My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to argue about what Perry did and didn't do before that man was executed, or about the tone of that blog, find someone else to do it with. I don't think you like Perry much more than I do.

You know the blogs that opine on the people who broadcast the news instead of the ones that opine on the news? That's me.

[Replaced_Texan]

Just as an FYI, the governor here can't actually stop an execution until the department of Pardons and Paroles Makes the recommendation to do so. Obviously, as appointees, the board has the same or similar views as the governor, but he can't over ride a negative rec for clemency.

The governor though is fully responsible for dissolving the Texas Forensic Commission the week or so before they made the announcement that Willingham was convicted on junk science and probably was an innocent man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just as an FYI, the governor here can't actually stop an execution until the department of Pardons and Paroles Makes the recommendation to do so. Obviously, as appointees, the board has the same or similar views as the governor, but he can't over ride a negative rec for clemency.

The governor though is fully responsible for dissolving the Texas Forensic Commission the week or so before they made the announcement that Willingham was convicted on junk science and probably was an innocent man.

Hank is very concerned about scientific literacy, so now you're talking his language.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you want to argue about what Perry did and didn't do before that man was executed, or about the tone of that blog, find someone else to do it with. I don't think you like Perry much more than I do.

The word troll gets thrown around here some, but I think it's good to look at this perfect example of trolling by Hank. Note, no substance, attacks on the person he's responding to, and on others, just lots of bait chumming the waters, really you can tell the man has perfected his art.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Reflections of a GOP operative.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Reflections of a GOP operative.

That behavior has, at most, one more election cycle. If the Rs don't return sanity to the congress* after 2012, then they will surely be voted down by 2014. The tea partiers will not be a long-lived phenom.

*a couple points- he says middle voters didn't turn out in 2010. Wasn't there high overall turnout for a midterm. I thought so.

he also seems to think gridlock is bad, but I don't, of course gridlock to an extent congress can't function is not sustainable, but in general some gridlock is healthy for us all. and as to the tactics in the Senate he seems to have forgotten what the Dems did there in the Bush admin. They started the trend, the Rs may have increased it, but the start was most clearly the Dems.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That behavior has, at most, one more election cycle. If the Rs don't return sanity to the congress* after 2012, then they will surely be voted down by 2014. The tea partiers will not be a long-lived phenom.

That would be nice if it were true but he is describing a bigger and more fundamental change.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wasn't there high overall turnout for a midterm. I thought so.

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

he also seems to think gridlock is bad, but I don't, of course gridlock to an extent congress can't function is not sustainable, but in general some gridlock is healthy for us all. and as to the tactics in the Senate he seems to have forgotten what the Dems did there in the Bush admin. They started the trend, the Rs may have increased it, but the start was most clearly the Dems.

9/11 changed everything?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think so.

That's comparing mid-term to Presidential election. I think the relevant statistic here is that the 2006 mid-term turnout was 41.3% while the 2010 turnout was 41.6% - up by 0.3%!

I am sure that massive turnout of rabid teapartying real americans is what Hank was referring to.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think so.

Your first guy claimed the TP'ers were the only ones voting and that the middle all stayed home. Your second guy claims "Add to these figures the fact that overall turnout was down by about a third, or more, from nearly 130 million to about 82.5 million. That's at least 45 million no-shows, and the exits tell us the bulk of them were liberal, young, black, Latino. "

this is why no one can "discuss" a point here. You post proof, that actually tends to show neither knows what they're talking about, or at least one is wrong.

9/11 changed everything?

impeaching Clinton changed everything. it made it fine to fuck with people for no reason for the short term. since the two parties have just been getting more entrenched into it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That would be nice if it were true but he is describing a bigger and more fundamental change.

you have reps and sens following what they feel they need to to survive the TP'ers, and you have no leadership in the WH or the Senate trying to remind these people of their responsibilities.

The TP started because of two things, : 1) the stimulus and bailouts,* and 2) HCR.

The average american is not asking how to find a $50+ bottle wine in Pa. The average american is worried about not losing their homes and how their kids will go to school. Then the Dems gave bankers a gazillion dollars and spend money the country didn't have on the stimulus. Then HCR comes along and spends more money the country doesn't have to "give" HC to people who don't work.

