What with Washington State Republican Party Chair Luke Esser making boneheaded comments to reporters that he’s going to try to get as “close as we can to 100 percent” in the vote count, he doesn’t need much help making himself the butt of national jokes, but… well… we here at HA are always happy to lend a hand.
Over the last few years we’ve collected a treasure trove of Esserteria to amuse our friends and enrage our enemies, some of which is already gracing the pages of the widely read TPM Muckraker:
Esser wrote in the University of Washington’s paper that he was praying for rain, because that would drive Democratic-voting “shiftless deadbeats” away from the polls. He explained, “Years of interminable welfare checks and free government services have made these modern-day sloths even more lazy. They will vote on election day, if it isn’t much of a bother. But even the slightest inconvenience can keep them from the polling place.”
In this 1980’s era column Esser bemoaned the loss of “successful anti-deadbeat voter techniques (poll taxes, sound beatings, etc.)” while wistfully recalling the days of Nixonian tricksterism:
We all remember those great political traditions — whistle-stop tours, kissing babies, voter fraud, dirty tricks, and voting a straight Republican ticket. […] Like any sport worth its salt, in politics you have adversaries, opponents, enemies. Our enemies are loudmouth leftists and shiftless deadbeats. To win the election, we have to keep as many of these people away from the polls as possible.
Yeah sure, Esser was attempting to be funny, but many a truth is said in jest, and the column displays a degree of ruthless mean-spiritedness that has reared its head throughout his political career. You know, like the misleading TV ad Esser apparently commissioned, attacking Gov. Gregoire for of all things, Washington’s presidential caucus! “Gov. Gregoire and her party don’t want you voting on Feb. 5!” the storyboard proclaims, “What are Gregoire and the Democrats so afraid of?”
Um… A) Gregoire had absolutely nothing to do with the 178 members of the WSDCC choosing to allocate delegates via caucus rather than primary; and B) What is Esser so afraid of that he had to halt the counting if his party’s own messy caucus so that he could unilaterally declare McCain the winner just in time to make the Sunday morning headlines?
Why do I assume Esser showed favoritism toward McCain? Well you certainly wouldn’t expect a push for Mitt Romney from the guy who once disparaged the B.Y.U. football team as “those polygamists.” And it’s not so out of character to expect a touch of ethical flexibility from a double dipper who saw nothing wrong with collecting paychecks from the WSRP and the Office of the Attorney General at the same time.
And of course, no Luke Esser tribute would be complete without a reread of my classic essay, “Luke Esser Fucks Pigs“, a post Dan Savage lauded as “the funniest thing Goldy’s ever done.” (And unlike Esser’s college try at humor, my satire was not only funny, it actually attempted to make a point.)
It’s great watching the other-side implode as they work so hard to assert themselves. The DotCom bubble, the housing bubble, and now the republican bubble.
Frankly, the Republican party should just split into two different parties. One for the wing-nut social conservatives and one for the fiscal conservatives, because frankly those two viewpoints are very distinct and bringing them together has been well… disastrous.
But hey, if you wanna keep digging a hole, keep doing what you are doing. We’ll all be watching intently to learn from your mistakes so we don’t ever make the same ones.
A wonderful trip down memory lane. Please, WSRP, PLEASE PLEASE keep Esser in charge! He’s the gift that keep on giving!
If Esser is forced out, I sure hope McCain picks him as the WA campaign Chairman. He coronated St. John after all, and took a big dump on Huckabee’s Evangelical supporters by stealing the election for McCain as well as Mitt “BYU is polygamist” Romney’s fans all at the same time.
Party Unity! Go Esser, Go!
Goldy!
Luke needs a light saber around now…
ROTF!! Gol-dy!! Gol-dy!! Gol-dy!!!
And I would bet that young Luke is still engaging in this shocking behavior, since he has not yet been held to account for his abuse of Miss Piggy or indeed the very laws of nature!
/snark!
And where is fellow metrosexual of Luke’s Dino Rossi??? It would be fun to know if Dino caucused at all since his candidate Mitt had dropped out. Romney wrote the forward in Rossi’s book of fables.
One thing for sure is that Dino was not for McCain who is not conservative enough.
Where was Dino?
Where was Dino?
Where?
Hmpf…that picture’s a little old, Goldy.
