Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

[Libertarian01]

Yes, there would be shock and disappointment, but I'd wager conservatives wouldn't be putting on penis hats, having nervous breakdowns, marching on Washington and threatening Democrats with violence and harassment.

I agree, mostly. But I do believe that SOME would do the equivalent. Some conservatives would denounce them, probably more than liberals, but a good many would sit back and watch the entertainment.

There is something to losing and something completely different to expecting to win, being told you are going to win, and then losing. It is far worse somehow.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hopper68]

You need to close your sock drawer and get out more. Clintons are no longer in charge of anything.

Has anyone told Hillary??

[video=youtube;UrPw6T8--Xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPw6T8--Xs[/video]

 

[2A_Tom]

Yes, there would be shock and disappointment, but I'd wager conservatives wouldn't be putting on penis hats, having nervous breakdowns, marching on Washington and threatening Democrats with violence and harassment.

Hey....
That's a good idea.

We could run around and Bullcharge all the *****heads.

The media would report it as a C***s not G****s rally.

 

[jamil]

My observation is that the conservative party of any democracy is opposed to most change. It is invested in the status quo. To the extent that the right becomes radicalized due to xenophobia, inflation or war on its borders, there is a chance that the conservative agenda becomes militarized and civil rights will suffer. And the status quo has a greater than even chance of becoming a tyranny.

Most of the revolutionary talk almost always comes from the left. That is their nature. It has been the same throughout history. Those in power want to stay in power and reap the political and financial rewards for doing so. The have-nots want revolution.

I brought up the Tea Pary as an example of why the right doesn't have many radicals. The noisy ones get reabsorbed or eliminated. The status quo changes little.

So, to saying all the crazies are on the far left....a student of history might say: yeah. so what?

I agree with all but the conclusion. Sometimes the change isn’t good. For example, I’m not ready to trade in the enlightenment for postmodernism. I’m open to tweaking the settings on our current system. But not a wholesale swap. So neo-marxists start peddling their nonsense, I think they’re fair game to block. But certainly some changes are needed. Like civil rights. And we need to continue tweaking the settings to adjust for social evolution.

 

[Alpo]

Has anyone told Hillary??

Oh come on....how often does Palin appear on the news and how relevant is she? Clinton is history.

 

[Dead Duck]

Oh come on....how often does Palin appear on the news and how relevant is she? Clinton is history.

Palin is definitely still relevant.
I'd hump her leg any day of the week.

 

[foszoe]

Palin is definitely still relevant.
I'd hump her leg any day of the week.

Why would she be any different than your kitchen table?

 

[jamil]

OK I'll accept that reasoning.

Yeah Trump got, and still gets, a lot of flack over saying there were good people among the Unite the Right crowd. I have not paid a lot of attention to that rally.

Gosh I hate my iPhone keyboard. The typos were horrible.

 

[foszoe]

Oh come on....how often does Palin appear on the news and how relevant is she? Clinton is history.

Why do you make so much sense sometimes?

 

[jamil]

Yes, there would be shock and disappointment, but I'd wager conservatives wouldn't be putting on penis hats, having nervous breakdowns, marching on Washington and threatening Democrats with violence and harassment.

 

[jamil]

I agree, mostly. But I do believe that SOME would do the equivalent. Some conservatives would denounce them, probably more than liberals, but a good many would sit back and watch the entertainment.

There is something to losing and something completely different to expecting to win, being told you are going to win, and then losing. It is far worse somehow.

Regards,

Doug

there is no right wing equivalent to ***** hat wearing woman sitting in the middle of the street screaming her lungs out.

 

[Dead Duck]

Why would she be any different than your kitchen table?

Splinters....

 

[2A_Tom]

My observation is that the conservative party of any democracy is opposed to most change. It is invested in the status quo. To the extent that the right becomes radicalized due to xenophobia, inflation or war on its borders, there is a chance that the conservative agenda becomes militarized and civil rights will suffer. And the status quo has a greater than even chance of becoming a tyranny.

Most of the revolutionary talk almost always comes from the left. That is their nature. It has been the same throughout history. Those in power want to stay in power and reap the political and financial rewards for doing so. The have-nots want revolution.

I brought up the Tea Pary as an example of why the right doesn't have many radicals. The noisy ones get reabsorbed or eliminated. The status quo changes little.

So, to saying all the crazies are on the far left....a student of history might say: yeah. so what?

