Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[Zoupa]

I thought moveon was a website.

[Razgovory]

I thought moveon was a website.

Yeah, so did I.  There must have been a Moveon.org caucus in Congress at some point.

[Habbaku]

My aunt still mispronounces Hawaii.

"Guys, would you like to see pictures from our 'Hawaya' trip?"

[Valmy]

How did Languish become so liberal?

Being conservative means being a birther?  Then I guess Hans is a liberal.

[DGuller]

The MoveOn crowd eventually chilled out once their bugaboo was out of office, and so will the TeaBaggers. No difference.

The MoveOn crowd was never a force you make it out to be.  It was much more potent as a strawman for people like you than it was at actually accomplishing anything, either from the propaganda standpoint, or from actual political power.  The only effect it ever had was booting Lieberman from the Democratic Party, which wasn't such a great undertaking given Lieberman's open defiance and mockery of his party on foreign policy matters.  I would argue that Teabaggers can be traced back to early 1990ies, and chilled out only during W's term, for obvious reason.

[Razgovory]

What is the GOPtard equivalent to Moveon.org?  It's a website that has branched out into a fund raising machine. 

[11B4V]

Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...




Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"?  Or "Like a cardboard cutout"?  (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)

plus that pic is photo shopped.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I thought moveon was a website.

That's all it is. 

[Berkut]

The MoveOn crowd eventually chilled out once their bugaboo was out of office, and so will the TeaBaggers. No difference.

The MoveOn crowd was never a force you make it out to be.  It was much more potent as a strawman for people like you than it was at actually accomplishing anything, either from the propaganda standpoint, or from actual political power.  The only effect it ever had was booting Lieberman from the Democratic Party, which wasn't such a great undertaking given Lieberman's open defiance and mockery of his party on foreign policy matters.

Look, someone ritually casting out from their party those who are not radical enough for their tastes. Hmmm....what does that sound like???

Meh, of course you are going to argue that your crazies are not nearly as influential as the purple drazi's crazies - especially since you were/are the Dem equivalent of a Tea Bagger - recall how much you raged against Blue Dog Democrats, how they were not "real" Dems, and the Dems would be better off without them, etc., etc. Pretty much Nordquist without the power.

Tea Baggers are the luny fringe of the Republicans. They are slightly different than the loony fringe that was around when Clinton was President, because the circumstances are different, but it is all one and the same from a systemic point of view.

I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.

Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.

But the idea that there is any fundamental difference between your crazies and their crazies is a figment of your allegiances.

[Malthus]

Speaking of real-or-fake as it pertains to Presidents, this is recently in some news...




Bill Clinton and a trio of porn stars..."Like a Boss"?  Or "Like a cardboard cutout"?  (He looks fake as hell, but everything I've found says it's legit)

Can't be real.

Clinton still has his pants on. 

[DGuller]

Look, someone ritually casting out from their party those who are not radical enough for their tastes. Hmmm....what does that sound like???

Someone's moderation is failing here.  There is a middle ground to be struck when it comes to party discipline.  One extreme is a party where no dissent is tolerated.  Another extreme is a party that has no ideas uniting it, in which case it's not really a party at all.  Obviously the optimal point is somewhere in the middle. 

Also, in Lieberman's case, he wasn't done in on just on dissent, but also on how he expressed his dissent.  Publically lecturing your fellow party members is not going to go down well, regardless of whether it's a Ba'ath Party or the Democratic Party.

Meh, of course you are going to argue that your crazies are not nearly as influential as the purple drazi's crazies - especially since you were/are the Dem equivalent of a Tea Bagger - recall how much you raged against Blue Dog Democrats, how they were not "real" Dems, and the Dems would be better off without them, etc., etc. Pretty much Nordquist without the power.

I may also argue that because they're mostly a figment of your rather rich imagination.  As for me being a Teabagger, that's just an obvious ad hominem troll, so I'm not even going to bother wasting time on it.  I am, however, a staunch anti-Repulican, because Republicans as they are currently are utterly repugnant to me.  Being staunchly against one party doesn't make me an unwavering adhrent of the other party.

As for Blue Dogs, my argument repeatedly went over your head, but I'll repeat again:  Blue Dogs gave Democrats the appearance of supermajority without an actual supermajority, which is the worst of both worlds.  Democrats still couldn't do what they in general are elected to do, but there was an appearance that they could.  You can't just take a couple of Republicans, slap a D on them, and expect any meaingful change.  As stated previously, party has to mean something, a party that has everyone as its member is a party that has no one as its member.

Tea Baggers are the luny fringe of the Republicans. They are slightly different than the loony fringe that was around when Clinton was President, because the circumstances are different, but it is all one and the same from a systemic point of view.

The pretext is different, but not much else.

But the idea that there is any fundamental difference between your crazies and their crazies is a figment of your allegiances.

From where I'm sitting, it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground.  You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way, that you often just don't think things through at all. 

As I said previously, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to take a middle position.  Computers can do that.  Figuring out when the truth is not the middle, at the risk of adopting an extreme position that would be historically discredited, is where it takes some thinking.

[Razgovory]

Again, is the Tea Party really some kind of Fringe?  They have a caucus.  I'm perplexed that someone would think they are the equivalent of Moveon.org which is a website.

[derspiess]

You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.

Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.

He's Bill Clinton.  He can do much better than that without increased effort.

[Razgovory]

You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.

Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.

He's Bill Clinton.  He can do much better than that without increased effort.

I think Bill Clinton just likes ugly chicks.

[derspiess]

You dont understand. They're easy, not much effort required.

Why spend loads of cash on gifts and dinners, when you can take those to MacDonald's and get them a Happy Meal w/ toy.

He's Bill Clinton.  He can do much better than that without increased effort.

I think Bill Clinton just likes ugly chicks.

THAT'S MY POINT