Saturday, July 16, 2011

On This Movement Toward the Right

1) I don't mean to be rude here, but if Michele Bachmann and her Bible-thumping/counselor husband still think that you can actually counsel and/or "pray away the gay", then, yeah, that is a level of idiocy that ALL rank and file Republicans really need to be wary about. I mean, the saner ones have to realize that the farther in this wacked-out direction that they, as a party, gravitate, the better and better that Mr. Obama starts looking to us. I'm telling you here, folks, if I were Mr. Boehner, I'd be pulling this lady aside and reading her the riot act, telling her that if she ever wanted to see the light of day on any committees, etc..............2) Speaking of the wacky right, I just saw this press conference that had, not only Bachmann in it but Steve King and Louie (we'll soon be overridden by terrorist babies) Gohmert as well. I mean, come on! How in the hell is THAT an example of putting the Republicans' best foot forward? Just the mere fact that these people get elected is scary enough. Add to that the fact that the leadership gives them additional power. Yikes, huh?............3) His hard-core partisanship aside, I had always considered Sean Hannity to be a fairly affable fellow. a) He seemed to have a sense of humor and b) he would at least on occsion let his guard down. Lately, though, he is as riveted to his message as Wile E. Coyote was to the Roadrunner.............4) And he's getting frigging bad-assed, too. For instance, he will never, EVER, refer to Secretary Geithner without prefacing his name with "tax-cheat Tim"; Tax-cheat, Timothy Geithner. I mean, I suppose that, if in fact you're a hard-core conservative/Republican partisan, this type of stuff is flat-out gravy-train for you. For the rest of us (saner folks), though, it's borderline unwatchable.

30 comments:

Sue said...

I'm surprised you can stomach Hannity. I have never heard him say a fair statement about the president and even tries to egg on his guests to go so far right in their criticisms they are falling off the TV screen.. He is not fair minded at all, and really disgusting piece of doo doo..

As for the GOP pandering to the extremists, they feel they NEED to hang on to the only group left who supports their extreme agenda, the teabaggers. Why else would they fall all over these blind followers? They like their support to be un educated, deaf, dumb, and blind to their antics..

dmarks said...

There's nothing extreme about Hannity. I'm saying that looking at things from the center, not from the hard right.

Extremists of both the left AND right are locked out of the political process. It has become way too common to label someone as an "extremist" without regard to the meaning, just for anyone whomever uses the word happens to disagree with.

Dervish Sanders said...

The far Right extremists totally dominate politics. Why is dmarks is in denial regarding this fact? Who knows... the guy holds a lot of loopy ideas that only radical fringe types agree with.

Hannity calling Timmy G. a "tax cheat" is totally partisan politics. Why else attack a fellow Republican?

dmarks said...

"The far Right extremists totally dominate politics. Why is dmarks is in denial regarding this fact?"

It's not a fact. Right-wing extremist, just like those on the left, is locked out of politics.

Words MEAN things, WD. "Extremist" doesn't just mean someone we happen to disagree with. And that is how you are using it.

"Who knows... the guy holds a lot of loopy ideas that only radical fringe types agree with."

Name one. However, if this is your definition, you are definitely an extremist. The "Bush is a war criminal" slander is indeed a loopy idea of the radical fringes.

"Hannity calling Timmy G. a "tax cheat" is totally partisan politics. Why else attack a fellow Republican?"

That's evidence of someone being a hardline partisan, not an extremist.

Dervish Sanders said...

dmarks: That is how you are using it.

No, it isn't.

dmarks: Name one.

Your belief that we should eliminate tariffs completely.

That's evidence of someone being a hardline partisan, not an extremist.

My comment was in regards to what Will said in his post. My comment had nothing to do with Hannity's extremism.

dmarks said...

The idea of eliminating tariffs is quite mainstream, actually.

Tariffs after all are a regressive form of taxation (similar to sales taxes) by which the ruling elites force their personal preferences on the people of which products to buy or not to buy.

Why not let the people instead choose in an informed manner based on their own situation? This is definitely a matter to be left to the people to decide for themselves.

