Great Society

Children of the Sun => Newsday => Political Junkies => Topic started by: Cassander on April 17, 2009, 02:33:00 PM

Title: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 17, 2009, 02:33:00 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F1398%2Fslide_1398_20093_large.jpg&hash=a87d2342518ae13e70f29d43a650203f47f1f011)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 17, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F1398%2Fslide_1398_20075_large.jpg&hash=1f85697c328c4abd919dd9e9a6e49aabefa28ffe)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 17, 2009, 02:37:30 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F1400%2Fslide_1400_20113_large.jpg&hash=367a082de052658796ca920041b8e44460f27a78)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 17, 2009, 02:43:32 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F1394%2Fslide_1394_20027_large.jpg&hash=d3f4656a3e8ffe7beb29f416e3b1214d46eb4d81)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 17, 2009, 02:44:08 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fsign1.jpg&hash=9f4938f8a73a74be00a00ca4c5a19cd08eff9f18)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 17, 2009, 02:47:39 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fsign2.jpg&hash=8d0e5bae34404b51dfe644ef27f7abe16116251e)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 17, 2009, 02:49:35 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fsign3.jpg&hash=0731fde2ee277a4a6698f1283937211a13a67f7a)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 17, 2009, 02:52:50 PM
Here's a bunch of photos of various tea bagging, er, party signs. Borat would be so proud . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 17, 2009, 02:57:30 PM
This one may be my favorite.

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greatsociety.org%2Fuploads%2Fuserfiles%2F8%2Fsign5.jpg&hash=9d3e0d398ff8088b97f3e4700ad59324e451db44)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on April 17, 2009, 03:22:30 PM
ugh, these pictures piss me off.  Bitch can't even spell Barack correctly.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on April 17, 2009, 03:29:09 PM
From http://charitini.com/post/96850732/did-sean-hannity-get-out-from-behind-a-desk-and

Quote
Did Sean Hannity get out from behind a desk and attend the immigration amnesty rally in Los Angeles to which 500,000 people showed up last year? Did Fox News dedicate around-the-clock coverage and nearly unbearable homerism to the Iraq War protests which over a million Americans attended (150,000 in San Francisco alone) five years ago? Did Glenn Reynolds claim that government needs to Listen Up and Get the Message and Pay Attention and all this shit when 800,000 people (NYPD estimate; protesters claimed over a million, but such estimates are inevitably high) marched in New York City in 2004 to protest the RNC? Do any of these hacks wax patriotic about the millions upon millions of people who did something real and substantive in electing the new President - not standing around bitching, not listening to talk radio millionaires give speeches in a park amidst misspelled, homemade signs - last November? Of course not. Why? Because “those people” aren’t Real Americans. See, Real Americans means white people. Angry, middle-aged, rural or suburban white people.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 17, 2009, 05:23:28 PM
Protests are the best for collecting insanity, regardless of what is being protested.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on April 17, 2009, 05:31:49 PM
GET A BRAIN MORANS!
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: fajwat on April 17, 2009, 05:39:49 PM
Protests are the best for collecting insanity, regardless of what is being protested.

True that.  My only counterclaim is that judging by the teabagging photos I've seen, liberal protests are better at collecting hot chicks.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: fajwat on April 17, 2009, 05:45:14 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/16/tea_party/

The original has html links to source articles, poll results, etc.

Quote from: salon
excerpt...

To find extreme sentiments in Lafayette Park, it wasn't necessary to look for the people with the most eccentric tea-bag-themed costumes. You could just pick a protester at random. "I think Obama's plan is to create a catastrophic failure in our economic system, because then people will get desperate, and then you have the ability for a totalitarian government to move in," said J'Neane Theus, 54, who retired from the Navy and now manages investments. She drove about an hour from Clarksville, Md., battling Washington's horrific rush hour traffic to be an official marshal of the tea party (she had a white hat with "marshal" hand-scrawled in red ink to prove it). Her son, a 19-year-old Marine named Galen, stood next to her in a red, white and blue tie-dyed shirt, holding a sign accusing Barney Frank and other Democrats of treason. "I think that sounds very wacko; Americans don't want to believe that. But we've seen this movie before," the elder Theus said. I asked her where. "How about, well, fascist Italy, under Mussolini -- and look at what happened to him, I would remind Obama of that," she said. "Hitler. Stalin. Socialism has been proven not to work."

Another seemingly sedate protester, Brian Smith, a marketer from Greenville, S.C., who was in Washington on business and came by the rally, wandered equally off message. "I love my country and I don't like what's going on," Smith said. "Government -- to be honest with you, and this will probably be misquoted, but on 9/11, I think they hit the wrong building. They should have gone into the Capitol building, hit out, knocked out both sides of the aisle, we'd start from scratch, we'd be better off today." I pointed out that "they" did try to hit the Capitol. "Yeah, I know, they missed," he said. "The wrong sequence. If someone had to go, it should have been the Capitol building. On that day I felt differently, but today that's the way I feel."

