomorrow
Oh no, PW God says I’m embarrasing myself, whatever shall I do.
Just to keep things consistent, Jeff, you oughtta be complimenting me anytime now. MAybe you don’t contradict youself when it comes to insults
Christ, steve. You remind me of Archie in The Chocolate War.
Also she really is pretty.
Amazing how much more tolerable some of those flaws are, huh?
TMJ – BRAVO ! BTW – Heading out to your neck of the woods next weekend. Alta and The Canyons are calling my name.
I think you need to revisit your FDR, steve.
Tmj —
I hear ya’, brother. I became “conservative” (or rather, I began being labeled conservative) sometime after 911. Before that, I had always been called a “liberal” (and self-identified as one).
But what I’ve NEVER been is a progressive. So I moved to the Republicans when it seemed they stood for the kinds of things that are essential to classical liberalism — a respect for the individual; the desire for a color blind society; equality as a function of opportunity, not necessarily outcome; etc. But what drew me there was legal conservatism; social conservatism always struck me as of a kind with progressivism, though less inclined (generally speaking) to try to force the government or courts to enact its agenda by legislative or judicial fiat.
On some of my key issues, Republicans, as a party, are still far better than the Democrats — mostly because legal conservatives, hawkish libertarians, and JFK Dems got folded into the big tent. But I won’t give the “party” my vote when they trot out a couple candidates who feel it is the role of the government to make food choices, or curb political speech, or get behind junk science with my tax dollars, just because the other side might do worse. If they do, it’s on them.
Classical liberalism is very closely tied to libertarianism. Maybe Glenn Reynolds and I should get together and write a manifesto, or start a new political party.
With really cool hats.
Who knows? The hats could really sell the thing.
Read John Yoo, and tell me how the exec is different from a dictator.
These ideas of dictators, and the evil unitary executive … they only exist in your mind.
JD –
“Alta and The Canyons are calling my name.”
Please bring an avalanche transponder if you go in the back country. We haven’t had snow like this in over a decade. Have a fabjous time!
Karl I like the straw visual rather than a reach around visual. steve is getting pretty desperate for love here.
“…the war is over whenever the POTUS says it is, and any and all actions that the POTUS unilaterally declares as being neccessary to prosecute the war are legal ipso facto that the pres issued them. You tell me how that’s constitutional.
Okay, lets start with “any and all actions that the POTUS unilaterally declares as being neccessary to prosecute the war are legal”
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
and as for “the war is over whenever the POTUS says it is” add this to the above
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…
And it seems fairly clear to me. Oh, and this:
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
seems to imply a pretty fucking unitary executive to me.
Steve, don’t argue. It’ll be like being attacked by Snow White and her dwarfs. They’re entertaining though.
Really, not sure how a ‘classical liberal’ supports militarism, authoritarianism, and esp. intolerance of other’s viewpoints.
These ideas of dictators, and the evil unitary executive … they only exist in your mind.
A lot of things only exist in steve’s mind, but he KNOWS things, DAMMIT.
War on Terrorism.
“We’re at War”
“We’re at War”.
Ron Paul’s correct on this one.
an avalanche transponder
An age of wonders. I want one.
Maybe Glenn Reynolds and I should get together and write a manifesto, or start a new political party.
I will start painting the barn first thing in the morning.
(extra bonus clue for steve: President isn’t the plural of President.)
That’s an easy one, data dave. I don’t support “militarism”; I support specific instances of military deployment. I don’t support “authoritarianism”; in fact, I fight against it whenever I see it, be it in campus speech codes, or nanny state intrusions into personal liberties; and finally, I am quite tolerant of other’s viewpoints, as your continued participation here — remarkably asinine as it routinely is — shows. Add to that that this conversation is occurring, and that one of the participants is someone who doesn’t agree with me.
Here’s the problem — and it’s one people like you can’t seem to get your minds around: just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m “intolerant of other viewpoints.” It just means that, on occasion, I find them stupid and uninformed. You equate “tolerance” with not giving offense, and “not giving offense” with “not disagreeing.”