I watched Luke Esser last Friday night on KCTS Connects. Looks like since he’s become the high-and-mighty state party chair-dude, he’s decided to show how well he cleans up. In fact, he even looks like he got one of those expensive haircuts the like the trolls keep claiming John Edwards got. He’s definitely in better threads, too….I wonder how much they cost, and who paid for ’em.
He still sounds about the same, though.
ArtFart @8,
Oh… did I post an old picture? I’m sorry. Here’s a more recent one.
Luke: Where is the force when you need it? Of course the republicans don’t need to actually count votes – they have the force – Lesser – to decide for them. In fact, elections and votes are passe. All we need to do is file a complaint, robocall about the complaint and then call it a night – the election is over.
Wow- Luke is giving dirty politics a bad name…
I feel like I am back…in the USSR.
Piper – I want THAT Beetles song!
At least Luke Esser was smart enough not to offend a significant percentage of his party by scheduling a convention on the eve of an important religious and cultural holiday.
Yo, Dwight Pelz, got Passover plans? Or are you playing Pharoah this year? Like Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments, you’re bald enough for the part. And like Brynner’s character, you’re dumb enough for it too.
But Goldy, you need only go back as far as the last general election for a treasure trove of GoldyGoobledygook and Goofs with your hair-pulling (going for the Pelz pate?) rants about the universally despised Prop 1, the altar of same still in receipt of your homage and worship.
Is this a case of the piss-pot calling the kettle a blackguard?
The Piper
Congrats to Esser — he made #1 post on reddit! http://www.reddit.com
That’s an accomplishment!!!!!!!
@11
“I know you are, but what am I?!”
Hee hee hee. It just doesn’t get any better than this, y’all!
By the way, since Huckles claims we are living in the workers’ paradise, can I have my universal health care now, please? Thanks, Huck!
11-
Piper, you do realize for about half the state, the Legislative District conventions on 4/5 are the important ones… and all the Democratic Party events (from the precinct caucuses to the State convention) are scheduled on the Jewish Sabbath anyway, and have been for years and years? So it’s not like OMG THIS IS SOMETHING NEW?
Besides, you putz, the county conventions start at 9 am. Plenty of time to get home by sundown, if you have to. Heck, you could have even filled out a form and participated in the Democratic caucuses by proxy for religious reasons.
That is some of the weakest shit I’ve ever seen you troll HA with. Try better next time, please.
@12: Agreed. You’d think Huckabee winning the caucus would be less embarrassing than this.
Good to see the HA trolls groping for new red herrings to throw our way. Happy fishing, my friends!
I think Goldy should collect all of the UW Daily articles that L.Esser wrote, especially those in which he made religously or racially bigoted references — such as disparaging the B.Y.U. football team as “those polygamists”. This could be put together into a hit piece against L.Esser, and distributed to precinct delegates elected at the GOP precinct caucuses. Or maybe even a “robo-call” campaign could be put together attacking L.Esser over this.
Perhaps there are enough published religiously or racially bigoted references by L.Esser, so that a decent portion of the GOP base could be offended by this. (Did L.Esser, for example, smear evangelical Protestants also at some point?)
When’s the Pud-prick gonna come stormin’ in here with more delusional horseshit?
Dipshit@18: Wasssssup idiot?
You miss me dull knife?
@15…EC…
Hey! I’m not the one doing the bitching! Read this: http://blog.seattletimes.nwsou.....tions.html
Then read this: http://movetheconvention.com/statement.php
It’s Dems making the stink! Just how clueless on some things are you people???
Everything you mentioned that attempts to rationalize away the bone-headed nature of the scheduling was raised and rejected by furious Dems who regarded this scheduling fiasco as a slap against them.
There you have it…Next time YOU try a little harder.
The Piper
Dipshit@18: I know the Feb 19th Primary does count a lot for Republicans.
Richard,
I know it’s a recent breakup for you, and perhaps the wounds are sill fresh. But it’s time for you to move on and learn to enjoy crazy incompetent Republicans like the rest of us. Most Democrats have never had any use for the WSRP other than as a source of amusement or occasional lucrative employment (i.e. Jenny Durkan). And certainly the last thing any of us would want to see happen is for the WSRP to put down the crack pipe and actually clean up their organization.
