US Politics: Tragedy of the Commons? What's that?

[DanteGabriel]

Okay, that's almost 3 people in this thread who say RIght Wingers are worse that Muslim Terrorists, this last one qualified it a bit, but it looks more like Legalese.

That means I am too, since I am on the Right.

Actually people are saying that right wing domestic terrorists have killed more Americans than Muslim terrorists lately, but I know reading comprehension is tough for you, and actually observing such distinctions wouldn't serve the whiny oppression complex you've developed about how tough it is to be a right winger in America.

[Phaing]

Actually people are saying that right wing domestic terrorists have killed more Americans than Muslim terrorists lately, but I know reading comprehension is tough for you, and actually observing such distinctions wouldn't serve the whiny oppression complex you've developed about how tough it is to be a right winger in America.

Actually, this got started with posters here saying Right Wingers were worse for America than A.Q. because of our politics, as if all of us are Christian Fundies and that Laws passed are more devastating than anything any Terrorist could do.

As if we are responsible for the NDAA and other direct violations of human dignity.

But don't let the facts stand in the way of your propaganda.

[TrackerNeil]

Actually, this got started with posters here saying Right Wingers were worse for America than A.Q. because of our politics, as if all of us are Christian Fundies and that Laws passed are more devastating than anything any Terrorist could do.

As if we are responsible for the NDAA and other direct violations of human dignity.

But don't let the facts stand in the way of your propaganda.

This was attributed to me, and although I normally enjoy being blamed for causing trouble, I can't take credit for this one.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Actually people are saying that right wing domestic terrorists have killed more Americans than Muslim terrorists lately, but I know reading comprehension is tough for you, and actually observing such distinctions wouldn't serve the whiny oppression complex you've developed about how tough it is to be a right winger in America.

Whining about conservatives being oppressed is no sillier than harping about "right-wing domestic terrorists," especially lately. Contrary to what the Southern Poverty Liars Center might claim, they aren't a real issue

If Cliven Bundy is what counts as a "domestic terrorist" in the USA then count us very lucky

[Ramsay Gimp]

ETA: Ramsay - What was that graphic you posted earlier and why was it funny? I don't get it.

It was a parody of G.I. Joe action figures, with PTSD man (complete with antidepressants!), paralyzed man, etc.

I enjoy dark humor. It wasn't LOL funny, and wasn't the most creative/original, just something I found amusing and on-point

On the Palin-waterboarding topic, part of me wants to say "just ignore her, she doesn't matter." But given that she said this to a cheering crowd, I'm not sure that's true. At this point I'd certainly say her looks are her only redeeming feature

(and to think some of you guys call me a "conservative" :lol: )

[Durckad]

On the Palin-waterboarding topic, part of me wants to say "just ignore her, she doesn't matter." But given that she said this to a cheering crowd, I'm not sure that's true. At this point I'd certainly say her looks are her only redeeming feature

(and to think some of you guys call me a "conservative" :lol: )

Not surprising.

Palin and her ilk are about as opposite of the Libertarian ethos as most of us dirty, hippy, communist left-wingers are.

[Ormond]

New Republic has a great story here on the midterms and how the Dems are actually trying to close the gap and do OK. It is probably most essential reading to GOP operatives as it's a big look into the playbook. I'd be curious to know how much Republican strategy does or does not resemble this. Either way, if there are any sick, political junkies among ye, I suggest ye read.

Well, I suppose the main point of that article is that mobilization of infrequent voters is the key to Democratic victories in November, and that there are some indications that if they get the funding the Democrats can do better with that this year than they did in 2010.

I was a little miffed by a couple of comments in the article, though. The author throws off the cliche line that "people get more conservative" as they age with little data to back that up. A bit more frustratingly, Celinda Lake is quoted as saying that as the Roosevelt seniors have died off the "Reagan seniors" have replaced them. No, the "Silent Generation" voters now in their 70s had their Republican preference created by EISENHOWER, not Reagan. The group that has an oversupply of Republican leaning voters because they came of age during Reagan's first term are the tail end of the Baby Boomers, those born between about 1960 and 1965, who are the people now in their early 50s, not "seniors."