As hard as Fox News, some big-name conservatives and even the Republican Party tried to make the tea parties out to be a mass movement of mainstream Americans, who -- not even three months into the Obama administration -- had already had enough, the group outside the White House seemed to be coming from the same fringey place. There were somewhere between 500 and 2,000 people in the square throughout the day, which was an impressive turnout considering the weather, but not anywhere near the outpouring of public support that organizers had been promising (or maybe threatening). But almost every sign bore witness that the protester who carried it was well to the right of your average swing voter. "Ameristan -- of the gov'nt, by the gov'nt, for the gov'nt, Barack Hussein Obama," read one placard. "Restore the Republic," pleaded another. "They're nothing but Marxist, socialist Communists in there," shouted a man wearing dark sunglasses, in spite of the rain, as he gestured at the White House. Someone standing alone on the grass, about 30 yards from the stage, had a sign calling Obama "Soetero" -- the name of his Indonesian stepfather -- and telling the president he'd have to get through the guy with the sign if he wanted to destroy the country. But the guy with the sign seemed too busy shouting into his cellphone to stop anyone, much less a president whom nearly two-thirds of the country think is doing a good job.

...excerpt
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on April 22, 2009, 12:05:45 PM
Will someone please shoot Dick Chaney in the face?  I am sick of hearing his opinions about this administration.

Quote
President Barack Obama's expansion of the federal government into the financial sector is likely to have "devastating" effects in the long term, former Vice President Dick Cheney said in his latest salvo directed at the new White House administration.

In an interview on Fox News — portions of which aired Tuesday night — the former vice president said he is "very concerned" about where the Obama administration is taking the country economically.

Why does anyone give a shit what Dick Cheney has to say about anything?  That's what I can't figure out.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on April 22, 2009, 12:29:34 PM


Why does anyone give a shit what Dick Cheney has to say about anything?  That's what I can't figure out.

Boredom.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on April 22, 2009, 01:07:04 PM
Hit the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: monkey! on April 22, 2009, 02:36:46 PM
Jews in ovens.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 22, 2009, 09:13:46 PM
I long for the day i read the headline "Dick Cheney Dead Today After Choking on Own Bullshit"
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 23, 2009, 03:16:02 AM
The reasons for this are, of course, that he was the Vice President and he's willing to be critical.

The same reasons we heard from Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton during the previous administration.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on April 23, 2009, 07:27:54 AM
Yeah, but at least Gore put on a cape and mask when he talked, and Clinton only took interviews when he was in the bathtub. 
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 23, 2009, 10:19:01 PM
plus, al gore never strong-armed senators into voting for a war or shot anyone in the face.  while in office, at least.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on April 24, 2009, 02:55:45 PM
I just find it funny that there are news organizations consulting officials from one of the least successful administrations in history as if their ideas hold any sort of credibility whatsoever.  I mean, shit... if they're going to talk to Cheney, then why aren't we consulting Ted Kaczynski about Homeland Security or Bernard Madoff about the credit crisis?
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: fajwat on April 24, 2009, 03:04:10 PM
I just find it funny that there are news organizations consulting officials from one of the least successful administrations in history as if their ideas hold any sort of credibility whatsoever.  I mean, shit... if they're going to talk to Cheney, then why aren't we consulting Ted Kaczynski about Homeland Security or Bernard Madoff about the credit crisis?

Amen, brother.  Well said.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on April 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
I just find it funny that there are news organizations consulting officials from one of the least successful administrations in history as if their ideas hold any sort of credibility whatsoever.  I mean, shit... if they're going to talk to Cheney, then why aren't we consulting Ted Kaczynski about Homeland Security or Bernard Madoff about the credit crisis?

uh, have you ever listened to ANY of their other consultant/experts?  all those people are whackjobs. 
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on April 24, 2009, 05:30:57 PM
There's a few comedy troupes and such who regularly get fake experts on TV. The Yes Men are notorious for that, too.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on October 16, 2009, 12:58:52 PM
i know there's a million "glen beck is crazy" clips out there, but this one hit me in a special place.  I really can't figure out if Beck is emotionally unsound and believes everything he says, if he's the ultimate conman who's in it for the easy money, or if he's some kind of twisted false prophet like Howard Beele in Network after he gets re-hired.

so let's watch some classic commercials and try to figure out what it was we all "used to agree on."

Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on October 20, 2009, 04:36:46 PM


I was in Kansas visiting relatives last week and had the pleasure of watching that very broadcast live. What the clip doesn't show is what set his little nonsensical tirade off in the first place.  

Before all of it, he showed a clip of a lady giving an address at a university or something (I was trying to ignore the broadcast so I don't know the exact details) and she highlighted two people who's politics she goes to for inspiration, one of them being Mao Tse Tung.  Of course, as soon as she's done saying that the clip ends and Beck launches into a directionless, weepy montage of pointless nostalgia and moral outrage; astounded that she could possibly be inspired by someone who murdered "millions"... what he failed to do was provide further context for her statement, completely negating the possibility that perhaps she went on to illustrate how Mao's politics serve as an example of how NOT to approach government.  

I have no idea if that was the case with regards to her speech, but the point is that this entire segment was set off by something taken entirely out of context.

My Mom commented to me later that watching Beck is like watching a Baptist televangelist.  The whole crying bit makes me want to reach through the television and strangle him.

Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2009, 05:07:42 PM
So, so glad that I don't have a TV.  I keep as much of the media as possible at arm's length.

I'm still sort of in my media blackout phase that began in the months before the election... Or maybe even earlier.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on October 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
It is only getting worse and worse... from all sides.  I get pretty tired of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann trying to emulate Jon Stewart by infusing jokes and sarcastic wit in their broadcasts... they doing virtually nothing but cover the implosion of the Republican party night after night.  I suppose it is interesting and entertaining for liberals such as myself, but if anyone tunes into MSNBC for news of the world, they're as disappointed as they would be tuning into Fox.

To their credit, they aren't quite as bad as Fox News, but the fact that MSNBC devotes so much of their time to highlighting conservative idiocy instead of covering world news says a lot about their network as well.

I get most of my news from the Al Jazeera podcast now, believe it or not.  They don't cover everything, but they take a story and then show how it is being reported in America, Europe and the Arab world, so I feel like I get a bit more perspective on world events that way.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2009, 06:15:27 PM
Yeah, that's what I tried before I gave up -- Al Jazeera, der Spiegel, the blog world.  But, even then, I'm exhausted by it all.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2009, 06:17:36 PM
And what's the first thing I see when I go to Al Jazeera?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091019165736887890.html

Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on October 20, 2009, 10:07:42 PM
i wish AP or Reuters would start an all-day news network.  Don't focus on anything "breaking" just give us the facts.  Just read them aloud.  Don't ask for viewer e-mails, don't consult with "experts" and don't get in a hissy fit when someone pops your pretend bubble of outrage.  just give us the goddamn news! with moving pictures!
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on October 21, 2009, 03:11:57 AM
Yeah, wouldn't that be something. Just hire a fucking actor to read the wires as they come in.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on October 21, 2009, 08:03:36 AM
People would be mesmerized, actually.  Morgan Freeman, sitting on a stool, reading the wires.  No background, no scrolling text.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on October 21, 2009, 01:32:11 PM
I would watch that shit, for sure.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on October 21, 2009, 10:50:58 PM
Would you... Fap to it?
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Nubbins on October 22, 2009, 11:10:19 AM
mmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Robin Meade
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on January 01, 2010, 02:59:54 AM
so....L crashed early.  i'm flipping through channels.  Fox News has a Glenn Beck Yearly countdown.  seriously, if you have DVR or TiVo, try to find this.  it's like Fox News just made it's own "Yes, here's an hour of Glenn Beck's craziest shit from the year...and it's absolutely insane." show.  but glenn is there the whole time to commentate on his own show and try and make it sound sane!  oh god!  it was one of the most entertaining things i've seen all year.  it's worse than i thought.  it's just absolute nursery school object lesson design concerning the most distilled if a=b then b=c,d,e,f,g,h, AND communist I bullshit, but it just makes sense.  this show has to exist.  this man has to exist.  i've had a bottle of champagne and a few whiskies.  i'm beginning to think glenn beck is some kind of spy the way the hero of Vonnegut's "Mother Night" was a spy.  preach nazi bullshit, but cough and pause at the right moment to save our armies and broadcast their movements.  the only question is...who is he a spy for?
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on January 03, 2010, 04:07:07 AM
The Chinese. When the American IQ is low enough, they swoop in. Glenn Beck is a fucking coal mine canary.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Cassander on January 03, 2010, 05:42:15 PM
holy shit!  almost everything makes sense now!

