Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, you sound amused.

Well, I confess, I find you, or more appropriately, conservaatives like you (I guess liberals like you also), interesting. You're so certain of the rightness of your views. I'm constantly reminded every day just how uncertain everything is in this world, and how things are never black and white. But now, with this election as a backdrop, I see so many people who speak with a certainty that their ideas on how things ought to be are correct... infallible if you will. The way you speak of certainty in your belief in God, in your belief in conservative policies, its almost like you believe there is no alternate view at times. Yesterday was a great exaample. Perhaps you were fucking with me, but for a time there, you were writing things which could accurately be paraphrased as "God exists, and thats that" to me. Thats a reaally strange thing to hear in a debate. And this belief that everything has race/class undertones, even when it clearly doesn't, is fascinating. You cannot be swayed from anything you believe. And a lot of the country is like you. Doesn't that concern you a bit? I meaan, the older I get, the more I realize just how little I know. There are so many views I've changed over my life. I kind of think thats the human exxperience. That you think you've got it all figured out this early in the game and have no reason to entertain other theories or views fascinates me. I don't understand how such a mind works.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Undeliverable:FW: heySystem Administrator
To: SAM

FW: ýWhy the non-reality-based community is for Bush.(1KB)ý

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: FW: ýWhy the non-reality-based community is for Bush.(1KB)ý
Sent: 10/23/2004 9:17 AM

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

hchinaski2@netzero.com on 10/23/2004 9:17 AM
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it still fails, contact your system administrator.
< prserv.net #5.0.0522_mailbox_full;_group_quota_sz=12582801/12582912_ct=2344/100000 smtp; Permanent Failure: Has you on ignore list for life: Other undefined Status>

Nice. Creative and shows lots of effort.

So, _that_ got me on the ignore list for life?
Well, you just never can tell.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hchinaski2@netzero.

This is so unintentionally funny. It made my day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wolfpacks For Truth

eta: Did I say wolves? I meant puppies.

eata: Mark Schmitt describes this ad as an example of "Cheneyism: Vote for Bush, or wolves will come and eat you in your bed."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nice. Creative and shows lots of effort.

So, _that_ got me on the ignore list for life?
Well, you just never can tell.

S_A_M

Sammy baby it was a joke bobala, i could never ignore you.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is so unintentionally funny. It made my day.

3 things-
1- you are a recurring whiff. there has never been a time when I did something "unintentional" that you got.
2- your friends and I PM behind your back and they think you're dull normal IQ-wise. don't get mad at me, one of them said it.
3-i shit bigger'n you

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Wolfpacks For Truth

eta: Did I say wolves? I meant puppies.

this is fucked up but i have to tell you...so I propose to RT and Slave that I let you buy out of the bet for 50%, you know you're nice, and I did kind of force you into it.

And slave says "fuck that its the board's money" and RT is like "we've already budgeted for it" and i'm like "it was a private agreement" and RT is going "well you made it public and i detrimentally relied" and some shit.

so anyway, i can't compromise your debt. sorry.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Mark Schmitt is very smart:

• If Bush loses, serious conservatives, with the possible exception of extreme social conservatives, will have to ask themselves what they gained from four years of unfettered power, and ten years of domination of American politics. Government is "bigger" by every measure, and more intrusive. A pet idea, Social Security privatization, was actually discredited by their president's incompetence. Younger voters are increasingly turned off by the social conservatism, so the movement is not expanding its base. A huge new entitlement was created. The federal role in education expanded. And poor planning and dishonesty over Iraq weakened our defense, our credibility, and made it impossible to set a clear standard for when we would intervene and when not.
  
  All the tax cuts have done is to postpone the day we pay for these things.
  
  And if Bush wins, all this will still be true. Especially after a vicious campaign that offered no clear and persuasive conservative vision, it will be no easier for Bush to enact a conservative mandate. The corrupt short-term political bargains will only continue. If Bush wins, Karl Rove may be deemed a tactical genius, but the chances of a significant ideological realignment of American politics are lower than at any time since 2000. A smart conservative would surely prefer Bush to lose, if only to get the long process of intellectual rebuilding started right away.

more

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• If Bush loses, serious conservatives, with the possible exception of extreme social conservatives, will have to ask themselves what they gained from four years of unfettered power, and ten years of domination of American politics.
  

