A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think I know "how it is perceived". Since the day I started posting to this board I have always called it the "Democrat party". I would be surprised if you could find an exception on any post that I have ever made. Probably a thousand references to the Democrat party and not one to the "Democratic party".

The first time someone noticed it, people seemed to think this was something I came up with on my own. That it was just a whim of mine and criticized me thinking if I just understood the error of my ways I would correct it.

Now some of the people on this board have realized that there are other people that do the same, and are starting to get the idea that this is something that maybe I did not come up with on my own.

But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

Clearly these critics think that they have put a great deal of thought into this and clearly they think I have not. They understand the ramifications of what I am doing, and I don't, so they need to warn me of what might happen.

Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question? Did it ever occur to you that the reactions that have occured on this board just reinforce that what is being done here is very effective?

This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy. There is a whole subtext to political discourse and actions that most of the people on this board are completely deaf to.

I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

And with that, the large, gilded doors to Spankyland slammed shut with a deep and resounding CLANG, and in the silence that followed, the Dems, RINOs and True Believers outside were left to wave away the billowing smoke and throw goat entrails upon the ground in a desperate attempt to divine the genius that was too briefly exposed to them.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think I know "how it is perceived". Since the day I started posting to this board I have always called it the "Democrat party". I would be surprised if you could find an exception on any post that I have ever made. Probably a thousand references to the Democrat party and not one to the "Democratic party".

The first time someone noticed it, people seemed to think this was something I came up with on my own. That it was just a whim of mine and criticized me thinking if I just understood the error of my ways I would correct it.

Now some of the people on this board have realized that there are other people that do the same, and are starting to get the idea that this is something that maybe I did not come up with on my own.

But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

Clearly these critics think that they have put a great deal of thought into this and clearly they think I have not. They understand the ramifications of what I am doing, and I don't, so they need to warn me of what might happen.

Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question? Did it ever occur to you that the reactions that have occured on this board just reinforce that what is being done here is very effective?

This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy. There is a whole subtext to political discourse and actions that most of the people on this board are completely deaf to.

I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

If it makes you feel any better, I haave always realized you are just one smallpart of a confederacy of assholes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And with that, the large, gilded doors to Spankyland slammed shut with a deep and resounding CLANG, and in the silence that followed, the Dems, RINOs and True Believers outside were left to wave away the billowing smoke and throw goat entrails upon the ground in a desperate attempt to divine the genius that was too briefly exposed to them.

if you were designing a new country what would you call the two political parties?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think I know "how it is perceived". Since the day I started posting to this board I have always called it the "Democrat party". I would be surprised if you could find an exception on any post that I have ever made. Probably a thousand references to the Democrat party and not one to the "Democratic party".

The first time someone noticed it, people seemed to think this was something I came up with on my own. That it was just a whim of mine and criticized me thinking if I just understood the error of my ways I would correct it.

Now some of the people on this board have realized that there are other people that do the same, and are starting to get the idea that this is something that maybe I did not come up with on my own.

But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

Clearly these critics think that they have put a great deal of thought into this and clearly they think I have not. They understand the ramifications of what I am doing, and I don't, so they need to warn me of what might happen.

Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question? Did it ever occur to you that the reactions that have occured on this board just reinforce that what is being done here is very effective?

This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy. There is a whole subtext to political discourse and actions that most of the people on this board are completely deaf to.

I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

If I sat here and typed "asshole" in response to every assholish thing said on the board the "s" key on my keyboard would be worn to nothing by now.

Nice to hear that the Rove research machine has fully embraced the idea that being assholes makes for good politics. I never knew that before.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Good for you. Where would you like the Prize Committee to Fedex your case of Turtle Wax?

I'm touched. I've _never_ won anything before!

:sniffle:

S_A_M

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if you were designing a new country what would you call the two political parties?

The Baseball Furies and the Gramercy Riffs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
But even so, I am being lectured on "how it is perceived" and what people’s reactions will be. And being lectured to so I am aware of what I am doing. The most precious criticisms is when people send me official postings of the Democrat party to show that they call themselves the Democratic party, like this is something I don't know (and if it was something I knew I would change my ways).

I suppose we made the mistake of assuming that you weren't just being a dick. And that you weren't just putting everyone on when you argued (back then) that you _were_ using the actual name of the party. The posts still exist, you know.

Originally posted by Spanky
Did it ever occur to any of you that I know exactly how it is perceived and what sort of reaction it gets? Did it ever occur to any of you that a lot of thought and research has been put into just that question?

No, but in fairness, we only had your body of posts to go by.

Originally posted by Spanky
This is the politics board, not the policy board. People on this board talk like they know something about politics, yet they have as about as much political acumen as a frog.

Actually, this is a policy Board too. You can't just go by the name you know.