As for Hannity's views, they are no more extreme or out of the mainstream than Bernie Sanders or Al Franken. I don't agree with them, but I know that, like with Hannity, to call them 'extremist' is to use what has become a meaningless insult.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Hannity has no original thought or opinion. It's a name calling spree with interspersed meaningless phrases about less government and low taxes. Along with lies about what the Democratic Party stands.

Before you get in a tizzy Dmarks, what the parties stand for and what the idiots that use the party apparatus to get elected do are two different things. Liars are rampant on both sides.

dmarks said...

Truth: I didn't get in a tizzy. Honestly. As for Hannity, one can be a partisan hack and not be an 'extremist'. I also defend Obama from those on the right who call Obama an 'extremist'

Two pretty good paragraphs, really, Truth. Good show!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Hannity, in my mind, is the conservative's Olbermann, only dimmer. Is extremist too strong a term for the fellow? Perhaps. But at the very least he's partisan, rude, divisive, and mean-spirited (and, yes, those are his boffo points!).

dmarks said...

I'd say Olbermann's even more dim, when he gets into something as petty as calling someone the worst person in the world because that person happens to beat him in ratings.

Dervish Sanders said...

Olbermann, IMO, is a hero and champion of Progressive causes. Will, you should be watching his coverage of the News Corp. scandal. Olbermann is practically giddy. I'm sure his commentary could provide you with several posts of criticisms.

btw, Olbermann has NEVER (not once) named anyone the worst person in the world because they beat him in the ratings.

As for the COMPLETE removal of all tariffs... this is an idea that is completely outside the mainstream. Just as nobody would suggest that all sales taxes should be removed, neither does ANYONE except the most radical of the radicals believe ALL tariffs should be taken down.

Even the group that has been fooled into voting against their own best interests (and in favor of corporate interests) thinks we need tariffs...

A recent poll reveals that 56 percent of self-described Tea Party Supporters "favor a tariff on products imported... that are cheaper because they came from a country that does not have to comply with any climate change regulations in the country where the products were made".

dmarks said...

WD said: "Even the group that has been fooled into voting against their own best interests (and in favor of corporate interests) thinks we need tariffs."

I attended two tea party events. Observing, not waving signs. But I noticed from the speeches and signs that there was a strong sentiment against corporate interests. They strongly opposed ALL of the bailouts. This is anecdotal, to be sure, but there was zero pro-corporate rabble-rousing.

Tea partiers do tend to favor tariffs, and tend to be against free and fair trade.

I oppose tariffs because I trust the people to make their own decisions as to whether or not the products and trades they get into meet their interest.

Tariffs are nothing more than ignorant ruling elites forcing their personal "one size fits few" trade preferences on everyone. Hey, if I want to buy a Japanese car, it should be my choice. It's really no one else's business.

dmarks said...

By the way, click here.

I tend to side with the Obama administration on this, in favor of free and fair trade, instead of Pat Buchanan, tea partiers, etc (who want a few people in Washington for force their own decisions on us in this, a matter which each person should be able to decide on themselves).

Such decisions should be left to us, not the government.

Dervish Sanders said...

dmarks: Such decisions should be left to us, not the government.

I agree completely. The government needs to listen to the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want to protect our manufacturing jobs through the use of tariffs.

dmarks should NOT be allowed to buy a Japanese car free of import tariffs. He doesn't live in Japan. Opening our borders to foreign made products is something that should be subject to OUR RULES. It's a privilege to sell in the US, not a right.

If you gave an unemployed person a choice between lower prices on imported goods, or a job manufacturing those goods here in the US... I'm CERTAIN they would choose the job. You can't buy goods (even if they are cheap) when you don't have a job.

Apparently dmarks thinks lower prices FOR HIM are more important than people he doesn't give a shit about having jobs.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

If Dmarks and those who demand government do as we say then why don;t we just do away with legislators and give everyone a little box so we can vote on each issue ourselves?

What Dmarks is saying is that he doesn't want independent people with character and judegment he trusts enough to vote for.

Not really a surprise from a right leaner as they value blind loyalty to whoever holds the pursestrings above all else.