Naturally, you don’t hold yourself to that kind of standard, because you are on the side of the angels, given your political proclivities. The personal being the political, your belief that you hold the right political positions has convinced you that you are thus a good person, incapable of intolerance. But you represent its exact antithesis.
Don’t beat yourself up over it though. It’s the natural end to your political philosophy — one that I’ve taken great pains to examine and dissect here for years and years.
And all the while, people just like you and steve have been invited to participate and prove me wrong.
Instead, you throw out sinister-sounding terms hoping to shame me into silence. Which wouldn’t work even if you had the mental facility to do it artfully.
That’s the long response. The short one is this: don’t like it here? Then go somewhere else. It’s a free country.
For the time being, at least.
I don’t know Carin, it looks like we’re all losers now.
Still, you should smoke some dope. It’ll help.
yours/
peter.
TMJ – One of my bros lives at The Canyons. We have our off-piste gear all ready to go !
dd – We are intolerant of intolerance.
daleyrocks,
Drainage.
And now that the CA results are in, it looks like the stakes just went up. McCain could never defeat Obama, but against Hillary, which is now looking very likely, McCain can win and keep the Democrats out of the White House.
yours/
peter.
Karl – In the case of steve and datadave, I prefer the term leachate, as from human landfills.
CA is not winner take all though for Dems. And the media a lot likes Obama better. Also McCain never sleeps. It’s an old people thing.
Hill/Bill vs. McCain. That is a fools choice. It is like having to choose between getting kicked in the Left nut, or the Right nut. No matter which one you choose, it ends with you on your knees, puking your guts out.
The Senate is really a lot importanter than it was just yesterday.
[…] “After all my “Petulant grandstanding” about the ill-suited Republican Primary offerings (I was annoyed enough to threaten to vote […]
Also I’m very very glad Jeff came back for tonight. It’s a brave new world.
Ditto that, HF.
I also wanted to thank steve, dd, ericd, and the rest for stopping by. Big fun.
Malaclypse,
You shouldn’t ALWAYS rely upon the first link that Google provides, and although I love Wikipedia as a source of general information, things on Wikipedia shouldn’t be relied upon without backup.
From the second link given by google: http://www.friesian.com/valley/fallacie.htm
“The argumentum ad absurdum, or reductio ad absurdum, is itself a valid argument, based on the principle [the Law of Clavius, (-P -> P) -> P] that the introduction of the denial of the conclusion into a valid argument produces a contradiction and establishes the conclusion. This is widely used in mathematics and in natural argument.”
——————————————————————-
nishizonoshinji,
“eyas means young hawk…just leavin the nest, new to trainin.
nevah been flown to the lure.”
Quite true, It may or may not accurately describe me (depending on who you compare me to). I actualy just ran across the word in a disctionary while looking up something else & thought it would make a decent screen-name.
——————————————————————–
Happyfeet,
You’re the only one who got the underlying point.
——————————————————————–
Education Guy,
First of all, Peace! I concede. You don’t like my argument or its phrasing, okay.
Secondly, when someone says “screw you” to me; I don’t typically respond by saying “oh yeah, screw you too!”. I respond with the kind of totally unnecessary ALL-CAPS profanity that I responded to you with. It’s an uncontrollable habit.
Thirdly, though I generally hate hippies; Hippy chicks provide the best sex. Similarly, though I hate hippies; it is a universal FACT that hippies make the best music. So, if I could play some CS&N and get laid by a loose hippie-chick merely by putting my online profanity in ALL-CAPS, I’d be a happy man. Hell, JD has fallen in love with me.
——————————————————————–
JD,
Are you male or female?
If female, do you happen to be a hippie – or like hippie music?
If you’re a hippie female, CALL ME. 570-376-1998
——————————————————————–
Back to Educationguy,
Yeah, as confusing or stupid as you found my Hitler/Stalin argument — imagine if I had made a Scylla/Charybdis argument. Noboby would know what the hell I was talking about. Not even Happyfeet. Unless he was “shroomin'”.
Ewwwwwwwwww. You are kind of creepy. NTTAWWT. But, ew. Just, ew. Shirtlifter.