I'm not saying that's how I see it, but it is how the average american sees it. Not only am I the most politically experienced sock here, I'm also closest to actual working people and the only one who grew up in a blue collar home. Trust me on the above, it is objectively true.

Now, the TP started with the insane, but the bulk of working people were frightened about what the Dems had done, and worse, what might come next. Thus, lots of normal people joined and voted with the tp in 2010. However, as I predicted, those same $$$-motivated people will quit once they understand the racism at the heart of the TP . I've seen that happening already. The responsible Rs will get back, and the TP will die. The question is whether the Dems will again escalate the rotten behavior, as they did under W, once they are again out of power.

* and arguments that W spent more are just evidence of ignorance about how america thinks. it is okay to spend my money to fight wars to make us safe, it is not okay to spend my money to give it to non-working americans.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Your first guy claimed the TP'ers were the only ones voting and that the middle all stayed home. Your second guy claims "Add to these figures the fact that overall turnout was down by about a third, or more, from nearly 130 million to about 82.5 million. That's at least 45 million no-shows, and the exits tell us the bulk of them were liberal, young, black, Latino. "

this is why no one can "discuss" a point here. You post proof, that actually tends to show neither knows what they're talking about, or at least one is wrong.

Nate Silver knows nothing about voting stats. Got it.

impeaching Clinton changed everything. it made it fine to fuck with people for no reason for the short term.

proving your point that the Democrats started it under Bush.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nate Silver knows nothing about voting.

dickless: I merely made the point that the second you quoted didn't support the first, he contradicts it. Can you read and think at the same time, or just read and copy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

proving your point that the Democrats started it under Bush.

do you think when I said it was the impeAchment I didn't get that I was saying the r's were the original problem?? The fact is the dems escalated under w. We'll see how the dems behave 1/2013 when they are minority again, I think they'll behave poorly too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dickless: I merely made the point that the second you quoted didn't support the first, he contradicts it. Can you read and think at the same time, or just read and copy?

I'm not understanding why you think they contradict each other.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you have reps and sens following what they feel they need to to survive the TP'ers, and you have no leadership in the WH or the Senate trying to remind these people of their responsibilities.

I think people are lots more motivated by their incentives than by their political opponents telling them what their responsibilities are. As that GOP staffer says, the whole party has moved way to the right, following incentives. There is no one within the GOP pushing things back to the middle. And the drubbings they took in 2006 and 2008 only eliminated moderates and convinced the others to move farther to the right. Thus the GOP thinks that Bush's mistake is that he wasn't conservative enough.

The TP started because of two things, : 1) the stimulus and bailouts,* and 2) HCR.

The average american is not asking how to find a $50+ bottle wine in Pa. The average american is worried about not losing their homes and how their kids will go to school. Then the Dems gave bankers a gazillion dollars and spend money the country didn't have on the stimulus. Then HCR comes along and spends more money the country doesn't have to "give" HC to people who don't work.

I'm not saying that's how I see it, but it is how the average american sees it. Not only am I the most politically experienced sock here, I'm also closest to actual working people and the only one who grew up in a blue collar home. Trust me on the above, it is objectively true.

Now, the TP started with the insane, but the bulk of working people were frightened about what the Dems had done, and worse, what might come next. Thus, lots of normal people joined and voted with the tp in 2010. However, as I predicted, those same $$$-motivated people will quit once they understand the racism at the heart of the TP . I've seen that happening already. The responsible Rs will get back, and the TP will die. The question is whether the Dems will again escalate the rotten behavior, as they did under W, once they are again out of power.

* and arguments that W spent more are just evidence of ignorance about how america thinks. it is okay to spend my money to fight wars to make us safe, it is not okay to spend my money to give it to non-working americans.

I wish you were right but I think this is all wishful thinking. As that guy says, all the incentives within the GOP are pushing people to the right. They need to spend some time in the political wilderness to get over this, as the Democrats did, but because of the economy I don't think we're going to see that anytime soon.