Probably just a lone crazy, right?
Several federal officials say the man made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office, reciting her home address and saying if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that was recently enacted.
Yeah, I’m sure the increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement had absolutely nothing to do with this. Or this. Or this.
The devolution of the Party of Lincoln into an American al-Qaeda continues…..
There’s no way that Lincoln would be a Republican today.
Or Theodore Roosevelt.
Or Eisenhower.
Or even the EPA creating Nixon.
Hell I’m not even sure that Reagan would fit in in today’s Republican Party since he raised taxes and, while he used them, he was not a member of the religious right.
I guess using the bigger of the planes available to the Speaker of the House seems justified now. The Learjet had to stop for fuel, the 737 can do it non-stop now. Still, nobody should be doing what this guy did. By the way, wonder if it is more serious than what the guy who sent threats to Senator Murray did? I mean, Pelosi is in the line of succession.
Imagine what these flying monkies would be doing if the supreme court had appointed Obama president rather than him being elected in a land slide. Or if he’d lied about WMD to start a war. Or if he’d….oh, never mind.
Anyone else wondering why Goldy gets more worked-up over mere threats to Democrat politicians, than he does a street musician actually being robbed, then kicked to death? Oh, and his killer is at it again, robbing and beating his victims, because he only got 3 months in Juvi, in a city and county run by politicians that … yup, you guessed it … Goldy told us to vote for.
Hmmm.. I guess getting worked up over threats to right wing politicians is OK..
If only they weren’t such a danger to themselves and others..
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
And we all know that Troll has a bit of a problem with people of darker skin:
Fucking god-damned nigger bitch.
@2
Hell, half the Democrats are to the right of Nixon.
********
Remember a while back when we were warning that this sort of thing might happen and the righties were all “no way we’d never do anything like that.”
I’ve just skimmed it, but the latest Orcinus post looks good.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
@5 We certainly understand why you don’t want to discuss the topic of this thread and prefer to change the subject.
It is called incitement.
This is a good annotated run down of the dog whistles over at gawker by Alex Pareene.
That sound you hear is the crunchy sound of the implosion of the Republican Party
12
I wonder if the GOP will survive until the fall elections. At the current rate of division and implosion, I think there could be about 20 groups claiming to carry the GOP’s mantle, come November.
I still don’t see what the big deal is. Is Goldy making a connection between the Tea Parties and the threats? If so, doesn’t Dori Monson get threats? I heard he does. So who or what inspired the person who threatened Dori?
Troll,
Damn, you’re dumb. I guess that’s why you’re one of theirs and not one of ours.
Nothing wrong with this, right?
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Hey Teabaggers, I’m not. We’re not. FU!
@13
In the short term, of course they’re going to survive. If anything, they are going to gain seats in Congress. You think we’ve got gridlock -now-?
“Probably just a lone crazy, right?”
I doubt he has any official connection with any organized political group. But the organized right has been trolling for violent psychotics via the mass media, something which probably will eventually be a crime.
This sounds like some of the trolls that have passed through here.
hat tip to MikeBoyScout @ 11
16
Amazing. That sonofabitch lacks any sense of responsibility. These people are a plague, like locusts with guns.
17
I’m not going with the standard wisdom regarding midterm elections. The GOP is seriously unmoored, at the moment. Despite my partisanship, I don’t think that’s a good thing. There does need to be a faithful opposition in a strong democracy. The GOP currently does not provide that. Of course, we could argue that the Democrats always provide their own opposition . . .
I seem to remember the implied threats of racial violence(IE blacks rampaging through the streets) if Mccain beat Obama at election time…
– you’re gonna love my nuts…
As usual, Goldy is a liar.
Nothing to see here. And speaking of completely unhinged, we have this gem: “the organized right has been trolling for violent psychotics via the mass media.”
The sad thing is that you actually believe yourselves, and the pathetic thing is that you actually believe normal voters will agree with you.
@22 Vince with Slap-Chop,
I don’t wish to impugn your memory, but why don’t you use the google and show us?