[Shryke]

The argument made, and well made too, was that the GOP is more dangerous to the average American then Al-Queda, not that they were worse.

The chances of AQ having any effect on your life, positive or negative, is extremely minimal. Not so much for the other and there it's largely negative for most folks.

[Wise Fool]

It was a parody of G.I. Joe action figures, with PTSD man (complete with antidepressants!), paralyzed man, etc.

I enjoy dark humor. It wasn't LOL funny, and wasn't the most creative/original, just something I found amusing and on-point

On the Palin-waterboarding topic, part of me wants to say "just ignore her, she doesn't matter." But given that she said this to a cheering crowd, I'm not sure that's true. At this point I'd certainly say her looks are her only redeeming feature

(and to think some of you guys call me a "conservative" :lol: )

Well you're on the right end of the spectrum, but that hardly means you're a card-carrying Republican as far as I'm concerned.

Unless you actually do carry a card. Then I'm wrong.

But even so, you seem genuine and fairly reasonable and I can respect that a lot more than hit-and-runners going on about how liberals just hate Palin because they're envious of her fappable good looks.

You're right that the problem is not her in herself, since it seems unlikely she'll be a prominent politician in the near future, but in the people that cheer on and agree with what she has to say. In that regard she's about on the same level as your typical firebrand pundit.

[TerraPrime]

On the Palin-waterboarding topic, part of me wants to say "just ignore her, she doesn't matter." But given that she said this to a cheering crowd, I'm not sure that's true. At this point I'd certainly say her looks are her only redeeming feature

I despise Palin as a person and as a politician, but can we not go to commentary on the looks of a female politician? That's so fucking sexist.

[Shryke]

On the Bundy case:

So Reid is, as expected, getting death threats over pointing out exactly what Bundy is doing.

That's not the interesting part of this article though:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-harry-reid-threat-106106.html?hp=f3

Rep. Steven Horsford — a freshman Nevada Democrat whose district spans the region outside of Las Vegas where Bundy is battling the BLM — expressed serious concerns Sunday that out-of-state “armed militia groups” were exerting undue influence and scaring residents in Bunkerville, Nev., and the surrounding areas, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

In a Sunday letter to Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Horsford alleged that armed groups have created checkpoints requiring individuals “to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass” and have established “a persistent presence” around highways, local schools and churches.

“We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but the residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia,” Horsford said in the letter.

Defending Liberty from Tyranny: Papers Please Edition

[Ramsay Gimp]

I despise Palin as a person and as a politician, but can we not go to commentary on the looks of a female politician? That's so fucking sexist.

Is it really though? If there was a deplorable but physically attractive male politician and a female said his looks were his only redeeming trait would that be equally "sexist"? (I would just laugh, and there are probably male politicians where that's the case)

Or is it only sexist when directed at a woman by a man?

Surely you agree that there are probably women who are despicable human beings but also have very good looks?

[DanteGabriel]

Is it really though? If there was a deplorable but physically attractive male politician and a female said his looks were his only redeeming would that be equally "sexist"? (I would just laugh, and there are probably male politicians where that's the case)

Or is it only sexist when directed at a woman by a man?

Surely you agree that there are probably women who are despicable human beings but also have very good looks?

The hypothetical you start with is pointless. We're not talking about whether or not it would be sexist to comment on a male politician's looks. The point is that it's common for a female politician's appearance to be commented on by people who are supposed to be talking about her qualifications or ability.

How often are a male politician's looks cited? It's not considered relevant to their job performance, is it? But somehow, judging from your commentary and grumdin's, looks are relevant to evaluation of a female politician (or, at least, a failed politician, which is what Sarah Palin is). That's a sexist double standard and the implication that a woman's worth is derived from her appearance.

Also, let me head you off right here with the not-as-smart-as-you think "oh it's only sexist when it's targeted at a woman!" argument. Just don't.

[Ramsay Gimp]

On the Bundy case:

So Reid is, as expected, getting death threats over pointing out exactly what Bundy is doing.