Originally posted by Spanky
What is amazing is that the people that are the most arrogant, condescending and the quickest to give advice on this board have the least political savvy.

I like introspection as much as the next guy, but don't be so hard on yourself. You clearly have plenty of experience and political savvy. Must make life as a liberal Republican in California even more frustrating.

Originally posted by Spanky
I would suggest that you find out what I am doing and why I am doing it before giving me any further advice.

How can anyone tell what you're doing when you're clearly either a liar or a bullshit artist? And why would anyone care?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Nice to hear that the Rove research machine has fully embraced the idea that being assholes makes for good politics. I never knew that before.

Damn, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? I think that is de rigeur for professionals on all sides.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2 questions:
1) By "we" do you mean the libertarian republicans?

Socially liberal, Economically conservative. The difference between a Libertarian Republican and a moderate Republican is that Libertarian Republicans are big on gun rights, moderates are not.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) For whom has the loss been most expensive? Do the elections of 2006 demonstrate that the strategy dooms the current non-RINO Republicans to persistent minority status? Or do the 2004 elections show that they can hold a majority, absent aberational elections resulting from singular/unique policy choices?

The problem is turnout. As long as the trend continues that people vote less and less, then the social conservative Republicans can hold onto power just by turning out the base. In low turnout elections, only the extremists show up to vote. In low turnout elections both moderate and libertarian Republicans don't turn out to vote. The pool of social conservative voters is shrinking but as long as turnout keeps shrinking they can still hold onto power. If we just had a fifty percent turnout in all Federal elections, the extreme liberals and the social conservatives would have no power at all. But when you have low turnout the extremists in the power hold the keys to the kingdom. That is why the social conservatives controlled Washington and the extreme liberals control the California legislature.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Damn, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? I think that is de rigeur for professionals on all sides.

S_A_M

Next thing you know, Spanky will be telling us that the Republicans knew all along that the Iraqis weren't responsible for the World Trade Center.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
Sure you can. Heck, it's an old Republican slur (which you surely know), and people from Alf Landon to Bob Dole or George W. Bush have cheerfully used it when making partisan attacks.

Here's the thing, though. It's impolite to *always* use it. Occasionally, you have to call a group by the name they select or you brand yourself as a rude person who has chosen to deliberately insult someone. Even if your prefered name is based upon grammar or factual correctness.

Arab governments that don't recognize Israel call it "the Zionist entity." This is a factually correct term (the state's founding ideology was and remains Zionism). However, it is a huge insult to use that term to refer to Israel, and the fact that it remained in the charter of the PLO after the Oslo Accords was a real problem for a substantial chunk of the Israeli public -- even before the Palestinians resumed their violence. Flying to Jerusalem and calling Israel "Israel" was one of the bravest things that Anwar Sadat did. (See also Republic of China/Red China versus People's Republic of China/Taiwan -- Nixon's use of the PRC name in a speech was a clear signal to Mao and Chou.)

Let's think of an example in Spankyland where you might want to think about the impact of your version of the party name. In a setting where you are trying to scrape together enough votes in the House to pass a free trade bill, would you want to call possible "yes" votes a name which -- regardless of its gramatical correctness -- insults them?

How about the "Dimwit Party"? Or the "Anti-Semite Party"?

Here's Former President Carter - embarrasssing himself and his party, yet again - blaming the Jews, yet again, for all that is wrong in the Middle East:

"I think if the United States won’t take that role on, then maybe the entire group of the so-called International Quartet, the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the United — and the European Union — those four have written a road map which President Bush has endorsed enthusiastically. And if they can implement their terms — by the way, on which the Palestinians have accepted 100 percent and the Israelis have rejected almost entirely — if the road map terms are accepted, then we can have peace in the Middle East."

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Next thing you know, Spanky will be telling us that the Republicans knew all along that the Iraqis weren't responsible for the World Trade Center.

But Muslims were. And Speaker-elect Pelosi wants to make using that as a profiling criteria illegal.

Here's the real story on those 6 Imams that were PROPERLY tossed from that plane. Those terrorists from CAIR did a heck of the job in the media portraying these thugs as poor victims.

All 6 of them should be imprisoned for deliberately trying to cause fear - and they are fortunate a few passengers didn't justifiably beat them to a bloody pulp:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.

The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.

The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.

"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."

"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.

A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.

[Replaced_Texan]

This was forwarded to me. I don't stand by any of it, but I thought it was interesting. Some of it, like the automobile insurance stuff, isn't really a federal government issue, and some of it, like the campaign financing stuff, is probably illegal per the free speech argument that the Supreme Court seems to like so much. But other stuff is, I think, a good start. I like the attestation that every member of congress actually read the legislation they're voting on.