See, I seem to remember that memories are faulty and subject to bias. It’d be swell if you’d alleviate any confusion here.
@23 pudge 04/07/2010 at 7:02 pm
Who wrote Give a Gun for Christmas (While You Still Can)?
Who wrote of Shawna Forde, leader of a murderous Latino hate group of child killers “I just don’t want more people to jump on the “she’s lying” bandwagon. Makes me sad.“?
Who wrote “So when the organizations you entrust the defense of your rights to is the organization violating your rights, and you believe you have no recourse left, you’re going to consider reasserting your right to self-defense of your rights. This is inevitable.“?
I could go on, but p l e a s e
lecture us some more about how the organized right is not trolling for for violent psychotics.
What is the name of the political organization you claim you’re with again?
lying fudge @23: “….the pathetic thing is that you actually believe normal voters will agree with you.”
Why golly gee, that explains the election results for 2006 and 2008. Way to go, fucking history genius!
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Pathetic liar.
@23
65,000,000 normal voters (I subtracted out 1,882,230 for the freaky, abnormal voters) agreed with Obama and the Democrats in the fall of ’08. They haven’t done anything that they didn’t run on.
@25
Awesome!
@27 Michael 04/07/2010 at 7:40 pm,
pudge is a 2nd rate propagandist with delusions of grandeur.
He appears to currently have a bee in his crooked bonnet over Goldy. More LIAR!! & FALSE!!! shall surely ensue.
@24….
among others, no less than James Carville alluded to it….
let google be your friend…
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
@29 Vince with Slap-Chop 04/07/2010 at 8:39 pm,
SHORTER: I got nuttin.
@30…its an easy search…I know you can do it….think CNN…..
– you’re gonna love my nuts
Vince with Slap-Chop,
If you want to play fetch, get a dog.
already have one…but thanks for playing anyway.
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
@33 Vince with Slap-Chop spews:
SHORTER: I got nuttin. Not even a good joke.
Puddy back from PBC and their “gated” communities where Puddy and brother-in-law were stared at by retired and transplanted NY, NJ and Conn peeps who probably voted DUMMOCRAPT based on demographics while riding my bicycle.
While down in FL, Puddy read about someone who received this threat…
“Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this b***h does not live to see her next term. Good-bye.”
PuddyPoll – Who received this threat…
1[ ] DUMMOCRAPT
2[ ] Republican
3[ ] Green Party Candidate
4[ ] Liberal Party Candidate
@21 All the real Republicans are hiding under the Democratic Big Tent right now, and all that’s left in the GOP is the people who landed on the curb when they emptied the mental hospitals.
@23 Man, you guys are pathetic.
36
I guess that’s why the R’s cut all the funding for our mental hospitals–so they would still have a constituency. Makes sense.
35 – From the CNN article which also contained that quote:
Nice crowd you run with Stupes.
As happened with Clinton, now with Obama – insanity and paranoia will intensify from the right until a McVeigh moment happens..
MikeBS: as usual, you’re a liar. You cannot find a single example of me remotely encouraging violence. You didn’t, and you can’t.
Michael: if you think Obama was elected primarily for what he ran for and not what he was running against, then you’re a fool. He was elected for “hope and change,” not “tax increases on businesses and an unconstitutional individual insurance mandate.”
Oh, and actually, that right there is something Obama campaigned AGAINST: an individual insurance mandate.
(By the way, Obama announced plans this week for tax increases on people making $200K … another promise broken [again].)
Ohmigosh… Pudge shows up. I guess we hit a sore spot, didn’t we. Well, I’ll tell you what, Pudge… if it irritates you so much to be violent, right-wing crazies, then perhaps you shouldn’t hang around with folks inciting right-wing crazies to violence?
(Oh… and if you’re gonna accuse me of lying, you might want to do so in a thread where I make a statement of fact. Otherwise, it doesn’t just look whiny, it looks weird.)
pudge,
You are not a serious person. You understand that, don’t you? Just because wingnuts like what you print doesn’t mean your opinions matter more than what the average fourth grader’s opinion might matter. You understand that, don’t you? Seriously, you understand that you are full of it, don’t you?
