Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by IdahoBert

  1. How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?Libertarians never change light bulbs, because someone might enter the room who wants to sit in the dark. (Yeah, it's stupid but it's the best I can do).
  2. I'd hoped to post the thread myself 25. A very happy birthday. I spent the day raking leaves and only just now got on. I had a life today! Wheee!! Hope you did to.
  3. I've heard that it's fantastic--and for everyone, just as you said. I'm glad we're heading into the holidays and have decent movies on tap for a while. It's been a long dry spell.
  4. Well, seeing moderates as the far left can be a bit paranoid too. And Viguerie implied that the fears people had during the Reagan times are well founded now, because the furthest right will push for their program without restraint. I'm glad people can be on this board and disagree. I've seen lots of boards where people just endorse one view and never see another. And yes, the lyrics to the original are pretty over the top, but that was the context back then.
  5. The Revolution Will Be Televised With apologies to Gil Scott-Heron by IdahoBert--without the expressed written consent of major league baseball You will be able to stay home, brother. You will be able to plug in, turn on and cop out. You will be able to lose yourself, in sports and porn and X and weed, And skip out for beer during commercials. Because the revolution will be televised. The revolution will be televised. The revolution will be brought to you by the Coors twins In 4 parts with commercial interruptions. The revolution will feature clips of Bush blowing a bugle and leading a charge by Richard Viguerie and Dr. James C. Dobson to march gays back to their closets in a new trail of tears and seal forever their low small door. The revolution will be televised. The revolution will be brought to you by Contributors like yourself, but mostly richer. The revolution will star BP, Texaco and Chevron. The revolution will drill in the Alaskan wilderness, And execute your enemies. The revolution will edit your children’s textbooks to reflect your Christian values. The revolution will be televised. There will be clips of you and the kids going to church To love the sinner and hate the sin, And you will sleep the sleep of the just until shaken by the roar of bombs. The networks will predict the winner at 8:32 pm and report from all 50 states because the exit polls will be right this time. The revolution will be televised. There will be clips of soldiers cowering in Baghdad And car bombs leveling city blocks. There will be clips of aid-workers beheaded With instant replays to remind us that the enemy is worse than ourselves. There will be clips of Giuliani smiling, and Arnold posing And the Supremes will not sing for Motown, but their church will lie down with their state. The Revolution will be televised. Fox News, Reality TV, and ESPN is all you’ll want to see. You won’t see the best minds of your generation destroyed by madness, Starving hysterical naked because it wouldn’t be fair and balanced But the revolution will be televised. There will be highlights on the eleven o'clock news, but no clips of square-jawed lesbians, Janet Jackson flashing, or soccer moms for choice, except to mock or trash them. The theme song will be robbed from Francis Scott Key and sung by Britney Spears in a long dress with sensible shoes. The revolution will be televised. The revolution will be right back, after a message from its sponsors. You will not be allowed to care, And we'll get what we deserve. The revolution will go as well with Coke as it does with Pepsi, Unless you live in Utah. The revolution will make you yearn for Canada, You’ll own little more than your shame. The revolution will not put you in the driver's seat. The revolution will be televised, will be televised,will be televised, will be televised. The revolution will be syndicated on every local Fox affiliate. You will not be allowed to care. You will not be allowed to care. The revolution will be lip sinked, Sister…
  6. By DARREN YOURK Globe and Mail Update Saskatchewan has become the seventh Canadian jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriages. Madam Justice Donna Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled Friday that the traditional definition of marriage, as it currently exists, discriminates against gay and lesbian couples. Five couples who were denied marriage licences because they were not of the opposite sex filed a statement of claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the common-law definition of marriage be changed.They wanted the definition to read "two people to the exclusion of others," rather than "two people of the opposite sex." Justice Minister Frank Quennell has said the provincial government will not contest the challenge. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in every province or territory where the constitutionality of banning it has been challenged in the courts. Gay and lesbian couples may also marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Yukon and Nova Scotia.(my emphasis) This is just no big deal in most of the rest of the world. Before long we'll be one of the only countries with both state-sanctioned murder ("capital punishment" to those who prefer euphemisms) as well as a class of citizens permanently denied equal rights (the marriage amendment). Time to celebrate!--IB--
  7. Thank you tr. These are extraordinary plans, and extraordinary plans demand extraordianary support. 51-49 is not extraordinary. The backlash this engenders will be a delight to support and witness.
