I think Eli Sanders really captures the sad irony of Pat Robertson’s endorsment of Rudy Giuliani:
See how that works? Let your followers know that you agree that legalized abortion and gay rights were responsible for 9/11, and then, a few years later, endorse a man who is for legalized abortion and gay rights, saying he’s the only person who can defend the country against the “bloodlust of Islamic terrorists.”
Josh Marshall has some fun with it too:
As I noted earlier, Robertson’s reasoning is that God has withdrawn his protection from us because of America’s collective embrace of a godless, secular, gay-loving culture. When you put that together with his claim today that Rudy, a paragon of the secular culture, is the one to protect us from the terrorist hordes, the upshot seems to be that Robertson has more confidence in Rudy’s leadership and national security skills than he does in God’s. And that’s one hell of an endorsement.
Your constant attempts to pigeon hole and simplify complex people and relationships never ceases to amaze me!
Rudy’s not my candidate, and I’m no particular fan of Pat’s, but you forget that politics often makes strange bedfellows.
Ask Kemper and the gang at the Sierra Club!
When any on a side other than yours acts contrary to your expectations, you call it big news. It’s not…what it represents are smart people realizing they have common interests sufficient to set aside differences in other areas.
Politics is the art of compromise…HA Happy Hooligans might consider that truism and try it some time…you just might like it!
The Piper
Like your party compromises? right.
@2…Chad T….
All the time…Yours?
When a pro-life evangelical can endorse a pro-choice Catholic, I’d say that’s evidence of compromise.
Any pro-choice Democrats endorsing pro-life Democrats for president? Or are pro-life (meaning opposed to abortions) Democrats drummed out of the party?
The Piper
i still got a Benjamin that says there are no presidential elections in 2008…but if we do Rudi has the best chance to keep the WH for the elephants….IMHO
Democrats compromise…..
Evidence Richard Pope.
Or is is compromised?
The sad irony will be when the HA liberal crowd will have to live with Hillary as she moves more and more to the center as election day approaches.
@3
Oh, yeah, Piper. I remember all the compromises of Frist and DeLay when the Rep[ublicans controlled the congress. I remember it very well. I remember the minority Democrats being shut out entirely.
How short YOUR memory is when it’s convenient. We expect nothing else from you here, but you are truly funny. You’re just not trying to be.
Right Stuff says:
The sad irony will be when the HA liberal crowd will have to live with Hillary as she moves more and more to the center as election day approaches.
11/07/2007 at 1:39 pm
——
the Clintons….the ultimate in proof there is no difference between the Donkeys and Elephants
The sheer utter lying hypocrisy of the far right is exposed for the whole world to see it in all its naked cellulose-creased inglory.
@6 = The sad irony will be when the HA liberal crowd will have to live with Hillary as she moves more and more to the center as election day approaches.
And so will you. And, my instinct tells me that it will be MUCH harder for you. Another “President Clinton” in the WH.
And as badly as YOUR clown has hosed it, she’d have to be a complete disaster to not serve two terms. And if she is, the Dems will move in somebody else.
So, gird your loins, if you have any left, and prepare for your tribulation.
Many of us are decidedly unenthusiastic about Hillary, but OUR consolation prize is the discomfort you uptight, sanctimonious assholes.
What will be YOUR consolation prize?
@8 I can see it coming: After Hillary wins, the WingNutz (TM) will spin her as the Republican candidate!
UB@8: Utter Garbage.
We’ve seen the real Hilary last October 30th. She’s more librul than you ever will be. She was caught equivocating and will continue to equivocate until Nov 2008.
And so will you. And, my instinct tells me that it will be MUCH harder for you. Another “President Clinton” in the WH.
It may suprise you but I voted for Bill Clinton, Twice.
My consolation prize? well, let’s see. We live in the greatest country in the world, where we peacefully change leadership, have peaceful elections, have an all volunteer military that is second to none, are free to work and travel where we wish, where our children are able to grow up without the fear of civil disorder or anarchy, where at the end of the day Chadt, when it comes down to it….We are all Americans and we are the most giving and greatest nation in the world…..
How’s that?
Puddybud says:
UB@8: Utter Garbage.
We’ve seen the real Hilary last October 30th. She’s more librul than you ever will be. She was caught equivocating and will continue to equivocate until Nov 2008.
11/07/2007 at 2:07 pm
————
the only real Hillary i have seen was in “Goldwater on Goldwater”
Roger Rabbit says:
@8 I can see it coming: After Hillary wins, the WingNutz ™ will spin her as the Republican candidate!
11/07/2007 at 1:56 pm
——
only after that giant military base is finished in Iraq and she bombs Iran for the Saudis
I heard alot from WingNutz, Inc.™ about ‘principles’ and ‘not compromising’ prior to 2006.
Not so much now. Any explanations, Piper?
By the way, Pipe, everything that you write leaves the word ‘treacle’ drifting through windmills of my mind (all apologies to Dusty Springfield).
#3 – Piper Scott says:
No such thing as a pro-life democrat candidate.
I can’t even think of a single pro-life democrat.
