Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

That would assume that I would give any credence to the graphic. I don't know who is more pathetic; the people who produced that graphic, or the people that pass it along. Cracker Jacks produces better stuff in their prizes.

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

We have gone through this before. You are clearly incorrect, but refuse to admit it. (As I proved last time with cites to actual source material.)

That said, I'm not sure why anyone here cares or calls you on it, except for Ty posting the amusing graphic.

S_A_M

P.S. I'll go back to reading "State of Denial" now. The book actually gives me more respect for Rumsfeld (so far), not less.

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

Are you back to explaining racism in two pithy sentences again?

S_A_M

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

When did I try and explain racism in two pithy sentences? Am I wrong when I said that racism should be universally condemned? Is that the pithy comment you were talking about? Should exceptions be carved out for victimized classes when it comes to tolerance of racism?

Do you think if Michael Richards was black and had made those same comments to some people who were white, that that would be OK? Do you think the alleged fact that black people have no power and white people have all the power gives African Americans license to make racist comments? Do you really think that White people have all the power, and black people have no power in this country? You don't think that saying that white people own the power structure and black people don't isn't a gross oversimplification?

Do you think that the prejudice that some Caucasians show towards African Americans in this country is a unique situation to United States? Was the "peculiar institution" in this country so different than the slavery system in Brazil, or in many other countries?

Are you really going to try and defend any of the incredibly stupid statements that idiot made on the fashion board?

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

Or if we just ignore it then no one has a problem. Correct?

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

Sure. Just know, though, that this proud brand of stupidity in the face of contrary facts - coupled with an invitation to ignore you for your declared stupidity - might just earn you what you're asking for.

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

This was re Spanky's statement:

"We have already been through this. There is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democrat party". The term Democrat is not used to modify the term party, it is another noun. It is the name of the party, it does not describe what kind of party it is."

I don't read this board regularly, nor do I care to scroll to find y'all's prior discourse, but I find it hard to argue with Spanky's statement. The Democrats are as "democratic" as the Republicans are "republican." Our electoral method is a mix of both (among other things) and neither word any longer stands for that method of voting. Rather, the terms have become code words for whatever the currently bi-polar delination is over a few issues. But those terms (and the parties appropriating their names) are so fluid, and the various counter-examples so prevalent (e.g. my oft-stated bon mot that Bush is a 1964 Southern Democrat) that I wonder why anyone, y'all included care anymore. see e.g. every communist group that called themselves the "peoples something something front."

Further, why would any right-thinking person choose to align or affiliate with either of these abominations, let alone become worked up about whether their chosen nom-de-plume accurately reflects their values (i.e., any group that is defensive about this has either inaccurately or dishonestly named themselves)? Don't you only sully yourself by association? And, even if you don't actively support or suborn one of these hobgoblins, isn't even subtly or secretly supporting one of them the equivalent of saying "I won't go to a cock fight, let alone bet on it, but I hope the Red with the nice Waddle wins"?

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

Less -

If you'll be kind enough to indulge me, I'd like to scan some blogs and maybe run a few Wikipedia searches. I will then offer selective text, an ersatz "expert report" of sorts, explaining that, although practically correct, in a technical or academic sense (or what passes for "academic" in the world of online punditry and Wiki definition creation) you are wrong.

Best,
Sebastian

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Sure you can. Heck, it's an old Republican slur (which you surely know), and people from Alf Landon to Bob Dole or George W. Bush have cheerfully used it when making partisan attacks.

Here's the thing, though. It's impolite to *always* use it. Occasionally, you have to call a group by the name they select or you brand yourself as a rude person who has chosen to deliberately insult someone. Even if your prefered name is based upon grammar or factual correctness.

Arab governments that don't recognize Israel call it "the Zionist entity." This is a factually correct term (the state's founding ideology was and remains Zionism). However, it is a huge insult to use that term to refer to Israel, and the fact that it remained in the charter of the PLO after the Oslo Accords was a real problem for a substantial chunk of the Israeli public -- even before the Palestinians resumed their violence. Flying to Jerusalem and calling Israel "Israel" was one of the bravest things that Anwar Sadat did. (See also Republic of China/Red China versus People's Republic of China/Taiwan -- Nixon's use of the PRC name in a speech was a clear signal to Mao and Chou.)