  8. Some of the highlights. 51-49 is a mandate for change of this magnitude? The conservatives might need some moderate votes to push this agenda through but they don't seem interested in courting more moderate allies. Of course, they don't need allies--oh, I forgot, they've got Poland, THE Poland. I stand corrected.
  9. Read it again. You did nothing to answer it's objections. You might want to check this post too see if conservatives are not radicals.Get ready for the revolution on the right
  10. Direct-mail ace Richard Viguerie is ecstatic over Bush's victory, but says it's time for conservatives to stop pandering to moderates. By Mary Jacoby--Salon.com excerpted Nov. 5, 2004 You were quoted in the New York Times Thursday saying, "The revolution begins now." But I thought the [conservative] revolution has been going on for a while. Well, it has; that's a good observation. But it hasn't been at the public policy level. The conservatives have been engaged in building the movement for 43 years. Actually, it really started 49 years ago, when Bill Buckley launched the National Review. Morton Blackwell [one of Viguerie's contemporaries and fellow activists] said many years ago that when he first came to Washington he realized that conservatives had never nominated anyone for president. That was our first challenge, and we did that in 1964 [when Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona won the Republican nomination for president]. Then, we needed to nominate and elect somebody, and we did that in 1980 [with Ronald Reagan]. Then our next goal was to nominate, elect and govern. And that's what we have not yet done. We have not yet governed. You haven't? I think that would come as a surprise to many of our readers. Well, in 1980, [Reagan Chief of Staff] Jim Baker told us, "We must put your issues on the back burner until we get our tax cuts and national defense issues, like rebuilding the military and missile defense. The social issues were always put on the back burner, and they stayed on the back burner for eight years. They certainly did not move forward on our agenda at first. George W. Bush has been a very good president from the social issues and conservative perspective -- in many ways more than Ronald Reagan. But now with the whole conservative agenda, it's time to move forward and implement it. If we don't move forward now, what was the purpose of building the movement? We were told under Reagan we couldn't do this and that because we didn't have the House or a majority of conservative senators. Now, we've got everything. We've got a president reelected based on running a conservative agenda. We're thrilled and pleased. We've got a good comfortable [conservative Republican] majority in both houses. Now's the time to do it. But you can't call it a revolution anymore if you're in power, if you're the government? Or can you? It would be [a revolution] in terms of legislation. The time is now to take a very different approach to governing that this town hasn't seen since the 1930s, when Democrats took control of the White House in the 1932 election [with FDR]. Since then, the big-government establishment has driven the political agenda. They started driving it in the early 1930s, and they pretty much drove the agenda through 1994 [when Republicans seized control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years]. Then things kind of came to a halt. It was difficult for the conservatives to implement a lot of their agenda. [With Bill Clinton's election in 1992] they didn't have the White House. The president could veto our legislation, as he did. And then, we had slim [conservative] majorities to none in the Senate. Now we have a comfortable margin. And George Bush has a mandate. It's humorous and amusing to hear people in the media and liberals in the country -- and even some Republicans, though not many, just one as a matter of fact -- who are saying we're not going to move on [our conservative agenda]. You're talking about Arlen Specter? (who warned Bush not send anti-abortion nominees for the Supreme Court to the Senate) Yes. And you'll notice that his staff has been backtracking all day on it. You can't turn on the television right now without hearing someone talking about the Republicans, saying Bush has an obligation to unify the country. That's code for "abandon your conservative allies and move to the left." That's what they mean by unity: Stop trying to promote a conservative agenda. That's just what the country needs, one more politician to break his promise hours after he was reelected. But Bush himself tried in his news conference Thursday to reassure Americans who don't share his conservative, evangelical Christian view of the world. "I will be your president regardless of your faith," he said. Is that what you call breaking his promise? No, I don't. I find it almost humorous to hear the Democrats and the liberals try to influence the president in that direction. I think they are going to fail. How will you ensure that Bush keeps his word to religious conservatives? We're going to try to put pressure on the elected officials to support the president, help the president enact his agenda. We want to pass a constitutional amendment [banning] same-sex marriages, for the protection of marriage. And we'll have a grass-roots fire to pressure the congressmen and the senators to support the president. What is the agenda? As the president said, we want to make the tax cuts permanent. Two, we want new tax cuts. We want the president to start vetoing spending bills. We want to ratchet down the size of government. But isn't the huge increase in government spending and the budget deficit already the fault of Bush and the Republican-led Congress? He