The Republicans are doomed!!

[tvashtarkatena]

Did someone utter the word "landslide"?

 

We can safely store the latest of FW's blustery predictions in the same oil oozing 55 gallon drum full of drowned rats and the rest of his clairvoyant demonstrations; a seemingly permanent installation that complements the cluster of wheeless vehicles awaiting restoration on his front lawn.

 

FW will be long dead by the time the Republicans reconstitute their party into a viable political machine, if that ever happens. Their 'conservative agenda', the most radical and reckless in American history in actuality, has steadily devolved into nothing more than cacophony of trite, feux patriotic slogans worthy of a fat little five year old who stands screaming in a Walmart, center isle, shaking down his stone dumb parents for more candy. The Republican era was basically a multi-decade meth party with a not very exclusive guest list that the rest of us witnessed in horror. It was a moving song about soaring eagles and fallen soldiers belted out loudly enough to distract America's dumber half from the fleecing operation going on stage Right. What was good for The Party was good for America, and that was the problem. Electoral victories and the continuation of the fleecing operation was the agenda, not the health of the nation; it's culture, it's people (all of them), it's environment, it's reputation, it's values, as a whole. The Republican party didn't have to solve real problems like global warming and energy independence, because they didn't have to; that was never on the to do list.

 

It couldn't last. The meth party required an overabundance of resources to sustain it's bloated military budgets and other cocaine-fiend spending and the redistribution of wealth from the backbone of America to it's crack whore fucking, God talking nuova riche. Anyone with any brains or ethics left the conservative movement a long time ago in disgust. What remained stuck in the garbage disposal filter were the religious kooks, asset strippers, liberal-haters, racists (anti Muslim being the current fad), simpletons, incurable ideologs, and standard libertarian freakshow.

 

We have finally been forced to realize, en masse, that we live in an age of resource depletion. The epiphany came suddenly and catastrophically, as it usually does with a species that operates more on perception than reality. The conservative movement could never have survived such a realization, because it depended on the perception that the coke would never run out. Incredibly, some here still cling to that belief.

 

An environment of scarcity requires a society to cooperate more, share more, and amortize risk more if the social fabric is to hold. Of course, there's always the Somalian model for those ardent libertarians out there, but most of the rest of us kind of like the kind of society we live in. This means more socialism, which for some strange reason is bandied about as a bad thing, at times even equated with Stalinism by the most intellectually challenged on this forum. In an age where consumerism has actually been equated with patriotism, this means a refreshing change from I've Got Mine culture to increased stewardship of the society we live in.

 

For those of you who want to pine for a past that never really was, do what you must. But don't delude yourselves that this is just a temporary change until the next midterm elections. I realize that contrarianism as personality disorder is somehow a badge of honor amongst your dwindling tribe, but, at some point, it might be helpful to get real to the fact that the shit's running out and our population's not getting any smaller. The party's over. Time to winch the car out of the ditch and head on back to the trailer park.

 

Edited November 24, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Did someone utter the word "landslide"?

 

We can safely store the latest of FW's blustery predictions in the same oil oozing 55 gallon drum full of drowned rats and the rest of his clairvoyant demonstrations; a seemingly permanent installation that complements the cluster of wheeless vehicles awaiting restoration on his front lawn.

 

FW will be long dead by the time the Republicans reconstitute their party into a viable political machine, if that ever happens. Their 'conservative agenda', the most radical and reckless in American history in actuality, has steadily devolved into nothing more than cacophony of trite, feux patriotic slogans worthy of a fat little five year old who stands screaming in a Walmart, center isle, shaking down his stone dumb parents for more candy. The Republican era was basically a multi-decade meth party with a not very exclusive guest list that the rest of us witnessed in horror. It was a moving song about soaring eagles and fallen soldiers belted out loudly enough to distract America's dumber half from the fleecing operation going on stage Right. What was good for The Party was good for America, and that was the problem. Electoral victories and the continuation of the fleecing operation was the agenda, not the health of the nation; it's culture, it's people (all of them), it's environment, it's reputation, it's values, as a whole. The Republican party didn't have to solve real problems like global warming and energy independence, because they didn't have to; that was never on the to do list.