Let's think of an example in Spankyland where you might want to think about the impact of your version of the party name. In a setting where you are trying to scrape together enough votes in the House to pass a free trade bill, would you want to call possible "yes" votes a name which -- regardless of its gramatical correctness -- insults them?

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

I agree it doesn't much matter, but:

If you look at the last two sentences of Spanky's statement which you quote, I believe you will see that he states that the political party is in fact named the "Democrat Party." That is the argument we had before, where he was proven incorrect, and was the point I addressed.

S_A_M

P.S. I do understand that you and I are talking about completely different issues, and that I didn't really respond to the substance of your post.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

The term "Democrat" alone is pejorative in a lot of circles. I live ina fairly GOP area. You hear folks use it the same way people throw "liberal" around as an insult. "What are you? A fuckin Democrat?"

But thanks. Now I'm going to use "Democrat Party" to differentiate from the Bush Supporters I'm presently insulting with the term "Democrats."

Spend like Democrat, and you're a Democrat, no matter how many "W" stickers you have on your Sequoia.

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

Good for you. Where would you like the Prize Committee to Fedex your case of Turtle Wax?

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

I think calling the RINOs (like Bush) the Democrat Party is a fine insult, and one they undoubtedly will understand.

All this having been said, Spanky is free to call whoever he wants whatever he wants. He just should realize it all goes to how he is perceived. It may also be wise to avoid using the perjorative in certain crowds.

This is also true, of course, of Michael Richards.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Yeh, but even though they have no basis to use it, RINO's too much a favorite of the social conservatives, used to deride Libertarian Republicans.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

So how about calling them CINOs? (conservatives in name only - I couldn't come up with a "w").

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Ever seen a CINO charge a Range Rover on "Wild Kingdom"?

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

You don't think I know "how it is perceived". Since the day I started posting to this board I have always called it the "Democrat party". I would be surprised if you could find an exception on any post that I have ever made. Probably a thousand references to the Democrat party and not one to the "Democratic party".

The first time someone noticed it, people seemed to think this was something I came up with on my own. That it was just a whim of mine and criticized me thinking if I just understood the error of my ways I would correct it.

Now some of the people on this board have realized that there are other people that do the same, and are starting to get the idea that this is something that maybe I did not come up with on my own.

But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

Clearly these critics think that they have put a great deal of thought into this and clearly they think I have not. They understand the ramifications of what I am doing, and I don't, so they need to warn me of what might happen.

Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question? Did it ever occur to you that the reactions that have occured on this board just reinforce that what is being done here is very effective?

This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy. There is a whole subtext to political discourse and actions that most of the people on this board are completely deaf to.

I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

The social conservatives have claimed the use of the word RINO and it has proved to be a very effective tool in what they are trying to achieve. We got outmaneuvered on that one and it has been a very expensive loss.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

2 questions:
1) By "we" do you mean the libertarian republicans?
2) For whom has the loss been most expensive? Do the elections of 2006 demonstrate that the strategy dooms the current non-RINO Republicans to persistent minority status? Or do the 2004 elections show that they can hold a majority, absent aberational elections resulting from singular/unique policy choices?

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

And with that, the large, gilded doors to Spankyland slammed shut with a deep and resounding CLANG, and in the silence that followed, the Dems, RINOs and True Believers outside were left to wave away the billowing smoke and throw goat entrails upon the ground in a desperate attempt to divine the genius that was too briefly exposed to them.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

If it makes you feel any better, I haave always realized you are just one smallpart of a confederacy of assholes.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

if you were designing a new country what would you call the two political parties?

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

If I sat here and typed "asshole" in response to every assholish thing said on the board the "s" key on my keyboard would be worn to nothing by now.

Nice to hear that the Rove research machine has fully embraced the idea that being assholes makes for good politics. I never knew that before.

Hugo Chavez and Democrats = alliance from hell
 

I'm touched. I've _never_ won anything before!

:sniffle:

S_A_M

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

The Baseball Furies and the Gramercy Riffs.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

I suppose we made the mistake of assuming that you weren't just being a dick. And that you weren't just putting everyone on when you argued (back then) that you _were_ using the actual name of the party. The posts still exist, you know.

No, but in fairness, we only had your body of posts to go by.

Actually, this is a policy Board too. You can't just go by the name you know.

