If this is for real (and I fear it is), I'm scared to bits now..

[Gworeth]

I ran into this article and at first it seemed sort of, how shall I put it, the normal Republicans and Tea-party are loonies, but as I read on I began to worry. Worry alot. I think this is either the script for a brilliant apocalyptic movie or the scarriest shit I've seen in a loooong time...

You be the judge...

Not for the weak

Let me know what you think!

[Gworeth]

... And I realize it's a bit long. But if you kinda muscle your way past the TL;DR reflex, you may be as spooked as I am...

[Lord Fyre]

"Views Differ on the Shape of the Planet!"

[Gworeth]

Lord Fyre wrote:

"Views Differ on the Shape of the Planet!"

Indeed! That would be funny if it weren't so true! THe news-media have lost their teeth...

[Lord Fyre]

Gworeth wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

"Views Differ on the Shape of the Planet!"

Indeed! That would be funny if it weren't so true! THe news-media have lost their teeth...

No. It is funny ...

... Or I have to laugh, so I won't cry.

[Gworeth]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Gworeth wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

"Views Differ on the Shape of the Planet!"

Indeed! That would be funny if it weren't so true! THe news-media have lost their teeth...

No. It is funny ...

... Or I have to laugh, so I won't cry.

Hehe... You're right ;)

[yellowdingo]

Gworeth wrote:

... And I realize it's a bit long. But if you kinda muscle your way past the TL;DR reflex, you may be as spooked as I am...

Not really. When Rome is forced to retreat it poisons the wells of the territory it must surrender to it's enemies. The Republicans see themselves as a Mono-party Republic. The Democrats occasionally take control but by the Republicans poisoning the wells they are weakened when the Democrats do take control.

The only way this ends is if the Democrats resolve to charge the Republican party and its members with Treason for the Republican party's participation in crime and disolve the two party system giving every Citizen a seat in Parliament based on consensus - including the division of national resources.

In the End only accountability to the harshest penalties and laws will reign the Republicans in. Treason must cost them their citizenship or it is ineffective.

[Crimson Jester]

People need to stop confusing opinions and facts.

[Freehold DM]

I'd agree more if it weren't so extreme.

[thejeff]

What part do you object to?

Is it just that he sounds extreme and moderation is always better?

Do you think his analysis of the current state of the Republican Party or its trajectory is off? If so, where?

He seems to match my take on it fairly well, which is interesting because he's a long time Republican staffer and I'm well to the left of the Democratic party.

[Crimson Jester]

To me the entire thing smack of inflammatory rhetoric, using extreme examples to jump to conclusions that are far from accurate. He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes. I do not have the time, nor the wherewithal to go point to point on this long, and in my opinion idiot tirade, I just have to say that if you believe even a tenth of what is written by this person as move than just a twisted distortion of what most people, let alone republicans feel, I am the one who is worried.

[thejeff]

Crimson Jester wrote:

To me the entire thing smack of inflammatory rhetoric, using extreme examples to jump to conclusions that are far from accurate. He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes. I do not have the time, nor the wherewithal to go point to point on this long, and in my opinion idiot tirade, I just have to say that if you believe even a tenth of what is written by this person as move than just a twisted distortion of what most people, let alone republicans feel, I am the one who is worried.

Interesting. I didn't get that impression at all. I took his comments to be about the professional Republican Party: the politicians, staffers and campaign apparatus.

As a single example:

Quote:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

This isn't a claim about most republican voters, but about Republican pols attempts to manipulate those voters.

Similarly his claim that the "Republican Party is so full of lunatics" is followed, not by mentioning Tea Party voters, but actual Congresscritters.

[Gworeth]

@ CJ. So you mean to say that it's all fiction, or?

[Matthew Morris]

Wait....

Truth-Out.org? REally?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, let me link to World Net Daily for some equally fair and balanced commentary about the Democrat party.

Or Al Jezera for fair and balanced commentary about Israel.

[Trinam]

Hrm.

Someone thinks politics are corrupt and it's all the GOP's fault because they hate America.

Iunno, it'd seem more credible if it didn't read like something out of a Moore book.

[Matthew Morris]

thejeff wrote:

Similarly his claim that the "Republican Party is so full of lunatics" is followed, not by mentioning Tea Party voters, but actual Congresscritters.

thejeff

I can fill an article with lunatic statements by Democrat Congrescritters too.

We can start with the concerns that Guam will flip over and fall into the ocean, or asking the Mars Rover to go to the American Flag we planted there for starters.

I'm still chucking at someone quoting Truth-out. Next... Quotes from Paula Brooks!