@41
If the mandate is so unconstitutional would the constitution loving Republicans come up with it?
There’s no way to measure this.
What we know is what Obama said he was going to do and what he’s done. The two look rather similar.
We also know that the Republican’s said what they wanted to do in the ’06 & ’08 elections and were roundly rejected both times.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues
Michael @ 44
Don’t punch too hard when you’re punching Pudge. He falls down easily, and we don’t want the little fella to hurt himself. He doesn’t much like the facts, so please don’t confront him with those nasty things. Okay?
Michael: If the mandate is so unconstitutional would the constitution loving Republicans come up with it?
They didn’t. It was not “the Republicans,” as a minority of the Republicans supported it. And at least several of those who did (probably a majority) did so without fully examining the bill, but only to sign on to SOME alternative to the Democratic bill. Hatch in particular never would have supported it had it gone to committee, let alone a vote on the floor.
Also, the Republican who DID write it was one of the very few Republicans whom I reject as being a Republican (along with his son Lincoln). The GOP is a big tent party with enough room for Arlen Specter and Ron Paul and everyone in between … but the Chafees are just plain old liberals, and unsurprisingly, he wrote a plain old liberal bill.
What we know is what Obama said he was going to do and what he’s done. The two look rather similar.
What you probably mean is that what he has done looks similar to what he has done … because he has NOT done many things he said he would do.
But even there you’re wrong. I identified two things he said he wouldn’t do that he’s done, in my last comment: the mandate and the tax increase. He also said he would get us out of Iraq. And get detainees out of Gitmo. And so on and so on.
We also know that the Republican’s said what they wanted to do in the ‘06 & ‘08 elections and were roundly rejected both times
People keep saying this and I rarely respond to it because it’s such a stupid line. The Democrats similarly got rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Big whoop.
Goldy: perhaps you shouldn’t hang around with folks inciting right-wing crazies to violence?
As usual, Goldy, you’re a liar.
if you’re gonna accuse me of lying, you might want to do so in a thread where I make a statement of fact
Wow. You’re so far gone you don’t even realize when you’re lying anymore. In fact, you did make a false statement of fact. Specifically, you lied by saying such a thing exists as “the increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement.”
I wrote, “What you probably mean is that what he has done looks similar to what he has done … because he has NOT done many things he said he would do.”
I meant: “What you probably mean is that what he has done looks similar to what he said he would do … because he has NOT done many things he said he would do.” That is, if you take the whole of what he has done and said he would do, they are very different.
But if you look first at what he has done, and then match it against what he said he would do in those areas, you’ll find many similarities. Also many differences, and an unconstitutional individual mandate is a pretty damned big difference.
If only I had a nickel for every time that lying piece of shit Pudge called somebody else a liar.
@43 “You are not a serious person. You understand that, don’t you?”
Not with that thick skull he won’t. Give it up, PL. There’s just no point in trying to converse with the stupid shit. Nothing ever gets through to him. He’s just another faux-whatever, hating on government except, say, when it’s patrolling women’s vagina’s on the lookout for an American blastocyst in peril of being aborted. Pudge – kind of an extremely dumbed down version of Lostinaseaofblue, only with wingnut admirerers who have somehow gotten the mistaken impression that Pudge is a constitutional scholar. heh- Those wingnut commenters over at SP are such dumbfuck twits.
Steve: I defy you to identify a lie I’ve told.
You can’t argue against my points, you can’t back up your attacks against me … what the hell use ARE you, anyway?
Pudge,
I honestly don’t know what Obama said or didn’t say about the healthcare mandate and I don’t care. He said he wanted:
And yep, we got that. And you can go down the list.
Yep, we got that.
You’re never going to get everything you want or get to do things exactly the way you wanted too. We’re pulling out of Iraq. Troops levels are going down all the time. Gitmo’s getting smaller all the time.
We’ll know whether or not HCR passes constitutional muster shortly.
Look at the recent progress on nukes, it’s what he laid out in his campaign platform.
