12 replies to this topic

[david ellis]

I wouldn't/couldn't make this stuff up. Republicans are stupid ideologues. Proof - not from the republican side of the internet where true craziness is endemic, but actual legislation proposed by republican legislators.

Besides direct quotes from the US constitution, the legislators want supporting documentation from the Magna Carta for every law to be passed. I am trying to imagine what they are thinking and the only thing I can come up with is this. They hate the US constitution and want to push things back to the twelfth century. Got to give them credit for being conservative. Other than that, stupid, stupid ideologues. Ideologues because they by habit never think things thru. Even laws that they want to pass.

[rwac]

NE Republicans have always been somewhat nutty. Take for example Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. I offer no defense.

[maxwatt]

You forgot Theodore Roosevelt.

[rwac]

Thanks for the reminder, He started us down the path of Big Government.

[niner]

Well I don't want no gat dang sharia law in my state!

[david ellis]

NE Republicans have always been somewhat nutty. Take for example Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. I offer no defense.

Talking about nutty Republicans - the Tea Party came up with the original idea, which is a real doozer also. They already had sworn to uphold the Constitution, that should have done it. Talk about a nutty idea, they gave up by the second month. I still think this makes most Republicans look stupid.

Edited by david ellis, 07 January 2012 - 03:59 AM.

[niner]

I still think this makes most Republicans look stupid.

I don't know if it's even possible to talk about this without appearing "partisan", but here's my analysis:

The country contains a certain number of kooks and nuts. I believe there are more right wing nuts than left, because there is a gigantic industry (Rush, Fox News, et al.) involved in the creation of right wing nuts. If a nut of any stripe is going to belong to a major party, the left wing nuts will join the democrats and the right wing nuts will join the republicans. The big difference in the two parties is that the republicans cater to their nuts, and the democrats ignore theirs. Because of the nut-catering, the republican platform contains major planks that are based on things that aren't true. The party has litmus tests requiring candidates to at least appear to support things that aren't true. There are two reasons to belong to the republican party: Because you want to push your personal social agenda, and because you want to see more benefit accrue to the 1% at the expense of the 99%. If those are your reasons for supporting the GOP, then maybe you are being 'smart', albeit fascistic in the first case and greedy in the second. Aside from that, support of the GOP probably works against your own interests, not to mention the interests of the country, to greater or lesser extents. I can't say that's 'smart'.

[david ellis]

I said "look stupid". I didn't say they are stupid. Bu they often go off the deep end, like the "constitution" and "Magna Carta" fiascos. The Terry Schiavo case was saddening, but I never heard a republican offer any regrets about what republicans in congress did. Mass hysteria is the explanation for their behavior.

It frightens me that Huntsman is the only republican canidate I respect. I respected Nixon even though I knew he was crooked. He was rational, I never worried about him pushing the United States off the rails.

The other republican candidates all seem to be characters out of Al Capp's "L'il Abner". Give me the '50s and '60s back again. God was dead, reason ruled. Evolution denialists got no respect, science ruled. The cults of scientology, objectivism, and libertarianism were tiny dots. I didn't realize how bad it could be.

[maxwatt]

I said "look stupid". I didn't say they are stupid. Bu they often go off the deep end, like the "constitution" and "Magna Carta" fiascos. The Terry Schiavo case was saddening, but I never heard a republican offer any regrets about what republicans in congress did. Mass hysteria is the explanation for their behavior.

It frightens me that Huntsman is the only republican canidate I respect. I respected Nixon even though I knew he was crooked. He was rational, I never worried about him pushing the United States off the rails.

The other republican candidates all seem to be characters out of Al Capp's "L'il Abner". Give me the '50s and '60s back again. God was dead, reason ruled. Evolution denialists got no respect, science ruled. The cults of scientology, objectivism, and libertarianism were tiny dots. I didn't realize how bad it could be.

It can get worse, and you might look back on the present as relatively enlightened and benign.

They say if you remember the sixties your weren't there. What I recall of the fifties includes McCarthy and HUAC, lynchings in Mississippi and Alabama, stifling conformity, Madison Avenue, with beatnicks and Lenny Bruce a fringe objection. The sixties gave us the Viet Nam war, the Civil Rights act and the beginning of the Culture Wars, and the Republicans' Southern and Blue Collar Strategy to split the Democrats' base, which let to the Dixiecrats' and know-nothing-nutters' takeover of the party. Most societies marginalize such people, here we nurtured them. David's point exactly.