@16…Second Hand Rose…
All done trashing the little people, are you?
Us Republicans compromise all the time in our own house, and in legislative halls when necessary. But when we compromise our core beliefs, as we did prior to 2006, we lose.
BTW…yesterday, I hit on about 95% of my choices…You?
While I’m at it…what’s a good cure for leaf curl and black spot?
The Piper
Yeah Al Gore was pro life but he was converted (perverted) to becum VP in 1992.
Ah, Puddy-my-word-is-my-bond-bud!
Well. What a surprise. Another wingnut liar.
Who knew?
@1
When any on a side other than yours acts contrary to your expectations, you call it big news.
So Pat Robertson endorses for President someone who he previously accused of helping to bring about 9/11, and this isn’t a noteworthy thing to you?
And you’re wrong. When a Republican is completely hypocritical, it’s not contrary to my expectations. If you said something that wasn’t retarded, that would be contrary to my expectations.
Also, all you crackpiper fans, send me material for the second Crackpiper Chronicles, that I’ve started working on. Apparently, he’s leaving a long trail of idiocy at Crosscut as well, which I don’t read very regularly. If he’s left any gems over there, send them my way.
Lee, I avoid those ‘little nuggets’ on Crosscut just like I do the dog turds when walking in Belltown. ;-)
@21…Lee…
Would you like my most recent election predictions and post-election analysis? Both were pretty much spot on!
Yours?
How’s that I-25 sittin’ with you? And I-960? How about the big dump job on Prop 1? See that one comin’? I sure did!
Cheers!
The Piper
5 That’s compromise? The Democrats tried to shoot Richard in the back, and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.
Lee:
It’s enough to endure his sanctimonious stench here without actively seeking it out. My sense of humour has limits.
Considering his prodigious volume of dreck, you should have no trouble maxing out server storage without soliciting more.
@23
I didn’t make election predictions. I wanted I-25 to fail and Prop 1 to pass. That doesn’t mean I expected either thing to happen. But what I do get out of this election is to laugh at your sorry ass when we elect an Elections Director and we still have an elections office that makes mistakes (and magically has a much larger budget).
@25
I’ve got a few gems already, but would love 1-2 more to round out the post. Crackpiper’s no Marvin Stamn, but he’s definitely stupid enough to keep me laughing.
@26…Lee…
If that happens, then the people will have direct recourse at the ballot box, which was the point of the whole exercise.
The Piper
@28
And it won’t matter because you won’t be electing the most competent person, you’ll be electing the person who’s better at running a campaign.
@28
This is why everyone thinks you’re an idiot, Crackpiper. Do you think it was a coincidence that the crazies of the right (Sound Politics) and the crazies of the left (Washblog) agreed on this one? It’s because it appealed to people who prefer to believe what they want to believe rather than what reality shows.
@26
What the righties are too stupid to comprehend is that if the difference in numbers between the candidates is less than the statistical margin of error, there’s a problem that no amount of election direction will ever solve.
So, unable to comprehend the simplest arithmetic principles, they scream “FRAUD” when it doesn’t go their way. Idiots.
ugh. delete one “election” above.
I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to Pat Robertson. However, when I’m channel surfing I’ll occasionally listen to him for a few minutes on TBN. Having watched my mother die of Alzheimer’s, I can’t help but see a few signs of mental deterioration in his on-camera behavior. Mind you, this isn’t so much related to the content of what he’s trying to say, so much as that the man’s affect has changed significantly from a few years ago, and there are certain little signs there that are all too familiar to anyone who’s watched someone close to them fade out as their brain literally rots away from the inside. If so, either he’s simply falling victim to lapses in reasoning or someone is taking advantage of his condition and exploiting the man for political advantage.
At first I was a little surprised by Robinson’s endorsement, but upon further reflection, I realized that I shouldn’t have been surprised.
First, the Republicans are primarily a party based upon protecting the economic and power status of their fellow Republicans. Robertson, for all his evangelical credentials, falls into that economic/power group as well.
Second, the Republicans have for decades been taking advantage of the Evangelicals by painting the Democrats as deamons on the abortion and gay issues, and arguing that it was a moral imperative for Evangelicals to vote Republican. But once in office, they don’t expend the slightest bit of political capital to advance those issues. Instead, they just give themselves tax cuts, and then argue that “it’s all the liberal judges fault”, and “you have to vote for us for another decade or so, so we can root out all the nasty liberal judges in order to solve the abortion and gay marriage issues”. (Yes, I’ve been to those meetings, and heard Republicans say these very things to what they presumed would be a “safe” audience). But despite having appointed a majority of judges on the Supreme Court, those issues are still in the forefront of the Evangelical agenda. Why? Because the LAST thing the Republicans want is for those issues to be resolved in favor of the Evangelical agenda. If they did, then the Evangelicals (who are for the most part middle-class or lower-middle class), might wake up and realize that it is the Republicans who are continually picking their pockets on every other issue.
