Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

Also, I did not vote for him as I just arrived.

It's not very imaginative of you not to be able to vote based on that. Even Chicagoans voted for him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

better: "38 boxes of wine this fall and house zin is the best."

It's not better if it doesn't comply with the rules.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

It's not very imaginative of you not to be able to vote based on that. Even Chicagoans voted for him.

It's Minnesota, where you can register to vote on election day, so I probably could have. But I didn't try.

I was going to say it wouldn't have mattered, but it looks like they are going into a recount on the governor's race, so maybe it would have.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

If the choices had been Harry Reid or YOU, Harry would have lost badly.

The casino workers aren't that stupid.

It was the act of getting them from Point A to Point B that was significant. Nobody is excited enough about Reid to register and go to any polling station on his own.

Again, TNWWT. I see nothing objectionable about mobilizing union organizers to bring out the vote. That Reid's ground team did such a good job is another feather in his cap. I merely offered the fact to counter the suggestion in Ty's piece that Reid's win was all silk-stocking behind the scenes brilliance. A lot of it was ugly, street-level politics. Like any successful politician's.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It was the act of getting them from Point A to Point B that was significant. Nobody is excited enough about Reid to register and go to any polling station on his own.

Again, TNWWT. I see nothing objectionable about mobilizing union organizers to bring out the vote. That Reid's ground team did such a good job is another feather in his cap. I merely offered the fact to counter the suggestion in Ty's piece that Reid's win was all silk-stocking behind the scenes brilliance. A lot of it was ugly, street-level politics. Like any successful politician's.

Scuttling the political careers of future opponents before they present any real threat to you is "silk-stocking behind the scenes" politics? Not in this town, buddy.

We've got a mayoral candidate who gave another guy *cancer* to get him out of the race--behind the scenes, sure; but "silk-stocking"? Really? Seems dirty, ugly, street-fighting to me. And Reid's attacks on whatshername during the primary were out in the open, so it wasn't even behind the scenes.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've seen him interviewed. I don't agree with a number of his positions, but of all the things to be proud of regarding the man, I can think of nothing less significant than the fact he happens to be a Muslim. In fact, I'd suggest a fixation on that minor fact insults the rest of his accomplishments, including the fact that he's a damn interesting interviewee.

You're beating a dead, dull-normal, horse.

He's proud that he's not represented by Bachman. He used the most recognizable identifier--perhaps apart from his name, but likely including his name--of the Rep for the district he does live in, to establish that it is not Bachman.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ironweed

That hurts him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

do you think the Dems misstepped or is it all this? arrogance drove the HC debacle. a lack of introspection could cost Obama the second term.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think the Dems misstepped or is it all this? arrogance drove the HC debacle. a lack of introspection could cost Obama the second term.

I'm on the way to DC-I'll try to relay this message to Obama.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

You're beating a dead, dull-normal, horse.

He's proud that he's not represented by Bachman. He used the most recognizable identifier--perhaps apart from his name, but likely including his name--of the Rep for the district he does live in, to establish that it is not Bachman.

I don't think that's true. I think that's an after the fact backup explanation offered when I flagged him for offering a goofy liberal bromide. I've loads of liberal friends, and they like to appear enlightened by highlighting things about their neighborhood, tastes, etc... emphasizing "diversity." It's laughable horseshit, an insecurity, a way of saying "I'm more enlightened than others... I like having a transgendered mayor. I have learned so much about the transgendered lifestyle and I am open and tolerant, which indicates I am more evolved than so many in this country."

So am I. In fact, so much so I see no fucking reason to talk about it. Muslim, gay, crippled, Pagan... I don't give a fuck about someone's background, and I see no reason to identify them by it (except for fundamentalists, who seek to restrict/repress others, in which case background becomes significant).

I have a dream: People will STFU about how tolerant they are, or how enlightened or "aware" they are of others unlike them and simply accept these "others" without comment, which is the only rational, decent approach. The more people graciously accept racial/religious/sexual preference-based minorities without comment, the less dialogue intolerant assholes have in which to inject their noxious opinions.

But of course, no American wants to do that. That wouldn't allow the tribalized dickheads on both sides of a debate to have their battles, which is all these assholes really want - to be heard, to be listened to... to have their pathetic "I'm smart and tolerant" vs. "You're going to hell and ruining this country" debate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think that's true. I think that's an after the fact backup explanation offered when I flagged him for offering a goofy liberal bromide. I've loads of liberal friends, and they like to appear enlightened by highlighting things about their neighborhood, tastes, etc... emphasizing "diversity." It's laughable horseshit, an insecurity, a way of saying "I'm more enlightened than others... I like having a transgendered mayor. I have learned so much about the transgendered lifestyle and I am open and tolerant, which indicates I am more evolved than so many in this country."