[Gworeth]

As far as I can tell, he's not going easy on the Democrats either.
If you want to get real news, where do you get them then? corporateNews-networks? Fox? Where? Who out there is trying to tell the real story, and not just put a spin to it (or, at least as little spin as possible). This I'd like to know.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with this. If/when America one day wake up to find, not politicians, but business-men running the country (or are they already doing that?) will they be able to do anything then? Or will they be too busy watching their favorite TV-show to even know or care, watching those lovely commercials from Fast-Food chains that sell food that will make it too hard to get out of that comfy-chair. But of course, no sane politician would sell themselves like that. THey have standards, they have morals. They protect their people.

I'm just glad I live in Denmark. Things haven't gone south as much here. Yet.

I'm sorry if I've offended somebody. Not really my intention. My intention was to express a concern, but maybe that was misplaced. Maybe you are all okay and I'm mistaken. Let's hope so.

[Crimson Jester]

Gworeth wrote:

@ CJ. So you mean to say that it's all fiction, or?

Fiction, not necessarily, Opinion, which may in fact be biased, and probably is, once you considering the source.

Of course I might just be reading the Irate ex-employee into it.

Then again this is my opinion.

[Crimson Jester]

Gworeth wrote:

As far as I can tell, he's not going easy on the Democrats either.

If you want to get real news, where do you get them then? corporateNews-networks? Fox? Where? Who out there is trying to tell the real story, and not just put a spin to it (or, at least as little spin as possible). This I'd like to know.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with this. If/when America one day wake up to find, not politicians, but business-men running the country (or are they already doing that?) will they be able to do anything then? Or will they be too busy watching their favorite TV-show to even know or care, watching those lovely commercials from Fast-Food chains that sell food that will make it too hard to get out of that comfy-chair. But of course, no sane politician would sell themselves like that. They have standards, they have morals. They protect their people.

I'm just glad I live in Denmark. Things haven't gone south as much here. Yet.

I'm sorry if I've offended somebody. Not really my intention. My intention was to express a concern, but maybe that was misplaced. Maybe you are all okay and I'm mistaken. Let's hope so.

Or maybe, just maybe, people, politicians included; although trying to include them in the human race is stretching things, are more complicated and less one sided. Maybe Americans are not all corporate dupes who spend all day eating McDonalds and watching mindless, and mindnumbing reality TV shows.

And maybe just because we do not share your opinions it does not preclude us from being intelligent and thoughtful members of society.

[ZeroCharisma]

Gworeth wrote:

... watching those lovely commercials from Fast-Food chains that sell food that will make it too hard to get out of that comfy-chair...

I take issue with the idea that fast food chains sell actual food! They are basically drug peddlers who get to wrap up their wares in food-style packages and market them on TV.. ;)

"Getting fat, while starving to death? I'm lovin' it!"

[Comrade Anklebiter]

The Republicans and the Democrats are both a bunch of real motherfu...

Nevermind. I've been involved in enough politics-driven drama over the past 48 hours. I'll just say that Double Indemnity is awesome and Barbara Stanwyck was hot and leave it at that.

[thejeff]

Yeah, it's the fact that he's not a partisan that makes this more credible. As I said before, long time Republican staffer, no praise for Democrats.

OTOH, Truth-Out is partisan and not the most credible, so that balances it out a bit.

As for lunatic statements by Congresscritters, more context:

Quote:

The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks.

Quote:

To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West.

Both parties have their embarrassing idiots, no arguments there.

I assume the Democrats who made those idiotic statements are not only standing by them, but pushing policies based on them and moving up in the leadership ranks.

[Dire Mongoose]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Wait....

Truth-Out.org? REally?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ok, let me link to World Net Daily for some equally fair and balanced commentary about the Democrat party.

Or Al Jezera for fair and balanced commentary about Israel.

Isn't that pretty much textbook ad hominem?

[TriOmegaZero]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Isn't that pretty much textbook ad hominem?

Isn't that what all political discussion is nowadays?

[LazarX]

Gworeth wrote:

As far as I can tell, he's not going easy on the Democrats either.

If you want to get real news, where do you get them then? corporateNews-networks? Fox? Where? Who out there is trying to tell the real story, and not just put a spin to it (or, at least as little spin as possible). This I'd like to know.

Sad to say I think one of the few answers to your question is John Stewart on the Daily Show. I rememember his famous line on Crossfire. Something like. "You're criticizing me on how I cover NEWS? I follow talking sock puppets!"

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, it's the fact that he's not a partisan that makes this more credible. As I said before, long time Republican staffer, no praise for Democrats.

The reason that he has less to say about Democrats is that essentially they've become completely inneffectual as a party. (What he does say about them, is pretty damming though.) So no, he doesn't let them off either. He sounds very much like an old-school Nixon-style Republican before it got taken over by the Reagan-Goldwater school of thought.

