posted
Let us know when you can speak a foreign language well enough not to use google translate. Then we might be impressed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I could post a picture of my Japanese certificate though you would still be an asshole, just a slightly more informed one about people you know nothing about.
But hey, more on that issue of lowering the level of discourse for all involved.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, sure, I'd love to see how your photoshop abilities are coming along.
ETA: doesn't it suck to have your basic life facts questions frivolously by people who know little about you? Geez, I'm sure glad nobody ever tried to do that to me. I wouldn't like it...
irony 2 |ˈīərnē| adjective of or like iron : an irony gray color.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You *always* questioned them, that's what started this whole thing.
quote: I'll care who's giving you credit for something the second I see you giving someone else credit for anything- particularly on the level of your usual bullshit. You don't *need* credit from me. That's my point. If you could get over yourself for 3 seconds you'd realize that. But that never does change. Back when you were 16 and couldn't write a coherent sentence, you wanted just as much credit as you want today. *That's* bullshit. That's how you've not changed. What, you forget me complimenting you on your improved writing abilities? I did many times. I acknowledged you in many ways. You shit all over that. You don't even remember it. So **** all that. Your strategy for engaging me on some higher level is to question whether I am lying about everything I have ever said about myself? And I'm the bad guy. **** that. Dag can give you a pass for calling me a liar, an evil person, and god knows who can remember what else. And you're the victim. People are just so rough on you. What, do you want to extract some kind of conciliation from me? Why? I should endure all your shit, all your niggling petty bullshit, over and over, again and again in the same way, and I should apologize to you for it? You're not culpable at all? Jesus Christ, you call me an evil bastard- I've never seen anyone with so little sense of shame.
"Would it be better if he didn't blow up? Sure. But it would be even better if people didn't treat him like shit."
He treats others like shit. I have no sympathy in that regard. How do you fix it? Meh, not my responsibility.
posted
Really, that's me questioning your basic life statistics? That's me calling you a liar? I see me calling you a lot of things. A liar is not among them.
I like that you think my words will be embarrassing or impeaching to me. They are not. I stand behind everything you've quoted. And you've gotten worse, not better.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
People have been more often damned standing by and behind their words then away from them.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, now we know why you so often pretend never to have said most of the unbelievably stupid things you say.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*shrug* Nothing remains to be said.
IP: Logged |
Not a surprise really. Newt is on the verge of campaign collapse if you believe recent news. Santorum is dead in elections for the next month, and Obama has begun directly addressing Romney by name. Santorum might try to stretch this thing out for a few more months to the convention, but I think Romney is done wasting time and money.
Sad thing is, Romney has had to spend four times as much as Santorum for every vote he won. This primary lasted way longer than most people thought, and bled millions from his campaign coffers. But now that he and Obama are starting to directly hit each other, I think we're seeing the beginnings of the real race. More and more I think you're going to see Romney ignore the other candidates entirely. It will take a miracle now for Romney to lose a brokered convention.
PS. Please don't get my thread locked. We've always managed to keep these threads civil and long lasting despite the hot topics often being discussed. Hopefully you guys respect me, BlackBlade, and the other posters here enough to take a time out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
This smacks of Accelerationism, even if this end's up making single payer a core democratic issue it will still end up like 30 years from now.
IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I hadn't quite considered it from that angle, but it makes sense. A lot of people complain that "Obamacare" as it is will lead to single payer in the far flung future, though that seems like a pretty convoluted process.
But I think he's right. Obamacare, no matter how much conservatives want to scream otherwise, was a compromise. Liberals wanted single payer, or at LEAST a public option, and were stymied on both. So they went with a model created by conservatives that married universal coverage to the private market. If SCOTUS says that's off limits, then so is compromise, and it's back to what they wanted originally.
I question how militant they will be about it. I'm perfectly willing to buy the ideological half of the argument. With nothing else to compromise on, no more ground to give up, and this being an issue they've fought over for decades, liberals WILL coalesce around single payer. But how angry will they be? How much will they push? That's the big question, and history suggests they back down far more often than I'd like. So while I think the rhetorical argument will head in that direction, I question how much they'll push.
Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to dismantle the government-provided options we already have with Medicare and Medicaid. For all the talk about both parties not being much different, I don't see how this issue, in particular, doesn't dramatically separate them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yup, there is no question in my mind that while both parties are corporatist hacks one side is clearly less worse than the other, and its rests on which party is actively trying to roll back social reforms.
IP: Logged |
posted
Tough one to call on who made more of a fool of themself in this thread. I think the bar is set higher for one, so he had lower to fall.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I question how militant they will be about it.
I'm sure they'll show their same characteristic restraint, said sam, with a completely straight face
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Sam is acknowledging that Congressional Democrats tend towards unrestrained histrionics and vitriol.
Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with their goals, he's just big enough not to give 'em a pass for their behavior. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't doubt that he thinks the same is true for Republicans.
I actually thought jebus was right, and he did misread you, and meant to only be speaking about Republicans in the first place. But perhaps I'm mistaken, and my sarcasm was unnecessary.
I mean, even more unnecessary than sarcasm normally is.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Yeah, we're not talking about effective bitching.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:CPAC is here, so it’s time for everyone’s annual look at the psychos invited to the premier conservative event of the year, and those unfortunate enough to have been excluded.
GOProud, the gay Republican group that was founded because the Log Cabin Republicans were considered too concerned about gay civil rights and not sufficiently focused on “fiscal issues,” is not invited this year, because they are too “aggressive” about being gay, which made Jim DeMint uncomfortable.