Third, Robertson enjoys the priviledge and prestige of being a “power broker”. I thought he would milk this right up to the nomination, but apparantly he thought he had to move now. I’m guessing he is convinced that Gulianni is going to win the nomination, and he had better get on the boat now, before it’s too late.
Fourth, I suspect that both Gulianni and Robertson both looked at the prospect of the Evangelicals “opting out” of the 2008 elections, or putting forth a third-party candidate, and saw it was a guarantee of disaster for the Republican party. I doubt Robertson and Gulianni really like each other, or their politics, but they like the prospect of a Democratic president even less, so they are willing to “sleep with the devil” if that is what it takes. Ironic, I agree.
Fifth, I would bet that Gulliani probably did some but-kissing, assuring Robertson that he would support the Republican platform on abortion and gay marriage, and make some excuse to the effect that “You know, the only way I could become Mayor of New York was to say those things, but I really didn’t mean them, you know how it is….”
Well, it’ll be interesting to see what staying power Robertson’s endorsement has when television spots showing Rudy in Solemn High Drag appear.
RHP6033 @ 34
Excellent analysis. When you pervert religion in order to achieve political aims, you corrupt and debase both politics and religion. The unholy alliance between Pat Robertson and Rudy Giuliani is a perfect example of this.
@29…Lee…
You’ve said some truly bizarre stuff, but that takes the cake!
To extrapolate: voters never select the better candidate or support the more appropriate issue, they just vote for who runs the best campaign?
Who knew this was a political version of Miss America?
Face it…yesterday your side got your asses whipped. No disgrace in losing, but there is in not honestly acknowledging it and dealing with it maturely. Now what you’re doing is playing the little snippy name calling games so often and un-cleverly done by other HA Happy Hooligans.
In 2006, no one was harder on my side than me.
Pouting doesn’t become anyone, Lee…
The Piper
Stupid@20: Yeah, I wasted my word on the likes of you.
I came back becuz it was a glorious night last night. So much for the rug sweeping activity. I really like how Goldy (I actually typed that) must be stewing over another Eyman referendum passage.
@37
To extrapolate: voters never select the better candidate or support the more appropriate issue, they just vote for who runs the best campaign?
It depends on the importance of the race. If it’s a major race, people pay attention. But people aren’t going to pay attention to the Elections Director office. We barely pay enough attention to the Port Commission or the School Board.
Face it…yesterday your side got your asses whipped. No disgrace in losing, but there is in not honestly acknowledging it and dealing with it maturely.
My side? I-25 had bipartisan support, as did the effort to bring down Prop 1. I was very happy with R-67 and have no complaints about the City Council races or even the KC Prosecutor race (I voted for Satterberg because he’s very well respected in the medical marijuana community). The only thing that really bugs me is I-960, not because it passed, because that doesn’t matter – it will be declared unconstitutional, but because it wasted more of our tax dollars. You see, my “side” is the people who understand that focusing on taxes is stupid, whereas focusing on wasteful spending is smart. I-25 will increase the budget of the elections office – wasteful. Prop 1’s defeat will mean that transit will cost even more money down the road – wasteful. I-960 was a complete waste of money from top to bottom because it will never be upheld by the courts – wasteful.
In 2006, no one was harder on my side than me.
Maybe if you weren’t such an idiot, you wouldn’t be on the losing side so much.
@39
It still makes you a liar with no honor. You said your word was your bond and that you wouldn’t be back. So,like your buddy Mark the Welsher, you pretend your obligation never existed and expect people to have any regard for you
But now, of course, you’ll say that you don’t care what we “moonbat!s” think of you and post your shit anyway.
I certainly hope that exceeds Goldy’s tolerance. If it doesn’t, then this place is no longer worth the hassle.
Piper: Somehow I remember the gloating and you suck commentary from these same people after the last election. Go back to November 2006 election night results and read their snippy comments.
Chadt: I came back for election results. I will leave shortly. I am enjoying this day! I never cared for you or your ilk. I do remember the comments of November 2006.
Lee, if it’s a known fact that reducing taxes produces more revenues to the point JFK understood it, why does “your side” focus so much on extracting more taxes from the masses?
To Art @ 33:
I am afraid I don’t have such first-hand experience with Alzheimers, so I can’t venture an opinion on the subject.
However, I have known for years that Robertson is subject to a disease which is also dangerous to the mind: “insular authoritarian self-confinement” (my term, for which I intend to file for appropriate trademark protection. ;)
“Insular Authoritarian Self-Confinement” has its roots in tendency of Evangelical pastors to believe in an authoritarian structure, and that dissent against the authorities which “God has established” is a sin. (Students of history will recognize this as a continuation of the “devine right of kings” theory of government). Therefore, if you are part of an Evangelical church or organization, such as Robertson’s “700 Club”, it’s a sin to dissagree with Pat Robertson about anything which Pat Robertson considers to be important.
Also, Evangelical pastors tend to be a bit paranoid that someone will sneak in and “steal part (or all) of their flock”. Therefore, they tend to make sure that they have very compliant boards of directors, and those in authority in the organization. They also tend to micro-manage, never really trusting subordinates. They do have some good reasons for this – splits within Evangelical churches are frequent, and happen often when their is a dispute between the pastor and some subordinate, who then goes out to form his own church or organization and take a good part of the membership with them.