Perhaps not HF. The transponder doesn’t tell you anything about impending avalanches, but merely serves as an aid (by either sending or receiving a signal) to recover those already buried in one.
Substantially better than the old fashioned method (probe sticks) but still most commonly a recovery, not rescue, effort.
This winter season has broken records for avalanche fatalities all across the west.
Oh. It sounded really cool. Now I’m picturing it more like one of those thumpers in Dune. Beware teh snow worms.
I don’t mind you, Jeff..it’s the “dwarfs” that have to get all fricken insultin’. I’d admit I have my own relatively weak points. Spelling and not editing shit. And anger issues. I just don’t get the contradictions I am reading or see in the conservative faction of the USA. Such as militarism…worship of a institution that is probably the most ‘socialist’ in structure while worship for private enterprise on the other hand.
We are probably worrying too much about shit we don’t have a lot of control over. Anyway, I can see socialism’s faults and capitalism’s faults. I admire more something of a social democratic model…as boring as it may seem to you. I’ve seen conservatism up close for most of my life. Goldwater Republican when I was 10 or 12 but growing up and seeing how life’s evolved I’ve been following a Hillary type of growth except w/o the rotten sausage making Bill and her have been doing.
Sorry, I seem to get a lot of negative attention. I have to watch my own tendencies to look for a fight once in awhile.
This site has a “perfect storm” of immediate reaction with not too many people nor too little. And I like the large layout for reading comments. A young webdesigner I know didn’t like the look of it..but I like it. Maybe he wanted more colour or something. He said it’s large for old eyes like mine.
Well, I am learning some good stuff here. Especially Karl’s and Dan’s links and such. But I should get back in a dojo. I am getting outta shape.
Good luck in your quest for strength and healing that rib. I think I cracked a rib in that last ‘contest’ at the last dojo…and i just waited for a few weeks of inactivity until I could breath without that little pain.
Naturally, you don’t hold yourself to that kind of standard, because you are on the side of the angels, given your political proclivities. The personal being the political, your belief that you hold the right political positions has convinced you that you are thus a good person, incapable of intolerance. But you represent its exact antithesis.
not really, I am here aren’t I?
Perhaps I have still a lot in common with the Right. Afterall,
those “liberals” that seem to be hated on the Right are too busy working, keeping their heads down outta of the bosses notice or going ‘good things’ like participation in politics, discussions, govt. I can see a positive role for govt. I think you can too.
9/11 didn’t unnerve me as much as it seems it did for most Americans (as you said for yourself). Sorry, but it was a one time attack that we overcame and suicide attacks are a sign of weakness, not strength. I fear more the lack of concern about the contradictions of needing economic growth and the limiting of resources and the possibility of real civil war or economic war rather than the minor problems from weak terrorists. I’ve heard Dick Cheney’s concerns about terrorism long before 9/11. Terrorism comes from a weakened and angry population coming from extreme privation mixed with some technology (such as felt by masses of unemployed Muslim men). I fear that Cheney et al expect further unemployment and privation and want to shelter the elite from the problems of the many. I’d like a more open society than they’d want, and can see positive social reinforcement from proper govt. You might call that the “nannystate”. I see it as human necessity within a technological society that needs refinement and respect for the potentially dangerous technologies ever increasing in their potency.
good night Jd….yuck. you had to be nice??
Ewwwwwwwwww. You are kind of creepy. NTTAWWT. But, ew. Just, ew. Shirtlifter.
Aww yeah, baby.
Gimme some sugar.
I think we’ve all learned a lot tonight.
dd – Those contradictions only exist in your head, much like with steve’s ideas. Were you to cease turning to the imaginary conservatives in your head for argument, and actually read and listen (I know, not likely) to what others have to say, some of those contradictions might magically go away.
possibility of real civil war or economic war
You are joking, right? Please tell me you are joking.
Poofter
Someone wants a mushroom bruise. BUTIBETIFITYPEINALLCAPSANDTELLTHISDOUCHENOZZLE WHATAGREATBIGFUCKINGCOCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKINGFUCKER he is, he would still not get the hint. I do not mean to encourage you, Eyas. I am mocking you. Just so we are clear.
