GOP--Sore Losers

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I'm pretty sure the conservatives on MSNBC were originally hired because they were Bush critics. After all, MSNBC started its current programming direction in response to Fox acting as an extension of the Bush administration's press office. Basically, in order to be fair, they decided not so much to be the "liberal" network as the anti-Bush network.

[MGuy]

They SHOULD be. Operative word there being SHOULD.

Obviously. I was just countering MGuy's insane idea that them having average intelligence people in charge was a good thing.

I never mentioned/implied it was a good thing. I said it is what I expected. Considering I'm a pessimistic when it comes to politics, very little of what I expect of polititians will be a good thing.

[Crissa]

No, A_W, the current crop of conservatives at MSNBC were hired because they were Bush sycophants, and Fox got good ratings by repeating the party line.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Really? Joe Scarborough's been consistently criticizing Bush. In fact, his new book is supposed to be a plan for how to rebuild the Republican Party after Bush screwed it up. And Pat Buchanan was hugely critical of Bush, notably over his advocacy of immigration reform. That was the biggest thing I noticed about both of them (especially in contrast to Fox conservatives who all followed their talking points).

[Kaelik]

Pat Buchanan at least was only disagreeing on Bush being not conservative enough though.

I mean, he hates illegals, but he still loves Tax cuts and War and Wiretaps and being a dick to liberals and religion.

[Neeeek]

Pat Buchanan at least was only disagreeing on Bush being not conservative enough though.

I mean, he hates illegals, but he still loves Tax cuts and War and Wiretaps and being a dick to liberals and religion.

I'm pretty sure Pat was against invading Iraq, actually. He's pretty much an isolationist in terms of foreign policy, IIRC.

[Kaelik]

Pat Buchanan at least was only disagreeing on Bush being not conservative enough though.

I mean, he hates illegals, but he still loves Tax cuts and War and Wiretaps and being a dick to liberals and religion.

I'm pretty sure Pat was against invading Iraq, actually. He's pretty much an isolationist in terms of foreign policy, IIRC.

Maybe he changes his mind as quickly as the democrats who voted yes, but at the time he was pretty gung ho.

[Username17]

I actually hate Pat Buchanan. But I will say that he had the balls to stick his principles on the Iraq war straight through. Right before the Iraq Invasion, he seriously Wrote This.

Man's a fucker. And he did support Bush on all that horrible economic bullshit. But he did stick to his guns on refusing to sign off on the Iraq invasion. He's not a complete hypocrite and he does have ideals. Bill Krystol or Karl Rove he is not.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Apparently because they have Pat and Joe who have single issues they disagree with the last administration makes up for Tucker et al...

Whatever.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

I love the American Conservative. Pat Buchanan has some loathsome views on immigration and several other things, but they're easy to spot. The rest of the publication is generally pretty good, but like everything you have to sift and read with plenty of doubt.

I mean, I still read Z or Covert Action Quarterly on occasion as well so don't get the wrong impression - it's just nice to have a frequently-sane conservative assessment of things.

[Crissa]

Steve Benen[/url]]...note the competing standards. If some anonymous liberal compares Bush to Hitler, Armey thinks it's "despicable." If Armey organizes far-right activists carrying placards comparing Obama to Hitler, he thinks they're "colorful."

IOKIYAAR.

-Crissa

[Username17]

-Username17

[Titanium Dragon]

...note the competing standards. If some anonymous liberal compares Bush to Hitler, Armey thinks it's "despicable." If Armey organizes far-right activists carrying placards comparing Obama to Hitler, he thinks they're "colorful."

Well, he is an evil bastard.

Thing is, the conservatives don't even understand what Nazis were, nor that their personal ideology falls closer to fascism than the Democrats' do. Seriously, they:

Hate gays.
Hate minorities.
Think having a big military will make up for their small penises.
Want to be a colonial power.
Hate Russians.
Hate communists.
Hate France.
Like England.
White supremacists.
Totalitarianism.

The list goes on. Kind of funny, really.

Not that I'm saying they ARE fascist, but that they lie closer.

Of course, the whole reductio ad Hilterem thing is moronic anyway. Can't we call someone an evil bastard without comparing them to Hitler? He wasn't even the most evil man of the 20th century; with such classy folk as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, half the middle east, half of the Nazi administration (he wasn't even the worst Nazi)... I mean, seriously. Not to mention the fact that you can be evil in entirely different ways, its just that totalitarianism allows you to kill the most people. And the Republicans are rather totalitarian.

[MGuy]

Hitler is an easily recognized name. I think there are plenty of more efficient killing methods than totalitarianism. A military dictatorship or theocracies kill a bunch of people (with theocracies getting the gold medal in my book)

[Koumei]

Careful with calling Stalin evil. I'm currently trying to find a way to raise him from the dead, and rumour has it* Frank dedicated a monument to him.

*this rumour dates back to... a few seconds ago when I just invented it.

[shau]

Careful with calling Stalin evil. I'm currently trying to find a way to raise him from the dead, and rumour has it* Frank dedicated a monument to him.

*this rumour dates back to... a few seconds ago when I just invented it.

If Stalin was going to rise from the dead he would have done it when his homeland was invaded by the filthy Russians. Face it, that guy is long gone.

Resurrecting Pol Pot, that's where its at.

[Heath Robinson]

Lenin. Lenin is where it's at. You ever seen a picture of the guy?

He was a Mindflayer in disguise, I'm almost certain.

