The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Did Anthony Weiner's last name really have to be Weiner? It's like he WANTS to be mocked relentlessly. Daily Show and Colbert Report are must-watches tonight

They probably won't have enough time to rewrite reactions, shows have already been recorded.

[lostfan]

They probably won't have enough time to rewrite reactions, shows have already been recorded.

Tonight: The Best F#@king News Team Ever covers the cover-up behind Twitter's most famous junk shot

 

^^The Daily Show's Facebook status from a few minutes ago

[StrangeSox]

 

Also read an explanation elsewhere that compared right-wing conservatives' understanding and use of American history to their biblical usage--legends and storied from the past, selectively remembered (by the right-wingers) and distorted or abused to justify their own beliefs. This whole Paul Revere story was just a way for Palin to defend her 2nd Amendment Rights! by stealing a legend from the "Founding Fathers."

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No, and I can't believe you're not getting this, this is the whole point I'm making. Turning out of the base has been the dominant force in elections since 1996 at the least.

 

98, Democratic turnout was pumped by the Impeachment hearings.

00, Democratic turnout was suppressed and Republican turnout pumped by the Clenis and evangelicals.

02, the Iraq war turnout

04 was the gay marriage amendment base turnout election

06-08 Dems turned out like gangbusters to oppose the wars, while Republicans didn't really show up because they weren't enthused about voting for Bush's war.

10, the Tea Party turned out like gangbusters to oppose the Muslim Socialist, while Democrats flat out stayed home because they'd spent 2 years being kicked in the mouth and told to shut up for their own good by the White House.

 

Edit: another thought. This is also why the Republicans stress so much about "Voter Fraud", "ACORN", etc., it turns out their base (elderly white people) but also legally suppresses the Democratic base by making it illegal for poor people to vote because they don't have the proper ID or they're intimidated by messages that they'll get arrested.

 

Not getting it? I give up on this one, we're not going to agree. I think you are either unaware of how statistics work, or more likely, choosing to only see some aspects of it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Also read an explanation elsewhere that compared right-wing conservatives' understanding and use of American history to their biblical usage--legends and storied from the past, selectively remembered (by the right-wingers) and distorted or abused to justify their own beliefs. This whole Paul Revere story was just a way for Palin to defend her 2nd Amendment Rights! by stealing a legend from the "Founding Fathers."

 

Ugh, this is such crap.

 

Look, I despise Palin and 95% of what she stands for. I think it's an absolute joke that in 2011 she's even mentioned alongside "Republican." But from what I read she wasn't making a 2nd amendment argument, she was making a "let's stop letting the federal gov't control our lives" argument.

 

I thought this was a good write-up of this entire situation, along with others in the past. Specifically how people just love to talk about/hear this kinda of news to fit their personal beliefs about the person:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...he-british.html

 

You may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

 

Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?

 

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.

 

As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

 

The well-known fable is Revere's late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that....

...the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening's events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory.

 

Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin's latest mis-speak, which wasn't.Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter.

 

The initial impression was eagerly grabbed by so many, starting with the reporter and millions of others gleefully sharing the story that reinforced their beliefs and/or desires.

 

This phenomenon is actually not a new one in American politics, although its immediate spread is obviously hastened by the Internet. Speaking of which, Al Gore did not invent it. Nor did he claim to, as often as you've heard otherwise.

[bmags]

yeah, no, no one can listen to that idiocy and believe that it coincides with the fact that revere was captured and told the british that a militia was waiting for them. And she WAS just trying to make some bulls*** allegory about how the british tried to take our guns but the FOUNDING fathers (aka HER) were there to say NO you can't! you can't take our umm guns you know russia and hockey moms etc.

[Balta1701]

[Jenksismyhero]

It's more hilarious to me that the lemmings in the audience still think she has her history wrong, especially during the interview with Wallace when she clarified her statement (listen to the oohs and ahhs). They also had a big reaction to her comment that the British were going to take our arms, as if that was something she made up (she didn't, that's what they were doing).

