dagblog - Comments for "REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET THEIR CHANCE TO RULE THE WORLD!"

The return of the republican

synchronicity — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:17:30 +0000

In reply to REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET THEIR CHANCE TO RULE THE WORLD!

The return of the republican party brought to you by the

rumor mill and paid marketing media

enjoy!

Just read that Pinal, AZ Sherriff Babeu is lying, claiming that mexican drug cartels are controlling american territory. These days all he has to do is say it and a 'majority' of Americans will believe him maybe because it's a scary thing to get angry about and will distract them from the pain of their lives but it turns our country into a political toilet. Dump whatever you want here...

Look, i don't want to get

quinn esq — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:17:32 +0000

In reply to Really, pray tell, when did

Look, i don't want to get deeper into this argument, but clearly, you (and your ilk) love Nazi Unicorns.

I see you've got all 8

Beetlejuice — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:40:12 +0000

In reply to Wait a minute there

I see you've got all 8 cylinder fired up and roaring!

So, don't write anything

Austin Train — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:57:11 +0000

In reply to So, don't write anything

So, don't write anything critical of the President or the Dems because you will immediately send irrepressible ripples of disaffection and apathy, with the "predictable" effect of discouraging support and turnout (when? where?). Please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

Again, is Democratic power so fucking fragile? Do you really think that Walsh and/or Greenwald wield that much power? If they do, then why is the GOP acting so desperately? Couldn't they just rest on their laurels, Democratic apathy having already reached saturation due to the solitary efforts of Salon.com?

This wouldn't even work as satire.

And I think you know that.

Democratic power - or any political power in representative government - does have at least something to do with maintaining some cohesion among majority members, does it not? Please tell me you're at least that in touch with reality.

Which makes the carping about how the White House supported incumbents some Dems wanted out completely ludicrous. A President will invariably support an incumbent of his party. What are people thinking?

Power is only useful so long as it's held. Fragmentation makes that...let's just say...a bit less likely.

Remember, Dems need to fall in love. All the Republicans are looking for is to fall in line.

And why, also, does our side feel compelled to drown the barely interested in facts, figures, and policy statements they clearly care little for, instead of finding the resonant narrative and tacking a policy point to it? Boring potential voters is as bad as outright alienating them, and has the same ultimate effect.

And in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are already just about measuring the Speaker's office for new drapes. That doesn't quite sound like desperation to me. Premature triumphalism, maybe. November still has to arrive, and a lot can happen in two months, though our side is moping along while the teabaggers and their cynical exploiters are celebrating even as they cross the twenty-yard-line.

It's been far too easy for many on our side of the fence to dwell on what hasn't happened yet and feel - and act - as though we've all been utterly sold out. We haven't. Changes, progress, movements of genuine importance aren't instantaneous.

And salients are quickly and easily reduced, while broad-front advances, frustrating as they may seem, are far more likely to yield desired results.

Really, pray tell, when did

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:39:42 +0000

In reply to You know, when you make that

Really, pray tell, when did this rule come up? Oh right, you made it up.

Wait a minute there

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:38:52 +0000

In reply to So, don't write anything

Wait a minute there partner... not one thing I've written says don't write anything critical of the President, but you all get so upset when something critical is written of your, what best friends. Suck it up buddy, it is my opinion and I am sticking to it, in that there are those of you out there, who think it is absolute heresy to write anything critical about your boy Glenn, or my personal friend Joan, is too damn bad! Joan doesn't hold it against me, so why should you.

So, don't write anything

DF — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:23:23 +0000

In reply to Neither of them is calling

So, don't write anything critical of the President or the Dems because you will immediately send irrepressible ripples of disaffection and apathy, with the "predictable" effect of discouraging support and turnout (when? where?). Please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

Again, is Democratic power so fucking fragile? Do you really think that Walsh and/or Greenwald wield that much power? If they do, then why is the GOP acting so desperately? Couldn't they just rest on their laurels, Democratic apathy having already reached saturation due to the solitary efforts of Salon.com?

If that's not an unhinged view of the world, I don't know what is.

And if you don't want to write about denizens of the Cafe, then don't. But if your grievance is really with them, don't write a piece that focuses on someone else if you don't want to be called on it. If Walsh and Greenwald really are so awful, it should have been painfully easy to actually critique something that one or both of them actually wrote. Nothing of their views has been legitimately portrayed here.

Seriously, no one sees the irony of protesting that some people might be scapegoating Obama via scapegoating Walsh and Greenwald? It's pretty silly, actually.

Neither of them is calling

Austin Train — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:09:42 +0000

In reply to Then my suggestion to the

Neither of them is calling for a return to Republican rule.

Right. Spreading disaffection and apathy through a ceaseless recounting of shortcomings, with the predictable effect of discouraging support and turnout, their real-world practical illustration of damning with faint praise, certainly is nothing of the sort, is it? (That is, if cause and effect have little meaning outside the classroom.)

To be fair, Walsh is far less reprehensible in this than is Greenwald. She is a mediocrity in comparison to his atrocity.

And the less said about some characters from TPM the better. I see no point in enraging myself by recounting - or even considering - some of the blathering nonsense coming from the "Popular Front of Judea" much of what once passed for progressive thought seems to have become.

I will if you press, but not eagerly.

The only thing worse is

DF — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:09:15 +0000

In reply to You know, when you make that

The only thing worse is making the "Hitler riding a unicorn" argument.

You know, when you make that

quinn esq — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:06:48 +0000

In reply to While much of what youi say

You know, when you make that "unicorn" argument, you lose? It's like mentioning Hitler.

Maybe worse.