People belong to a political party out of self-interest, usually economic or religio-philosophical. Now the parties are like sports teams, or brand labels. The majority of people calling themselves Democrats or Republican do not benefit economically by their affiliation, and if they had the attention-span of a gnat would realize how divergent from their best interests both parties' actual activities have become. I suppose it's Marxist to analyze everything in economic terms but it is enlightening.

[david ellis]

It can get worse, and you might look back on the present as relatively enlightened and benign.

I read "Lord of the Flies" in high school in 1956. - I know it can easily become a nightmare. It is frightening that even my own children have been sucked into supporting this morass.

They say if you remember the sixties your weren't there.

You are right, I missed the fun. I was 27 years old, married, had worked 9 years, one 7-year old, and two 2-year olds, and just graduated from UCLA in 1966. The year of the Berkely Free Speech movement.

I suppose it's Marxist to analyze everything in economic terms but it is enlightening.

Karl Marx and many others created economics. It is a shame that the Objectivists and Libertarians today have less insight that Adam Smith had in 1776, with the publication of the Wealth of Nations. They are crippled because their economics is ideology or maybe better described as religion, not reality.

They fear deficits will cause inflation, which is true sometimes. But not everytime, so their plan is to do the worst thing in this particular case. Because in this particular case the problem is lack of demand. Cutting the deficit, increase the deficits. That is logical, because the deficit cut is a reduction of demand. Reduced demand means less work, less income. Less income, less income taxes. Less income taxes, less money to pay the bills. End result, more deficits, tedious, but necessary, for the ideological folks.

This effect is not covered in objectivist or libertarian ideology(theology), because it is the basis for Keynesian thinking about recessions and depressions. The fallacy in their ideology is that markets will always clear. Another fallacy is that rational behavior will always win the day. I am surprised that people believe that stuff. I see irrationality and screwed up markets every day. Plenty of examples.. I think that believing in god is easier to believe than neo-libertarian ideology. Every day I never see proof that god does not exist. I have never seen proof that god does not exist. But what the ideologues believe is disproved every day. That belief has to be religious.

[maxwatt]

Those that benefit from the screw-up do everything they can to perpetuate it. We see that every day too. Basically the psychopaths are running the ship, and steering us full sail to the abyss. There are no life boats, but they are heavily guarded none-the-less.

Psychopathy is the only explanation for the behavior of the Kochs and Singers, and other financial backers of the right wing, the entire Republican party save Ron Paul and many even most of the Democrats. We have always had psychopaths, they are estimated to be about 4% of the population, and the traits can be observed among chimpanzees and gorillas as well as in ancient and modern history. When the psychopaths totally sieze total control of the political realm of a nation we see moral and eventual physical decline. It is arguable the US is far along that path.

[david ellis]

Those that benefit from the screw-up do everything they can to perpetuate it. We see that every day too. Basically the psychopaths are running the ship, and steering us full sail to the abyss. There are no life boats, but they are heavily guarded none-the-less.

Psychopathy is the only explanation for the behavior of the Kochs and Singers, and other financial backers of the right wing, the entire Republican party save Ron Paul and many even most of the Democrats. We have always had psychopaths, they are estimated to be about 4% of the population, and the traits can be observed among chimpanzees and gorillas as well as in ancient and modern history. When the psychopaths totally sieze total control of the political realm of a nation we see moral and eventual physical decline. It is arguable the US is far along that path.

I am afraid you are right.

[JChief]

I still think this makes most Republicans look stupid.

I don't know if it's even possible to talk about this without appearing "partisan", but here's my analysis:

The country contains a certain number of kooks and nuts. I believe there are more right wing nuts than left, because there is a gigantic industry (Rush, Fox News, et al.) involved in the creation of right wing nuts. If a nut of any stripe is going to belong to a major party, the left wing nuts will join the democrats and the right wing nuts will join the republicans. The big difference in the two parties is that the republicans cater to their nuts, and the democrats ignore theirs. Because of the nut-catering, the republican platform contains major planks that are based on things that aren't true. The party has litmus tests requiring candidates to at least appear to support things that aren't true. There are two reasons to belong to the republican party: Because you want to push your personal social agenda, and because you want to see more benefit accrue to the 1% at the expense of the 99%. If those are your reasons for supporting the GOP, then maybe you are being 'smart', albeit fascistic in the first case and greedy in the second. Aside from that, support of the GOP probably works against your own interests, not to mention the interests of the country, to greater or lesser extents. I can't say that's 'smart'.

Reminds me of the saying "the media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them"