I’m not convinced the one equates to the other…
McCain is exactly the kind of opponent the Clintons have been hoping for. They’ve been struggling against Obama because, you know, people might notice they were being rude to a black person or something.
And they kind of did, didn’t they? Notice, I mean.
That Roger didn’t respond really makes me wonder how you’re supposed to know when this PJM thing is on. Is there like an LED somewhere I’m just not seeing?
It seems to me, Roger wants to doom the future of the people of America. He needs to closely scrutinize McCain to discover what kind of person he’s trying to endorse.
What they think the best, and then go for it.
Tmj, thanks, but my portion isn’t really as well thought-out as Jeff’s, IMO.
…Sorry, but it was a one time attack…
That is the reason people “have to get all fricken insultin’.” dd. Because you really are an idiot.
hmmm….lost my internets last night but this makes for good prebreakfast reading.
eyas, i have a friend with a falconers license and i definitely think hed advise returnin u to the wild.
all u seem to do is bate off the fist and hang upside down twisting in the wind.
fly away, kk?
i lurvs this site cuz JeffieG…u need minimum IQ and g to read here….look at hotair or dr.yes…yah, those sites are basically formatted for someone with an eighth grade education to read, kinda like time magazine.
an i keep hopin….that Jeffie will write….some thing like goldbergs or billwhitttles….a compilation of his greatest hits perhaps.
/shrug
its not like anything really awful will happen if bilary gets back in….the country will just go into a kinda cryostasis while bilary purges the unfavorable historical record with mandatory peace an prosperity. ther cud be just a few farenheit style book burnings…some of the really unfavoable stuff.. it wont actually implement hilarycare cuz that wud cause a serious recession.
so no real net effect except the supremes…yah that cud be bad.
did anyone mention the market tanked yest? down like 300 pts?
is it a judgement on mccain or bilary do yah think?
oh happyfeet i might be banned at PJM too….they usta delete my comments a lot.
[…] G. on principle. Includes the already-classic quote: I like my progressives like I like my women, Roger: without […]
Right, just one time, dave. Except for all the other times. Jihadis don’t see suicide attacks as a sign of weakness, btw. They view them as solid victories.
Which is a tremendous consolation to all the non-suicide people who die in them.
Did nishi lose her accent for a while there in #263?
JD….we’ve had civil wars before. I am not a Fishhead but he has a point here. Paranoia? Yes, but it’s happened before. I am not worried about Protein Heads…hmmm, is PW a joke about “meat head”? I forgot to ask Jeff that one.
bmoan….ya yapping like a Pekingese? “Oh, the towers are falling, the towers are falling”. In two monthes after 9/11 more Americans died on our roads from seriously nasty preventable horrible disfiguring accidents. No one cared. 9/11? The towers were sitting ducks and the FBI was spending more time looking for evil environmentalists than Islamic crazies. Now the right wing numbnuts at the FBI are a little more focused. And we’ve closed the hijacking loophole where pilots were told to let the hijackers do their thing as they weren’t suicidal (yet). Bush’s administration allowed more Saudi’s in to go the “flight schools”. They won’t do that again. And the mighty Al Queda can only do suicide bombings undercutting what remaining popular support they had. 9/11? Get over it, ya flake. Actually, I’ll take the insultn’ since I need practice being a meathead.
hiphopsan, don’t worry about the market…worry about US, ‘the middle class’. actually the market’s starting to worry about US too. ube kul,dugu’r vibs.lo
“Jihadis don’t see suicide attacks as a sign of weakness, btw. They view them as solid victories.”
..shows what twisted little noggins they’ve got. u know the Japanese did more suicide attacks too…before they surrendered.
U need to win the peace in Iraq, that needs money. That’s why Pres. Hillary or McCain needs to demand a short term surtax on the 250K a year crowd and Prime the Pump in Iraq giving ’em all jobs, Keynesian style, and get those Jihadists an example of American style middleclass prosperity.