Quote
Beck was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended Mount Vernon's private Immaculate Conception Catholic school. At 13, he won a contest that landed him his first broadcast gig as a disc-jockey for his hometown radio station, KBRC.[7]

Beck's parents were divorced in 1977 and the 13 year-old Beck moved with his mother to Sumner, Washington, attending school in Puyallup. In 1979, his mother died in a mysterious drowning in Puget Sound, just west of Tacoma, either accidentally or as a suicide.[8] A man who had taken her out in a small boat also drowned. A Tacoma police report filed after the drowning stated that Mary Beck "appeared to be a classic drowning victim", but a Coast Guard investigator speculated that she could have either fallen or jumped overboard.[8]

After his mother's death, Beck and his older sister moved to their father’s home in Bellingham, Washington,[7] where Beck graduated from Sehome High School in 1982.[9] In the aftermath of his mother's death and subsequent suicide of his stepbrother, Beck has said he used "Dr. Jack Daniel's" to cope.[10]

At 18, following high school graduation, Beck relocated to Provo, Utah and worked at radio station KAYK. Feeling he "didn't fit in", Beck left Utah after six months,[11] taking a job at Washington D.C.'s WPGC in February 1983.[12]

While working at WPGC, Beck met his first wife, Claire.[13] The couple married and had two daughters, Mary and Hannah; Mary was born in 1988 with cerebral palsy, the result of a series of strokes at birth.[13] The couple divorced in 1994 amid Beck's struggles with substance abuse. Along with being a recovering alcoholic and drug addict,[14] Beck has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[15] He cites the help of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in his sobriety and attended his first AA meeting in November 1994, the month he states he stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis.[16]

In 1996, while working for a New Haven-area radio station, Beck was admitted to Yale University through a special program for non-traditional students. Beck took one theology class, "Early Christology," and then dropped out.[16][17]

In 1999, Beck married his second wife, Tania.[16] They joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in October 1999, partly at the urging of his daughter Mary.[18][19] The couple have two children, Raphe and Cheyenne, and currently live in New Canaan, Connecticut.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on January 03, 2010, 07:05:21 PM
What a fucking loon. Wow. And one of his daughters is one letter away from rape!
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2011, 05:14:25 PM
Great read on what kind of dinosaurs the Tea Partiers are.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/17/new-data-tea-party-is-authoritarian-not-libertarian/

Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on August 22, 2011, 02:13:23 PM
This sort of fits in here, right? I don't want to start a Bachmann thread, and every single GOP candidate this year is an element of the idiotic right wing backlash, so...

I starred it on Friday and never got around to posting it...but fucking hilarious.

In her later retraction, she said, "When you speak six times a day, slip-ups can occur."

Um...well, okay. I guess.


Quote
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said Thursday that Americans are alarmed that President Barack Obama may cut defense spending at a time when the Soviet Union is becoming a power in the world.

"When you are traveling -- I know you are in South Carolina now, you're obviously in Iowa, you're up in New Hampshire -- are you hearing different things in these states?" Christian radio host Jay Sekulow asked the candidate.

"I would say it's a unified message," Bachmann explained. "It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't [sic] forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well."

"But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that."
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 22, 2011, 08:07:47 PM
This sort of fits in here, right? I don't want to start a Bachmann thread, and every single GOP candidate this year is an element of the idiotic right wing backlash, so...

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmadmikesamerica.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2FBachmannCorndog.jpg&hash=8b684739e520a7c9b42219d5f4fab40b0934a816)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on August 22, 2011, 08:32:14 PM
I can't believe she's getting any airtime. She makes Palin look good!
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 03:16:35 PM
Who fucking consults these people? Seriously.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/behold-most-racist-political-ad-year-so-far (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/behold-most-racist-political-ad-year-so-far)

Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 03:54:26 PM
Opening scene: Bike path in Michigan. Chinese music. Clearly American Asian woman on a Schwinn.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 04:32:07 PM
Forget that the ad is transparent, xenophobic, and stupid. What kind of campaign advice is this guy getting? I mean, fuck! I don't even have a poly-sci degree and I could tell you that the backlash from that ad would be astronomical.

Unless that's the point. I haven't heard of this guy until now.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 04:42:04 PM
Nor does it matter. It's an underdog ad from a white-bred state. So, yeah, he at least gets some press off of it...

His ad reflects the shit I hear normal "liberal" type people say around here, let alone the vast voice of middle America. I'm really not taken aback by it at all.

Which says something about the true horror of this thread's theme/title.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 05:26:04 PM
I'm just shocked that his handlers let it slip by. They must have encouraged it.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: Tatertots on February 06, 2012, 05:29:08 PM
That video is only the tip of the iceberg: http://debbiespenditnow.com/
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 05:31:10 PM
 :mccainface:
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
That's awesome. This guy is the new Dwight Honeycutt, isn't he?
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2012, 04:21:18 PM
Speaking of republican insanity...