We love the WSRP just the way they are – crazed rants about flowers, male prostitutes, rigged primaries, blatant hypocrisy and all. The last thing we’d want to do would be to upset that oh-so-crazy apple cart in any way.
FUCK! This is rich!!!
Huck wants a recount.
McCain tells him to shut up.
The WSRP is a NATIONAL joke instead of just a statewide joke.
Awesome. Pass the popcorn, please!
I wouldn’t be surprised that Karl Rove was the man-behind-the-curtain pulling the levers to make Luke call it for McCain.
Whether or not Rove supports McCain is irrelevant at this point. Rove is going to the the Republican swiftboat charge this year and he needs a unified, in lockstep base if he’s going to be effective at hurling lies about Clinton or Obama.
Yep, this stinks of a Rovian plot.
Piper Scott @ 20
Looks to me that Dwight Pelz apologized for inadvertently scheduling county conventions on the eve of Passover — something that no one noticed for nine months after the caucus and convention schedule was published. Most of the major counties have moved their county conventions, and the other counties will have to finish by 1:00 p.m., so that it will not interfere with getting home and finish religious preparations before sundown.
On the other hand, you will NEVER see L.Esser apologize for his religious and other bigotry — much of which has been directed at folks who tend to vote heavily Republican.
@24…GBS…
You forgot to include a grassy knoll; all whack job conspiracy theories have to include a grassy knoll!
The Piper
I’m still laughing that Luke Esser now promises to count “as close to 100% of the votes as possible”.
Apparantly now that its part of his job to count votes, he’s finding that it’s much harder than he thought. It sounds to me like he’s ultimate goal is something short of the “statistically insignificant” problems encountered by Dean Logan in King County in counting the 2004 Governor’s race. You know, the one where the Republicans such as Luke Esser called it voter fraud, and demanded the U.S. Attorney General file criminal charges against Logan, and had the attorney general fired when he responded that – well, there was no evidence to support such a charge?
I wish I had more time to research all of Luke Esser’s published comments at that time – it would make great comedic reading!
The King County GOP now has posted a breakdown of their 4,195 precinct delegates by legislative district and candidate preference:
http://www.kcgop.org/documents.....esults.pdf
They still have not released the total number of actual voters who attended their caucuses (unlike Pierce, Clark and Cowlitz counties have).
I would think the number would be embarassingly small. I would be shocked if the number is even as high as 10,000. More likely, the total number of attendees in King County should not be higher than 6,000 — and probably less than the average Democratic turnout from a single legislative district.
@25…RP…
Sorry, you can’t bail your new party (is the ink dry on your membership card???) out that cheaply.
Of all the Saturdays in spring on which to hold a convention, why did the Dems have to pick this one?
Clearly designated on every calendar save those printed in Muslim countries, Passover is a big deal, and preparations for it in many cases are complex, lengthy, and not respected by a 1:00 pm pumpkin hour.
Luke Esser’s religious and ethnic bigotry? You mean the stuff to which you gave a hearty “Amen!” when you were a dyed-in-the-wool Republican? When you used to go to GOP functions and stand up and whoop and holler when a speaker would rip into the Dems as the party of defeat, debauchery, and despair?
Hey! Remember writing a letter in 2001? This letter: http://www.reaganwing.com/modu.....age_id=750
In it you complained to Pres. Bush about RINO Mike McKay and how he supported Dems and how we need real Republicans of a conservative stripe not ones who support liberal candidates for anything. Remember writing all this???
Hey! All you HA Happy Hooligans…Pay attention!!!
The Piper
Notice how Pooper immediately goes to the Karl Rove playbook when his pals are caught denying people the right to vote? Somehow Peltz’ mistake scheduling a vote on a religious day makes it okay that the fucktards at the Wash GOP decided to just call off an election because they didn’t want Huckabee to win?
How’s that work Pooper? Do you teach your kids that deflection will get them out of trouble if they steal, murder and rape too?
CANDIDATE “NO SHOW” OUTPOLLS JOHN McCAIN TO WIN KING COUNTY GOP CAUCUSES!
King County has 2,548 precincts, and state GOP rules required allocation of at least twice as many elected precinct delegate positions countywide, as the number of precincts in the county. This would be 5,096. In addition, the 785 Republican PCO’s were allowed as automatic precinct delegates, without being elected, so long as they attended their precinct caucus. This would have been at least 5,881 precinct delegates that COULD have been selected on Saturday — so long as even a minimal number of GOP voters attended in each precinct.
