Page: 1

swifty

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 06:45 PM
Number of posts: 7,305

Journal Archives

Where the CNBC moderators went wrong.

The questions were generally tough and well researched, but the follow-up broke with tradition in one way: the moderators argued with the candidates and therefore entered the debate. That was a fatal mistake by the moderators, because it put them in the rhetorical arena with people who all had allies in the audience.

When one of the Republicans evaded or made factually incorrect statements, the moderators were, by convention, expected to just let the matter drop. Convention has it that the other debaters, not the moderators, have the prerogative to call out a fellow debater. There is a very limited room for follow-up by moderators.

Once the CNBC moderators put themselves in the arena, they were subject to the usual rule of thumb that you can gain by attacking someone if the audience wants you to. The audience wanted to see the moderators attacked, and the Republicans jumped on it. On the other hand, the audience did not want to see Rubio attacked and, well, Bush screwed the pooch.

Another thing the moderators did wrong was that they apparently did not designate one of themselves to be a cop. The Republicans were just jumping in whenever they felt like jumping in. That showed weakness in the moderators and made an attack on them much more likely.

This could actually be a very bad thing for the press if they don't get their act together. The Republicans are already trying to parlay their debate win against the media into a presumed right to control the media. CNBC and Fox News both licked Republican boots already. Now, apparently, all of the media is going to be expected to have their tongues out whenever a Republican raises his or her foot.


Memo to Republicans on how to handle their coming about face on climate change.

Republicans,

This "I'm not a scientist" thing is starting to look like it won't hold for much longer. Pretty soon your climate change denial is going to be seen by everyone as similar to the "anti-Moses" diatribes of Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments. Dathan, I believe. You guys are starting to look like Dathan.

So what can you do?

I think you probably need to blame Obama and the Democrats. It needs to be something like, "Obama created such a divisive atmosphere that I obviously couldn't believe anything he or the scientists said."

You need to say that it was Obama's fault that you made such an incredibly poor decision and delayed by years a response that might have saved countless lives, prevented catastrophic property loss, and helped maintain world political stability. Don't go anywhere near the idea that you were just completely wrong all along and deliberately did everything in your power to prevent the right answer from being researched, publicized, and accepted.

No thanks necessary for the advice.

Yours,

swifty

Hillary is about to release a huge anti-Republican media blitz.

October 22nd, Hillary will be filming the footage for countless anti-Republican ads to come. I don't know how you can do better when it comes to a perfect tee-up for her than the Benghazi hyena pack's little "show." Trey Gowdy could not have been cast better. He's just perfect in the role of lead Republican asshole "asking for it." He is Democratic ad gold.

Republicans have their farm bet on a true nimrod...again. Dems are going to be plus one farm on October 23rd.

Must an American accept the tax code as legitimate to be an American?

The tax code is created by the democratic republic functioning under the Constitution. I'm not saying anyone has to like it, but I do think they have to admit that it is legitimate. Any money in your possession that the tax code says belongs to the government must be given to its legitimate, rightful owner, the government. It's not your money; it's the government's.

Do you have to accept that the tax code is legitimate to consider yourself an American?

If not, explain how you can be an American but not accept its rule of law.

Why does John Bush wear glasses?

Here's a link where he is golfing and not wearing them.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/07/09/jeb-bush-defends-people-need-work-longer-hours-comment/

But here he is whining about critics telling him he should lose his glasses, claiming he "can't see without" them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/jeb-bush-glasses-2016-campaign/

The thing I notice in the picture of John Bush without the glasses is that he looks a hell of a lot like his brother, Republican presidential material example George W. Bush.

So is John Bush wearing the glasses as a sort of reverse Clark Kent thing? He wears them to look smart and reasonable. When he takes them off he becomes Republican Junior Man, able to "keep America safe" with unnecessary, ruinous wars and catastrophic economic collapses.

Tea Party Responsibility for George W. Bush

I'm pretty sure the Tea Party type folks were among Republican George W. Bush's biggest fans. Most of these people who now consider themselves to be in some kind of parallel offshoot of the Republican Party are actually nothing less than that Party's most blameworthy for the catastrophes of George W. Bush.

When you look at a Tea Party member, you are looking at someone who cheered and gushed over Republican George W. Bush as he strutted around that aircraft carrier in a flight suit. Tea Party is an alias party for someone on the run from that bitter, damning truth.

Republicans are discovering what happens when you live by division.