Quote
Allen West: I've 'Heard' 80 House Democrats Are Communist Party Members (UPDATE)


WASHINGTON -- As many as 80 House Democrats are communists, according to Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.).

West warned constituents at a Tuesday town hall event that he's "heard" that dozens of his Democratic colleagues in the House are members of the Communist Party, the Palm Beach Post reported. There are currently 190 House Democrats.

West spokeswoman Angela Melvin later defended West's comments -- and clarified to whom West was referring.

"The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren't proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom," Melvin said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

West's campaign also sent over the transcript of the actual exchange that took place during the town hall to show that West was asked directly about the role of communists in the House.

    Moderator: What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists or International Socialist?

    West: It's a good question. I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus confirmed that they are not, in fact, members of the Communist Party.

"I can confirm that Congresswoman Baldwin is not a communist," said Jerilyn Goodman, spokeswoman for Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), a vice chair of the caucus.

"Chellie is a Democrat, a farmer and a Lutheran but no, she is not a Communist," said Willy Ritch, spokesman for Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), also a vice chair of the caucus.

During the same event, which took place at Jensen Beach, the freshman Republican said President Barack Obama wouldn't have a public debate with him over their policy differences because he was "scared." The president was in Florida on Tuesday giving remarks about the economy and holding campaign events.

"I really wish that, standing here before you, was Allen West and President Obama," West said, according to the Palm Beach Post. "We could have a simple discussion. But that ain't ever gonna happen."

When an audience member asked why, West said in "a mocking voice" that it was because Obama "was too scared."

WATCH West's comments in the video above.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this post stated that West made the remarks at Florida Atlantic University. He made the statement at Jensen Beach.

This post has been updated to include a statement from West's office and comments from members of the CPC.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 04:01:19 PM
If you have the stomach for it, the right wing backlash against  Funny or Die-gate is beyond insane and hilarious (mostly). 
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2014, 04:33:08 PM
Which one are you specifically referencing?
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 04:38:08 PM
Which one are you specifically referencing?

I didn't post a link because that's basically like trying to fill a glass in a tsunami.

Crooks & Liars is a good sort of clearinghouse website for right wing shenanigans that'll point you in the right direction.  http://crooksandliars.com/ It's at the top of their news now, but I ran into it because I fine-tuned my Google News to hit blogs and twitter pretty heavily, and I actually had to scale that down today to get real news, like UFO sightings.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2014, 05:13:14 PM
They're falling all over themselves to slam it because a ton of people signed up fro Obamacare yesterday.

I mean, hell, half the things Galafianakis said to him is shit Limbaugh would like to say to him.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on March 12, 2014, 05:17:20 PM
We should discuss how a parody web series did a better job, in just a few minutes, at getting the word out and a message across than either side of the political fence has done for six years.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 12, 2014, 05:18:22 PM
Well, I think that's why he did it, but yes... sign o' the times.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 22, 2014, 09:05:47 PM
Man, this so made me howl.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sk5fyk/idaho-s-bizarre-gubernatorial-debate (http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sk5fyk/idaho-s-bizarre-gubernatorial-debate)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2014, 07:53:08 AM
That's awesome. Though making fun of Idaho is easy.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 23, 2014, 10:42:39 AM
I've told you about the time Missus RC an I drove through Idaho on our honeymoon, right? We stopped in this little convenience store to gas up and use the bathroom. There were two guys who had to be in a militia of some sort and a women with two kids. All of them stared at us the entire time we were there. Nobody ever spoke. It was really messed up. We got out fast.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 10, 2015, 10:53:15 PM
I'm sort of obsessed with the "47 Traitors" story. It's fascinating on a lot of levels, one being the history (and ramifications) of the Logan Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/what-an-18th-century-non-war-with-france-has-to-do-with-the-senates-letter-to-iran/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/what-an-18th-century-non-war-with-france-has-to-do-with-the-senates-letter-to-iran/)

Quote
What an 18th century non-war with France has to do with the Senate’s letter to Iran

Technically, which is to say, legally, you and I are not allowed to travel to Tehran to try to work out a deal between the United States and Iran. There are a lot of reasons why that prohibition makes sense; your ability to gain an audience with the country's leaders being the least of the many difficulties.

But after a doctor named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to try to prevent war between our two countries, it became illegal for anyone to freelance in that capacity. The law has never been enforced, but it has a habit of popping into the political conversation when someone -- say, most of the Republican conference in the Senate -- tries to influence foreign relations, say, by sending a letter to the Iranian opposition. Which, you're probably aware, has happened.