However, only 4,195 precinct delegates were selected on Saturday. This means that at least 1,686 precinct delegate positions went to Candidate “NO SHOW” because of the absence of ANY Republican voters in well over one thousand precincts in King County.
So Candidate “NO SHOW” had a convincing victory in Saturday’s King County caucuses — at least 1,686 precinct delegates, compared with John McCain’s 1,321 precinct delegates, and Mike Huckabee’s 798 precinct delegates.
@29 Very strange. I don’t know Mr. Pope, but his actions are certainly against the grain, aren’t they?
Afterall, as Churchill is supposed to have said: “Show me a young conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.” Seems like perhaps RP has lost his senses with age…
Oh, and for some of you here on HA, another little gem of Churchillian wisdom: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
@32
Oh, and for some of you here on HA, another little gem of Churchillian wisdom: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Churchill also said the following:
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/33987.html
“The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all […] Disease must be attacked whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman, simply on the ground that it is the enemy […] Our policy is to create a national health service in order to secure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available”
When Churchill spoke of socialism, he was talking about a much more extreme philosophy than what anybody on the left advocates today. Many people read the first quote above and make certain assumptions about Churchill that are far-fetched. You appear to be on the verge of doing so yourself.
I see the number of delegates was less than the number of precincts in the 34, 36, 37, 43 and 46 Legislative Districts – all Democratic strongholds.
And Ron Paul came out on top in the 43, didn’t he?
What I still don’t understand is how the GOP can have a “1 person, 2 vote philosophy”. All those who went to the Caucuses, will now get a second vote in their primary.
Seems a little crooked.
@33 Quite a dichotomy there, eh? But then that was Churchill… Not disputing that he actually did say it, but I could not find that particular quote, Lee…
@35…BinB…
A neighbor!
1/2 of the GOP delegates are chosen via caucuses, and 1/2 via the primary. All Dem delegates were chosen via the caucuses save for your 20% who are super delegates who can vote for whomever they please, bugger the grassroots.
The Piper
Beverly in Bothell @ 35
Actually, the GOP delegate selection process makes sense. Just under 1/2 of the national convention delegates (actually 18 out of 37) are chosen through caucuses. This rewards the extremely small number of Republican activists (perhaps 20,000 at most statewide) who are willing to take a couple of hours to attend their precinct caucus. Due to the extremely small attendance in most precincts, a Republican showing up for their caucus is pretty much guaranteed to become a precinct delegate to their county convention (and LD caucus, if applicable). If not, then they will probably at least get an alternate position.
However, since precinct caucus participation by Republican is abysmally low (the Democrats had over 200,000 on Saturday, more than 10 times the Republican turnout), the Republicans also allocate the remaining just over 1/2 of national convention delegates (19 out of 37) to be chosen in the presidential primary. There are actually a few hundred thousand Republicans in this state, but most of them have a very low enthusiasm level for the party. This gives an opportunity for the uninspired GOP masses to have some say in the selection of their presidential candidate.
@36
Not disputing that he actually did say it, but I could not find that particular quote, Lee…
Um, I provided the link.
@39 Come on Lee. That was, at best, a secondary source. I was checking Churchill quote sites and couldn’t find it.
@39
Also here are some more links.
@41 I’ll be damned. Good enough. I’d never run across that one before. Thanks…
@40
Of all of the commenters who hang out here, you are by far the smartest of those who don’t know how little they actually know. You can take that as the compliment I mean it to be, or you can think I’m just an asshole. But either way, you have the capability to be a very sharp person, even if you still choose to believe in a lot of silly nonsense. As I’ve said to you before, I was a conservative libertarian once too. Since then, I’ve slowly learned that the question of what government can and can’t do is much more complex, and that we fail ourselves as a society if we believe that government can’t do anything.
Esser Needs A Reality Check
And I’m happy to supply it:
Reality Check #1: All of the work in this country is done by workers.
Reality Check #2: Workers tend to be Democrats.
Reality Check #3: The managers who boss workers tend to be Republicans.
Reality Check #4: Managers don’t do any of the work.