I meant exactly what I said.
pudge @ 23
What part of Goldy’s original post (man threatens Pelosi) is in error?
@41 pudge 04/07/2010 at 10:17 pm,
Pudge claim: The Democrats similarly got rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Not exactly. Here’s the breakdown:
2000 election:
House-dems pick up 1 seat (3rd election in a row that they do so).
Senate: Dems pick up 4 seats
2002
House-dems lose 7 seats
Senate- dems lose 2 seats
2004
House-dems lose 2 seats
Senate-dems lose 4 seats
2006
House-dems gain 31 seats
Senate-dems gain 5 seats
2008
House-dems gain 21 seats
Senate-dems gain 8 seats
I see nothing “similar” here. The Supreme Court picked the president in 2000. The GOP makes incremental gains in ’02 and ’04, but gets utterly routed in ’06 and ’08.
So you are a liar.
@54 Proud To Be An Ass 04/08/2010 at 6:10 am,
Pudge claim: The Democrats similarly got rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
You forgot one.
2000
George Bush – 50,456,002 (47.9%)
Al Gore – 50,999,897 (48.4%)
Michael: I honestly don’t know what Obama said or didn’t say about the healthcare mandate and I don’t care.
Shrug. OK. Then maybe you shouldn’t pretend that what he said and what he did are the same basic thing, when you admit you don’t even CARE if they are the same thing.
Osgood: What part of Goldy’s original post (man threatens Pelosi) is in error?
I explicitly pointed out the obvious error in a followup comment.
MikeBS: typical, of course. Pressed for actual evidence, you refuse.
Ass: eh. Not really. You’re looking only at the deltas, not the absolute numbers. A lot easier to win a lot of seats if you have a big minority. Remember, every House seat is up every election.
MikeBS: false. As you should know — since this has been covered a lot in the last 10 years — there is no popular vote for President. There’s this thing called an “electoral college.” There’s no sense in which Bush “lost” the popular vote because there is no popular vote. The votes in Texas are not the same as the votes in Virginia, and you cannot, statistically, add them together as though they are the same thing.
If we actually had a popular vote for President, there’s no way to know who would have won it. Many people vote differently BECAUSE we have an electoral college: for example, in Massachusetts, I voted for Harry Browne in 1996, but if we’d had a popular vote, I’d have voted for Dole. I knew my vote “didn’t count” because Clinton was going to win MA, so I voted to “send a message” instead. Many other voters — perhaps many more — don’t even vote because their vote “doesn’t count.”
It’s simply irrational to say that Gore won the “popular vote” in any actually meaningful sense: he didn’t win it in a legal sense, or in a statistical sense.
@23 You called Goldy a liar. What was the lie he told?
@41 You call Mike a liar. All he did was ask questions. Where’s the lie?
@47 You call Goldy a liar twice here. Where’s the lies?
@50 “Steve: I defy you to identify a lie I’ve told.”
Pudge, you fucking liar, you’re lying when you accuse others here of lying. But like I say, your skull is just too fucking thick to ever get it. Pudge, you worthless piece of shit, lying about lying is your knee-jerk response when you haven’t a clue how to respond to somebody.
“You can’t argue against my points, you can’t back up your attacks against me … what the hell use ARE you, anyway?”
You can’t open your fucking trap without lying. I call you out for being the lying piece of shit that you are – that’s my purpose here. And if you don’t like it, you can do one of two things, 1) either stop the fucking lying or, 2) you can go fuck yourself silly.
Goldy spewed, “increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement”
You either stand strong against the right-wing violence and rhetoric or you’re part of the fucking problem. You, Pudge, are part of the fucking problem. Now go back to eating shit, asswipe.
@23 “As usual, Goldy is a liar.”
@47 “Specifically, you lied by saying such a thing exists as “the increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement.””
You’re a fucking liar.
@56 “I explicitly pointed out the obvious error in a followup comment.”
Obvious?? I don’t cotton to liars, Pudge, and you’re a lying piece of shit.