I like introspection as much as the next guy, but don't be so hard on yourself. You clearly have plenty of experience and political savvy. Must make life as a liberal Republican in California even more frustrating.

How can anyone tell what you're doing when you're clearly either a liar or a bullshit artist? And why would anyone care?

S_A_M

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Damn, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? I think that is de rigeur for professionals on all sides.

S_A_M

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Socially liberal, Economically conservative. The difference between a Libertarian Republican and a moderate Republican is that Libertarian Republicans are big on gun rights, moderates are not.


The problem is turnout. As long as the trend continues that people vote less and less, then the social conservative Republicans can hold onto power just by turning out the base. In low turnout elections, only the extremists show up to vote. In low turnout elections both moderate and libertarian Republicans don't turn out to vote. The pool of social conservative voters is shrinking but as long as turnout keeps shrinking they can still hold onto power. If we just had a fifty percent turnout in all Federal elections, the extreme liberals and the social conservatives would have no power at all. But when you have low turnout the extremists in the power hold the keys to the kingdom. That is why the social conservatives controlled Washington and the extreme liberals control the California legislature.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

Next thing you know, Spanky will be telling us that the Republicans knew all along that the Iraqis weren't responsible for the World Trade Center.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

How about the "Dimwit Party"? Or the "Anti-Semite Party"?

Here's Former President Carter - embarrasssing himself and his party, yet again - blaming the Jews, yet again, for all that is wrong in the Middle East:

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

But Muslims were. And Speaker-elect Pelosi wants to make using that as a profiling criteria illegal.

Here's the real story on those 6 Imams that were PROPERLY tossed from that plane. Those terrorists from CAIR did a heck of the job in the media portraying these thugs as poor victims.

All 6 of them should be imprisoned for deliberately trying to cause fear - and they are fortunate a few passengers didn't justifiably beat them to a bloody pulp:

A list
 

This was forwarded to me. I don't stand by any of it, but I thought it was interesting. Some of it, like the automobile insurance stuff, isn't really a federal government issue, and some of it, like the campaign financing stuff, is probably illegal per the free speech argument that the Supreme Court seems to like so much. But other stuff is, I think, a good start. I like the attestation that every member of congress actually read the legislation they're voting on.

Heck, we call the song "Ironic," not "Coincidence."
 

First, based on their actions, I think the imams should have been taken off of the plane. I'd get taken off a plane for sitting in first class and refusing to move if I hadn't gotten the upgrade. Seems like a no brainer. And I can't believe how accomodating the flight attendants were in providing the belt extenders if they weren't large men--seems like the flight attendants need further training.

Still, I want to know how it is that we are supposed to, with reaonable accuracy, profile Muslims? What set of criteria captures all Muslims for profiling purposes without too many false positives (which would make the system too burdensome)? Or is just left to the discretion of Jethro at the TSA?

A list
 

I wish they would have listed the one about Al Gore leading a non-partisan panel as #1, so I could have stopped reading right then and there.

Albeit, that was the funniest thing I've read all day.

A list
 

I truly believe that Spanky reads every post he responds to.

A list
 

we have too many teachers for what it's worth. I know several recent grads that can't find squat. You have to move to south Carolina to get a job.

A list
 

This list would make a lot more sense after a clean sweep of Congress and the Presidency, not in a two-year period with a Republican president.

Since I know Dems won't listen to me, I'll offer my advice, which is to pick 3-4 central issues and do something with them, or try. Leave the rest to 2008.

The obvious ones:

Iraq,
Minimum wage,
Immigration,
(and maybe border security).

Put foward your vision, get it passed or get it vetoed, and then run on it in 2008.

A list
 

I would suggest that House ethics reform is another obvious candidate.

I read that the current Congress has basically decided to leave town without resolving a whole host of budget issues. The government is funded by continuing resolution through early next year, but the next Congress is going to confront budget problems in a relatively quick fashion. Republicans evidently have decided to duck the hard choices and then attack the Democrats for whatever they choose to do. It's just another sign of the irresponsibility of the GOP, and of the reasons that conservatism works better as a way to get elected than as a way to run the country.

A list
 

What was the platform of the Democrat party again?

Forgive me if I missed it, since the only thing I heard proposed was "we aren't the GOP"

Well, that, reinstituting the draft, and putting an impeached, disgraced former judge as the head of the House Intelligence Committee.