Third, there is a modern trend in the Evangelical churches toward “positive thinking”. You might think this is a part of Rev. Shular’s movement, but it really is more tied to the authoritarian tendency. Basically, anyone who voices doubts about the eventual success of a venture is to doubt God’s miracle powers, and a rebellion against God’s established authorities. Even suggesting that something proposed by Robertson or some similar authority figure is not valued advice, but is instead a negative thought, a voice of dissention, the mouthpeace of the devil seeking to create doubt among believers and hinder God’s plans. Such “critical voices” are usually quickly removed from an Evangelical organization, one way or another.
Fourth, Evangelical Christians should “set themselves apart from the world”, so they are not tempted or corrupted by it. They should especially protect themselves from other influences which might be critical of their authoritarian figures, causing them to doubt their pronouncements or direction.
Fifth, at the pastoral level, there is a need for fellowship of some kind. However, it is rare for there to be any real disparity among them. They usually “flock together”, so you don’t have a lot of eye-opening back-and-forth discussions. Instead, you have a lot of pastors who pretty much agree with one another, thereby reinforcing whatever direction they are heading. Once you get to Robertson’s level, you have a lot of younger pastors who tend to feed Robertson’s ego by looking to him for advice and encouragement. And at this highest level of authority, Robertson (and Farwell, etc.) will get together with political and other persons of influence in the Republican party. Even this tends to be self-reinforcing, as everyone tells each other what the other want’s to hear.
The end result is that they have become very insular, without competing ideas to make them reconsider their positions, and moreover, they tend to believe that they represent the majority, because they only encounter dissent among their critics, whom they consider to be tools of the devil.
Which is why, when Robertson speculates on the air that the U.S. should assisinate the President of Venezualla, he is surpised by the criticism, in a kind of “What did I say…?” moment. He has said and heard the same thing probably dozens of times previously, and everyone around him nods their heads in agreement, so he is utterly surprised when someone points out that even stating the thought was a horrible idea.
Is Puddybud at 43 still preaching the Laffler curve? That’s hillarious. Even the Republican presidential candidates don’t try to trot out that old tired pony any more.
@39…Lee…
“But people aren’t going to pay attention to the Elections Director office. We barely pay enough attention to the Port Commission or the School Board.”
You underestimate the people. Besides, sometimes we misunderstand what us junkies perceive as their indifference or lack of attention with their focus on other, often more important priorities. Politics isn’t the be all and end all of life, no matter what Goldy says when he complains about what’s on the front page of the Times.
Focusing on taxes isn’t, as you put it, “stupid.” It’s respecting the people who pay them. Yet it’s equally important to focus on spending, and when it came to Prop 1, as my friend on the Eastside said, “You can’t deliver $1 of value for $2 of taxes and expect the electorate to go along with it.”
That’s about the best assessment of the link between taxes and spending I’ve heard in a very long time. Wish I’d said it!
You need to consider that maybe the voters were also saying NO to additional transit, period! Using your spending analysis, maybe they see it as not enough bang for way too many bucks. After all…50 measly miles!
The distinct possibility exists that voters do not share your POV on taxes versus spending. The key to understanding yesterday, then, is not to assume they share your values or analytical perspective, but to be among them and listen to what they say and think and feel. That’s what I will try to do. So far, I’ve reached out to friends all over the ideological spectrum asking for perspectives and a sense of understanding.
What I’m hearing isn’t lock-step, but it sure don’t equate with what you’re saying; voters ARE irked about taxes, and since they pay the freight and call the shots, bitching at or about them is both democratically disrespectful and a wasted effort.
Think and try to understand outside of your box…It’s a worthwhile exercise.
The Piper
43 Reducing taxes may in the long run increase revenue, but massive deficit spending works against this doing any good be fostering spiralling inflation.
In effect, the Publicans running the federal government have thwarted the (possible) good intentions of conservatives at the state and local level by inflating the cost of everything–including what it costs our local government to pave a road, run a bus, catch a crook, put out a fire, teach a kid arithmetic or clean up after an act of nature. Either we have to figure out a way to raise more of those devalued dollars to pay for it all, or we’ll have defer some of those things, or do without them altogether.
What part of government do y’all really want “drowned in a bathtub” anyway?
@46
You’re wrong, Piper.
It is impossible to underestimate you.
@46
You underestimate the people.
No, I don’t. We re-elected George Bush.
Besides, sometimes we misunderstand what us junkies perceive as their indifference or lack of attention with their focus on other, often more important priorities.
Um, no. Most voters are woefully uninformed and tend to vote based upon superficial things that good campaigners understand. That’s actually been a key part of why the GOP had been so successful for a while.
Politics isn’t the be all and end all of life, no matter what Goldy says when he complains about what’s on the front page of the Times.
Exactly! And that’s why people aren’t going to pay attention to what’s happening in the Elections office in order to make an informed ballot decision. You’re making my point for me.