• Mark Schmitt is a bit behind. Serious conservatives have been asking themselves questions since some point in 2002, certainly in 2003, and definitely in 2004. Mark Schmitt is apparently not in touch with the Right except as a political theory that he can study from a distance.
  
  

  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  
  A smart conservative would surely prefer Bush to lose, if only to get the long process of intellectual rebuilding started right away.

Its the war, stupid (not you, just paraphrasing what this boils down to). The post 9/11 security situation is the absolute, overriding political concern in this nation. And we still have not heard a serious word about it from Kerry except his pandering to the Dean crowd. Which I do not necessarily object to except that he won't embrace Dean's profile-lowering entirely, and rather seems to prefer an embrace the pre 9/11 reactionary policies. If he wants to have a chance to pull this off, he needs to call in the media in the next week and give a speech using the words "preemption" and "prevention" liberally and in a security context of what he is willing to do (no pun intended).

ETA its interesting how quickly this rebuilding conservatism thing has gained ground in the last few weeks. Party of One my ass.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Mark Schmitt is a bit behind. Serious conservatives have been asking themselves questions since some point in 2002, certainly in 2003, and definitely in 2004. Mark Schmitt is apparently not in touch with the Right except as a political theory that he can study from a distance.

Maybe you should follow the link before you ascribe to him ignorance about what "serious conservatives" have been saying.

Its the war, stupid (not you, just paraphrasing what this boils down to). The post 9/11 security situation is the absolute, overriding political concern in this nation. And we still have not heard a serious word about it from Kerry except his pandering to the Dean crowd. Which I do not necessarily object to except that he won't embrace Dean's profile-lowering entirely, and rather seems to prefer an embrace the pre 9/11 reactionary policies. If he wants to have a chance to pull this off, he needs to call in the media in the next week and give a speech using the words "preemption" and "prevention" liberally and in a security context of what he is willing to do (no pun intended).

While you are ignorant of Kerry's views on national security, Schmitt would probably agree with you about the centrality of the issue in this election.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
And slave says "fuck that its the board's money" and RT is like "we've already budgeted for it" and i'm like "it was a private agreement" and RT is going "well you made it public and i detrimentally relied" and some shit.

This is Paigow-speak for "Slave and RT are going to steal the money and fly away the casbah"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mark Schmitt is very smart:

• If Bush loses, serious conservatives, with the possible exception of extreme social conservatives, will have to ask themselves what they gained from four years of unfettered power, and ten years of domination of American politics. Government is "bigger" by every measure, and more intrusive. A pet idea, Social Security privatization, was actually discredited by their president's incompetence. Younger voters are increasingly turned off by the social conservatism, so the movement is not expanding its base. A huge new entitlement was created. The federal role in education expanded. And poor planning and dishonesty over Iraq weakened our defense, our credibility, and made it impossible to set a clear standard for when we would intervene and when not.
  
  All the tax cuts have done is to postpone the day we pay for these things.
  
  And if Bush wins, all this will still be true. Especially after a vicious campaign that offered no clear and persuasive conservative vision, it will be no easier for Bush to enact a conservative mandate. The corrupt short-term political bargains will only continue. If Bush wins, Karl Rove may be deemed a tactical genius, but the chances of a significant ideological realignment of American politics are lower than at any time since 2000. A smart conservative would surely prefer Bush to lose, if only to get the long process of intellectual rebuilding started right away.

more

for about 6 months you guys held the senate, then you fucked even that up. the only problem is that all power is centered. i want mcCain to split and form the moderate reps. you guys will still be non-entities, but at least then we'll be more accountable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
all power is centered

Dude, I didn't know that you were, like, from Southern California.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dude, I didn't know that you were, like, from Southern California.

not even. Hank C. UC Santa Cruz '91 florida coastal School of Law '94

prediction: TW will find this unintentionally funny cuz they're both bad schools.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3 things-
1- you are a recurring whiff. there has never been a time when I did something "unintentional" that you got.
2- your friends and I PM behind your back and they think you're dull normal IQ-wise. don't get mad at me, one of them said it.
3-i shit bigger'n you

You must have a really small penis.