“If we actually had a popular vote for President, there’s no way to know who would have won it. Many people vote differently BECAUSE we have an electoral college”
So if we had a popular vote people would vote differently because we have an electoral college? You’re not only a liar, Pudge, you’re as fucking stupid as they come.
@46 So, pudge, your argument is that Romney didn’t know what was in the bill he signed?
@59 Amen to that.
@51 pudge 04/08/2010 at 8:29 am,
Accepting that your knowledge of statistics is limited to being able to spell it, as usual, it is you that makes no sense pudge.
@46 you wrote “The Democrats similarly got rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004.”
Rather than giving your irrelevant BS about how the electoral college works and bloviating about meaningful sense, why don’t you attempt to make the argument how the presidential elections of 2000 and 2008 are similar in incumbent rejection?
Here’s your answer that the results I posted make clear: They’re not. Not at all.
Roger Rabbit: @46 So, pudge, your argument is that Romney didn’t know what was in the bill he signed?
No. I see your sense of history is not very strong. You think that Romney signed his bill in the early 90s, or that HillaryCare came out in the mid-2000s.
I was responding to the claim that “the Republicans came up with” the idea, which isn’t true, but referred to the alternative bill John Chafee introduced in the Senate in 1993, and therefore nothing to do with Romney. Further, we are talking about a FEDERAL mandate, which has significantly more constitutional problems than Romney’s state mandate, so the two are not analagous for the purposes of this discussion anyway.
(For what it’s worth, I — as someone who voted for Romney, and was a delegate to the convention that nominated him fot governor — attacked Romney for supporting an individual mandate long before Obama even announced he was running for President. I said at the time Romney was supporting a “tax on living.” Romney was, and is, in a minority within his own party for supporting a state mandate.)
Steve: @23 You called Goldy a liar. What was the lie he told?
I already said @47. I stated it explicitly, and yet you admit you read @47 and you still don’t know. If you would like to address my claim directly, feel free, but don’t stupidly pretend I didn’t explain it.
@41 You call Mike a liar. All he did was ask questions. Where’s the lie?
He did not merely ask questions: he clearly and intentionally implied I was encouraging violence.
you’re lying when you accuse others here of lying.
Shrug. Demonstrate it. Simply saying they didn’t lie, while not even addressing it when I explicitly state what their lies are, is pathetic, even for you.
You can’t open your fucking trap without lying.
Shrug. Demonstrate where I’ve lied. I’m waiting …
Goldy spewed, “increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement”
Correct. He lied. No such thing exists.
You either stand strong against the right-wing violence
I stand strong against ALL political violence I’ve seen in this country in recent years, from all political sides, and I’ve stated so explicitly (in fact, I did so in one of the links that MikeBS lied about, saying that it encouraged violence).
and rhetoric
I assume you mean not that I stand against “right-wing rhetoric,” but that I stand against such rhetoric that directly or intentionally encourages violence. And yes, I “stand strong” against such rhetoric.
… or you’re part of the fucking problem. You, Pudge, are part of the fucking problem.
Steve, you’re a damned liar. You are claiming I do not stand strong against such violence and such rhetoric, even though I do, and even though you have no evidence of any kind to the contrary.
So if we had a popular vote people would vote differently because we have an electoral college?
Some people would, yes. Absolutely and indisputably true. We do not know which people and how many of them, but that they exist — and I am one of them — is indisputable. If we could quantify the effect — and we cannot — then we could account for it and statistically group different states into something resembling a reasonable estimate of an actual popular vote.
you’re as fucking stupid as they come.
Shrug. Everything I said on that subject is true; I know your lack of ability to demonstrate I’m wrong (both due to the fact that i am right, and due to the fact that you’re not very bright), combined with your low self esteem, gives you no recourse but to lash out with insipid ad hominems, but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right.
@41 pudge 04/07/2010 at 10:17 pm,
But I have. @25.
You think you are too smart by half. You’re not.
Your recent Violence and Politics dog whistle post is a fine example.
Those of us who read your garbage over at (un)Sound all know you moderate your posts, removing comments you dislike. Banning folks from time to time.