Ah oh, I said the K word…I am doomed to ever cascading flying monkey shit. Might have to go to work now….
I actually did listen to all the candidates speeches last night, including Huckabees. He compared himself to David, which for someone who claims to be a super-duper God lover is a little strange. For those that don’t know, David turned into quite the little douche once he was the king of the Israelites. He was a terrific womanizer (Billy Jeff part 2?) and he actually sent a man (Uriah) to his death in battle so that he could take his wife (Bathsheba). I can’t believe that this guy is likely to be the VP pick for the GOP.
or Pres. Obama…who’s got a less than even chance. He’d be interesting.
First of all, Peace! I concede. You don’t like my argument or its phrasing, okay.
Peace it shall be. My response could have been more reasoned and a good deal more calm, especially since that was what I was trying to convey to you about the comparison. Reason and passion are both both required for a convincing argument, IMO, and dropping either of those 2 names tends to throw reason right out the window.
Bush’s administration allowed more Saudi’s in to go the “flight schoolsâ€Â.
I wasn’t kidding when I said that I thought you had shot a framing nail into your head at some point in your life d-dave.
Eyas: You did not manage reductio ad absurdum. You may think you did, but that doesn’t make it so. What you managed was a hyperbolic analogy that by merit of its hyperbole made others unwilling to consider your argument. Reductio ad absurdum would have required you to demonstrate an absurd outcome can be logically derived from the claim that choosing the lesser of two evils is a bad thing. That choosing the lesser of two evils might produce a distasteful outcome is not the same.
When I said I was trying to help I meant it. One’s ability to influence the thinking of others is undermined when that influence is attempted through a ham-fisted admixture of all-caps histrionics, calling others poopyheads, latin malapropism and shirtlifting. But hey, YMMV.
Oh, and McCain is a douche. h/t happyfeet.
Oops. FTFM.
In two monthes after 9/11 more Americans died on our roads from seriously nasty preventable horrible disfiguring accidents. No one cared.”
No one cared? Are you seriously going to try to argue that nothing is being done to try to prevent highway fatalities in this country? I don’t think just one nail could do that much damage, al.
I don’t mind you, Jeff..it’s the “dwarfs†that have to get all fricken insultin’
How very unselfaware of you, dave. You’re the one who started the verbal combat. This attack-and-flee tactic of yours is a wee bit too passive-aggressive for my taste. Now, here’s a quarter. Go out and buy yourself some punctuation, and if you’ve got any change left over, some spelling skills.
That’s why Pres. Hillary or McCain needs to demand a short term surtax on the 250K a year crowd and Prime the Pump in Iraq giving ‘em al
Amid all the drivel, I almost missed that. What is a “short term surtax” on the 250K a year crowd? That’s close to the top 1% of earners (I think that is closer to the $300 mark) -and they already pay pay over a third of all income taxes. Yet it isn’t enough? You need to put a surtax on that?
And the bottom 50% pay something around 3% of all income taxes.
The class warfare stuff has got to go. Are people just too stupid to understand these basics?
Carin: yes they are too stupid.
Anyone catch this little pearl from Glenn Reynolds this AM:
THIS IS INTERESTING: “Just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people!” I wouldn’t have guessed that.
Exxon Mobil collects taxes. People who buy Exxon products ultimately pay the tax.
Good point, B Moe. Fat chance of slashing corporate income taxes anytime soon, though.
Bafflingly, there are still people who maintain that corporate taxes are NOT passed on to the consumer; that somehow, magically, competition forces them to eat some or all of it. Which means, I imagine, that they think it comes out of profit, or that they can somehow squeeze it out of their suppliers, who are experiencing the same tax squeeze, themselves. I’m wondering how far up the supply chain this goes, and if it eventually, ever, results in slashed wages. Which would be equivalent to…no, let’s not go there.
I guess we’re back to magic, for an explanation of how that is supposed to work.