So am I. In fact, so much so I see no fucking reason to talk about it. Muslim, gay, crippled, Pagan... I don't give a fuck about someone's background, and I see no reason to identify them by it (except for fundamentalists, who seek to restrict/repress others, in which case background becomes significant).

I have a dream: People will STFU about how tolerant they are, or how enlightened or "aware" they are of others unlike them and simply accept these "others" without comment, which is the only rational, decent approach. The more people graciously accept racial/religious/sexual preference-based minorities without comment, the less dialogue intolerant assholes have in which to inject their noxious opinions.

But of course, no American wants to do that. That wouldn't allow the tribalized dickheads on both sides of a debate to have their battles, which is all these assholes really want - to be heard, to be listened to... to have their pathetic "I'm smart and tolerant" vs. "You're going to hell and ruining this country" debate.

adder is dumb, so forget how and why he said it-

my suburb voted for a "human rights ordinance" that extended rights to protect "sexual orientation" discrimination. everywhere should support such things, but everywhere does not. I'm proud my little burb did.

and a muslim congressman today says something about the district. it shouldn't but it does.

and obama getting elected says something about this country. put tea partiers aside, this country elected a mixed race guy. it surely doesn't mean we are "post racism" but it was a damn proud moment for me as to the overall make up of this country.

I was in Austria the summer of '09. the people we were with wanting to talk about the election- and the moment that had stuck in their minds was that news clip where someone is talking to a lady through the screen door, and asks who the family is voting for- she yells into the house "Jim, he wants to know who we're voting for."

Jim yells back "we're voting for the n-----."

so to these European people it showed how backward the mass of this country is- but the guy (and it might have been contrived video but let's assume he was real) got past his biases enough to give obama the keys to the country. it says something.

and I wanted to ask the austrian guy how many non-white people have ran Austria or germany or France or the UK. you know? it shouldn't matter at this point but anyone who says it doesn't is lying, because 75% or reaction to obama has to do with his race.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think the Dems misstepped or is it all this? arrogance drove the HC debacle. a lack of introspection could cost Obama the second term.

Congrats to Michigan on newly elected Tim Walberg:

Walberg is not actually new -- he's an previous guy coming back, and bringing new levels of The Crazy. He was first elected in 2006, as a Club For Growth primary challenger against moderate Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz. Then in 2008, he was defeated by Democrat Mark Schauer, then came back this year to win by 50%-45%.

So what gets him a place on our list? Well, during his time in the wilderness, as he was climbing back as a candidate, Walberg became birther-curious, telling a questioner at an event that the matter of the president's citizenship wasn't resolved. He also said that if he were Obama, he would show his birth certificate to various public officials and talk-radio hosts -- and that the matter could be handled through impeachment investigations if Republicans won a majority.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ars.php?ref=tn

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think that's true. I think that's an after the fact backup explanation offered when I flagged him for offering a goofy liberal bromide. I've loads of liberal friends, and they like to appear enlightened by highlighting things about their neighborhood, tastes, etc... emphasizing "diversity." It's laughable horseshit, an insecurity, a way of saying "I'm more enlightened than others... I like having a transgendered mayor. I have learned so much about the transgendered lifestyle and I am open and tolerant, which indicates I am more evolved than so many in this country."

So am I. In fact, so much so I see no fucking reason to talk about it. Muslim, gay, crippled, Pagan... I don't give a fuck about someone's background, and I see no reason to identify them by it (except for fundamentalists, who seek to restrict/repress others, in which case background becomes significant).

I have a dream: People will STFU about how tolerant they are, or how enlightened or "aware" they are of others unlike them and simply accept these "others" without comment, which is the only rational, decent approach. The more people graciously accept racial/religious/sexual preference-based minorities without comment, the less dialogue intolerant assholes have in which to inject their noxious opinions.

But of course, no American wants to do that. That wouldn't allow the tribalized dickheads on both sides of a debate to have their battles, which is all these assholes really want - to be heard, to be listened to... to have their pathetic "I'm smart and tolerant" vs. "You're going to hell and ruining this country" debate.

So, Adder was just a convenient jumping off point.

I read it the way he meant it, but agree it wasn't the way I would have said it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Congrats to Michigan on newly elected Tim Walberg:


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ars.php?ref=tn

michigan has ann arbor (read berkeley)

Detroit (read any depressed big city)

the UP (read a hospital full of inbreds, or buckingham palace w/o the royal factor)

the rest of the state (read Arkansas)