Reality Check #5: 80% of the welfare in this country goes to corporations.
Reality Check #6: Workers don’t get any of the corporate welfare.
Reality Check #7: The people who do get the corporate welfare tend to be Republicans.
Reality Check #8: It follows that most of America’s welfare recipients are Republicans.
Reality Check #9: Mark the Redneck is a deadbeat because he hasn’t paid his gambling debt.
Reality Check #10: Mark the Redneck is a Republican.
Reality Check #11: It follows that Washington state’s biggestt deadbeat is a Republican.
Reality Check #12: Deadbeats and welfare bums tend to be Republicans.
Lee @ 33
On the whole, the word “socialism” has started taking on a meaning entirely different from the meaning it had in Churchill’s day when it referred strictly to state ownership of the means of production. People seem to forget that the second “S” in USSR stood for “Socialist”.
And, we largely have wingnuts to thank for this abuse of the language. Their tendency to slap the “socialist” label on anything but strict laissez faire capitalism is typical of the intellectual laziness that right-wing proponents have repeatedly demonstrated in the comment threads here. Far simpler to engage in a bit of equivocation that allows one to quote Churchill to maximum effect than to exercise the intellectual rigor required to actually debate serious issues on their merits.
But, then, what should we expect from people who extoll sophomoric witticisms as intellectual virtue?
@45 I guess I might as well contribute a little more sophomoric wit to the thread then. You rightly mention “Socialist” as being part of the actual name of the USSR. Then go on to claim that the meaning of the term has changed largely due to misuse by “wingnuts”. Let me propose an alternate reason for the mutating definition of “Socialist”. Moonbats like to toss around the appellation “Nazi” quite frequently. In fact I daresay y’all toss that one around like anarchists at an Archduke. What exactly does that particular contraction stand for again? Wasn’t it National ‘Socialist’? You’re the ones that have gone on to make socialism synonymous with authoritarianism. Ironically enough, even as many of you worship it as the end all be all of human existence.
Btw, the meaning you ascribe was not, strictly speaking, correct. There was no rigidly accepted definition of the term at that time, and hasn’t ever been, really. There are some generally accepted characteristics, but those are generalizations.
See DJ the difference is equivocation isn’t necessary when you know of what you’re speaking. But then what should I expect from people that mistake education with wisdom, and phony elitism with superiority?
@ 46
Gads a pompous blowhard whose verbal diarrhea rivals that of the Piper.
Nevertheless, I thank you. By spending an entire comment discussing semantics without a single iota of substance, you’ve proved my point for me.
@47 Yeah, you’re quite the expert on blowhards, aren’t you… Project much?
No sustance? You’re obviously a product of the Seattle Public School System. I’d ask for a refund, you got ripped.
Btw, you sure put a lot of substance in that post didn’t you. Not!
@ 48
So let me see if I understand you. When Democrats start talking about how broken our healthcare system is and you Republicans scream “Socialized Medicine” at the top of your lungs, it’s not really a carefully crafted attempt to avoid dealing with the issues by equivocally raising the specter of “socialism.” You twits just really don’t grok the difference.
Talk about needing a refund…
@45
But, then, what should we expect from people who extoll sophomoric witticisms as intellectual virtue?
Entertainment. And if I-Burn wants to hang out with us for it, I’m really going to enjoy watching the process of him discovering how little he really knows.
@49 I’m not a Republican, so take your strawman home, first of all. As to what I, or anyone else, understands about anything, you’ve more than proven yourself to be unqualified to evaluate such.
You, on the other hand, have quite handily displayed your ignorance. But my advice is to not worry about it too much since ignorance, at least, is curable. If you were merely stupid, you’d really be stuck.
@50 The difference being, that I can, and do, acknowledge my own ignorance, and strive for improvement. That isn’t a trait that tends to be very common amongst lefties.
@ 51
Interesting. You disavow being a Republican, but you don’t disavow the whole conservative attempt to avoid discussing issues by screaming “socialist medicine” every time a liberal points out what’s wrong with our healthcare system.
Well, you did, at least indirectly, answer my question. And, in the process, managed to prove my point. Again. Keep arguing semantics without getting down to the substantive issues. Oh, and make snide remarks about my intelligence too. Both only serve to deflect from the fact that you can’t win the policy arguments on their merits.