But amazingly, for someone who wrote he does not condone violence, one of your groupies commented @29 on March 26, 2010 02:40 PM “At this Time…Violence is not called for. However, it is time to Prepare for Violence.”
As that post’s moderator, you did not refute it or remove it. Oversight?
Pudge, you vehemently defend positions you hold with “Liar!” and “False!” all the time. Yet when somebody calls for preparing violence, you let it go.
2nd rate propagandist with delusions of grandeur, that’s what you are pudge. It is transparent.
MikeBS: Accepting that your knowledge of statistics is limited to being able to spell it
Yawn.
Rather than giving your irrelevant BS about how the electoral college works
It’s only irrelevant if you discount your claim that I was responding to. Feel free to do so.
why don’t you attempt to make the argument how the presidential elections of 2000 and 2008 are similar in incumbent rejection?
So you want me to not talk about what is directly relevant to your claim, because you say it is irrelevant, and instead want me to discuss something that is actually irrelevant. Oooooo K.
Here’s your answer …
To your irrelevant question I didn’t ask, and don’t care about? Yawn.
@64 pudge 04/08/2010 at 10:13 am,
Hey douche bag, drink a cup of coffee, wake up and try to keep up.
You asserted that “The Democrats similarly got rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004.”
How is the 2000 presidential election “similar” to the 2008 presidential election in terms of “rejection”?
Here’s your answer that the results I posted make clear: They’re not. Not at all.
Pudge lies, “I stand strong against ALL political violence I’ve seen in this country in recent years, from all political sides”
Goldy said, “increasingly violent and eliminationist rhetoric washing through the Teabagger movement”
Pudge proves he’s a liar with, “No such thing exists.”
Yeah, that’s some strong stand you’ve got going there. You’re fucking hopeless.
“I know your lack of ability to demonstrate I’m wrong (both due to the fact that i am right, and due to the fact that you’re not very bright), combined with your low self esteem, gives you no recourse but to lash out with insipid ad hominems, but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right.”
What’s up with you freaks and this group narcissism? You NPD’s seem to be schooling like fish. Bye the bye, that’s where the projection comes from, you know, NPD. OK, here we go. You are incapable of demonstrating that others are wrong. You have low self esteem. You lash out with insipid ad hominims. You’re not very bright. Oh, and you’re a fucking liar. Projection. You just can’t stop it, can you?
You dumbfucks really do need to get past this Psych 101 bullshit. But I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that any of you can do it. As long as you continue to act out your psycho-freakiness, there’s just not going to be any hope for you. None. You see, wingnuttia is no different than alcoholism or drug addiction, Pudge – the first step in moving towards some state of wellness is admitting to yourself that you have a fucking problem.
fudge @ 56: “Ass: eh. Not really. You’re looking only at the deltas”
Your claim is the results demonstrate a “similar rejection”. You don’t bother to define your terms, so I assume the delta is the important stat. Apparently this is not the case. So spell it out.
pudggy goes on: “…. not the absolute numbers.”
So bring the absolute numbers. Here, I’ll give you a hand:
2000 US House
D’s: 46,411,559
R’s: 46,750,175
2002 US House
D’s: 33,642,142
R’s: 37,091,270
2004 US House
D’s: 52,745,121
R’s: 55,731,412
2006 US House
D’s: 42,082,311
R’s: 35,674,808
Now tell me how a nailbiter in ’00 was “similar” (your term) to the results in ’06 and ’08?
Further pudginess: “A lot easier to win a lot of seats if you have a big minority.”
This means what, exactly? I’d aver it doesn’t mean a fucking thing, and just moves the conversation into the twilight zone.
And the real pudge closer: “Remember, every House seat is up every election.”
Sheer fucking genius? I think not.
more….
2008 US House
D’s: 65,241,408
R’s: 52,184,380
Over 13 million votes, pudgy. No doubt you will claim half of them were illegal mexicans voting……
MikeBS: But I have. @25.
You’re a liar. NONE of that REMOTELY shows me encouraging violence. You’re a liar.