certainly had a big role to play in that, certainly. And we're going to focus on the conservative agenda, which is to reduce government. I don't know if we're going to abolish the [new Medicare] prescription drug benefit, but we'd like to. It's just an expansion of government. When government grows, individual liberties are reduced. We'd like to see oil and gas exploration increased in the continental United States. We want a constitutional amendment on marriage. We want the culture of life expanded -- that was one of the big issues that this election was fought over. Christians feel there is a war against Christians out there. We would like to make sure that the president, and he's inclined to do this, understands how there's an anti-Christian environment in the culture, at the national level, in Hollywood, television, the media generally, a lot of the institutions -- legal institutions, educational institutions. We want to change that. People of traditional values have a role to play in the public arena. But many Americans feel it's the non-Christians and liberal Christians who are under attack these days. They feel that it's their rights and beliefs, not those of conservative evangelical Christians, that are under assault and threatened. No one has to believe [in Jesus Christ]. I'm not forcing them to believe. And if [John] Kerry had been elected, he would have forced his views on abortion -- killing babies a minute before they're born -- on the rest of us. So you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade? We want judges appointed who will not legislate from the bench. But isn't that just code for outlawing abortion? I don't know. If Roe vs. Wade is not in the Constitution, I guess you'd have to look at that. We just don't want judges who impose their personal views. You want to block Specter, one of the last Senate moderates, from obtaining the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. [The current chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is term-limited as the panel's leader.] Is there any future at all for moderate Republicans in the GOP? Absolutely. It's just that the election was fought not on moderate Republican issues but on conservative issues. It was conservatives who made the phone calls and pounded the pavement and turned out the big vote for Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But yeah, sure, unlike [with] the Democrats, there's a place for moderates in the Republican Party. The Democrats do not tolerate dissent in their party. You have zero chance of having a successful career in national Democratic politics if you're not pro-abortion and [don't] pass the homosexual litmus test. Not so in the Republican Party. Not only are you welcome, but we put you on TV. We give you platforms to speak out on. I assume you're talking about moderates like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who were given prime-time speaking slots at the Republican National Convention. They're moderates on abortion and stem cell research. But they really seemed just like props in a façade to make the party seem less threatening to the rest of the country. They don't have any real power in the party, do they? How are they moderates on stem cell research? They support it. That's not a moderate position. Lots of Republicans support stem cell research -- for example, Nancy Reagan. By definition that's a moderate position. Yeah, but the election was fought out on the president's position on stem cell research. [bush opposes it because it involves the destruction of human embryos.] Is there any future for people who believe in abortion rights and stem cell research in the Republican Party? Oh, absolutely. If they believe in a pro-abortion position, well, we're not going to accommodate it. Absolutely not. But we do welcome them in the party, and they have made some welcome contributions. To the extent they support lower taxes, a fiscally sound government and a strong national defense -- absolutely we welcome them. You accept moderates as long as they abandon the very positions that define them as moderates? That sounds like your own kind of litmus test. I remind you that it was conservative issues that won this election. And George Bush, on matters of principle, why, 40 hours after the polls close, should he abandon us? It would be dishonest. How did you feel when you learned Bush had won? Ecstatic. This is a quantum leap forward. I've been working at this for 43 years. And we've made an enormous amount of progress. For the first time since Calvin Coolidge a Republican president has won reelection while gaining seats in the House and Senate. It's historic, and he did it running on a conservative agenda. So what about the 49 percent of Americans who didn't vote for Bush and don't agree with this agenda? Too bad? Their views aren't relevant? First of all, it was 48 percent. Well, yeah, their views are relevant. We'd love to have them support a fiscally sound government and a strong national defense against the forces of evil out there. And this is a pluralistic society, and conservatives are going to have to compromise. Bush will likely get the chance to make as many as three Supreme Court appointments. Do you think a staunchly anti-abortion judge can make it through the confirmation process? We're not looking for a pro-life judge. We're looking for a judge who will interpret the Constitution and not put his thoughts or views before those of the legislature's. That's all we're looking for. Again, that sounds to me like code for overturning Roe vs. Wade. Well, that's up to you all to say. Spoken like a politician! I don't know if that's a compliment at all. But listen, I've got another conference call. I've got to go.