[Draco_Argentum]

Of course, the whole reductio ad Hilterem thing is moronic anyway. Can't we call someone an evil bastard without comparing them to Hitler? He wasn't even the most evil man of the 20th century; with such classy folk as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, half the middle east, half of the Nazi administration (he wasn't even the worst Nazi)... I mean, seriously. Not to mention the fact that you can be evil in entirely different ways, its just that totalitarianism allows you to kill the most people. And the Republicans are rather totalitarian.

Hell, the US administration has maintained a first use nuclear doctrine since WW2. That bullshit has kept us on MAD and helped proliferation. If someone does get nuked the US presidents dating back decades have blood on their hands.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Apparently because they have Pat and Joe who have single issues they disagree with the last administration makes up for Tucker et al...

Whatever.

-Crissa

I never said they were exemplary people, or that their presence made MSNBC a great utopian paradise. I was pointing out that MSNBC's decision to "go left" was more a strategy to win anybody who was dissatisfied with Bush, rather than a decision to go on an (even by American standards) leftist kick.

[tzor]

Thing is, the conservatives don't even understand what Nazis were, nor that their personal ideology falls closer to fascism than the Democrats' do. Seriously, they:

I think I could make an interesting counter argument; that it is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party whose ideology falls closer in line with fascism

1. False application of Darwinian “Survival of the Fittest” at the nation/race level
2. The creation of a single party state
3. The suppression of criticism and opposition to government
4. Establishing significant control over both business and labor; “the corporate state”

I think one can say that point one isn’t liked by either liberal or conservative in the US. Point two is open for debate. Point three is clearly a major factor of the liberal establishment; from dismissing the Tea Party protests to deliberately calling anyone who dares question the mighty and glorious health bill from the supreme congress “Un-American.” Point four can be seen by the recent take over of the banks, the auto industry, the soon to be taken over health industry, the possible take over of the news print industry, and so on and so forth.

P.S. Before we get into a complex debate, there are two types of “conservatives” in the United States and they only marginally associate with each other; “Religious” conservatives and “Fiscal” conservatives. Confusing the two may appear to give you virtual brownie points, but also makes you look rather foolish and silly.

[violence in the media]

P.S. Before we get into a complex debate, there are two types of “conservatives” in the United States and they only marginally associate with each other; “Religious” conservatives and “Fiscal” conservatives. Confusing the two may appear to give you virtual brownie points, but also makes you look rather foolish and silly.

I really wish those two groups would split into two separate parties.

[Koumei]

Tzor, are you fucking stoned?

False application of Darwinian “Survival of the Fittest” at the nation/race level

What? Where does this happen? The Democrats are not the ones currently saying "X group shall be denied medical support, let the fuckers die as punishment for not being born rich", that'd be the Conservatives.

The creation of a single party state

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, and can't think of anything that would apply only to the Democrats.

]The suppression of criticism and opposition to government

OH NOES, THEY CALL PEOPLE NAMES! You're right, clearly that's way out of line, whereas kidnapping dissenting voices, shipping them to _____ and torturing applying enhanced interview techniques is acceptable.

Establishing significant control over both business and labor; “the corporate state”

Okay, in general, Socialists are big on that, though not in a way that would hold the title "The corporate state". But the US Democrats have been bending over backward to avoid doing that (Obama at least), seriously, they've been merely bailing companies out for fucking up, throwing public money at them instead of actually taking control and fixing things. Seriously, people did everything they possibly could to provoke him into doing something really Left there, and yet he still basically did things your way and that's somehow too Communist for you? Fuck, I'd hate to see what parties are like at your house.

"NEIN! Did YOU bring those chips? THEN FUCK OFF, I SUPPLIED THOSE CHIPS, THEY'RE MINE! You may have what you brought."

P.S. Before we get into a complex debate, there are two types of “conservatives” in the United States and they only marginally associate with each other; “Religious” conservatives and “Fiscal” conservatives. Confusing the two may appear to give you virtual brownie points, but also makes you look rather foolish and silly.

Usually they do happen to be the same people though. And I never understood why they call the "Let me take my money, and yours, and spend it however I like, so that I can be rich and fuck you all over for a hundred years to come." people fiscally conservative.

[tzor]

Tzor, are you fucking stoned?

Nope, but you do appear to have reading challenges. The points relate to fascism in the general definition thereof; the next prargraph relates it to the liberal wing of the Democratic party and my first sentence dismisses the first point alltogether.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

There is no liberal wing of the democratic party. There's only a "slightly less radical right wing".

I'm liberal. And I can't publicly express my views without being jailed. I don't hate you for your beliefs, but I am literally planning on leaving the country fairly soon because I feel the longer I'm here, the quicker I'll be thrown in jail.

[Neeeek]

Point two is open for debate.

Not really. Point two was an explicit part of the GOP plan at the beginning of the decade.

Point three is clearly a major factor of the liberal establishment; from dismissing the Tea Party protests to deliberately calling anyone who dares question the mighty and glorious health bill from the supreme congress “Un-American.”

Two things: 1) The Tea Party protests were a bunch of anger-fetishist conspiracy theorists who were bitching about losing an election and began before the current administration had really done much of anything. 2) The left doesn't call people against the health care bill Un-American, something the right calls the left constantly (The GOP's Vice-Presidential candidate personally referred to the right-wing parts of the country as "real Americans". Fuck that bullshit.). The left calls them "stupid" because they are, seeing as how they clearly don't have any understanding of the issues they loudly argue against. The left also calls the behavior by right-wing protesters in the town halls in trying to disrupt attempts to debate a disgrace, which it is.