A (R)epublican should tempt a few (D)emocrats to cross the aisle with compromise to pass legislation. In contrast McCain plays the good (D)emocrat by dragging a few (R)epublicans across the aisle with him. The (R)epublican minority would be better served by standing in clear opposition to a (D)emocrat president then to be undercut by a faux-(R)epublican poser.
I have been trying to convince the FairTax folks to market it as a business tax. Just say we are going to tax the gross instead of the profits, because it is so easy to “hide” profits, you know. For every dollar a business takes in, they have to pay 23% in taxes. And just make it at the retail level to avoid encouraging linear monopolies. I fully expect the left to try something on these lines if they ever get power.
I believe the dinosaurs pay it.
I need practice being a meathead
Don’t sell yourself short, ddave.
[…] Despite Warnings, Tornadoes Kill 55 Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:43 pm | Trackback Share […]
What is a “short term surtax†on the 250K a year crowd? That’s close to the top 1% of earners (I think that is closer to the $300 mark) -and they already pay pay over a third of all income taxes. Yet it isn’t enough? You need to put a surtax on that?
And the bottom 50% pay something around 3% of all income taxes.
The class warfare stuff has got to go. Are people just too stupid to understand these basics?
please, I’ll try to avoid a little expletive spewing after the stupid remark….but have you any meat left on your head, meaning why be a bonehead? You’re feeling sorrow for those who feel sorry for you is gratifying maybe to you only. The top one percent could care less about the surtax as they wouldn’t even notice it’s effects.
Call it class warfare, call it fairness, call it progressive taxation which is what made this country into the industrial powerhouse of the world after a huge war, that led us from a Great Depression of simple people who were mostly agrarian workers to one that puts men on the moon. (and note, since we’ve become more regressive in our tax structure…our nation seems to have let up on being ‘great’ no more moonshots, etc. just a lot of vinyl siding.)
But in your thinking you’d prefer Regressive taxation. look up progressive vs. regressive taxes. Anyway, not to browbeat you and get all meatheadish and lay off being an insolent know-it-all. Caren, homeschool the kids on percentages. Like if the top 1 percent makes 30 or 80 percent of all the money in America (just conjecture)…why shouldn’t they pay 30 or 80 percent of the taxes. You bmoan the fact that they pay so much now. Could it be that they have so much now? Capisci?
This short term method of a surtax upon higher income people worked in our state to balance the budget and it was implemented by a Republican governor who knew the people he was taxing being one himself. More wealthy people moved in than moved out during it’s implementation as it wasn’t a hardship to pay the extra percentage… and believe it or nor a Democratic Governer (Howard Dean btw) removed the tax later after the balance was rectified.
Use the surtax to win the war.. and sunset it. Obviously, with gasoline fed fires of inflation the middle class can’t afford new taxes (nor Hillary’s health care mandates either)..but the Bentley class can do it without even noticing it’s gone and they’d be the main beneficiaries of peace in the middle east. Investments you know?
Take their money! They are too rich to even notice! They prolly stole it from some working poor minority woman anyway. The government is irresponsible with their budgets in your neck of the woods? Never fear. Tax the rich. They won’t mind.
Yeah dave, no more moonshots. Guess we’ll just have to settle for cell phones, gps and the internet. That is until we tax away the profit incentive.
maybe their kids will. it depends. I hear stories.
So…you want a single tax rate, then? If the percentage of earnings is to correlate with the percentage of tax paid, that would only be done with a flat rate. What was that you were saying about progressive taxation, meathead?
“Classical liberalism is very closely tied to libertarianism. Maybe Glenn Reynolds and I should get together and write a manifesto, or start a new political party. With really cool hats.”
I’ll buy that book. And a couple hats, unless you try to pass off that “one size fits most” bullshit.
Anyway, not to browbeat you and get all meatheadish and lay off being an insolent know-it-all.
Rest easy dave, you don’t come off as a know-it-all. More of a guess-it-all, know-it-none, or vegetable.
“bmoan”. Heh.
I don’t think it’s so much that dave knows nothing, just that he’s just twigging to stuff the rest of us knew pretty thoroughly a couple of decades ago.
I blame intellectual incuriosity.
http://OnlinePharmacyUSA.US