 

Why can't people just point out the real issue - that it was a lame attempt at relating the problems with government we have today to the problems we had with the British - instead of yucking it up like a bunch of morons who think (wrongly) that she's making up history and that that's further proof that she's an idiot? Aren't liberals supposed to be above this kinda of stuff?

[CrimsonWeltall]

It's more hilarious to me that the lemmings in the audience still think she has her history wrong

 

Her history was wrong. Paul Revere never rode on horseback through town, firing warning shots and ringing bells, in order to warn the British that they can't take out guns. She spewed some bulls*** with the basic nuggets she knew (Paul Revere + riding + warning) and tried to find things after-the-fact like Revere's brief interrogation to fit her nonsense.

 

It's like rambling about Michael Jordan scoring so many touchdowns and then pointing out that he played football as a kid when everyone laughs at you.

 

, especially during the interview with Wallace when she clarified her statement (listen to the oohs and ahhs).

 

If by clarified, you mean made different statements, which still require very generous interpretations to be accurate.

Edited June 7, 2011 by CrimsonWeltall

[bmags]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/daly-wage...ed-1522741.html

[CrimsonWeltall]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/daly-wage...ed-1522741.html

 

The article says the report takes into account the graduates' majors, but does it actually compare the same jobs?

 

Another portion of the report says - to explain why the female grads unemployment rate is lower than males (8.1% vs 10.3%) - says that women take more temporary and part-time positions. Wouldn't that lead to them having lower incomes?

http://www.naceweb.org/gender/

[bmags]

The article says the report takes into account the graduates' majors, but does it actually compare the same jobs?

 

Another portion of the report says - to explain why the female grads unemployment rate is lower than males (8.1% vs 10.3%) - says that women take more temporary and part-time positions. Wouldn't that lead to them having lower incomes?

http://www.naceweb.org/gender/

 

i'd have to go into it further, but i'd have to first-off ask whether women take more or are offered more.

[CrimsonWeltall]

i'd have to go into it further, but i'd have to first-off ask whether women take more or are offered more.

 

True, though I should say that my last post was in error. I read it again and they don't know that the 2.2% difference was due to women taking part-time/temp positions; that was just their speculative explanation.

[bmags]

this study seems to have done a pretty good job at taking into account differences in jobs that genders take.

[StrangeSox]

Why can't people just point out the real issue - that it was a lame attempt at relating the problems with government we have today to the problems we had with the British -

 

Hey remember how I said exactly that and compared it to people abusing Christianity/the Bible in the same manner and you said it was "such bulls***?"

 

instead of yucking it up like a bunch of morons who think (wrongly) that she's making up history and that that's further proof that she's an idiot?

 

She did make it up. Sure, she tangentially hit on some things that actually happened, but her story was wrong. It didn't make sense, many individual parts were wrong and taken as a whole it was completely wrong.

 

Aren't liberals supposed to be above this kinda of stuff?

 

Liberals are supposed to be above ridiculing idiots who have the audacity to lecture others about "understanding history" while being a poster child for Dunning-Kruger?

 

Also love that the equivalent of "what you did on your summer vacation" is now a "GOTCHA!" question instead of another softball. I can't imagine what would happen if someone were to actually conduct a somewhat-hostile interview with her.

Edited June 7, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey remember how I said exactly that and compared it to people abusing Christianity/the Bible in the same manner and you said it was "such bulls***?"

 

 

 

She did make it up. Sure, she tangentially hit on some things that actually happened, but her story was wrong. It didn't make sense, many individual parts were wrong and taken as a whole it was completely wrong.

 

 

 

Liberals are supposed to be above ridiculing idiots who have the audacity to lecture others about "understanding history" while being a poster child for Dunning-Kruger?

 

Also love that the equivalent of "what you did on your summer vacation" is now a "GOTCHA!" question instead of another softball. I can't imagine what would happen if someone were to actually conduct a somewhat-hostile interview with her.