 

It couldn't last. The meth party required an overabundance of resources to sustain it's bloated military budgets and other cocaine-fiend spending and the redistribution of wealth from the backbone of America to it's crack whore fucking, God talking nuova riche. Anyone with any brains or ethics left the conservative movement a long time ago in disgust. What remained stuck in the garbage disposal filter were the religious kooks, asset strippers, liberal-haters, racists (anti Muslim being the current fad), simpletons, incurable ideologs, and standard libertarian freakshow.

 

We have finally been forced to realize, en masse, that we live in an age of resource depletion. The epiphany came suddenly and catastrophically, as it usually does with a species that operates more on perception than reality. The conservative movement could never have survived such a realization, because it depended on the perception that the coke would never run out. Incredibly, some here still cling to that belief.

 

An environment of scarcity requires a society to cooperate more, share more, and amortize risk more if the social fabric is to hold. Of course, there's always the Somalian model for those ardent libertarians out there, but most of the rest of us kind of like the kind of society we live in. This means more socialism, which for some strange reason is bandied about as a bad thing, at times even equated with Stalinism by the most intellectually challenged on this forum. In an age where consumerism has actually been equated with patriotism, this means a refreshing change from I've Got Mine culture to increased stewardship of the society we live in.

 

For those of you who want to pine for a past that never really was, do what you must. But don't delude yourselves that this is just a temporary change until the next midterm elections. I realize that contrarianism as personality disorder is somehow a badge of honor amongst your dwindling tribe, but, at some point, it might be helpful to get real to the fact that the shit's running out and our population's not getting any smaller. The party's over. Time to winch the car out of the ditch and head on back to the trailer park.

 

I think you absorbed too much Star Trek idealism as a boy. Fatherless, no doubt. No one gives a shit about your opinion, but it seems to me that you're the last person here who should be lecturing the masses about gluttony. Now put your chubby little fingers back into that red and white bucket, slowly lift another drumstick to your water-fat face, and insert.

 

BTW: 53/46 is not a landslide.

[JayB]

Did someone utter the word "landslide"?

 

We can safely store the latest of FW's blustery predictions in the same oil oozing 55 gallon drum full of drowned rats and the rest of his clairvoyant demonstrations; a seemingly permanent installation that complements the cluster of wheeless vehicles awaiting restoration on his front lawn.

 

FW will be long dead by the time the Republicans reconstitute their party into a viable political machine, if that ever happens. Their 'conservative agenda', the most radical and reckless in American history in actuality, has steadily devolved into nothing more than cacophony of trite, feux patriotic slogans worthy of a fat little five year old who stands screaming in a Walmart, center isle, shaking down his stone dumb parents for more candy. The Republican era was basically a multi-decade meth party with a not very exclusive guest list that the rest of us witnessed in horror. It was a moving song about soaring eagles and fallen soldiers belted out loudly enough to distract America's dumber half from the fleecing operation going on stage Right. What was good for The Party was good for America, and that was the problem. Electoral victories and the continuation of the fleecing operation was the agenda, not the health of the nation; it's culture, it's people (all of them), it's environment, it's reputation, it's values, as a whole. The Republican party didn't have to solve real problems like global warming and energy independence, because they didn't have to; that was never on the to do list.

 

It couldn't last. The meth party required an overabundance of resources to sustain it's bloated military budgets and other cocaine-fiend spending and the redistribution of wealth from the backbone of America to it's crack whore fucking, God talking nuova riche. Anyone with any brains or ethics left the conservative movement a long time ago in disgust. What remained stuck in the garbage disposal filter were the religious kooks, asset strippers, liberal-haters, racists (anti Muslim being the current fad), simpletons, incurable ideologs, and standard libertarian freakshow.

 

We have finally been forced to realize, en masse, that we live in an age of resource depletion. The epiphany came suddenly and catastrophically, as it usually does with a species that operates more on perception than reality. The conservative movement could never have survived such a realization, because it depended on the perception that the coke would never run out. Incredibly, some here still cling to that belief.

 

An environment of scarcity requires a society to cooperate more, share more, and amortize risk more if the social fabric is to hold. Of course, there's always the Somalian model for those ardent libertarians out there, but most of the rest of us kind of like the kind of society we live in. This means more socialism, which for some strange reason is bandied about as a bad thing, at times even equated with Stalinism by the most intellectually challenged on this forum. In an age where consumerism has actually been equated with patriotism, this means a refreshing change from I've Got Mine culture to increased stewardship of the society we live in.

