[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 1, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> On 11-01 11:48, Collins Richey wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sean LeBlanc  
>> <seanleblanc at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just not going to bother prioritize reading Goldberg's book ...
>>
>> 'Tis a pity, since , since,
>>
>>>
>>> If I'm to be frank, if I have to worry about authoritarianism -  
>>> I'd say it's
>>> going to come from the right. Sinclair Lewis said, "When fascism  
>>> comes to
>>> America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
>>
>> If you bothered to read the book, you would learn that fascism  
>> already
>> came to town with Woodrow Wilson, and it certainly wasn't from the
>> right.
>
> I'm talking about right here and right now. Which wing are we to be  
> more
> concerned about? I don't see liberals exhorting people to violence,  
> do you?
> I DO see this on the right, though.

I'm NOT condoning it, but I will point out that people tend to get  
violent when you "redistribute" their wealth.   Those that are getting  
the redistribution payments aren't going to be violent, that's for  
sure.   This is the basis of most revolutions in history, if you look.

> You see people on the left exhorting people to violence, then? Can you
> provide examples? Because I can for McCain campaign rallies.

Post 'em.  Let's vet what really happened.  (I haven't seen it, and I  
watch a lot of rallies on C-SPAN.)  I think someone pointed out that  
you're using an example from ONE rally that was questionable at best.

> If you say so. I'm just citing examples of what I think is  
> dangerously close
> to a tipping point in the Republican Party. They better get their  
> house in
> order, or they will (hopefully) spend a long time in the wilderness.

It won't take that long.  I agree with you in this regard, but once  
the crazy Liberals start passing laws without any checks and balances,  
Obama will be out of office in four years.  The majority of people  
won't stand for their shennanigans for long.  GW Bush has done similar  
things, and I was floored when he won a second term.  Obama won't.   
The only way he stays in office is if the Democratic Party can be  
ultra-patient to only dole out the really crazy stuff until Term #2.   
And they won't.

> Hopefully the whole party gets rejected for a while, and they do a  
> serious
> re-think on the whole pandering to RWAs thing.

They will.  But ultimately bullies always win, in both Parties.

> Like I said, I've lost count how many people have found they  
> couldn't toe
> the party line, and came out and said various things about McCain,
> especially about the single most important decision he could have  
> made as a
> candidate - choosing Palin.

There's a boatload of Liberals who don't really like Biden as a  
running mate either, or who would prefer that Hillary won the  
nomination, but in ultra-amazing fashion, they've quieted down for  
this opportunity to have the House, Senate, Presidency, and a Supreme  
Court Justice for life.  Go figure.

> Looking back on this campaign, unless the RNC can steal this  
> election for
> McCain, they will point to that choice as being the cincher for losing
> McCain the vote. Choosing someone as incompetent, anti-intellectual  
> and
> ignorant as Palin over all the other choices in a cynical bid to try  
> to get
> "values voters" (cough) may have worked to get a few of those  
> voters...but I
> think McCain also lost a lot of Republicans of principle in the  
> process.

"Steal the election for McCain"... pshaw.  Give me a break.  When you  
step into the voting booth and vote, you're voting for the person, and  
the Party horse-shit that comes with him, not the other way around.   
People know this.

>> WTF is that? You can't be an intellectual if you don't believe in
>> socialism? People on the right are not really convinced that the
>> rampant and pervasive pseudo-intellectual socialists that dominate  
>> our
>> educational system are the best form of intellectualism. Sign me up.
>> Or is the tired old mantra: you can't be a real intellectual if you
>> believe in God?
>
> I never said any of the above. Don't put words in my mouth.

It's the attitude.  Not the words.  I've seen it from a whole lot of  
my Liberal friends.  (And I don't pick friends by their political  
beliefs like a lot of people do.  I've been in good debates with long- 
time friends who are rich beyond any measure of the word who are  
voting for Obama.  As best as I can tell, they feel guilty or  
something.  They drive nicer cars than I do, they live in fancier  
neighborhoods than I do, and they want to give it away.  That's their  
prerogative, I guess.)

> I don't think you must be retarded if you are religious. I'm talking  
> about,
> for instance, pandering to the evolution-deniers and the AGW- 
> deniers. I hope
> you don't think "Dr" Dino Hovind is an intellectual. If you do, then  
> I guess
> we are at a complete impasse.

And Obama doesn't pander to those who think poor people can borrow  
their way out of poverty?  The highest paid Senator by Fannie Mae  
ever?  Come on.  Really?  You don't believe he's JUST as corrupt as  
the other panderers on the side you disagree with?  Yeah, the $4  
million for his informercial came from "the people" at $25 a pop.  Sure.


> I'm also talking about pandering to the notion that any old hick  
> from a
> small town has more wisdom than people that live in the city. I'm  
> talking
> about pandering to "hockey moms" and telling us they have more  
> insight into
> foreign policy than wonks...

So you do admit that Obama's campaign does the opposite, pandering to  
the suburban elite who think they're smarter than the small town  
folks?  I think you're basically proving that point by saying you WANT  
to disenfranchise the "hockey moms".  Their vote shouldn't count, right?

Only the self-made intellectual or corporate education buying  
(colleges are a business, after all), self-important guy driving a BMW  
in the 'burbs should count?  That's why the McCain campaign is  
pandering -- because it's a huge hole in Obama's world view... he  
really does NOT care what the religious small-town "hocky moms" and  
"Joe the Plumber" types think.

> And what's this obsession with socialists?

The plan (posted on Obama's website for all to see) is more socialist  
than anything seen in a long time, that's why the "obsession" with  
it.  It's published, and it's not a good plan for economic growth or  
anyone who doesn't want their money poured down the drain by  
government.  SOCIALIZED healthcare, for example.

> Tell me where I said I support socialism, and the above might make  
> some sort
> of sense.I do think the hyper-"patriots" are the ones to watch out,  
> for,
> though, yes, as they are probably signifying they are RWAs.

A vote for Obama's campaign is a vote for socialized medicine.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com