Focusing on taxes isn’t, as you put it, “stupid.” It’s respecting the people who pay them. Yet it’s equally important to focus on spending, and when it came to Prop 1, as my friend on the Eastside said, “You can’t deliver $1 of value for $2 of taxes and expect the electorate to go along with it.”
Your friend on the Eastside isn’t considering the whole equation. Sometimes you have to deliver $1 of value for $2 of taxes in order to prevent having to pay $5 down the road. Prop 1 was expensive, but it’s necessary to dig us out of a hole we’ve been put in by previous failures to build rail infrastructure in this city. The need for rail here isn’t going away, and it’s just going to be more expensive down the road.
You need to consider that maybe the voters were also saying NO to additional transit, period!
Oh, I know that, and that’s why I’m furious at the Sierra Club. No one (not even you) has been saying dumber things about Prop 1 than them. They truly believe that the roads part of Prop 1 won’t be built now. They don’t realize the calculus. A higher percentage of people will want roads over transit, and that’s not likely to change any time soon. The Sierra Club has convinced itself that people are a lot smarter than they really are, and are going to all line up for transit solutions because of global warming. They are quickly becoming the neocons of the left, convincing themselves that everyone will be so fearful of global warming that all of their plans will be slam dunks.
Using your spending analysis, maybe they see it as not enough bang for way too many bucks. After all…50 measly miles!
Having lived on the east coast, I can tell you that every rail system out there has paid unbelieveable dividends in improving people’s ability to live and work where they want and increase productivity and property values. Our investment in light rail would not have been wasteful.
The distinct possibility exists that voters do not share your POV on taxes versus spending.
I know they don’t share my POV. That’s why I’m not surprised by the election results. People aren’t very smart. Obviously, you don’t notice this, mainly because you’re one of those people. But that’s the reality. People focus on taxes when they should be focused on spending instead. Why do you think I blog about the drug war and the war on terror? Because those two “wars” are the largest money drains on our national economy. And it’s equal parts frustrating and hilarious when idiots like you cheer on the war on terror and the war on drugs while complaining about your taxes.
The key to understanding yesterday, then, is not to assume they share your values or analytical perspective, but to be among them and listen to what they say and think and feel.
I’m not having any problems understanding yesterday. Just because I push for certain initiatives doesn’t mean that I expect them to win or believe that everyone agrees with me. When we went into Iraq with 70% of the people supporting the decision, I wasn’t having trouble understanding it. I was just, once again, amazed at how stupid people can be.
What I’m hearing isn’t lock-step, but it sure don’t equate with what you’re saying; voters ARE irked about taxes, and since they pay the freight and call the shots, bitching at or about them is both democratically disrespectful and a wasted effort.
It may be a wasted effort, but I could care less if it’s disrespectful. If people can’t figure out that some tax money is spent intelligently and some tax money is not, and that the smart thing to do is focus on the tax money that’s not spend smartly, rather than just complaining about taxes in general, they don’t deserve respect. They’re idiots.
@49…Lee…
So…essentially you don’t believe in popular sovereignty, the democratic process, and the will of the people?
What are the first three words to the Preamble to the Constitution?
In whom does the Washington State Constitution vest ultimate sovereignty?
You’ll never convince anyone to align themselves with you by calling them idiots. For someone who values political skills as much as you say you do, you have remarkably poor ones yourself. No wonder you do your side more harm than good.
Maybe you should spend time listening to Copeland’s Fanfare for the Common Man. Or reading history, especially the history made by ordinary men and women who, when called upon, do extraordinary and heroic things. They’re the ones who don’t share your POV on taxes, spending, or Prop 1. And ultimately, they’re the ones we who involve ourselves in the political process must respect or we’ll never see our issues or candidates emerge victorious at the polls.
You may not like the people’s decisions, you may even regard them as apostasy, but if you are to be taken seriously, you must accept them, bow to their will, and agree to live within the framework they’ve chosen. That’s democracy.
The Piper
Piper @ 37: “Face it…yesterday your side got your asses whipped.”
I could critique this comment from a number of different angles, as you’ve left yourself so wide open to being picked apart. I think I’ll just say, however, that anyone who would try to identify any sort of partisan victory based on yesterday’s results is delusional. The issues simply did not divide along partisan lines and the alliances were in many cases quite unusual. From my own perspective, I was most concerned about R67 and believe that was the most important issue on the ballot. You, and your Republican friends in the insurance industry, got your asses handed to you on that one. Outspent 4 to 1, consumers told the insurance industry what to do with its lies.
I know they don’t share my POV. That’s why I’m not surprised by the election results. People aren’t very smart. Obviously, you don’t notice this, mainly because you’re one of those people.
———————-
You’ll never get very far with people with this, which is insulting. There were plenty of solid reasons to be against Prop 1 and a lot of pretty smart people voted against it.
If you’re going to change people’s opinions you’ll need to take a completely different approach.
This simply alienates.
So…essentially you don’t believe in popular sovereignty, the democratic process, and the will of the people?