Those of us who read your garbage over at (un)Sound all know you moderate your posts, removing comments you dislike.
You’re a liar. I do not remove comments I merely dislike, I remove comments that violate common decency, and even then, only very, very rarely.
Banning folks from time to time.
People who lie incessantly, are exceptionally abusive, and so on. Yep. So?
But amazingly, for someone who wrote he does not condone violence, one of your groupies …
You’re a liar. I have no groupies, except for Duffman. And what does what someone else say have to do with me? Did you see me praise what they said? Nope. It’s telling that since you cannot find ANY quote from me that EVEN REMOTELY encourages violence, you have to take someone else’s quote and dishonestly tie to me.
As that post’s moderator, you did not refute it or remove it. Oversight?
I don’t respond to most comments. And again, I very rarely remove comments: instead, I ban commentERS. And even then, I don’t remove comments from banned commenters retroactively, I remove FUTURE comments.
Further, the comment you provide is correct: it’s ALWAYS the time to prepare for violence. Always. There is never a time when we should not be preparing for violence, because if you wait until the threat needs a violent response, then it’s too late to prepare for it. Our Founders mostly believed that, and I believe that. It is only VERY RARELY the time to ACT violently — and we are not even close to such a time now — but it is ALWAYS time to prepare for it.
Until you admit you are lying, or demonstrate — rather than merely asserting — that I encouraged violence, I’ll not respond to you further.
Steve: Pudge lies, “I stand strong against ALL political violence I’ve seen in this country in recent years, from all political sides”
Demonstrate otherwise, if you think that’s a lie.
Yeah, that’s some strong stand you’ve got going there.
OK, I see, you’re not actually thinking here. The one is unrelated to the other, unless you’re going to engage in the question-begging fallacy of assuming it DOES exist.
What’s up with you freaks and this group narcissism?
Wow. Read your own comments lately?
Whatever. Quite typical that you didn’t demonstrate any lie by me, nor demonstrate that anything I said was incorrect in any way, despite purporting to try to do so. You just launched attacks at me, again, without talking to the points.
@69 pudge 04/08/2010 at 12:04 pm
Thanks for clearing that up.
You are definitely not a WINGNUT, our Founders mostly believed that.
Can someone tell me why this pudge fellow is so full of himself? He seems to think of himself as an intellectual and as an astute political analyst, but I see nothing in his posts which suggests he can think on his own or express any opinion other than the usual wingnuttiness. Is this what our trolls consider thoughtfulness?
@23 “Goldy is a liar.”
@41 “you’re a liar.”
@47 “Goldy, you’re a liar.” “you don’t even realize when you’re lying anymore”
@62 “He lied.” “you’re a damned liar”
@69 “You’re a liar” “You’re a liar” “You’re a liar” “You’re a liar”
Good fucking grief, Pudge!
@62 “Everything I said on that subject is true”
LMFAO!! Into NPD much?
Ass: Your claim is the results demonstrate a “similar rejection”.
Correct.
You don’t bother to define your terms, so I assume the delta is the important stat. Apparently this is not the case. So spell it out.
I already did, exactly where I referred to the deltas.
“…. not the absolute numbers.”
Right. That is where I spelled it out. Keep up.
So bring the absolute numbers. Here, I’ll give you a hand:
No, you didn’t. I said I was not referring to the delta of party membership in Congress, but absolute numbers … so why would you look at the combined votes (which, as with the electoral college, is a fake number that doesn’t exist, since people in different districts are voting for different things), instead of the absolute number of party membership in Congress?
And the GOP had a wide majority.
“A lot easier to win a lot of seats if you have a big minority.”
This means what, exactly? I’d aver it doesn’t mean a fucking thing, and just moves the conversation into the twilight zone.
Um. I think it’s obvious. But I guess you need everything spelled out. If you have 53% of the seats, it is hard to win 30 more seats. This is why looking at deltas is not very interesting. You look at the total number.