Republicans managed to gain power by lying to, anger-crazing, dividing, and conquering a gullible electorate. They and their marketing wing, Fox News, made everyone angry using ugly lies and innuendo. Then they sold themselves as the Party of the Angry and raked in a lot of poor, dumb suckers whose minds they had successfully poisoned.

Unfortunately for Republicans, the problem with that approach is that you can't make a working coalition out the type of people that approach puts into office. Republican "leaders" bear the traits of their dirtied political conception. The rotten, mean-spirited, uncooperative, rage-aholic, stupidity-pandering tactics that Republican leaders capitalized on to get into office produce a chaotic America and a chaotic Republican coalition.

We are witnessing the Republican process bearing its inevitable fruit. Republicans put in office a pack of disconsolate, whiny, back-stabbing assholes who are now, of course, sullying our capital, bickering among themselves, and mucking up our government.

If America wants to come back to its senses, it must jettison all things Republican in every election until the Republican Party's ethical, intellectual, and civic spirit runs clean again. Republicans desperately need time in the wilderness. They need detox. America can't afford Republican calumny, widespread general dishonesty, and stupidity any more.

Benghazi and PP prove Dems are superior to Republicans

Dems would never stoop to what the Republicans are doing with Benghazi and PP. You'll never see a Dem Representative all sour-faced, angrily (and repeatedly) lying under color of government service just to grub power. You'll just never see low calumny like that from a Dem. It's now required to be a Republican leader.

That is one reason why Dems can't ever really lose to the current folks who call themselves Republicans. We are above them, win or lose. We win.

Do you feel oppressed by inconsiderate gun owners?

I do. I feel like the people who have piles of guns or these Red Ryder AR-15, night scope, silenced, laser sighted, mega-magazine, removable stock, better-than-cop-firepower, secret decoder ring gadgets are oppressing me. They are creating a world where I have to hear about one of their fellow enthusiasts losing it and committing sick crimes every few weeks. I am fed up with being oppressed by the mess these people create with their dumb fantasy hobby. Therefore, I have no problem calling for the social and economic oppression of unreasonable gun owners. Turnabout is fair play.

Let's assume the second amendment confers the right to gun ownership. That doesn't mean the right isn't being abused. It quite simply is. And these people are not protected minorities, they are just a bunch of folks who share a common, non-religious set of intolerable misbehaviors.

Therefore, there is nothing stopping private sector enforcement of common standards of decency and punishing these folks to the fullest extent legally possible. They can be fired, divorced, denied membership in organizations, denied service, their families left off of invitation lists...basically tossed into the dumpster economically and socially. Nothing stops that.

And the great thing about it is that it can be done legally and quietly, even anonymously. Home Owners Associations can write gun limits right into the bylaws. Apartment complex and other building owners can limit gun ownership the same way they can limit smoking, etc. People are free to anonymously post the names of the offenders on-line or snapchat their arsenals to the world. People are free to quietly lose resumes or put the brakes on the careers of offenders. Again, they aren't protected minorities.

It is hard to think of a population of people more deserving and less protected from oppression than inconsiderate, excessive weapon owners. Honestly, I am not sure I believe that these folks even believe they are good guys. I think the majority of the type of guy, for example, who would get behind a nimrod like Wayne LaPierre are probably just oppressive bullies who truly need to be put in their place. They don't want to listen to reason; they just want to brag about increased gun sales and give the finger to anyone who is bothered by the mess they create.

Hunting, sport shooting, reasonable self-defense? Why not? That wasn't causing us any real problems in the not-so-distant past. It's this new wave bunch of "official movie merchandise" weapon hoarders that are screwing things up for everybody. Let's shut them down and give a good name back to responsible gun ownership.



Are people starting to smell gun monster?

It just seems like the days of the newfangled, WLPNRA-style gun fantasist fad are numbered. Gun monsters like this last guy in Oregon are leaving a god-awful stench in people's nostrils. I just don't think I am misjudging people when I say they are going to start detecting a whiff of potential gun monster whenever they are in the presence of one of our modern gun fantasists.

Gun ownership beyond reasonable self-defense or hunting is going to go the way of the Confederate Flag. When that happens, the pool of gun fantasists is going to dry up really fast. They will be forced to take up better hobbies to stay socially and economically solvent, whether gun laws change or not. A smaller supply of gun fantasists means a lower likelihood of gun monsters. It's happening. The tipping point is close.
Go to Page: 1