 

For those of you who want to pine for a past that never really was, do what you must. But don't delude yourselves that this is just a temporary change until the next midterm elections. I realize that contrarianism as personality disorder is somehow a badge of honor amongst your dwindling tribe, but, at some point, it might be helpful to get real to the fact that the shit's running out and our population's not getting any smaller. The party's over. Time to winch the car out of the ditch and head on back to the trailer park.

 

Impressive - Reads like a transcript of Rowdy Roddy Piper simul-channeling Paul Ehrlich, Abby Hoffman, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

 

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

[pc313]

56/44 cant wait to see how many more seats the Republicans lose in 2 years!

[pc313]

Did someone utter the word "landslide"?

 

We can safely store the latest of FW's blustery predictions in the same oil oozing 55 gallon drum full of drowned rats and the rest of his clairvoyant demonstrations; a seemingly permanent installation that complements the cluster of wheeless vehicles awaiting restoration on his front lawn.

 

FW will be long dead by the time the Republicans reconstitute their party into a viable political machine, if that ever happens. Their 'conservative agenda', the most radical and reckless in American history in actuality, has steadily devolved into nothing more than cacophony of trite, feux patriotic slogans worthy of a fat little five year old who stands screaming in a Walmart, center isle, shaking down his stone dumb parents for more candy. The Republican era was basically a multi-decade meth party with a not very exclusive guest list that the rest of us witnessed in horror. It was a moving song about soaring eagles and fallen soldiers belted out loudly enough to distract America's dumber half from the fleecing operation going on stage Right. What was good for The Party was good for America, and that was the problem. Electoral victories and the continuation of the fleecing operation was the agenda, not the health of the nation; it's culture, it's people (all of them), it's environment, it's reputation, it's values, as a whole. The Republican party didn't have to solve real problems like global warming and energy independence, because they didn't have to; that was never on the to do list.

 

It couldn't last. The meth party required an overabundance of resources to sustain it's bloated military budgets and other cocaine-fiend spending and the redistribution of wealth from the backbone of America to it's crack whore fucking, God talking nuova riche. Anyone with any brains or ethics left the conservative movement a long time ago in disgust. What remained stuck in the garbage disposal filter were the religious kooks, asset strippers, liberal-haters, racists (anti Muslim being the current fad), simpletons, incurable ideologs, and standard libertarian freakshow.

 

We have finally been forced to realize, en masse, that we live in an age of resource depletion. The epiphany came suddenly and catastrophically, as it usually does with a species that operates more on perception than reality. The conservative movement could never have survived such a realization, because it depended on the perception that the coke would never run out. Incredibly, some here still cling to that belief.

 

An environment of scarcity requires a society to cooperate more, share more, and amortize risk more if the social fabric is to hold. Of course, there's always the Somalian model for those ardent libertarians out there, but most of the rest of us kind of like the kind of society we live in. This means more socialism, which for some strange reason is bandied about as a bad thing, at times even equated with Stalinism by the most intellectually challenged on this forum. In an age where consumerism has actually been equated with patriotism, this means a refreshing change from I've Got Mine culture to increased stewardship of the society we live in.

 

For those of you who want to pine for a past that never really was, do what you must. But don't delude yourselves that this is just a temporary change until the next midterm elections. I realize that contrarianism as personality disorder is somehow a badge of honor amongst your dwindling tribe, but, at some point, it might be helpful to get real to the fact that the shit's running out and our population's not getting any smaller. The party's over. Time to winch the car out of the ditch and head on back to the trailer park.

Blunt but spot on!*****

[j_b]

j_b, I really don't know what to say to you. I'll try one more time...

 

What exactly did you try beside repeatedly not addressing anything I said and ad-hominem attacks?

 

For example, here is one of your 'facts' or 'arguments' from the last post:

 

'The Economist is pro-war, pro-deregulation and 100% pro-"free" market, pro-Bush, pro-Reagan: they are extremist, I am not'.

 

Would it surprise you to know that the Economist endorsed Kerry in '04, and Obama in '08?

 

Considering that until your last post you hadn’t yet said anything relevant to the issue at hand, I was kind enough to once again string a few salient facts to impress on you the extremist nature of their rhetoric.

