Mark Schmitt observes that the new Republican crop seems to have ditched George W. Bush's usual lies in favor of Newt Gingrich's earlier set of lies.
« Obama's Trick, Revisited | Main | Feeling Depressed »
New Old Lies
12 Dec 2007 06:33 pm
Comments (12)
No y81, the truth never gets wearying.
people who disagree with you are not people with different opinions,
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Truthfully, in polite company, we've been too accomodating of people's "right" to say transparently false things because, supposedly, it's their "opinion."
And, no, it doesn't actually get wearying, because a sense of self-righteousness produces endorphins, which are rather energizing.
Dan Abrams, MSNBC, on the newest installment of his segment "Bush League Justice" has on Sen Sheldon Whitehouse and Pr. Donald Shields to show that the Bush Jr. "Justice" department went after Democrats over Republicans 631 to 142.
Both guests are concluding that this is, significant to the 0.0001 level, a political pattern of prosecution, and not in any way explained by any other possible statistical factor.
6 to 1.
As Senator Whitehouse declared it, this was the province entirely of loyal Bushies.
Oh, by the way, I hope that my posting that note of what looks like the absolute degradation of any independent system of justice is just my attempt to make poor little y81 feel bad.
By the way, if I feel that the best argument leads me to conclude that in a certain opinion or decision 1%, 20%, 50%, 75%, or 99% of my fellow citizens are acting or thinking foolishly, I obviously have no choice but to so conclude it, whether or not that seems snooty to fake populists or not.
So, Gingrich's obsession with cutting spending is the "old lie?" I wonder if that had anything to do with balanced budgets at the end of the Clinton years...
I wonder if that had anything to do with balanced budgets at the end of the Clinton years...
Nah, it was the Clinton 1993 tax increases, passed without a single Republican vote, and which Mr Gingrich assured me would not only not balance the budget, but trigger a recession.
I'll tell you, y81. I'm looking at pictures of the polar ice cap melting (you might want to check that out). I'm hoping you guys are really, really smart. Because if the whole global warming thing is just a crazy conspiracy by left-wing academics trying to bring about some sort of anarcho-primitivism revolution, I'd be happy as hell right now. I'd take you and all you ilk out to the bar and buy the house a round.
If on the other hand, things are as they appear, and you mau-maued the academic world for a few decades into making incredible conservative estimates of the damage and you ruined the planet being an idiot because you didn't like hippies, "liar" would be a really generous way to think about you all.
this constant moral superiority
all American taxpayers, for at least the next 2 generations, will be paying for the lies, stupidity, and degradations you dead-enders have brought down upon our heads.
our tax dollars, used to fund war, torture, and near-genocidal war crimes, removes any hint of moral superiority those of us who simply refused to buy into the Thuggery might claim. the IRS sees to that.
fuckhead.
Yeah, a lot of fools out there, no question about that. Not a 'village idiot' sorta fools, they are not stupid, but people indoctrinated by relentless propaganda. If you're told the same thing over and over again: market good, taxes bad, market good, taxes bad, market good, taxes bad - eventually you accept it as an axiom, you don't question it anymore. And now you're a fool, the mission accomplished.
y81 has missed the larger issue. Advertising untruths and campaign untruths don't shock us. We want our actors to "convince us" while delivering lines that please, then emotionally we vote on how we "feel" about the candidate. It takes delving beyond the front page to know what's really going on.
All Republicans spout the line tax cuts eventually generate more income (tax receipts) for the treasury than the loss of income from the cuts themselves. The percentage or targets of the cuts however are all over the board. If 10-20-30% cuts are good wouldn't 100% be even better? Why aren't they challenged as to exactly where and how the line is drawn on the size of the cuts? And challenged that if a little is good a lot would be better? And made to explain where would the several hundred billion a year we spend on defense be found without an income tax to fund it? The pain caused by such a stunt would be high but just once I'd like a Republican president to spout off about wanting to eliminate the IRS and federal income taxes and have a Congress call his (her) bluff and do it. Maybe it would bury the canard once and for all. And how is it they all seem to know the precise % of whatever VAT, national sales tax or other scheme will replace EXACTLY what income taxes provided only be more fair, equitable and better for the economy?
Comments closed December 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Does it ever get wearying, this constant moral superiority, the endless claim that people who disagree with you are not people with different opinions, but liars, the need to constantly believe that somewhere 49% and 51% of your countrymen are either fools or liars themselves, the unending condescension? I guess not.
Posted by y81 | December 12, 2007 8:22 PM