At the time of Logan's trip, the United States and France were building toward a war, as Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, explained to me by phone. Logan went to France after an official delegation from the United States had been met with demands from anonymous French emissaries for a bribe, an incident known as the XYZ Affair. The Federalist Party of President John Adams was advocating for war, but Logan's visit prompted France to take some actions that defused the situation. Disappointment in Adams's subsequent ramping down of tensions led to the act that bears Logan's name.

As originally drafted, the Logan Act (as it is known) prohibits:

[A]ny unauthorized United States citizen to carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government with an intent to influence its measures or conduct in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.

That has been expanded slightly over time, but the intent is the same: Negotiating with foreign governments is the exclusive domain of the executive branch.

But it seems that no one has ever been tried for a violation of the law. "Historically, it has been threatened but never used," McConnell said. "There have been various threats of enforcement over the years, but it's never been enforced." The law has been "frequently violated," he added, "but never enforced."

As written, the law is awfully vague, allowing for a number of possible ways it might be broken. A report from the Congressional Research Service in 2006 recounted the case of the one person who's ever been charged with violating the act: Francis Flournoy, a farmer from Kentucky who wrote a letter in a regional paper in 1803 that advocated a new country west of the Mississippi allied with France. He never faced trial, and the new country -- as you may know -- never came to be.

Nor, McConnell pointed out, are the senators who wrote the letter to Iran likely to be the first punished by the Logan Act. That's because of the constitutional "speech and debate clause," he noted, "which exempts members of Congress from arrest or prosecution for acts done in their official capacity." We noted this last week, when considering the possible charges against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). A member of Congress can slander you from the floor of the Senate, and there's nothing you can do about it. "Offhand, I can't think of any reason why this would not fall within that," McConnell said.

There's also an informal policy under which members of Congress defer to the administration on matters of foreign policy, particularly when overseas. That's not anything binding, and, McConnell notes, it too has been somewhat loosely followed over the last 10 to 15 years.

All of which is to say that the White House (and Senate Democrats) are clearly not happy with the senators' letter, but there's not really much that they can do about it. "I would not expect that the attorney general would be bringing any charges," McConnell said drily.

"But who knows," he added. "Stranger things have happened."
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2015, 10:34:37 AM
Well, I hope you've studied more of the history of the Logan Act than the author of that article did!

I'm on news blackout again... I haven't even heard of the "47 Traitors" or anything that the article is mentioning. Just incensed that the author's only resource is the Junior Guide to History that has half the pages missing.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2015, 11:43:15 AM
It's either an amazing time to be on new blackout or a terrible time. Right now I find it more entertaining than scary. (Even though long term ramifications of some if it is terrifying.)
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: nacho on March 11, 2015, 12:03:20 PM
It's either an amazing time to be on new blackout or a terrible time. Right now I find it more entertaining than scary. (Even though long term ramifications of some if it is terrifying.)

It's always an amazing time to be on news blackout. It's only ever entertaining because it's all too horrible to believe.
Title: Re: Sweet, sweet Idiotic Right Wing Backlash
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 19, 2015, 07:37:07 PM
Such a good wonk piece for history nerds about the GOP's current conundrum.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-todays-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixons-southern-strategy/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/why-todays-gop-crackup-is-the-final-unraveling-of-nixons-southern-strategy/)

Quote
Why Today’s GOP Crackup Is the Final Unraveling of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’
Tea Party rebels are exposing the deep rifts between country-club elites and social-issue hard-liners.

resh chatter among Washington insiders is not about whether the Republican Party will win in 2016 but whether it will survive. Donald Trump—the fear that he might actually become the GOP nominee—is the ultimate nightmare. Some gleeful Democrats are rooting (sotto voce) for the Donald, though many expect he will self-destruct.

Nevertheless, Republicans face a larger problem. The GOP finds itself trapped in a marriage that has not only gone bad but is coming apart in full public view. After five decades of shrewd strategy, the Republican coalition Richard Nixon put together in 1968—welcoming the segregationist white South into the Party of Lincoln—is now devouring itself in ugly, spiteful recriminations.

The abrupt resignation of House Speaker John Boehner was his capitulation to this new reality. His downfall was loudly cheered by many of his own troops—the angry right-wingers in the House who have turned upon the party establishment. Chaos followed. The discontented accuse party leaders of weakness and betraying their promises to the loyal rank and file.

At the heart of this intramural conflict is the fact that society has changed dramatically in recent decades, but the GOP has refused to change with it. Americans are rapidly shifting toward more tolerant understandings of personal behavior and social values, but the Republican Party sticks with retrograde social taboos and hard-edged prejudices about race, gender, sexual freedom, immigration, and religion. Plus, it wants to do away with big government (or so it claims).