I never said that. What I’m saying is that in our affluence, Americans have become very apathetic to the importance of democracy and the importance of overseeing those in government. It comes down to personal responsibility. Citizens of other countries have recently been demonstrating much more responsibility than us when it comes to their government and what they expect it to do (and not do).
You’ll never convince anyone to align themselves with you by calling them idiots.
Oh, I know that I won’t be the ones convincing them, but reality eventually will. Look at Iraq. Even though 70% of the people supported the invasion, now only around 30-35% still believe it was a good idea. That’s over 100 million adults who realized that they were an idiot and learned from it. They may not always be idiots, but when it came to Iraq, they were. I’ve been an idiot before (as a Jew, I used to have a very unbalanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and had someone completely humiliate me when I was around 22), but I learn from it and don’t stubbornly continue to believe in things because I want to or am too proud to admit I was wrong.
For someone who values political skills as much as you say you do, you have remarkably poor ones yourself. No wonder you do your side more harm than good.
I’m not sure what evidence you have that I do “my side” more harm than good, but then again, you don’t usually have evidence for any of the bullshit you say.
Or reading history, especially the history made by ordinary men and women who, when called upon, do extraordinary and heroic things. They’re the ones who don’t share your POV on taxes, spending, or Prop 1.
Was this supposed to make sense?
You may not like the people’s decisions, you may even regard them as apostasy, but if you are to be taken seriously, you must accept them, bow to their will, and agree to live within the framework they’ve chosen. That’s democracy.
So is this what you’d say to a black man in Alabama in 1840?
@52
James,
That comment was more in relation to I-960 than Prop 1. Prop 1 was a bit more complicated (although I disagree with those who believe that Seattle is better off that it was defeated).
Republicans are pro-foetus – not pro-life.
If you were pro-life you wouldn’t send young people off to die in useless oil wars.
re 50: Piper, if you were in favor of the will of the majority of citizens, you would not back measures that give 41% of the voters the ability to block the will of 59% of the voters.
You are a small-minded, self-concerned hypocrite. In AZ there is a retirement town called Sun City. Years ago all the old farts would vote down any school bill that the town of Peoria wanted to pass. Eventually, they just wouldn’t let the old duffers vote on school related issues — because they did not display any awareness of having a stake in the future.
That could be said of all WingNutz™.
@55 & 56…Soon-to-be-Composted Rose…
You certainly do fall back on cliches and non-sequitur ad hominum attacks rather quickly, don’t you? Thin offense on your part.
Since I believe life begins at conception, to be pro-fetus is to be pro-life. I don’t like the idea of sucking any life down a sink, even yours.
“Useless oil wars?” Show me the oil, then I’ll show you members of my family who’ve been there or will eventually get there. How hackneyed and dimwitted are you???
In a democracy, the majority governs, but the rights of the minority are protected, hence the validity of super-majorities in certain instances. SJR 4204, which would have done away with super-majorities in school levy elections, was rejected by well over a majority of the voters.
The majority decided to continue to require more than 50% plus one. What’s not democratic about that?
I’m well aware of Del Webb’s Sun City. If what you say is true, then the Peoria city fathers and mothers violated the political and civil rights of Sun City residents. Instead of denying them the right to vote – where’s all the usual angst about voter suppression??? – why not continue to try and persuade and educate? Isn’t that the democratic way?
We have elections to make decisions. The People decided, now either live with it or stew in your sour juices. Again, you evidence elitism by showing nothing but contempt and disdain for the expressed will of the people.
I’m sure next time they’ll all ask you first as to how they should vote.
In the meantime, you look more and more ridiculous with each post.
The Piper
#45: No I wasn’t preaching Arther Laffer. What I do is pay attention.
Remember the New Jersey speeding guvnur Jon Corzine? Well guvnur Corzine increased the New Jersey cigarette tax to $2.40 a pack. Guess what? The New Jersey cigarette net tax result was $23 MM in lost revenue FY 2007 over FY 2006. Bright move right? Check out the cigarette tax revenues in NY, PA and DEL. Tell me if they went down or up rhp6033.
Another thing. NJ is all librul, guvnur, local state and local senate houses. New Jersey’s debt load is 2X higher since 2000. It’s now $30 billion and climbing. So to you taxing works huh?
@57
Piper saith: You certainly do fall back on cliches and non-sequitur ad hominum attacks rather quickly, don’t you? Thin offense on your part and, In the meantime, you look more and more ridiculous with each post
Nobody looks more ridiculous here than you, Piper. Quantity is no substitute for quality, and you seem to think that filling this (and other) forums with your effluvia makes points.
Remember well your quasi-populist postings. They will come back to haunt you. And if you want people to believe that you do not use ad-hominem attacks, stop posting them yourself. Just because you fancy yourself a wordsmith and use florid language to camouflage your barbs doesn’t mean you’re not attacking the person rather than the idea.
As for your original specious statements about not gloating over the local discomfort, you have done a great deal of it, and if you don’t think so, I’m sure Lee or someone else will reread your comments and draw your attention to them.