@53 Substantive issues, eh? I’m not going to speak for all conservatives. The best I can do in that respect is provide my own opinion, for whatever thats worth. Unlike your side, I cannot claim to have all of the answers, any more than I believe that BHO, or HRC do.
My problems with “universal healthcare”:
-I don’t trust *any* government agency to protect my data in the way that such a system would require. Once it’s all consolidated, it’ll be readily available to any bureaucrat that has a mind to take a gander. That means inevitably it’ll end up where it shouldn’t.
-Why should illegal aliens be rewarded?
-There aren’t enough doctors to provide universally superior coverage to everyone at once. So once again, you’ve introduced corruption into the system. I don’t have the link handy, but my understanding is that it’s egregious where such systems are currently in place.
-If healthcare is mandated by the government, does that mean that they’re going to prevent frivolous lawsuits against healthcare providers.
-With required healthcare, the profession will have to utilize numerous personnel who are not completely qualified.
There are more, but I’m growing bored here. This is not to say that the current system is perfect, by any means. However, I’ve not yet heard, what I would consider a viable solution.
You make the mistake of thinking that because I didn’t address this subject, it must mean that I cannot. No, I didn’t choose to, Not that I cannot argue policy. There is a difference.
I’m not going to speak for all conservatives.
I’d settle for you to stop behaving like one.
By the way, I didn’t say that you couldn’t address the issues. I said that you can’t win the policy debate on its merits, which is why you so assiduously avoided it earlier. Frankly, I think the only reason you chose to address the policy debate now is the fact that this thread is so old that you calculated a chance that I’d miss your comment and that most everyone else has simply stopped paying attention.
As for the issues, your first two points are logically incompatible with each other. They cannot both be relevant issues. I shouldn’t need to explain why, but I get the feeling I’m going to have to do that somewhere down the line.
But, humor me just a tad. How is that any different than the information you already provide the state in order to, say, obtain a driver’s license?
Regarding point 3, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “universally superior coverage”. The word “superior” has no referent. Superior to what, and how is that relevant?
As for links involving current systems, We’re talking about a system that currently exists nowhere else. Comparisons are stodgy at best. And, please, spare the anecdotal evidence that has repeatedly been shown to be bunk. If you’re going to come to the table that misinformed, then don’t bother.
Regarding lawsuits, please define “frivolous,” or, better yet, devise a method of deciding whether or not a lawsuit is “frivolous” that’s more effective than the method we currently have (which punishes attorney’s for filing lawsuits that have no potential for legal merit). If your definition of “frivolous” is based on the extent to which health care providers whinge about having to pay for the results of negligent care, then your argument is dead in the water.
Your last point seems to indicate a belief that there is some kind of supply issue involved. It’s not at all clear that there is, in fact, a supply issue. But, even if one concedes the fact (which I’m not–you’ll need to back that claim up with evidence), don’t you think that the amount of health care dollars ending up on the bottom line of insurance companies and in the pockets of their upper management rather than the hands of the actual providers of health care might bode well for simply letting the market resolve whatever supply issues do exist?
There are more, but I’m growing bored here.
Meaning that you couldn’t come up with anything better than a half-assed stab at discussing the issues, so you feign boredom. If you really want to be bored, then try simply looking in your bathroom mirror.
This is not to say that the current system is perfect, by any means. However, I’ve not yet heard, what I would consider a viable solution.
Nothing’s preventing you from putting something on the table. Bring it on. If there’s a specific problem that is, indeed, a real problem with any given proposal, try thinking of a way to resolve that issue while still addressing the underlying flaws in the current system. That’s usually the way a policy debate is conducted. But, it does require a bit more intellectual effort than waxing about petty differences in semantics, so, maybe you’ll need to eat your Wheaties first.
@55 “Frankly, I think the only reason you chose to address the policy debate now is the fact that this thread is so old that you calculated a chance that I’d miss your comment and that most everyone else has simply stopped paying attention.”
One could very well say the same thing about you now, couldn’t one. Especially since you took longer to respond to my post, than I took to respond to yours.