 

You expanding what one person does to what an entire party allegedly does is not the same as what I'm suggesting. That was why your comment was bulls***. If you'd all just ignore her instead of buying in to this circle-jerk liberal fantasy that she's the epitome of conservatism the country would be better off. You of all people should be supporting such a view since a strong Republican candidate forces the democrats to offer an equally strong candidate and the result would be LEGITIMATE candidates and politicians.

 

[Balta1701]

a strong Republican candidate forces the democrats to offer an equally strong candidate and the result would be LEGITIMATE candidates and politicians.

Huh?

[StrangeSox]

This:

Also read an explanation elsewhere that compared right-wing conservatives' understanding and use of American history to their biblical usage--legends and storied from the past, selectively remembered (by the right-wingers) and distorted or abused to justify their own beliefs. This whole Paul Revere story was just a way for Palin to defend her 2nd Amendment Rights! by stealing a legend from the "Founding Fathers."

 

 

Is not this:

expanding what one person does to what an entire party allegedly does [...]she's the epitome of conservatism

 

 

 

You of all people should be supporting such a view since a strong Republican candidate forces the democrats to offer an equally strong candidate and the result would be LEGITIMATE candidates and politicians.

 

That doesn't make any sense for a variety of reasons.

 

[StrangeSox]

BTW this is what a I read, found via Sullivan:

But I think it helps to understand that, for right-wing populists, this thing we call "history" is less about real people who did real things in the real world, and more like just the Bible Part II. It's a myth that can be manipulated to suit their purpose, which is usually to establish themselves as the only Real Americans. When Palin says she got it right, I believe she believes that, because her story wasn't really about Paul Revere. Her story was a thinly veiled allegory of the Tea Party worldview, and in it, Tea Partiers are Paul Revere and the British stand in for Obama, the foreign usurper who is out to take their guns.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

It's more hilarious to me that the lemmings in the audience still think she has her history wrong, especially during the interview with Wallace when she clarified her statement (listen to the oohs and ahhs). They also had a big reaction to her comment that the British were going to take our arms, as if that was something she made up (she didn't, that's what they were doing).

 

Why can't people just point out the real issue - that it was a lame attempt at relating the problems with government we have today to the problems we had with the British - instead of yucking it up like a bunch of morons who think (wrongly) that she's making up history and that that's further proof that she's an idiot? Aren't liberals supposed to be above this kinda of stuff?

 

That's like... technically true, but I'm pretty sure he was detained and questioned by the British (who did not shoot him on sight because he was unarmed). Quite different from deliberately WARNING them. Also only a western Republican in 2011 would try to frame any part of the Revolutionary War as some kind of 2nd Amendment rights thing and ignore the part about the rebel colonies wanting to break from the mother country and place sovereignty in the people

It's like these posts are imaginary to you or something.

[StrangeSox]

The Boston Tea Party and ensuing rebellion was about high taxes on business and getting rid of Big Government. Also to keep Big Government's hands off my guns/medicare.

[Balta1701]

The Boston Tea Party and ensuing rebellion was about high taxes on business and getting rid of Big Government. Also to keep Big Government's hands off my guns/medicare.

And then we stormed the beaches at Normandy for the right to dismantle Medicare.

[StrangeSox]

Tim Pawlenty's Plan to Destroy The World

"If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it...The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac], were all built in a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. That's no longer the case."

 

 

 

It seems like it's just another version of the Fair (lol) Tax with some extra-dumb populism thrown in.

Edited June 8, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Tim Pawlenty's Plan to Destroy The World

 

 

 

It seems like it's just another version of the Fair (lol) Tax with some extra-dumb populism thrown in.

I bet if I google "private army" i'll find that private companies do similar things. Tim Pawlenty opposes having a military!

[StrangeSox]

I bet if I google "private army" i'll find that private companies do similar things. Tim Pawlenty opposes having a military!

 

You know how I know you didn't read the link?