 

How could it surprise me since I already discussed their endorsing Obama? Note that they very grudgingly endorsed Kerry in 2004, probably because Bush had become an embarrassment and it was impossible to both endorse him and remain credible with their educated (but poorly informed) readership. I also said earlier that thinking (pretending) that Bush was competent in 2000 (same for Reagan btw) is beyond belief and completely strips them of any credibility.

 

 

Certainly, in general they support 'free-market' principles, but they also recognize the faults and failures, and support (moderate) government intervention to restrain that.

 

They may occasionally have a token departure from neoliberal orthodoxy but almost at all time they frame their mostly unsigned articles with a radical rightwing agenda: privatization of quasi everything, deregulation of all sectors including natural monopolies, repeatedly advocating the opening of all labor markets to put pressure on wages (they are against the minimum wage), they are against all corporate tax and advocate other trickle down gibberish: they regularly spew the “tide that lifts all boats” mantra despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They claim to be pro-environment but refuse most environmental regulations, and dismiss environmental constraint on growth. They cheered all deregulations experiments that have all ended in economic debacles for the last 20 years (Latin America, Russia, Asia, .. and now the world economy) and they supported all US-UK wars.

 

Do I agree with everything the Economist says? No, I disagree regularly, but I also agree regularly (I've been reading it for 20+ years). They supported the war, but have been extremely critical of its execution, which has dramatically increased the number of deaths, for example.

 

Don’t you see that being critical of the execution of the war yet saying it nevertheless had to be waged is another rightwing canard to deflect criticism of their warmongering and not discuss the real cause of the war? The Economist like the rest of the corporate media regurgitated the blatant lies fed to them by Blair and Bush and to this day they still refuse to acknowledge it was wrong to go into Iraq.

 

In short, the Economist are not 'extremist' as you say (compare them to the Weekly Standard or Fox News some time). They may support some things with which you don't agree, but they also have a sophisticated view of a complex world, they understand the give and the take, and I think their motives are as pure as anyone's.

 

I fail to see how pushing for no corporate tax, for unfettered capitalism, against the minimum wage, spewing war propaganda, etc… isn't advocating extremist policies. The demographics of their audience is different than that of FOX and the WS, so their discourse is geared toward the managerial class that is more tolerant on morality issues and likes to think of itself as enlightened but is unfortunately not so.

 

[j_b]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

No abundant source of energy has the energy density of oil. Productivism and over the top consumerism needs an unlimited supply of cheap oil. It isn't replaceable. Neither are fresh water, soils, and ecosystem services that are being destroyed at unprecedented rates. To keep pretending our ways are sustainable is dangerous religion.

[bradleym]

ad hominem? really? funny, i don't recall calling you short, fat or ugly.

 

here is what I was trying to do, but failed singularly:

 

You seem bent on excluding anyone from the conversation about what to do who is not 'pure' as you appear to define it. You appear to live in a black and white world where the bad guys are superbad and the good guys -- well, they must not exist. if anyone deviates from your (not clearly defined) manifesto, then they are 'extreme' and to be discounted fully. in fact, if anyone disagrees with you (however respectfully) they open themselves to charges of 'ad hominem'. you may not get it, but there is a difference between argument and assertion.

 

you've been pretty clear about whom you think is evil, that the new boss is the same as the old boss (clintonites getting jobs with obama), but I have yet to see you 'propose' anything to replace what you tear down. maybe i missed it, but i don't think it was there.

 

in the case of the Economist, you place them alongside oh, i don't know, Jerry Falwell, Milton Friedman, William Kristol, et al. The reality is a little more nuanced than that, but not to you. We live in a real world where real people are in real trouble, and we're all more or less at fault, and all you can do is demonize the Economist?

 

so I questioned you on that, wondering why, since even Obama is now tainted and compromised, we didn't make you president.

 

since free markets are clearly out, and you seem to view issues and solutions as all one thing or all the other, then what do you propose? collective ownership of the means of production? how would you have handled the financial crisis differently? what would have been the outcome? what should we do about the auto industry crisis?

 

we're waiting for your wisdom.

[j_b]

Once again you have no comments whatsoever about the facts I cited to support my assertion that the Economist continuosly spews laissez faire propaganda; yet, you have plenty to say about me and what I didn't say. I think we get the drift.

[tvashtarkatena]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

Edited November 24, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

since free markets are clearly out, and you seem to view issues and solutions as all one thing or all the other, then what do you propose? collective ownership of the means of production?