Here's a list of actions for Congress that I developed with help from others. Perhaps you can forward this to your distribution lists and get folks to contact members of Congress with these actions to be completed in the impending Democratic Congress:


1) Don't focus on investigating why we're in Iraq; develop a plan to gracefully extricate ourselves from that mess within 18 months.

a) Congressman Murtha's plan appeared to viable for a withdrawal to a nearby location or locations whereby the US military can provide stabilizing support.

2) Develop a plan and a way to pay for securing borders, ports and air terminals.

3) Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and tie that value to the cost of living adjustments / inflation gauge.

4) Make education a REAL priority and REALLY not leave children behind.

a) Raise the standard of living for the middle 70% of the US. Currently the median wage in the US is less than $42,000 per year for a family of 4. You can't send kids to college on that and now that getting a reasonable paying job requires at least a 4 year degree, all children should be able to afford college.

i) Provide grants or incentives to government agencies and contractors to provide tuition assistance to students for an agreement to work for that agency or contractor for a predetermined number of years following graduation. This will help in providing a pipeline of qualified employees for jobs in the coming years.

b) Determine how to provide teachers with above standard wages to encourage more of people to participate as educators.

c) Give teachers latitude in not only teaching, but discipline without fear of reprisals.

5) Determine how to cost-effectively provide medical insurance or medical coverage for all US citizens.

6) Balance the budget over a 4 year period (not 10+ as is currently and incorrectly predicted by the administration).

a) Get back to the 'pay-as-you-go' budgeting of the last century, using the surplus to pay down the national debt (especially to China)

7) Allow the current illegal immigrants to become citizens and begin contributing. Implement the guest worker program Bush proposed (it was a reasonable initiative)

8) Stabilize and reduce the greenhouse gases emissions in the US as outlined in the movie "An inconvenient Truth". This should be accomplished by a non-partisan board headed up by Al Gore.

a) Require that all members of Congress watch the moie, "An
Inconvenient Truth."

b) Develop a plan to raise the overall mpg average for all vehicles sold in the United States. An increase in mpg will have a direct reduction in the amount of foreign oil (both crude and refined) imported into this US, and also reduce the amount of emitted greenhouse gases.

c) Provide a plan forward to help constituents convert to green energy sources including:

i) Funding research for Solar Power to make it cost competitive,

ii) Developing a way for Nuclear power to be SAFE including more research into fusion power

iii) Fund research into converting Green House gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) into Carbon and Oxygen.

9) Set forward a plan and a way to pay for and
implement infrastructure replacements (bridges, roads, highways, ports).

10) In the US, there is a significant percentage of
uninsured motorists, develop a plan to provide basic automobile insurance coverage to all drivers. This would reduce the premiums currently paid by insured motorists who must subsidize the cost of uninsured motorists.

11) Take private money out of politics, allowing only public
financing in the election of representatives.

a) Ban campaign funds from lobbyists & federal contractors.

b) Use the Canadian model for funding elections.

12) Make it illegal for lobbyists and contractors to
participate in writing legislation, leaving it up to the politicians
themselves.

a) Require that all legislators swear that they have actually read the legislation they vote on. Perhaps by having this requirement, more legislation would get thought through before being enacted.

13) Enact strict legislation restricting particular
contributions (travel, gifts, earmarks, pork, etc) and make the entire process transparent.

a) In addition, specify what the punishment will be for violations
and actually enforce them.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But Muslims were. And Speaker-elect Pelosi wants to make using that as a profiling criteria illegal.

Here's the real story on those 6 Imams that were PROPERLY tossed from that plane. Those terrorists from CAIR did a heck of the job in the media portraying these thugs as poor victims.

All 6 of them should be imprisoned for deliberately trying to cause fear - and they are fortunate a few passengers didn't justifiably beat them to a bloody pulp:

First, based on their actions, I think the imams should have been taken off of the plane. I'd get taken off a plane for sitting in first class and refusing to move if I hadn't gotten the upgrade. Seems like a no brainer. And I can't believe how accomodating the flight attendants were in providing the belt extenders if they weren't large men--seems like the flight attendants need further training.

Still, I want to know how it is that we are supposed to, with reaonable accuracy, profile Muslims? What set of criteria captures all Muslims for profiling purposes without too many false positives (which would make the system too burdensome)? Or is just left to the discretion of Jethro at the TSA?

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
This was forwarded to me. I don't stand by any of it, but I thought it was interesting. Some of it, like the automobile insurance stuff, isn't really a federal government issue, and some of it, like the campaign financing stuff, is probably illegal per the free speech argument that the Supreme Court seems to like so much. But other stuff is, I think, a good start. I like the attestation that every member of congress actually read the legislation they're voting on.

I wish they would have listed the one about Al Gore leading a non-partisan panel as #1, so I could have stopped reading right then and there.

Albeit, that was the funniest thing I've read all day.