CPAC also uninvited the John Birch Society, which had made a triumphant return to mainstream conservative acceptance in 2010, when they co-sponsored the conference.
But! While the Birchers and the open homosexualists are no longer welcome, there is still room for multiple outspoken white nationalists!
quote:One is Peter Brimelow*, founder of the nativist site VDARE which publishes the works of white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and the other is Robert Vandervoort, who runs a group called ProEnglish and according to the Institute for Research on Education and Human Rights, "was also the organizer of the white nationalist group, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance," which is affiliated with Taylor.
They'll be appearing on a panel titled "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity" alongside National Review's John Derbyshire, who believes "that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races," differences that are "facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets." I'm not sure whether there's really any daylight between Derbyshire, who is a long-time writer at American conservatism's flagship magazine, and the two other men he's appearing with.
Scratch the downgrade to stealth from Derbyshire. He decided to be on the up-and-up and get all straightforward about the issue. Of whether or not he's a racist prick.
quote:The conservative columnist and author John Derbyshire has prompted outrage after penning an article in which he urges white and Asian parents to tell their children to avoid contact with black Americans they do not know.
...
Derbyshire added: "If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving." He also suggested not living in an area run by black politicians. "If you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives," he concluded.
posted
Lord God on high. I just read his article. I would post the worst parts, but I'd just end up posting the whole thing. He fulfills every archetype of contemporary white racism.
I should give at least one example:
quote:(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
"You should make black friends so that you can say, 'But I have all these black friends!'" Oh Lord Jesus. How is this guy even real?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Progress! 'Many' IWSBs, whereas before they were universally sub-human thanks to being apes or descendants of Cain or something. I suppose the next step will be something like 'befriend IWSBs because they, at least, are actually worthwhile human beings among Bs'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: "You should make black friends so that you can say, 'But I have all these black friends!'" Oh Lord Jesus. How is this guy even real?
He is real and a classic steve sailer styled example of:
quote:the small contingent of the modern American new-old-right, AKA, "Paleoconservatives", as they like to call themselves. They're the people who William F. Buckley Jr. spent 50 years trying to kick out of mainstream American right wing politics. They all seem to share an overwhelming preoccupation with a so-called "white christian identity," and often repackage and rehash the classic antisemitic conspiracies, which they attempt (badly) to bury under a veil of non-interventionist foreign policy. They are closer in ideology to the European far-right nationalist parties, eg, the BNP, Vlaams Belang, The French National Front, than your typical off the shelf Republican. Pat Buchanan is probably their best known ideologue.
With this, Romney is more or less officially the candidate, barring some dramatic happenstance at the convention.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent news. It's time to get down to the business of presidential candidacy. I wonder how many Romney/Obama debates we're going to get.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
With this, Romney is more or less officially the candidate, barring some dramatic happenstance at the convention.
Ron Paul is totally gonna sneak up on romney
And I'm sure you will be lurking on Intrade if he does.
edit: Though I imagine that won't affect the trade values that much. There can't be that many people who think he has a chance..
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Paul has always boasted the highest quantity, by far, of delirious inability to comprehend his true chances as a candidate among his followers. It's weird, but always profitable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, at this point wouldn't it need to be a trend like a landslide is a mountain trending sideways on a downward slope?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
George W. Bush discussed his newish book the other day and said that we should focus on growing the economy not so much fiscal austerity. It's a good thing he's not the Republican nominee these days.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I suppose if there was something that would lend further help to the Democratic ticket besides this long drawn out primary which leaves Romney only eight months to walk back his primary campaign to the center, it would be Dubya being in political discussion as well, heh. Not that this is him making a big splash or anything, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB--congress works on a seniority system. Those who are there the longest get the best jobs. That makes sense if you are working with a congressman who's been there for 12 years vs one who just arrived. What Cantor is doing is allowing his replacement to have 3 months seniority on all those elected this year. He is hoping it will be his Republican counterpart, but if not the Governor can appoint someone else, so there is no advantage gained by a Democrat elected.
He's not being lazy or quitting, he's playing the game as he's been taught.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Feel free to point out the next time a Democrat resigns early for these reasons. Frankly I don't think Congress should get to adjourn. They've wasted the American people's time for an obscene amount of time, and I wish we could can the lot of them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Feel free to point out the next time a Democrat resigns early for these reasons. Frankly I don't think Congress should get to adjourn. They've wasted the American people's time for an obscene amount of time, and I wish we could can the lot of them.
I don't think they should get to adjourn either, but there are numerous Democrats (and some Rrepublicans) that are scared about their re-election chances.
If this wasn't an election year, they probably wouldn't adjourn. The House could probably care less, but the Senate? It plays into the Democrats favor to adjourn. They get two advantages for doing it; First, they get to blame Republicans for doing nothing, though even if Republicans wanted they couldn't since Congress was adjourned (they wouldn't anyways), and second, they get to campaign.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The seats up for this midterm are pretty much the solidly most vulnerable for democrats ( i THINK. ) I know that 2017-2018 is going to be a veritable republocaust because demographics are looking grim for conservatives in the districts represented in that election, but the republicans would have to be in a super terrible position to NOT make gains in the upcoming election.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Then we might be impressed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
We've always managed to keep these threads civil and long lasting despite the hot topics often being discussed. Hopefully you guys respect me, BlackBlade, and the other posters here enough to take a time out.