 

This is exactly what j_b and Prole dream of. Of course, in their bizarre world this is not communism and anyone who says it is is just a red-baiter and crying fire in a crowded theater. It seems to me that they can't even be honest with themselves much less a group of retards on a message board.

[bradleym]

Once again you have no comments whatsoever about the facts I cited to support my assertion that the Economist continuosly spews laissez faire propaganda; yet, you have plenty to say about me and what I didn't say. I think we get the drift.

 

ah well, you heard it here first, I'm a goon too. i'm either for you or against you.

[Peter_Puget]

Hey FW, Tvash is on to some heavy shit here. I am intrigued with his "amortize risk" concept.

[j_b]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

[Fairweather]

Hey FW, Tvash is on to some heavy shit here. I am intrigued with his "amortize risk" concept.

 

...where everyone else pays for his bucket of KFC and the attendant heart problems down the road?

[j_b]

Once again you have no comments whatsoever about the facts I cited to support my assertion that the Economist continuosly spews laissez faire propaganda; yet, you have plenty to say about me and what I didn't say. I think we get the drift.

 

ah well, you heard it here first, I'm a goon too. i'm either for you or against you.

 

Exactly, which part of my post said or implied you were a "goon too"? What about stopping making it up as you go along? huh?

[glassgowkiss]

Hey FW, Tvash is on to some heavy shit here. I am intrigued with his "amortize risk" concept.

 

...where everyone else pays for his bucket of KFC and the attendant heart problems down the road?

 

no, you are describing last 8 years. let's take down regulations and let the tax payers bail them out at the end. and while you go to washington to beg for bailout money, please fly on a private jet. you fuckers never learn, don't you?

don't you have a date with a pig or something?

 

 

[bradleym]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

 

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care.

 

ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

[glassgowkiss]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

 

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care.

 

ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

 

open your eyes and smell the shit. the infrastructure is falling apart. we have bridges on freeways collapsing! if you haven't noticed there is a deepest economic crisis since 30's! what else will it take for you to see that things can't go in the same direction. united states is 10 trillion dollars in a hole, 3 trillion in the past 8 years. to put it in the perspective it would cost you and i (and every person in this country) over 31k to pay it off. this country had 4 years of balanced budget since the 60's! are you that stupid not to see it?

not mixed economy, fixed economy, we need system that works!

[Peter_Puget]

 

 

Actually right now we live in a "mixed economy." Now the question is to what proportions does J_B want. Here I think our old friend Ron Reagan can help us:

 

"If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it."

 

link

 

[j_b]

A mixed economy is a mix of private and public ventures. It fosters entrepreneurship yet acknowledge natural monopolies, the role of public policy in funding and choosing which technologies to promote, and regulates economic activity to preserve the commons, consumer rights, etc ...

[bradleym]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

 

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care.

 

ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

 

open your eyes and smell the shit. the infrastructure is falling apart. we have bridges on freeways collapsing! if you haven't noticed there is a deepest economic crisis since 30's! what else will it take for you to see that things can't go in the same direction. united states is 10 trillion dollars in a hole, 3 trillion in the past 8 years. to put it in the perspective it would cost you and i (and every person in this country) over 31k to pay it off. this country had 4 years of balanced budget since the 60's! are you that stupid not to see it?

it's not mixed economy, it's fixed economy, system that works!

 

don't worry, my eyes are wide open. i agree that things cannot continue in the same direction, but you appear to be arguing for contradictory things. you say that the bridges are falling down, implying a call for government spending (a stimulus package, say) to fix the bridges (and maybe jump-start the economy?). but then you rant about the deficit, and the fact that we've had only four balanced budgets since 1960.

 

so, which is it? more deficit spending or less? and how do we get from shitty economy to fixed economy?

[bradleym]

A mixed economy is a mix of private and public ventures. It fosters entrepreneurship yet acknowledge natural monopolies, the role of public policy in funding and choosing which technologies to promote, and regulates economic activity to preserve the commons, consumer rights, etc ...

 

can you foster entrepreneurship without a bit of 'free-market' or even a whiff of 'laizzez-faire'?

[j_b]

Having economic freedoms isn't the same as having a free market or laissez faire. I think we all agree to say we don't have free markets today, yet entrepreneurship is fine.

[rob]

I'm just checking in to see if anyone here has solved the great debate yet.

 

Would someone let me know?

 

TIA!