"Fair trade" is akin to a misleading poll question. Who wouldn't be for "fair trade"? Just as Reagan said "trust, but verify." Using the tariff to keep them in line is also a good thing. Everyone wants to do business in America. As WD points out, they should be willing to pay to support that priviledge.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I agree completely. The government needs to listen to the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want to protect our manufacturing jobs through the use of tariffs."

This is a decision which should be left to each person, whether or not a majority want the shoddy overpriced goods which result from tariffs.

WD said "dmarks should NOT be allowed to buy a Japanese car free of import tariffs."

It's simply not your business. Whatsoever. Butt out.

"He doesn't live in Japan."

The freedom to buy better-priced superior products should not be just for Japanese.

"If you gave an unemployed person a choice between lower prices on imported goods, or a job manufacturing those goods here in the US..."

"Apparently dmarks thinks lower prices FOR HIM are more important than people he doesn't give a shit about having jobs."

You are a liar. Putting words in my mouth I never even imply. This has nothing to do with jobs, and everything with allowing the people to choose the best products.

dmarks said...

Truth said: "If Dmarks and those who demand government do as we say then why don;t we just do away with legislators and give everyone a little box so we can vote on each issue ourselves?"

Irrelevant. Some matters, such as these private decisions should be left to each person to decide based on their own economic decision.

"What Dmarks is saying..."

I call your bluff. Quote me where I said this.

"Not really a surprise from a right leaner as they value blind loyalty to whoever holds the pursestrings above all else."

You are probably talking about someone else, as this has nothing to do with what I said, or my views.

"Fair trade" is akin to a misleading poll question. Who wouldn't be for "fair trade"?"

People who want tariffs and trade restrictions arent. They want to force their decisions on everyone, whether or not the people doing the trades think they are fair.

Dervish Sanders said...

I think dmarks should renounce his American citizenship and move to Japan. Then he can buy a Japanese car and drive it in Japan. It will probably be cheaper too, since he won't have to pay to have it shipped to the US, or the small import tariff.

I wish dmarks good luck in obtaining Japanese citizenship.

Btw, are you in favor of no tariffs across the board, or only with countries who agree to let our products into their countries with zero tariffs? If the former, then I'd say that your stance on tariffs is definitely un-American (I'd say it anyway, but giving foreigners an advantage and asking for nothing in return would cinch it for me).

Truth101: Truth 101 said...
If Dmarks and those who demand government do as we say then why don't we just do away with legislators...


I'm sure dmarks would be in favor of that. He doesn't like democracy, which is why he always says it isn't for our private lives.

dmarks said...

"I think dmarks should renounce his American citizenship and move to Japan. Then he can buy a Japanese car and drive it in Japan."

There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to choose a superior product from another country.

"It will probably be cheaper too, since he won't have to pay to have it shipped to the US, or the small import tariff."

Actually, more and more Japanese cars are made in the US. So why your ridiculous suggestion that I go to a foreign country if I want to buy a high-quality product made by well-paid American workers?

As for your suggestion, do you practice what you preach? If you live in, say New Jersey, do you only buy products from that state? Or do you get stuff from California?

"I wish dmarks good luck in obtaining Japanese citizenship."

I wish you good luck in obtaining North Korean citizenship. That country has put your idea into practice: the personal trading practices of the people in government are forced on everyone else.

"If the former, then I'd say that your stance on tariffs is definitely un-American"

It's definitely not un-American. I want EVERY American to have the benefit of being able to get the best products.


I wish dmarks good luck in obtaining Japanese citizenship.

"(I'd say it anyway, but giving foreigners an advantage and asking for nothing in return would cinch it for me).

Truth101: Truth 101 said...
If Dmarks and those who demand government do as we say then why don't we just do away with legislators...

I'm sure dmarks would be in favor of that. He doesn't like democracy, which is why he always says it isn't for our private lives.

"I'd say it anyway, but giving foreigners an advantage and asking for nothing in return would cinch it for me"

Foreign nations that impose tariffs are shooting themselves in the foot, by denying the people the right to make informed choices.