The party establishment, including business and financial leaders, seems to realize that Republicans need to moderate their outdated posture on social issues. But they can’t persuade their own base—especially Republicans in the white South—to change. The longer the GOP holds out, the more likely it is to be damaged by the nation’s changing demographics—the swelling impact of Latinos and other immigrants, and the flowering influence of millennials, the 18-to-30-year-olds who are more liberal and tolerant than their elders.

Nixon’s “Southern strategy” was cynical, of course, but it was an effective electoral ploy. Now, however, it is beginning to look like a deal with the devil. For 2016, the GOP has to cope with very different challenges. The party has to find a broadly appealing nominee who won’t scare off party moderates and independent voters, but who at the same time can pacify rebellious right-wingers and prevent a party crackup.

Looking over the list of possible nominees doesn’t reveal an obvious solution. Trumpish extremism is entertaining, but it could simply boost voter turnout among Democratic constituencies. Hard-core Tea Party types threaten to play Samson and pull down the temple if they don’t get their way.

* * *

To grasp the GOP’s dilemma, it helps to understand that the modern Republican Party was founded on some basic contradictions. It has been an odd-couple coalition that unites the East Coast Republican establishment with the hardscrabble segregationists of the white South. Richard Nixon brokered the deal with Dixiecrat leader Strom Thurmond at the ’68 convention in Miami, wherein states of the old slave-holding Confederacy would join the Party of Lincoln. It took two election cycles to convert the “Solid South,” but Nixon and GOP apparatchiks made it clear with private assurances that Republicans would discreetly retire their historic commitment to civil rights.

Scott Lilly, a liberal Democrat who for many years was the sagacious staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, explained the GOP’s intra-party fracas in that context. Boehner’s resignation, Lilly wrote in The Washington Spectator, “was, in fact, about the steady unraveling of a coalition that has allowed the Republican Party to hold the White House for 27 of the past 47 years and maintain a seemingly solid base for continuing control of the US House of Representatives.”

“The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public schools, gun rights…abortion and immigration.”
Nixon’s reconfiguration brought together “polar opposites among white Americans,” Lilly noted. The traditional wing of the party— “country club” Republicans, who include corporate leaders, financiers and investors—became partners with poor, rural, church-going voters, among them the Southern “segs” who had previously always voted for Democrats. Black Southerners didn’t count in the equation, since they were still mostly being blocked from voting.

After Congress enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson confided to a White House aide, “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Nixon’s new Republicans became a formidable national party, Lilly explained, but they always straddled the tension between rich and poor.

“The problem,” Lilly said, “is that this latter group has almost nothing in common with the country club wing.… The country clubbers don’t care about prayer in the public schools, gun rights, stopping birth control, abortion and immigration.” On the other hand, common folks don’t worry over marginal tax rates, capital formation, or subsidies for major corporations.

“If they ever fully understood that their more prosperous party brethren were contemplating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for those policies, they would be in open rebellion,” Lilly observed.

Nixon and his successors hid behind ideology and obscured the contradictions by pursuing a strategy I would call “no-fault bigotry.” Every now and then, especially in election seasons, the Republicans played the race card in dog-whistle fashion to smear Democrats, with savage effect. The GOP never attempted to repeal civil-rights legislation but sought cheap ways to undermine enforcement and remind whites, South and North, that the party was on “their” side.

In his first term, Nixon himself made a memorable gesture by supporting federal tax subsidies for the private “seg academies” springing up across the South. He didn’t prevail, but he won lots of political loyalty among Southern whites—a generation of voters who had been raised to vote Democratic, but who were beginning to switch parties.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan opened his presidential campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi—a few miles from where three civil-rights workers had been murdered in the 1960s. Reagan announced his intention “to restore to states and local government the power that properly belongs to them.” That is Dixie’s euphemism for opposing racial integration.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush smeared Michael Dukakis with his notoriously racist “Willie Horton” ads. In 1990 in North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms ran for reelection against Harvey Gantt, a black former mayor of Charlotte, with a provocative ad called “white hands, black hands” attacking affirmative action. Helms won, and of course so did Bush.

It finally dawned on loyal foot soldiers in the odd-couple coalition that they were being taken for suckers.

In 2008, when Americans elected our first black president, most of the heavy smears came after Barack Obama took office. Grassroots conservatives imagined bizarre fears: Obama wasn’t born in America; he was a secret Muslim. Donald Trump demanded to see the birth certificate. GOP leaders like Senator Mitch McConnell—who had been a civil-rights advocate in his youth—could have discouraged the demonizing slurs. Instead, McConnell launched his own take-no-prisoners strategy to obstruct anything important Obama hoped to accomplish.

