dagblog - Comments for "THE MONSTER MASH: RON PAUL AND THE NEWT"

And another thing. It appears

Lazy KGB — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:44:51 +0000

In reply to cult

And another thing. It appears this guy is pretty much in spot-on agreement with every specific policy point Democrats *claim* to also hold. Anti-war. Anti-torture. Pro Bank-fraud accountability, etc.

The *only* factual point of disagreement raised here - aside from selection of politician to support - appears to be a misimpression about the nature of business investing and the concept of risk. And that really is a matter of preferred spin more than legitimate disagreement - you have to admit, the actual deal he's protesting was totally fucked. But that underlying point seems to be pretty easy to schmooze with some simple failure-rate statistics and properly respectful commiseration.

With Obama '08 you should be able to bag this vote no problem. It is telling that your only option coming in to 2012 is to shit on folks. I guess there genuinely isn't much of a real response to the specific criticisms ... if this shit the Democrats are slinging isn't good enough, well, tough ... did we mention BOOOOO! Tea PARTY!!!!!!!!

As AT is fond of saying, those who are interested in expanding the left should be asking themselves how to convince *THIS* guy. Unfortunately, Democrats clearly aren't on the left and are most focused on investing their energy attacking liberals (while still forcing them to vote for you) and building a party approach that exclusively promotes the interests of mega-millionaires and movie stars.

And what would you call a

Lazy KGB — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:10:51 +0000

In reply to cult

And what would you call a political movement that leads it's members to make such rational and measured comments in response to challenge like the one a bit below mine here? Not a cult?

Interesting quote (from Wikipedia):

Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" since the cult debate of the 1970s, some scholars, in addition to groups referred to as cults, argue that these are words to be avoided.

Catherine Wessinger(Loyola University New Orleans) has stated that the word "cult" represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals. She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group's members and their children. Labeling a group as subhuman, she says, becomes a justification for violence against it. At the same time, she adds, labeling a group a "cult" makes people feel safe, because the "violence associated with religion[belief] is split off from conventional religions[beliefs], projected onto others, and imagined to involve only aberrant groups." This fails to take into account that child abuse, sexual abuse, financial extortion and warfare have also been committed by believers of mainstream religions [political parties], but the pejorative "cult" stereotype makes it easier to avoid confronting this uncomfortable fact.

But hey, at least you didn't use the N-Word.

No kidding. How about this

Lazy KGB — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:39:24 +0000

In reply to con artist? shit I did not

No kidding. How about this one?

You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage. You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity.

con artist? shit I did not

Richard Day — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:25:11 +0000

In reply to adYou're nothing but a con

con artist? shit

I did not see this because you found this blog well after I wrote it.

Genghis kind of runs things around here and he caught it. hahahahaha

You wanna debate?

Go ahead and tell me where and when!

I QUOTED the NAZI bastard you prick!

He wishes to destroy the Federal government just like his son.

YOU DO NOT LIKE THE GOOD OLE USA, DO YOU?

You are a part of America who does not like America.

Come on admit it!

You do not like interracial kissing on TV.

You do not like the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution!

Hell, you really do not like the US Constitution at all!

FUCK YOU!

ANYTIME, ANYWHERE YOU PRICK! HA

cult

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:49:19 +0000

In reply to adYou're nothing but a con

cult

adYou're nothing but a con

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:22:07 +0000

In reply to THE MONSTER MASH: RON PAUL AND THE NEWT

adYou're nothing but a con artist. You have no dates supporting your claim in your write up against Ron Paul. You're obviously for the corrupt people in congress who have seen their wealth increase double digits due to illegal insider trading when they front run legislation for profit by investing in these companies prior to them getting government hand outs.

Go ahead, support the likes of a Nancy P., cheer the fact that a bust business making solar panels got a half billion dollars and people working in the white house was seen cheering as the money was being given to them.

You must support torture. Ron Paul was the only candidate against it.

You must support MF Global's looting of over a billion dollars of people's money while the CEO has no charges brought against him (probably because he was the NJ governor and exCEO of Goldman Sachs). Even more interesting he's no where to be found.

I suppose this is one party's fault?

Where is Obama and Boner (sorry pronounced Bohner ) speaking up and demanding a man hunt for this huge criminal?

NO WHERE TO BE FOUND ON THIS SUBJECT!

I got news for the person posting these lies about Ron Paul....your buddies who say they will help you for helping them will be long gone and you will be left to fed for yourself more broke than you've ever been! They could care less about you and will use you as a fall guy when they want to. Start reading real history and start spreading the truth. Stop spreading outright lies!

Beware of the telephone

Verified Atheist — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:15:14 +0000

In reply to There was a poll in Alabama,

Beware of the telephone game!

The state was Mississippi, and it was nearly half (46%), not over half. However, it was a plurality, in that only 40% said it should be legal. It was a PPP poll, and the question is Q14, for those who want to see the source.

Thanks for bringing this up. I try to be skeptical about such things, and I'd say regardless of the minor distinction between "over half" and a plurality, your point is still valid (and scary). Also, the crosstabs are of some interest. Evidently, Palin's and Huckabee's fans contributed most significantly to the people who thought interracial marriage should be illegal. How surprising! (For what it's worth, Paul's fans voted about 2-1 in favor of interracial marriage being legal.)

There was a poll in Alabama,

Oxy Mora — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:55:58 +0000

In reply to Both Newt & Paul are bolding

There was a poll in Alabama, or perhps Mississippi, in which over half of the Republicans in the state answered yes to a question of whether inter-racial marriages should be illegal. What does that tell you about the real state of mind of many Southern whites today?

Thanks.

trkingmomoe — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:30:00 +0000

In reply to The republican party after

Thanks.

The republican party after

Richard Day — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:16:27 +0000

In reply to D. D. The next time you take

The republican party after 1876 gave up on justice completely. That is a simplistic statement but the fact is that all Northern troops were withdrawn and the South just went ahead and did what the North knew they were going to do.

I just saw an hour or two of a CSPAN lecture on Garfield.

This guy was the hope of all Blacks in this country. No kidding. And when he was shot dead that was the end of any hope at all for the lower classes or the minorities until Teddy--who was never a real Civil Libertarian but who held some beliefs in justice and the American Way.

I have done blogs on this.

But you bring up an interesting point; of course you always bring up interesting points.

I just became so angry at two threads on the web; one pertaining to Newt who is getting no coverage on TV MSM and Paul who is held up as some sort of ideal for the libertarians.

And it hit me!

I knew Newt was a prick for a long, long time but he would rise above it all from time to time. And now the Newt is just lost in the muck and has increased his craziness hoping to be heard. Now Newt would just destroy the third branch of government and replace it with what? The executive or the church or what?

It is a damnable shame.

Paul lures me into his philosophy until I take another look at his history. People are lured into thinking that they will have free drugs forever and abortions will be free and Paul has no intention of aiming for those goals--whether you believe the goals wonderful or evil.

These are bad men and libertarianism only goes so far and the politicians who come to the fore as far as 'this movement' promise much in the way of individual liberties but those philosophical liberties only apply to the rich.

Oh well.

I shall think about your message and ponder my further discussions. ha