"I'm sure dmarks would be in favor of that. He doesn't like democracy, which is why he always says it isn't for our private lives."

I respect the rights of the people. I'm not a fascist, which is why I don't want government, even a democratic one, to control our private lives.

Will, what say you? Am I anti-democratic for not wanting ruling elites to run our private affairs?

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

So you're pro choice and gay civil rights, correct Dmarks?
And you believe any nation that wants to sell it's goods in the largest economy in the world, the Nation the world looks to to save it from all it's ills, should not have to pay a tariff to help support it.

There are millions in Vietnam applauding your sweetness Dmarks. I for one think they should help pay for keeping our society civil and great.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, when I said that Olbermann was smarter than Hannity, I didn't mean to imply that the former was intelligent. Alfred North Whitehead and Karl Popper his is NOT!

dmarks said...

Truth asked: "So you're pro choice and gay civil rights, correct Dmarks?"

I believe in the rights of consenting adults to make decisions with regards to each other. Thus I am pro-life (the other term which matches to pro-choice, typically) since abortion decisions are forced on the child.

I am typically in complete disagreement with conservatives on gay rights.

"And you believe any nation that wants to sell it's goods in the largest economy in the world, the Nation the world looks to to save it from all it's ills, should not have to pay a tariff to help support it."

It's the Americans who end up paying the tariffs.

dmarks said...

Now, to address a very radical view:

"I think dmarks should renounce his American citizenship and move to Japan. Then he can buy a Japanese car and drive it in Japan.

As of Feb. 2011, 6 of the top 10 selling cars in the United States are Japanese models. Based on this, and similar statistics from over the years, it would be safe to say that most driving Americans have at one time or another owned a Japanese automobile.

So go ahead, radical. Deport most Americans for making the decision to choose a superior product.

It's a perfect example of W-Dervish wanting to force his personal buying preferences on everyone, whether or not it is in anyone's interest.

Sorry, WD. These are decisions that each of us are to make for him or herself. Keep your own preferences to yourself and your family.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

So Dmarks. You don;t want to help support your country either. You'd rather buy the cheapest, lead filled Chinese made toy for your children than pay a few extra cents for an American made one that is safe and supports American jobs.

Your lack of patriotism is troubling Dmarks.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Truth: Actually, I prefer getting the best deal, and not rewarding those who do lousy work and make lousy products. This means lead toys? No. My choice not to buy them, and I exercise it. And it means Japanese cars? Yes.

It sure is misplaced patriotism to buy from a certain country even if it means wasting money on overpriced shoddy products and supporting poor-quality workmakship.

And what does this second choice mean for American workers? IF I choose to buy a Japanese or Korean car built in the US, I am supporting and rewarding a company that is hiring more and more American workers at good high-wage jobs. A company that doesn't bully its workers into joining political organizations (unions).

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Your hypocrisy on unions is funny. You support majority rule. The majority of workers vote to join a union then that's what they all do. Why are you against democracy Dmarks?

Dervish Sanders said...

dmarks: So go ahead, radical. Deport most Americans for making the decision to choose a superior product.

I said nothing about deporting anyone. You said you didn't want the Japanese manufacturer of the car you purchased being assessed a tariff. Because you believe you'll end up paying that tariff (even if that isn't the case -- I think they'd just take a higher profit and the price would be the same).

Most of these other Americans who want to buy the import support tariffs. They aren't radicals like you. They don't believe ALL tariffs should be eliminated.

dmarks said...

Truth said: "Your hypocrisy on unions is funny. You support majority rule. The majority of workers vote to join a union then that's what they all do. Why are you against democracy Dmarks?"

Democracy is for controlling government, not our private lives. I'm being quite consistent here. I support majority rule for the decisions of government, but not our private decisions that each of us should be able to make without being subject to a majority vote.

If the majority of workers vote that everyone who joins the company has to attend a Baptist church, would you support this?

If so, why do you hate democracy so much? Why oh why?

dmarks said...

WD said: "I said nothing about deporting anyone"

You called for me to renounce my citizenship in order to drive a Japanese car. But it is true, you didn't specifically REQUIRE this (which would be a deportation).