And This Is Only What **Conservatives** Are Saying (41 posts)

Thread tags: Andrew_Sullivan, epistemic_closure
|
  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Andrew Sullivan riffs:

    Moderates and Liberals will recognize the symptoms in the local loonies:

    “Between the humiliating and chaotic collapse of Speaker Boehner’s already ludicrously extreme Plan B and Wayne La Pierre’s deranged proposal to put government agents in schools with guns, the Republican slide into total epistemic closure and political marginalization has now become a free-fall. This party, not to mince words, is unfit for government. There is no conservative party in the West – except for minor anti-immigrant neo-fascist ones in Europe – anywhere close to this level of far right extremism. And now the damage these fanatics can do is not just to their own country – was the debt ceiling debacle of 2011 not enough for them? – but to the entire world.”

    …and then this:

    “And this is not the exception. It is the rule. On abortion, the party proposes that it be made illegal in every state by amending the Constitution. Torture? More, please. Iran? It should be attacked if it merely develops the technological skill to make a nuclear bomb, let alone actually make one. Israel? Leading Republicans don’t just support new settlements on the West Bank. They show up for the opening ceremonies!”

    …and it just goes on and on:

    “Gun control? A massacre of children leads to a proposal for more guns in elementary schools and no concession on assault weapons. Immigration? Romney represented the party base – favoring a brutal regime of persecution of illegal immigrants until they are forced to “self-deport” – or rounding as many up as they can. Climate change? It’s a hoax – and we should respond by shrieking “Drill, Baby, Drill!” Gay marriage? The federal constitution should be amended to bar any legal recognition of any gay relationships, including civil partnerships. Their legislative agenda in this Congress? To “make Obama a one-term president.” Not saving the economy, not pursuing new policies, not cooperating to make Democratic legislation better. Just destroying a president of the opposite party. And, of course, failing.”

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Relax, your fearless leader is working tirelessly to solve our problems.

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/184496891.html?id=184496891

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    And I understand your fearless leader John Boehner was a step ahead when he adjourned the House of Representative following the greatest mass failure in political history. Once he sent everyone home, there wasn’t much sense sitting around Washington wait for a Tea Party Miracle. I bet if you check the House of Representative, you’d find an emptiness you could run a herd of buffalo through.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Just released from Boehners office.

    “President Obama was correct when he stated that elections have consequences. One of those consequences is that the individual elected President is expected to lead. As such, the members of the House of of Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, await the President’s proposal for averting the fiscal cliff that can pass the House and Senate. Thank you.”

    I see nothing wrong with tax rates and spending rates going back to the Clinton era rates. For years we heard how disastrous the Bush tax cuts were. I don’t see how going back to the tax rates of Clinton is so bad.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    I’ll let another conservative respond to that assessment:

    Rationality is the ability to bring means into alignment with ends.

    Let’s suppose for a moment that the two dozen Republicans who rejected Speaker Boehner’s Plan B are rational. What do their chosen means tell us about their desired ends?

    Is the end: “Defeat the Obama tax increases”? No, that can’t be it. The rejection of Plan B means that taxes will go up more than if Plan B had somehow become law.
    Is the end a more modest: “Protect Republicans from blame for the Obama tax increases?” No, that’s not it either. Protection of the party from blame was precisely John Boehner’s goal in devising Plan B. Plan B was never intended as a serious budget proposal. Plan B was intended only as a PR insurance policy if the country went over the fiscal cliff. Republicans could then say: “See we were prepared to tax millionaires if need be.”

    The defeat of Plan B leaves Republicans – all Republicans utterly defenseless against the onslaught to come.

    Here’s what happens now.
    1) President Obama goes on holiday.

    2) December 31 arrives.

    3) Taxes go up on everybody. Unemployment insurance ends. Sequester begins to go into effect.

    4) Screams, howls.

    5) President Obama returns to Washington, speaks to country from Oval Office or else summons special session, unveils the “Obama Tax Cut and Job Creation plan” featuring a whacking big tax cut for 98% of Americans.
    6) Plan polls at 70% or better.

    7) Republicans resist.

    8) Republicans surrender.

    9) Economy recovers, “morning in America,” Obama basks in glory in 2nd term.

    That’s what those Republicans voted for when they rejected Plan B. Again, assuming they are not irrational, they must have had a motive. What?
    This:

    For almost any given Republican, the best possible outcome of the Plan B negotiations would have been for Plan B to pass – but for that particular Republican to vote nay. The trouble was, that there were too many Republicans who wished to avail themselves of that outcome. They all rushed the exits together, and there was not enough room to accommodate the stampede. It’s a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” problem from political science, and the dilemma achieved its usual grim result.

    The more haunting question is: why was this dilemma allowed to exist?

    The prisoner’s dilemma arises, remember, because the prisoners have no way to make binding agreements. But the whole point of a political party is to overcome that dilemma, to create structures that reward cooperation and punish defection.

    The deepest moral of the Plan B debacle is that those structures have broken down inside the GOP. And that’s a very scary moral indeed.

    Given a chance to have an impact, Republicans chose the cliff. Brilliant.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    I agree. The cliff is the best option for this country.

  • Profile picture of Deleted User said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Thank you to the repubs that were sent to congress to do exactly what they did. Fallining off the fiscal cliff is no big deal. It’s where we are going anyway. Obie just wants to do it a little slower. Raising taxes on $250k income and above is just the first increment. You lefties don’t really think he intends to stop there do you. Probably do, nobody could ever accuse you guys of being fiscally competent.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    I agree. The cliff is the best option for this country.

    Economic chaos, then, is your approach. Okay. At least we know you’re goal isn’t conservative. It’s just anti-goverment, anti-stability blather.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    You lefties don’t really think he intends to stop there do you.

    The cognitive disconnect grows more evident when a self-described “conservative” doesn’t even know I’m quoting conservatives even when I spell it out. That’s indicative of how far out on the fringe you’ve drifted, Andy.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    “Economic chaos, then, is your approach. Okay. At least we know you’re goal isn’t conservative. It’s just anti-goverment, anti-stability blather.”

    Tax and spend rates at Clinton Era levels is economic chaos??? I didn’t know that.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    The fiscal cliff will GUT the Pentagon. You seem to like the idea of our security being compromised by the lack of 500 billion bucks that gives us a monopoly in military force in the world. How “American” of you to be so blasé over the the very thing that insures your right to free speech.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Not really, the essential programs will be funded just as always, either under the table or on it.

    So the Pentagon’s budget is “on the table”? What do you think it means when it’s on the table? it means it’s subject to MANDATED and HISTORIC CUTS. Or it’ll be hidden. Looks like you covered all possibilities, reality-opposing concepts though they may be. And you’re questioning my sanity. Ha!

  • Profile picture of Deleted User said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    MM your reading comprehension really sucks. Try again. “the essential programs will be funded just as always, either under the table or on it” does anybody else have a problem understanding that”.
    Bottom line MM, you don’t know squat about DOD funding.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Whats the matter with military funding at Clinton era levels??

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 11 months ago:

    Fill us in, Andy. What’s the big secret about mandatory cuts we don’t know. Heritage Foundation, the principal right wing policy think tank, seems a little more concerned than you do. I’m gonna say their accounting is a tad better then your “not really”. Here’s what Heritage says:

    If this occurs, it will be a bad deal for the security of the American people and America’s allies around the world.

    And John, as stated, is totally cool with a compromise in our national security and the security of our allies because, you know, the Clinton tax rates and all.