Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train

[Lamplighter]

What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.

For George, I can understand it because it just shows what a little man he is/was.
But Republicans couldn't be more un-patriotic than to try to make any U.S. President's Inauguration into a partisan issue.

But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.

Romney is a private citizen. Since he holds no office, I don't believe that he has any reason to attend. I don't know what the protocol is for the losing candidate.

Bush's father is pretty sick and cannot attend, so I can sort of see him not attending.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What's with the Repubicans ? --snip--

and the re-Pubic's are saying

--snip

Now, I'm all for foolin around, I read a book once on the subject of humor and liked it. Maybe you're just joking around--if so--I am sorry I missed the joke. However...

Dude. Please don't do shit like this. It was immature and unhelpful when other dwellars resorted to this kind of childish namecalling. Repeating such a mistake has zero upside. It makes you look like a fool. Don't talk like a fool and expect to be treated seriously.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by BigV

Now, I'm all for foolin around, I read a book once on the subject of humor and liked it.
Maybe you're just joking around--if so--I am sorry I missed the joke. However...

Dude. Please don't do shit like this.
It was immature and unhelpful when other dwellars resorted
to this kind of childish name calling. Repeating such a mistake has zero upside.
It makes you look like a fool. Don't talk like a fool and expect to be treated seriously.

I'm not really disagreeing with your comments.
Words DO matter.

But at times the use of a word is so subtle it doesn't get through the fog.
For example, your quote should have been the full sentence:

and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.

Languages are fluid and this is an example of what how Republicans use the word.
Most people now don't notice the difference, but there is a political message
in the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, not as a noun.

Check out Wikipedia's section on it's use as an epithet.

Maybe after this tit-for-tat, the next time a Republican uses the word "Democrat",
the true intent of their message will be more apparent.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.

For George, I can understand it because it just shows what a little man he is/was.
But Republicans couldn't be more un-patriotic than to try to make any U.S. President's Inauguration into a partisan issue.

But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.

or it could mean they simply have no respect for the man or his policies. or they don't like his shoes. or his wife. or maybe they just wanted to go fishing. or wash their hair.

Really, why does it matter? Seeing Obama sworn in with all the pomp and circumstance traditionally built into the event may be your wet dream, but for others it may not be all that thrilling, so why would they go?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Or maybe they weren't invited.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Really, why does it matter? Seeing Obama sworn in with all the pomp and circumstance traditionally built into the event may be your wet dream, but for others it may not be all that thrilling, so why would they go?

Because fairly, or unfairly, it makes them look like petulant losers instead of statesmen engaged in the great game.

The inauguration of the President is important regardless of who is actually taking the oath. For a nation so jealous of its traditions and hard won political identity, it seems very strange for leading figures from the losing party not to attend. It seems pointed.

[tw]

From The Register of 5 Mar 2013:

US lawmaker blames bicycle breath for global warming gas
A Washington state representative has uncovered a previously under-reported source of greenhouse gas: huffing and puffing cyclists.

Ed Orcutt, who lists "Tax relief" at the top of his legislative priorities and who was 2000's Washington Young Republican Federation Man of the Year, emailed the owner of a Tacoma, Washington, bike shop who had written him to protest a proposed tax on bicycles, part of a larger state transportation bill.

Although he noted that he was "not a fan" of many tax proposals, Orcutt argued that "it only makes sense that bicyclists would also be required to pay for the 'roads' they use when they are actually biking on them." He then added his belief that two-wheeled transport is polluting the environment:
"You claim that it is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."

Why did Saddam have WMDs? Why do tax cuts not recreate a (predicted) recession? Why is global warming an evil trick from the liberal media? Why do wacko extremists need all research into gun violence banned? Why can a woman not get pregnant from a rape?

Wacko extremists know the truth. Invent facts to prove it. After all, ideology knows what is true.

Bicyclists are clearly a most common source of global warming.

Well, he finally admitted the existence of global warming. That is progress.

So we solve global warming by raping women. Then kids will not be born to grow up and ride bicycles. Their political agenda says it must be true.

[IamSam]

Heh! If the Republicans think cyclists are bad, what about all those joggers? What about hikers and walkers, not to mention cross country skiers? And then there's all those culprits who go work out at the gym. And speaking of heavy breathing... Well, I'll let Bruce explain about that.

I guess the environmentally aware must now become couch potatoes who have taken a vow of celibacy. That would also solve the abortion problem and us women would be spared vaginal ultrasound exams.

Thank you, Republicans. We knew you would finally come through for everyone at last.










sent by - what else? A bicycle nessenger guy

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by IamSam

I guess the environmentally aware must now become couch potatoes who have taken a vow of celibacy.

The internet. Saving the planet one lonely slob at a time.

[tw]

During the election, extremist Republicans tried to win by preventing people from voting. By inventing voter fraud and other complications. It only made minorities angrier. The Economist of 9 February 2013 said,

The problem for the party is that it continues a defensive, backward-looking, and ultimately losing strategy of the last election in which Republicans tried to keep non-whites voters from voting rather than engaging with them. Instead of trying to thwart the popular vote, Republicans might be a lot better off trying to win it.

Reagan's 11th Commandment said, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". But the party's extremist situation has become scary. From The Economist of 14 February 2013,

On the face of it party grandees and anti-establishment groups - such as the Club for Growth or sundry tea party outfits - are arguing about races that were lost in 2010 and 2012.

The establishment points to candidates backed by outside groups who threw away winnable races, notably in the Senate. The list is extensive. In Delaware in 2010 there was Christine O'Donnell, an erratic pro-chastity activist whose tea-fuelled campaign at one point ran TV ads denying that she was a witch. In Missouri in 2012 there was Todd Akin, a fierce social conservative whose campaign imploded after he claimed - against all medical evidence - that women subjected to what he called "legitimate rape" rarely fall pregnant, because their bodies have ways to "shut that whole thing down".