I agree with all but the conclusion. Sometimes the change isn’t good. For example, I’m not ready to trade in the enlightenment for postmodernism. I’m open to tweaking the settings on our current system. But not a wholesale swap. So neo-marxists start peddling their nonsense, I think they’re fair game to block. But certainly some changes are needed. Like civil rights. And we need to continue tweaking the settings to adjust for social evolution.

I do not agree.

Yes, I am opposed to lateral change.

I am pro advancement. We can improve, but what the left wants is to fundamentally change America.

 

[jamil]

I do not agree.

Yes, I am opposed to lateral change.

I am pro advancement. We can improve, but what the left wants is to fundamentally change America.

I think what you call advancement I call tweaking the settings. So you make changes but only the changes which make sense. For example, I think we all agree with the left that the healthcare system is broken. We all disagree on how to fix it, because we all consult our perspectives to say what’s wrong. A market capitalist like myself will point out that the healthcare system doesn’t operate anything like a functioning market. An the change I would advocate is to remove the things which confound the market. But an egalitarian will be more likely think that government should take over healthcare. I think that solution is immoral. They think my solution is immoral. We both might rightfully claim to be pro advancement but we’d disagree widely that the other is actually advancing anything.

 

[KG1]

there is no right wing equivalent to ***** hat wearing woman sitting in the middle of the street screaming her lungs out.

There are also no right wing billionaire equivalents covertly funding any right wing lunatic types that sit in the middle of the street screaming their lungs out.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There are also no right wing billionaire equivalents covertly funding any right wing lunatic types that sit in the middle of the street screaming their lungs out.

Whatever happened to the Koch brothers? Seems like they were the left's bogey man for awhile, but were they mostly associated with the Tea Party stuff?

 

[Tombs]

My observation is that the conservative party of any democracy is opposed to most change. It is invested in the status quo. To the extent that the right becomes radicalized due to xenophobia, inflation or war on its borders, there is a chance that the conservative agenda becomes militarized and civil rights will suffer. And the status quo has a greater than even chance of becoming a tyranny.

Most of the revolutionary talk almost always comes from the left. That is their nature. It has been the same throughout history. Those in power want to stay in power and reap the political and financial rewards for doing so. The have-nots want revolution.

I brought up the Tea Pary as an example of why the right doesn't have many radicals. The noisy ones get reabsorbed or eliminated. The status quo changes little.

So, to saying all the crazies are on the far left....a student of history might say: yeah. so what?

You'd be right in a more classical sense of right vs left. The republican party and democratic party don't really fit the left/right paradigm.

Democrats have moved so far away from their roots they aren't recognizable anymore. They're no longer the party of unions and blue collar labor. They're the party of hyper individualism and identity politics, with a large heaping of corporate sellouts. Such things do not fit well on any sort of political compass because they're so far off the charts all around, they're incompatible.

The republican party, for most of America's history, has been the progressive party. Whether through civil rights, or abolishing slavery. While the democratic party was largely the party of maintaining status quo. All major restructuring of civil rights in this country has centered on the republican party.

What we're left with is 2 centrist parties that have adopted issues from all various directions of the political compass. Yeah, bernie sanders is a soft socialist, but he's clearly not supported by the party. And it's clear by democrat's current policies that they're nothing more than corporate sellouts, with obama directly stealing Romney's healthcare policy and pretending it was some form of medicare for all.

It ultimately just boils down to authoritarian and libertarian stances at this point as their economic policies aren't radically different compared to political parties in other countries. Democrats have shown time and time again that no human rights are beyond questioning and limiting, while republicans have pushed to enshrine rights in stone more often than not.

It's their voter base that hits that right or left paradigm. With large portions of the democrat voter base being openly rabid communists and anarchists, as has always been typical of communist revolutionaries, with spatterings of people who haven't figured out that the democratic party of today isn't the democratic party of the 60s. Meanwhile on the right you have a collection of people who are simply disillusioned with the direction the democratic party has gone, along with those who are socially and fiscally conservative. Trump is closer to what democrats used to be than any democratic politician in office currently.

 

[printcraft]

Has anyone told Hillary??

[video=youtube;UrPw6T8--Xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrPw6T8--Xs[/video]

A lesbian and a has-been walk into a bar...

 

[Alpo]

There are also no right wing billionaire equivalents covertly funding any right wing lunatic types that sit in the middle of the street screaming their lungs out.

Yeah, 9-11 wasn't funded by Saudi Arabian extremists. Davos is just a seminar. Bildeberg is debutante ball.

 

[Tombs]

Yeah, 9-11 wasn't funded by Saudi Arabian extremists. Davos is just a seminar. Bildeberg is debutante ball.

Weird, most of those types are heads of the democratic party.