[Crimson Jester]

ZeroCharisma wrote:

Gworeth wrote:

... watching those lovely commercials from Fast-Food chains that sell food that will make it too hard to get out of that comfy-chair...

I take issue with the idea that fast food chains sell actual food! They are basically drug peddlers who get to wrap up their wares in food-style packages and market them on TV.. ;)

"Getting fat, while starving to death? I'm lovin' it!"

You know, yeah the commercials are slowly getting better. The food as well.

But that doesn't bother me as much as the "Ask your Doctor" about our new medications. WTF... My Dr. should be letting me know about meds for me. Not me telling him what to prescribe for a condition I don't have. [/mini rant]

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

He seems to match my take on it fairly well, which is interesting because he's a long time Republican staffer and I'm well to the left of the Democratic party.

At this point you could be as right wing as Richard Nixon, and still be "well to the left" of the current Democratic Party.

[Matthew Morris]

thejeff wrote:

Both parties have their embarrassing idiots, no arguments there.

I assume the Democrats who made those idiotic statements are not only standing by them, but pushing policies based on them and moving up in the leadership ranks.

Al Sharpton - Former Presidential Candidate.

Congresscritter Henery "Jews are Stupid and Greedy" Waxman

Andrew "Dem Tea Partiers want to Lynch me!" Carson. CBC vote counter and congresscritter.

Debbie "Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow"Wasserman-Schultz. She's the gift that keeps giving, and the head of the DNC.

And that's just a start. All prominant Democrats, all leadership types.

But hey, the administration has set up a site for people just like me. Please, feel free to report me...

You want to argue both parties have their problem children? (Ron "They might use that wall to keep Americans in!" Paul comes to mind) fine. But at least admit the reality.

[Matthew Morris]

Crimson Jester wrote:

But that doesn't bother me as much as the "Ask your Doctor" about our new medications. WTF... My Dr. should be letting me know about meds for me. Not me telling him what to prescribe for a condition I don't have. [/mini rant]

That's one thing I like about my doc, she doesn't grab the 'new best thing' to diagnose a problem, she starts with the basics, and is very conservative on what she prescribes.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

He seems to match my take on it fairly well, which is interesting because he's a long time Republican staffer and I'm well to the left of the Democratic party.

At this point you could be as right wing as Richard Nixon, and still be "well to the left" of the current Democratic Party.

As I've said before, only in some things.

Economic policy/Social safety net issues, sure. That's how far the debate has shifted.

Foreign policy, about the same.

Civil Rights/GLBT issues, no comparison.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes.

Part of the problem is that the republicans (unlike the democrats) are acting like a monolithic entity with one singular purpose. Even though many republicans may disagree with the tea party, they still support their legislation and still help drag their heels against the democrats ideas. It may not be your actual view, but it is the effect of a republicans vote to support the tea party inanity

[Evil Lincoln]

Phew.

That is some leftist screed right there.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Nothing obviously counter-factual, and no praise for the democrats either.

Still, this kind of rage is best taken with a grain of salt. Politics have been contentious for a very long time, I don't think these are the end-times.

[Dragnmoon]

Crimson Jester wrote:

To me the entire thing smack of inflammatory rhetoric, using extreme examples to jump to conclusions that are far from accurate. He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes. I do not have the time, nor the wherewithal to go point to point on this long, and in my opinion idiot tirade, I just have to say that if you believe even a tenth of what is written by this person as move than just a twisted distortion of what most people, let alone republicans feel, I am the one who is worried.

If does not matter if the Average Republican or Average Democrat does not hold these extreme views, if they still vote into office those that do.

By voting them into power you lose your power of being able to bring your party to the less extreme views.

I am not saying you in particular voted them in, but enough did that they where able to get into power.

[thejeff]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Phew.

That is some leftist screed right there.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Nothing obviously counter-factual, and no praise for the democrats either.

Still, this kind of rage is best taken with a grain of salt. Politics have been contentious for a very long time, I don't think these are the end-times.

Thing is it isn't a leftist screed! There isn't anything vaguely left about it. There's almost nothing about policy at all.

[Crimson Jester]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

To me the entire thing smack of inflammatory rhetoric, using extreme examples to jump to conclusions that are far from accurate. He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes. I do not have the time, nor the wherewithal to go point to point on this long, and in my opinion idiot tirade, I just have to say that if you believe even a tenth of what is written by this person as move than just a twisted distortion of what most people, let alone republicans feel, I am the one who is worried.

If does not matter if the Average Republican or Average Democrat does not hold these extreme views, if they still vote into office those that do.