... the establishment (most prominently in the form of a new fighting fund backed by Karl Rove, ...) has started looking for new, Akin-style troublemakers. Steven Law, the head of the new Rove-backed fighting fund, the Conservative Victory Project, has named Steve King - an anti-immigration hardliner from the House of Representatives who is pondering a Senate run in Iowa - as someone with a "Todd Akin problem". Mr King's antics include building a model border fence in the House chamber (electrified, he noted: as we do "with livestock"), and calling immigration a "slow-motion terrorist attack".

Another fighting fund, run by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, says it will intervene in primaries to defend moderates - or what its boss Steve LaTourette ... from Ohio, calls the "governing wing of the Republican Party". ... the Main Street fund is looking at the House primary in South Carolina's first district, where ... Mark Sanford, a disgraced former governor, [is] launching a come-back bid.

... the candidacy of Paul Broun, a member of the House of Representatives, physician and big-game hunter, who argues that President Barack Obama is a Marxist bent on destroying the free enterprise system. Mr Broun ... was filmed telling a group of Baptist hunting enthusiasts that, looking back on years of scientific training, he had come to realise that: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell." Despite some sniggering in the national and international press, Mr Broun cruised to re-election, though ... 4000 locals reportedly wrote in the name of Charles Darwin on their ballot papers.

... the real fight underway within the Republican Party is still more vicious:

... establishment Republicans and insurgents broadly share the goal of avoiding Akin-style losers. Their really poisonous disagreement involves Akin-style winners. Before he was undone ... Mr Akin was a six-term member of the House of Representatives, maintaining a posture of insurgency via hardline votes and clashes with party leaders. He won his last House election with 68% of the vote. It is the collective power wielded by Republicans from such safe districts and their distaste for compromise (strongly reinforced by fears of primary challenges if their purity wavers), that really divides establishment Republicans from the insurgent right ...

... the Karl Roves ... could also be charged with hypocrisy, as they throw their hands up in horror at candidates like Mr Akin. After all, Mr Rove and his like once embraced the same religious forces that empowered Mr Akin, using gay-marriage ballots and other gimmicks to drive up Republican turnout at the 2004 election, blurring divisions between social and economic conservatives in ways that still harm the party among centrist voters.

Moving on to Reuters on 14 Feb 2013, freshman Texas Senator Cruz:

... has suggested that Hagel's nomination was endorsed by Iran, and that Hagel was not being forthcoming enough about his finances.

Before the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee voted to back Hagel's confirmation on Tuesday on a party-line, 14-11 vote, Cruz angered lawmakers in both parties by suggesting, without giving evidence, that Hagel might have taken money from countries such as North Korea.

That drew a rebuke from Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who said Cruz had "gone over the line."

It also prompted a warning to Cruz from a fellow Republican, John McCain of Arizona, ...

"No one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity," McCain said of Hagel, a fellow veteran of the Vietnam War.

In reply to a Ryan Paul question, John Brennan suggested a drone might be necessary to avert another WTC type attack. Paul, a tea party extremist, intentionally misrepresented his answer to claim Brennan advocates using drones on the students at Kent State, patrons in a cafe, or Jane Fonda.

Well Republican moderates had enough. Senators McCain and Graham openly confronted Ryan's foolishness. Graham said Ryan's antics cause him to change his vote; to vote for Brennan.

A war to save the Republican party from wackos has become public. Campaign funds are established so that Republicans can campaign against other Republicans. A violation of a Reagan principle. Because extremist ideology has replaced adult thinking.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

What's with the Repubicans ?
<snip>
But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.

Originally Posted by lookout123

or it could mean they simply have no respect for the man or his policies.
or they don't like his shoes. or his wife. or maybe they just wanted to go fishing.
or wash their hair.

Really, why does it matter? <snip>

@ Lookout:
It matters in the same sense you probably learned in the AF.
You showed respect and saluted the rank, not the person in the uniform.

It also matters in the sense that Members of Congress are elected
to serve as representatives of all their district or state.

Their person opinions, unlike yours or mine as private citizens,
do not merit disrespectful or racist behavior, particularly when
it comes from the leadership of the Republican Party.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

@ Lookout:
It matters in the same sense you probably learned in the AF.
You showed respect and saluted the rank, not the person in the uniform.

It also matters in the sense that Members of Congress are elected
to serve as representatives of all their district or state.

Their person opinions, unlike yours or mine as private citizens,
do not merit disrespectful or racist behavior, particularly when
it comes from the leadership of the Republican Party.

Last time I checked the president, senate, and house are not in a chain of command. Respecting the rank is irrelevent. I'm not an elected official so my opinion and actions aren't worth sand at this point, but when I wore the uniform I would have saluted Obama if in his presence. Today? I wouldn't hold the fucking door open for him. To be fair I wouldn't for most of the slime on either side of the aisle either. He's just a man. I owe him nothing and neither do Boehner and whoever else decided not to pose for the cameras.

If, in their estimation, there was nothing to lose by showing up then I see no problem in their absence. It's their call. to be fair, they had nothing to gain by attending either. The hard left would still hate them, the hard right would still exalt them and I would still feel the way I do about all of these men and women. Whatever.

and please do me a favor and drop the racist bullshit. People can despise his policies and dislike the man without being racist. I'm fairly certain BigV and many other dwellars hated GWB, and that certainly wasn't do to his being white. It's a lazy way to discredit and dehumanize those who don't agree with you and yours.