At least until now, Republicans have gotten away with this bigotry. As a practical matter, there was no political price. Democrats often seemed reluctant to call them out, fearful that it might encourage even greater racial backlash. Indeed, the Dems developed their own modest Southern strategy—electing centrists Jimmy Carter of Georgia and later Bill Clinton of Arkansas to the White House. But the hope that Democrats could make peace with Dixie by moderating their liberalism was a fantasy. Conservatives upped the ante and embraced additional right-wing social causes.

* * *

So what caused the current rebellion in the GOP ranks? It finally dawned on loyal foot soldiers in the odd-couple coalition that they were being taken for suckers. Their causes always seemed to get the short end of the stick. The GOP made multiple promises and fervent speeches on the social issues, but, for one reason or another, the party establishment always failed to deliver.

“We told people Obama was a dangerous socialist…when really we knew he was a moderate. But they believed us.”
This belated realization stirred the anger that has flared across the ranks of the followers—and not just in the South. The financial crisis, the bailout of the banks, and collapsing prosperity intensified their sense of betrayal. People began mobilizing their own rump-group politics to push back. The Tea Party protests were aimed at President Obama, of course, but they were also an assault on Republican leaders who had misled and used the party base for so long. Tea Party revenge took down long-comfortable legislators and elected red-hot replacements who share the spirit of rebellion.

A Republican lobbyist of my acquaintance whose corporate client has been caught in the middle of the political disturbances shared a provocative insight. “I finally figured it out,” he told me. “Obama created the Tea Party.” I laughed at first, but he explained what he meant. “We told people that Obama was a dangerous socialist who was going to wreck America and he had to be stopped, when really we knew he was a moderate Democrat, not all that radical,” the lobbyist said. “But they believed us.”

In other words, the extremist assaults on the black president, combined with the economic failures, were deeply alarming for ordinary people and generated a sense of terminal crisis that was wildly exaggerated. But it generated popular expectations that Republicans must stand up to this threat with strong countermeasures—to win back political control and save the country. I suggested that racial overtones were also at work. “That’s your opinion,” the lobbyist said. “I don’t know about that.”

The point is, the grassroots anxieties were disappointed by the party establishment’s responses. The GOP kept denouncing Obamacare and predicting Obama’s failure, so it was a great shock to the rank and file when the president won reelection. He proceeded with executive action on immigration that further inflamed defeated conservatives.

Tea Party patriots observed that once again the GOP had failed to deliver on their social discontents: Abortion was still legal. Gays were getting married. Republicans won control of both the House and Senate, but the leaders declined to shut down government or force the president’s hand in other ways. America was burning, they believed, but Washington didn’t want to disrupt business as usual.

If my lobbyist friend is right, the Republican establishment brought this crisis on itself by cynically manipulating its own rank and file. The party can’t deal with the real economic distress threatening the nation as long as rebellion is still smoldering in the ranks. Of course, that suits the interests of the country-club and Fortune 500 wing of the party—the last thing they want is significant economic reform. Confusion and stalemate have their political uses. On the other hand, the GOP can’t give the Tea Party rebels what they want without darkening its electoral prospects for 2016. Chaos to be continued.

The confusion and feared crackup may actually open a brighter path for future politics, because the country is changing, including among white Southerners. The most resonant political moment in 2015 may have been what occurred in South Carolina after the church massacre in Charleston. Many politicians fumbled around, not sure what to say, but GOP Governor Nikki Haley stepped forward and took ownership of the shame. She burned the Confederate flag, so to speak, by acknowledging that it is a symbol of hate and calling for its removal from conspicuous display, which the state legislature agreed to do. Other Southern states swiftly followed with similar moves.

This seems like a small symbolic gesture alongside the squalid history of racial oppression. But I think it signals a yearning for greater possibilities—a “New South” wishing it could truly escape the claustrophobic society created by the legacy of racial apartheid and the punishing social edicts imposed by demagogic preachers.

As recent events have made clear, the corporate partners who dominate the GOP coalition have their own strong interest in promoting progressive social change—their customers demand it, and their employees and overseas markets expect it.

Deep political change cannot reverse history in a single election cycle—it will take many elections—but Democrats have a great opportunity to force the question on the nation in 2016. Instead of playing limp and vague, Dems can launch what Howard Dean called for in 2004: a 50-state strategy that runs on liberating issues. Instead of ignoring GOP bigotry, the Democratic ticket can promise to challenge it on every front and attack reactionary Republicans who try to impose the past on voters.

Above all, Democrats should demand that Tea Party rebels explain why they are in league with a party that intends to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in order to finance more tax cuts for billionaires. As Scott Lilly suggested, if common folks ever understand the corrupt nature of the Republican coalition, we will see a popular rebellion that makes the present chaos look like, well, a tea party.