So for example, 2006 and 2004 were very similar: GOP had 232 seats in 2004, and Dems had 233 in 2006. But GOP only won 3 seats in 2004, and Dems won 31 in 2006. The delta is irrelevant to saying how the voters saw things, it’s the absolute number.
It’s a given that the Dems have done better, but if you look at the absolute numbers, rather than deltas, it’s not as impressive. The 2008 election was the only real outlier in favor of the Democrats, where they increased +20 from where the Republicans had been on and off for more than a decade.
So yep: it’s been similar.
Steve: as usual, you cannot address the actual points that you yourself raised. YAWN.
Blaming me for pointing out that you won’t back up your own claims is really boring.
“Can someone tell me why this pudge fellow is so full of himself?”
From the Mayo Clinic site,
Sure, the guy’s obviously a narcissist, big time, but it’s not like he’s the only one. I’ll ask again, what’s with the group NPD going on in Wingnut Land?
pudge give new meaning to ‘spew‘ @ 74 on 04/08/2010 at 12:25 pm.
Did you even go to school? :-D
76
Indeed, that diagnosis would seem to fit this pudge fellow. He also seems to have an anger management problem.
@75 Huh? NPD much?
@77 He dove into an empty pool with that one.
Of course, with that thick skull of his, hitting the bottom of pool likely doesn’t phase him much.
From Mayo, “Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional”
Has that twit even once shown us even an ounce of humor? I’ve never seen it.
From Mayo, “Believing that you’re better than others” “Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior”
Wow. In spades.
“He also seems to have an anger management problem.”
I’d say that goes with the fragile self-esteem. We pop his bubble and he doesn’t like it. He’ll leave soon, if he hasn’t already, limping off to SP where he’ll work to build his ego back up. He’ll be back when he’s sufficiently full of himself again.
@82 Steve, over at (un)Sound his groupies honestly believe he channels Our Founders.
It think it might be fun in the future to measure over time on a post he authors or participates in Liar! & False! / minute. Good for a laugh.
@83 I occasionally visit SP and see the yoeman’s work you do there. I notice how often Pudge jumps into the comment threads with his tired “You’re a liar!” act. Of course, I’ve also seen the wingnuts fawning over our Pudge, channeler of our founding fathers as well as constitutional scholar, wingnut-style. Bottom line, he’s just another government-hating freak who so hypocritically wants our government to inspect our nation’s vaginas to prevent violence against little American blastocyst citizens. Such a loon.
“He’ll be back when he’s sufficiently full of himself again.”
Kind of like Piper, only dumber.
@74, pudgy sez: “I already did, exactly where I referred to the deltas.”
Not true. Nowhere did you explicitly define the term “absolutes”, either in that post or anywhere else. If you are evaluating the term “repudiation” it’s the deltas that matter, not the absolute number. Otherwise, you can essentially argue that nothing has changed much since 1994 when the GOP picked up 51 seats…resulting in a majority in the House of 230 to 204. Excluding any increase in seats due to the 2000 census, that’s about where it stood after the 2004 election. Over the stretch 2000 to 2004 the GOP picked up a net 8 seats. So you’re hanging your hat on a slim majority in the range of 230 seats vs. 220 seats as a “repudiation” of the minority party. If that is the case, then the GOP has been pretty well been soundly “repudiated” most years since 1930.
More Pudgy: “The 2008 election was the only real outlier in favor of the Democrats”
That’s not what you claimed earlier, but thanks for agreeing with me on a qualified basis. Next.
removed
85
Piper had some sense of humor. This pudge loon doesn’t seem to have any. He seems too full of himself to find any humor in the grim world of politics.
Logically disturbed:
Does anyone wonder how he has a job?
“If you have 53% of the seats, it is hard to win 30 more seats.”
Yes. The marginal effort to get that added seat beyond some point does become very difficult as you have to pick up some voters who are generally quite committed to the other side. But this is different than asserting that going into an election with a 230-204 majority in the House and coming out with a 229-205 majority constitutes a “repudiation” of the minority party. I would argue that the inflexion points–where one party makes major gains constitutes a ‘repudiation’.