The ultimate hypocrisy is your putative populism, when your posts here have always reeked of haughty condescension. A famous Scot wrote terse lines about the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us. You think we’re too dull to see beneath your projection; the fact is, you are quite transparent because you evidently lack sufficient introspection to see that there is a most visible disconnect between what you are and what you want us to think you are.
And, when you spew out as much as you do, you will inevitably lose track of comments that will embarrass you later.
#27 Lee says:
Damn, I really had an impact on you. Still can’t get me off your mind. Did you post about me some more on your blog? You know, I never posted about you on my blog. Sorry.
I stopped by hoping that you would write something interesting about the cheney impeachment. Whatcha say Lee? Why didn’t your elected leaders take the opportunity to impeach him?
By the way, I see a while back you posted again on sound politics, got your ass handed to you and split. Did you write on your blog you won again?
I see that the rabbit is still spending all day posting. Sad.
Piper accuses: “…cliches and non-sequitur ad hominum attacks….”
1- A cliche is a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty.
Piper says: “Since I believe life begins at conception, to be pro-fetus is to be pro-life.”
2- A non-sequitur is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premise.
Piper says: “The majority decided to continue to require more than 50% plus one. What’s not democratic about that?”
Piper says: “Since I believe life begins at conception, to be pro-fetus is to be pro-life.”
Someone else cannot vote or legislate my rights away. That’s what is not democratic about it. Because rights, once gone, can usually only be retrieved through force of arms.
3- Ad hominum attacks attack the arguer rather than his argument.
Piper says: “How hackneyed and dimwitted are you???”
re 61: None of this will penetrate your skull. You are impervious to reason.
You start your reasoning process with a conclusion that you like and feel comfortable with without any regard for how the conclusion was arrived at: You call these irrational beliefs your :”Core Values.”
I stated when the Iraqi war started that it was all about oil. People like you were saying something quite different at the time. I find your acceptance and embrace (at long last) that this is a war about oil a reminder of what a corrupt, sleazy, and odious person you are.
You would send your own children into this Hell rather than admit you were wrong.
@60
God, Marv, I almost (almost) miss you. You were replaced by someone who uses the same arguments, but tries to dress them up by using big words and quotations from dead poets and movies he’s seen, and, and…well, you get the point. You may have been ridiculous, but you didn’t try to get by by putting on colossal airs and florid language and assuming we were all idiots and none of us knew big words. Or florid bullshit when we saw it.
You’ve got a blog????
URL???
God, Lee, you can do a toofur!
@65 It IS hard to get him out of the mind. Jesus, is it contagious?
No sense in asking Marv for the cure. Or antidote.
@60…MS…
So…now I meet the one who Lee, et al, contends I’m not as slimey as…
If you irked him as much as he contends, you must be a marvelous person indeed!
Lee’s POV has all the flexibility of a cheap pane of glass; short on historical perspective, long on someone else’s talking points, and secretly hungering for a hacienda in Kent.
I do genuinely feel sorry for him as one would a destitute relation…who I would no more give a fiver to than I would to the DNC.
He bangs the same drum – offbeat as always – with only his left hand; the tune isn’t inspiring nor can one dance to it – merely distracting and cacophonous noise.
But…he can have his moments, and I regard him as not malicious, but merely misguided.
Any insights into how I might contribute to his growth and the general spreading of his still tiny wings?
The Piper
I think Dennis Kuccinch has it right .
Americans are to blame for 9/11
Beam me up , we
Marv:
Have I mentioned Piper’s skirt, purse, and dead sheep?
YOU don’t dead sheep, do you?
Which one of you kooks buy into the nut job whacko fringe fuck leftist theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration? I know you are out there!!
@69
You’re looking for a soulmate? Better try somewhere else.And Bush afficianados don’t do well here, if that’s the angle.
chadt @ 59 (re: our Scottish friend, the Piper): “The ultimate hypocrisy is your putative populism, when your posts here have always reeked of haughty condescension. A famous Scot wrote terse lines about the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us. You think we’re too dull to see beneath your projection; the fact is, you are quite transparent because you evidently lack sufficient introspection to see that there is a most visible disconnect between what you are and what you want us to think you are.”
Nice job of analyzing him, outstanding prose. I cut Piper slack at times because, unlike most of the trolls on this blog, he can string a couple sentences together in coherent fashion. And, he plays an instrument emphasizing drone tones. (Sadly, that’s important to some of us.) I believe the Piper has the usual doubts that any human being should have. Someday, he will be mature enough to acknowledge his weaknesses.
White Rose says:
“Republicans are pro-foetus – not pro-life.
If you were pro-life you wouldn’t send young people off to die in useless oil wars.”
Dont you ever get tired of bumper sticker crap that makes no sense?
Babies are INNOCENT lives… they should at least be given the chance to screwing up before they are killed.
Terrorists are not going away simply because we withdraw our troops. And by the way, roughly 900 military people die every single year in car accidents in the US and at work; I never, ever hear you lefties screaming about this number, which, incidentally is equal to how many soldiers have died in Iraq every year.