  11. It's tragic that conservatives must demonize their opponents as communists to make themsleves feel persectuted. It's especially absurd because the people they hate are basically moderates who want to defend the vestiges of what was once a bi-partisan institutional committment to redress economic imbalance. Conservatives are the real radicals; they withdrew from this bi-partisan agreement and it is they who have strict ideological views on par with the ideological sophistry of communism. Both communism and conservatism truck in the propostion that every problem will be solved by one simplistic mechanism--either the market or the state. The now abandoned centrist view that legitimized both market and state can only be seen as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" if you are so far to the right that Gulags and Social Security blend in the distance.
  12. 51-48 percent is not a huge difference. 48% is a huge minority and it doesn't take much of a shift to change it.
  13. Thanks for posting this River Dog. These remarks were among my favorites.: I don't think most Americans rejected John Kerry's policies. They just didn't pay much attention to them. It was Bush's moral vision they found more compelling. ...when political leaders speak with righteous indignation—with passion and conviction about what is morally right to do or morally offensive—they can inspire. Kerry was correct on policy, but his policies didn't inspire. Bush was wrong on policy, but he had a moral vision and he exuded righteous indignation. He did inspire.
  14. I find his reasons for Republican success interesting and concise. His way of combatting it seems like the same-old-same-old that Democrats are always running up the flag pole and discovering that no one wants to salute. If the "culture wars" defines the most critical part of the debate, why not reframe that debate so Democrats can "win" it? They don't have to convince everyone--just another 5% of the electorate. When you think of it, if only 10% of Kerry's supporters had convinced just one recalcitrant friend to vote for him too, there would be talk of a far different "mandate."
  15. Why They Won By THOMAS FRANK New York Times November 5, 2004 The first thing Democrats must try to grasp as they cast their eyes over the smoking ruins of the election is the continuing power of the culture wars. Thirty-six years ago, President Richard Nixon championed a noble "silent majority" while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, accused liberals of twisting the news. In nearly every election since, liberalism has been vilified as a flag-burning, treason-coddling, upper-class affectation. This year voters claimed to rank "values" as a more important issue than the economy and even the war in Iraq. … the power of the conservative rebellion is undeniable. It presents a way of talking about life in which we are all victims of a haughty overclass - "liberals" - that makes our movies, publishes our newspapers, teaches our children, and hands down judgments from the bench. These liberals generally tell us how to go about our lives, without any consideration for our values or traditions. The culture wars, in other words, are a way of framing the ever-powerful subject of social class. They are a way for Republicans to speak on behalf of the forgotten man without causing any problems for their core big-business constituency. Against this militant, aggrieved, full-throated philosophy the Democrats chose to go with ... what? Their usual soft centrism, creating space for this constituency and that, taking care to antagonize no one, declining even to criticize the president, really, at their convention. And despite huge get-out-the-vote efforts and an enormous treasury, Democrats lost the battle of voter motivation before it started. Worse: While conservatives were sharpening their sense of class victimization, Democrats had all but abandoned the field… (T)his would have been a perfect year to give the Republicans a Trumanesque spanking for the many corporate scandals that they have countenanced and, in some ways, enabled. Taking such a stand would also have provided Democrats with a way to address and maybe even defeat the angry populism that informs the "values" issues while simultaneously mobilizing their base. …What is more likely, of course, is that Democratic officialdom will simply see this week's disaster as a reason to redouble their efforts to move to the right. They will give in on, say, Social Security privatization or income tax "reform" and will continue to dream their happy dreams about becoming the party of the enlightened corporate class. And they will be surprised all over again two or four years from now when the conservative populists of the Red America, poorer and angrier than ever, deal the "party of the people" yet another stunning blow. _________________________________ Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."
  16. I think the most important part of it was about distorting Kerry's record. Besides, I've just figured out how to post pictures! Couldn't help myself!
  17. Not yet, especially since I just found this cool cartoon.
  18. I thought you might enjoy this Sue. The down side is that I've finally figured out how to edit type and insert graphics. This raises my rating on the annoying scale maybe three-fold!
  19. Great news. I don't take pleasure in dancing on anyone's grave but this had to be done. Just more evidence that they know what needs to be done.
  20. Happy Birthday and thanks for posting all the threads and box scores!
  • Create New...