How about you humor me now? I truly don’t care about universal healthcare. I did NOT introduce the topic in the first place. I don’t care to discuss it any further. Your point by point critique was vacuous and your snide comments merely reiterated what I said previously. You think I have nothing else, or my points were inadequetely expounded upon, that’s fine. You go ahead and claim victory then, since you’re obviously looking for such, again, I don’t care. You haven’t proven a thing and frankly, your reasoning is suspect, at best. Clear enough? If you can’t see how, that’s not my problem.
“If you really want to be bored, then try simply looking in your bathroom mirror.”
Boredom? No, this is boring. Left-wingers invariably believe themselves to be intellectually superior, you moreso than most apparently. But that’s alright. Every man needs his delusions… Just a little piece of advice: don’t take everything so seriously…
One could very well say the same thing about you now, couldn’t one.
Perhaps, but, then, I’m not the one who has avoided, under a variety of pretexts, engaging in a reasonable policy debate based on the issues.
Especially since you took longer to respond to my post, than I took to respond to yours.
A claim which presumes that I saw your comment only shortly after you posted it. Why would you presume that?
FYI, I’m actually engaged in a number of conversations in a number of different threads on several different web sites. The most interesting is a discussion about the psychology of perception and music based on some of Douglas Hofstadter’s ideas from Goedel Escher Bach.
My point, all along, has been that folks like you can’t win the significant policy debates, so you engage in a variety of techniques that serve no purpose other than avoiding participating in the debate. Your entire middle paragraph is a prime example of yet another way of avoiding a discussion of the issues. You declare boredom, but it’s a facade. You sure as hell wouldn’t be at all bored if you thought you had any chance at winning the debate.
How do we know that you can’t win the policy debate? Simple. Your stance, essentially, is that we’re better off doing nothing at all than taking steps to solve some of the significant problems we face. And nobody’s buying that line. That’s why, in both Maryland and Virginia, tonight, Obama received more total votes than all of the Republican candidates combined. In Maryland, the difference is almost two to one.
So, again, I thank you for proving my point for me. Enjoy being bored, cuz you’re about to be swept aside for being irrelevant.
Oh, and that has nothing to do with inherent superiority or intelligence. The only real, underlying issue, here, is the extent to which you’re willing to recognize just how intellectually bankrupt your philosophy has become. It’s about whether or not you’re going to choose to use the intelligence you do have, not about which of us happens to be more intelligent. That, too, is another of your red herrings which serves no purpose but to avoid discussing the real policy issues of our day.
@58 “A claim which presumes that I saw your comment only shortly after you posted it. Why would you presume that?”
Because you did.
Godel, Escher and Bach was interesting. I read it in the early 1980’s, though I have to confess to not remembering much at this point.
Folks like me, eh? You base that on what, exactly? Certainly not personal knowledge. You think you know all about me based upon a few posts on a blog? You’re making an assumption, with no actual basis in fact…Like when you think you know my motivation for not engaging in the debate any further. Whether or not I thought I could win the debate does not come in to play here. I made it clear that I have no interest in the topic. If it was something interesting, I’d debate you simply for the fun of it. You can believe that or not.
Then you follow that up with further assumptions. I don’t believe I advocated anything in regards to healthcare. And yet you feel confident in stating my position. Again your arrogance shines through. Dude, you are not the psychologist you think you are. Period.
Because you did.
Interesting. How do you come to believe that I saw your post so very closely after you posted it? Do mean to imply that you have some access to my computer? What’s my IP address? What version of which OS am I running (I gave you a clue to that one)? What software do I currently have running?
Folks like me, eh? You base that on what, exactly? Certainly not personal knowledge.
I base it on my observations of your behavior, which has consisted of pointless noodling about trivial semantic differences, feigned boredom (if you’re bored, then why do you even bother to continue to post in this comment thread?) and a half-assed attempt to discuss a particularly relevant policy issue. You take me to task for making assumptions when I’m merely taking you to task for the way you’ve behaved in this thread.
What you have not done is provide any substantive rebuttal to my original point: that conservatives don’t want to discuss policy issues on their merits. They’d rather play idiotic semantic games, and equivocate in ways that allow them to invoke scary, old straw men like “socialism!”
Oh, and for whether or not I’ve made assumptions about your stance on health care, you said:
However, I’ve not yet heard, what I would consider a viable solution.
And you have not posited an alternative solution to the problem. There is only one logical conclusion that follows from those two facts: that you’d rather we do nothing at all as opposed to doing whatever it is you’ve heard.