And once again, if this is an ‘oil war’ where is all the oil brainiac? Did we take it from them? Why isnt the price of oil going down here for us since *we* stole all of Iraq’s oil? God, you are clueless..
well, just in the event we have a president “ghouliani” i think we ought to get in touch with all the circuses and zoos and our african friends to take up a really huge collection of elephant dung!
#68 chadt says:
Nope. Your significant other is safe from me.
#66 Piper Scott says:
Nice to make your acquaintance Mr. Piper.
I had such an impact on Lee he threatened to slap stuff out of my hands. I welcomed the challenge, of course knowing he’s a liberal/democrat/dixiecrat/progressive (use whichever label is in fashion today) he never would. He later said he wouldn’t because I lived too far away and it wasn’t worth his time. I pointed out as one of the big boys on this blog he could see IPs and knew I wasn’t in the area before hand.
Something else he hated about me was pointing out every argument in engaged in on soundpolitics he got his ass handed to him. And then he would run with his tail between his legs back to his blog where he would write he won the argument. Pretty funny.
I also posted daily all the newspaper articles that reported on politician malfeasance, and noted that when political party was omitted it was ALWAYS a democrat/dixiecrat/klansmember/liberal/progressive.
Lee was so obsessed with me he wrote a few blog posts about me on his own blog. Nothing like getting into someone’s head. Not that it was all that tough.
Ann: How can you be so obtuse?
YOU are not the segment of the world’s population that it is intended will be financially gaining from the $16 TRILLION dollars of oil beneath the sands of Iraq.
And meanwhile, oil has gone from $28 a barrel to $100 a barrel.
Have you, Ann, noticed any shortage of gas? They will sell you all you will buy at $3+ a gallon. Seven years ago it was $1.15 a gallon.
@75
Ah, Marv. Nice to see you’re still the same delusional soul, battered but unchanged. With you and Piper both infecting the joint, Lee will have to start buying additional hard drives….
@75f…MS…
LeeBoy has targeted me as well with a thread entitled Crackpiper Chronicles. Of course, I’m flattered that I get all this free publicity and that he distributes my fecundity throughout the blogosphere.
He does have some weird theories that can only be explained as probably products of a mispent youth. History and law aren’t his strong suits by any stretch.
He actually reminds me of prosletyzers of certain sects who come to my door, give me their pitch, and than stand mute and dumb-faced when I gleefully take them on by pointing out the fallacies in both their doctrine and history. Apologetics isn’t their strong suit, nor is it Lee’s.
Still…I had to feel sorry for him given his failed attempt to become a suburbanite, which meanes eventual Republicanation followed by an I Love Tim Eyman tattoo.
But I do appreciate the HA sandbox within which I have such fun! Fish in a barrel!
The Piper
#77 chadt says:
Battered? Please, put the joint down, it’s not doing you any good. Life’s been good for me the last months. You should try it sometime instead of all the hate you live with.
So sorry you see it as infecting, the truth is we are trying to help you. Bring you “out of the shadows” as they say.
So, how’s that cheney impeachment going? Did you notice how many democrats are running scared? The reps sure embarrassed the dems the other day. Maybe it had something to do with that Ashton show, punked!
#72 Ann says:
War for oil? What a tired old cliche.
What would a real “war for oil” look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.
There would have been no overland campaign – what for? – and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?
Get the point Ann? Unless you have some real “proof” to backup your claim.
#63 chadt says:
I can’t say the same. Who are you. Have I ever replied to you before?
Hell no, I NEVER assumed you were all idiots. I knew better. Although I will assume Mr. Piper never assumed either.
Yup, a few of them. Sorry, I use a php script that prevents liberals from accessing the site.
#78Piper Scott says:
Crackpiper, how cute. I remember playing name games in elementary school. Ah, fond memories. I’ll have to check out his blog for your words of wisdom. Something else I pointed out that pissed him off was his posts about me raised his hits, earning him more $$ for the ads on his blog. No doubt he also profited off of you.
I’m waiting for his post about seeing UFOs and anal probing.
Lee is a piece of work. Even SeattleJew has posted a thread on his blog about Lee- “When AntiSemitism Leaks Through” Some of the highlights…
“Weirdly, after censoring my posts, he [Lee] explained himself by accusing me of accusing him of racism.”
“despite his [Lee] frequent effort to win arguments by calling others, me included, a prick, stupid ass, fool, etc.”
“since Lee deleted my posts at HA, here (briefly) are the ideas again.”
One commenter made this observation-
Something that did strike me as strange, you wrote that “YOU” have never accused him of being racist and that you introduced him to some black folks you knew. Didn’t he know any black folks on his own? If that’s his picture, it would be hard to imagine some one that age not knowing any black folks unless he was indeed racist.
/2007/08/when-antisemitism-leaks-through.html
It’s not too late. If he tries hard he can still do it. Wait until the system (aka liberal government) screws him over, he’ll be switching sides in a heartbeat. Wait until he finally becomes financially solvent and realizes that taxes is his greatest burden in his life.
I did enjoy myself at first. Then it got sad. And sadder.