By voting them into power you lose your power of being able to bring your party to the less extreme views.

I am not saying you in particular voted them in, but enough did that they where able to get into power.

Ah this is why I am having issues with the current crop of "candidates." Also I as a registered Republican will never vote for Bachmann.

[Crimson Jester]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

He also seems to be pigeonholing not just the republican party but any voter who may claim affiliation to the republican party as a holder of these extreme views and attitudes.

Part of the problem is that the republicans (unlike the democrats) are acting like a monolithic entity with one singular purpose. Even though many republicans may disagree with the tea party, they still support their legislation and still help drag their heels against the democrats ideas. It may not be your actual view, but it is the effect of a republicans vote to support the tea party inanity

Not from where I am sitting. Your view may well differ. As others have pointed out these things have been going on for a long long time. I personally don't want to be the aging guy with the sign saying the end is coming.

[Evil Lincoln]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Phew.

That is some leftist screed right there.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Nothing obviously counter-factual, and no praise for the democrats either.

Still, this kind of rage is best taken with a grain of salt. Politics have been contentious for a very long time, I don't think these are the end-times.

You're right, I think. Not leftist. But screed of some kind. Very screedy.

[Crimson Jester]

thejeff wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Phew.

That is some leftist screed right there.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Nothing obviously counter-factual, and no praise for the democrats either.

Still, this kind of rage is best taken with a grain of salt. Politics have been contentious for a very long time, I don't think these are the end-times.

Thing is it isn't a leftist screed! There isn't anything vaguely left about it. There's almost nothing about policy at all.

Naw not even going to go there.

[Celestial Healer]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Phew.

That is some leftist screed right there.

I actually enjoyed it a lot. Nothing obviously counter-factual, and no praise for the democrats either.

Still, this kind of rage is best taken with a grain of salt. Politics have been contentious for a very long time, I don't think these are the end-times.

You're right, I think. Not leftist. But screed of some kind. Very screedy.

I'm stealing the word "screedy".

[doctor_wu]

Wait this is news I was thinking this for at least a few years now.

Also republicans get smite scientists as a class feature and yes the bonus damage is multiplied on a critical hit.

[Bruunwald]

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

[Evil Lincoln]

Bruunwald wrote:

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

...and is also atheist, or at least downright cynical.

[Crimson Jester]

Bruunwald wrote:

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

o·pin·ion

   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn]
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

fact
   /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

truth
   /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth]
noun, plural truths

1.
the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.
the state or character of being true.
5.
actuality or actual existence.

[thejeff]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Bruunwald wrote:

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

...and is also atheist, or at least downright cynical.

Aetheist? What does religion have to do with anything in the article?

Or is there supposed to be some connection between atheism and cynicism that I'm missing?

I'll grant that I am cynical. Or at least that I try to be. Reality keeps beating my cynicism. I can't keep up.

[doctor_wu]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Bruunwald wrote:

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

...and is also atheist, or at least downright cynical.

You say that like being cynical is a bad thing. Why can't we get this guy and Alan Grayson to run for president in 2012 oh wow would this be interesting and awesome to watch.

[Evil Lincoln]

thejeff wrote:

Aetheist? What does religion have to do with anything in the article?

Other than being bulleted point #3?

[Caedwyr]

Crimson Jester wrote:

Bruunwald wrote:

Everything in the article is a clear reality to anybody who is actually paying half attention to all of this.

o·pin·ion

   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn]
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

fact
   /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

truth
   /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth]
noun, plural truths

1.
the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.
the state or character of being true.
5.
actuality or actual existence.

Do you have any specific issues with the article in question you would like to raise, or will you continue to make general unsubstantiated claims of bias and use various smokescreens and misdirections to divert discussion of the article?

[doctor_wu]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Aetheist? What does religion have to do with anything in the article?

Other than being bulleted point #3?

What about moderate Christians that do not bleive in a literal interpreation of the bible. Are you calling them atheists?

[Evil Lincoln]

doctor_wu wrote:

You say that like being cynical is a bad thing.

Well, there's skeptical and there's cynical. I'm a little bit of both. I'm not so cynical that I would pretend to believe in God in order to win an elected office. I personally believe that most heads of state and religious leaders are precisely that cynical, simply because they claim to have communicated with the god I don't believe in.

But it is all as CJ says: opinion. Still nothing in the article strikes me as all that controversial, it's mostly the angry manner in which it is written that seems to have riled people. The GOP does:

idealogically support the wealthy

support wars and military intervention

enjoy the support of increasingly-influential religious organizations

I don't know anyone who would argue these points, and they're the substance of the article. Certainly the phrasing is far from neutral, and you might debate the relevance of these points to the nations problems, depending on where you stand.