That's not the interesting part of this article though:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-harry-reid-threat-106106.html?hp=f3

Defending Liberty from Tyranny: Papers Please Edition

I would take those claims with a very heavy grain of salt, coming as they are from a single minor politician. What purpose would harassing regular folks serve for a militia? How would that logically connect with the Bundy case, where the enemy was armed feds? Take the prominent militia ideology and goals into account, don't just assume the worst or that they get off on scaring people.

That said, if it's all true then that is kind of disturbing

[Shryke]

I would take those claims with a very heavy grain of salt, coming as they are from a single minor politician. What purpose would harassing regular folks serve for a militia? How would that logically connect with the Bundy case, where the enemy was armed feds? Take the prominent militia ideology and goals into account, don't just assume the worst or that they get off on scaring people.

That said, if it's all true then that is kind of disturbing

I am taking their ideology into account. That's why I find it plausible.

As to the purpose, it's to keep them damn guvrment spies out!

[Shryke]

The hypothetical you start with is pointless. We're not talking about whether or not it would be sexist to comment on a male politician's looks. The point is that it's common for a female politician's appearance to be commented on by people who are supposed to be talking about her qualifications or ability.

How often are a male politician's looks cited? It's not considered relevant to their job performance, is it? But somehow, judging from your commentary and grumdin's, looks are relevant to evaluation of a female politician (or, at least, a failed politician, which is what Sarah Palin is). That's a sexist double standard and the implication that a woman's worth is derived from her appearance.

Also, let me head you off right here with the not-as-smart-as-you think "oh it's only sexist when it's targeted at a woman!" argument. Just don't.

The last time I remember it being commented on was when the DC Mediarati were salivating over Paul Ryan's abs. Which was fucking stupid and alot of people laughed at them for it.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The hypothetical you start with is pointless. We're not talking about whether or not it would be sexist to comment on a male politician's looks. The point is that it's common for a female politician's appearance to be commented on by people who are supposed to be talking about her qualifications or ability.

How often are a male politician's looks cited? It's not considered relevant to their job performance, is it? But somehow, judging from your commentary and grumdin's, looks are relevant to evaluation of a female politician (or, at least, a failed politician, which is what Sarah Palin is). That's a sexist double standard and the implication that a woman's worth is derived from her appearance.

Also, let me head you off right here with the not-as-smart-as-you think "oh it's only sexist when it's targeted at a woman!" argument. Just don't.

Who would have thought I could provoke DanteGabriel into defending Sarah Palin? I deserve a medal for such a feat

[Wise Fool]

I've seen a fair bit of Putin-worship for his naked horse-riding photo shoot, particularly in comparison to allegedly wimpy, Mom-jeans wearing Obama.

[DanteGabriel]

Who would have thought I could provoke DanteGabriel into defending Sarah Palin? Men have earned medals for less...

I'll take it to mean you've accepted the arguments that TP and I put forward.

There are a thousand reasons to rip Sarah Palin to shreds, from her serial dishonesty to her petty vindictiveness to her smug ignorance to being a fucking quitter. No need to get into sexist arguments, which would just allow her to play the victim again.

I've seen a fair bit of Putin-worship for his naked horse-riding photo shoot, particularly in comparison to allegedly wimpy, Mom-jeans wearing Obama.

Almost inevitably from the same troglodyte corners of the Republican Party that swooned over Bush the Lesser's codpiece during that "Mission Accomplished" landing. Members of the Right Wing Cult of Contrived Masculinity.

[Crazydog7]

Can we get flood control established on the politics thread? Five pages in less then a day it can be difficult to keep track of all the responses.

Ramsay---I would tell you that you need to go back and read the finer points of the Bundy case but considering we are on thread we are on those points have probably already been reheashed several times. The enimies were not "armed feds" and the rancer some poor oppressed salt of the earth farmer and this whole thing was not a case of the evil goverment overstepping its bounds. This was not a case of the goverment slapping Eminent domain on some property it needed and didn't want to pay for which certainly does happen. Bundy is a tax cheat. Its all very well and good to unilaterally declare that the Federal Goverment doesn't have a right to tax you because you don't recognize their authority but the federal goverment disagrees with you.