partisan politics rearing its ugly head in NYC...

[Achtung Bubba]

Wow. You wrote two more words there than you did in your last post.

[Achtung Bubba]

In all seriousness, anyone actually want to get back to the actual subject of this thread?

[Se7en]

Well in any event....
sometimes it's difficult to get through to people...and even harder to take them seriously when they go by "bathtime fun whortense", it's actually melon, is it not?...but anyway...

thumbs up to rush...i find those comments humorous...and like you said, they were spoken with humor in mind...


------------------
The numeral 7

[mug222]

(Of the ten comments posted, that takes care of two of them -- the "gay turning his back" and the "Mexican in the marathon" comments.)

Being delivered with humor in mind does not "take care" of some of these idiotic quips from our favorite radio personality . A homophobic joke spoken by a man with a large listening audience (I know, I don't understand it either...) is as disgusting and as potentially damaging as when said seriously.
Like Melon, aka Bathtime Fun Whortense, astutely noted above:

but it's funny that if a republican warns you ahead of time of these accusations, it somehow negates the truth.

So warnings negate the truth, and humor somehow eliminates the intended message? I don't think so...

[Bathtime Fun Whortense]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Whortense:

So, you mean the typical Republican has an "ugly personality" rather than an ugly appearance. That's *so* much better.

i've talked to enough republicans that i've formulated this opinion. their self-centered, cutthroat demeanor is enough to make me gag.

Historically, conservative Republicans *do* want to cut back on spending

in practice, it's not true. clinton spent less than reagan or bush.

(with the possible exception of defense spending which, not so shockingly, actually appears to be necessary).

well, now, yes. before, no. but you pass off "war spending" as almost a drop in the pan. not only do they spend less on the domestic front, not only to they deregulate business practices often beyond comprehension, but they make up + more on what they "save" in increased military spending. in the case of reagan/bush, they decided to neglect the transportation infrastructure, while blowing trillions on weaponry and unproven technology (star wars anyone?).

It is, if you can recall with any degree of accuracy, why the federal government got surpluses to begin with: the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's pork-barrel stimulus package and forced him to agree to a balanced budget.

no, it was caused by an incomplete tax package riddled with legislative gridlock. clinton's tax plan of 1993 likely paved the way for the huge amassing of surpluses. and the legislature? well, a do-nothing congress can't spend, now can it?

Your arguments are flawed on several points:

1. Conservatives do not believe in raising some taxes to lower others. Looking at the current tax burden, most conservatives think that all taxes should be lowered. Those Republicans who think and act otherwise have done so in good faith that decreased spending would follow a tax increase (as the Democratic Congress promised the elder Bush in 1990), or have done so in opposition to the party.

please. did you ever read the flat tax proposal when that was in-vogue? it set the flat rate at 18%. it lowered the taxes of the wealthiest by 18%, while actually raising the taxes of the poorest by 2%.

2. LOWER TAXES DO NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO DECREASED REVENUES. In other words, as the 1980's demonstrated, Reaganomics works. You lower taxes, people have more money to spend or invest, the economy improves, more wealth is generated. Often, even when each dollar is taxed less, as more wealth is generated, the NET revenue for the government increases.

omg....bathtime fun whortense® is nearly about to gag in her bathtime fun purse™. reaganomics was the ultimate instrument in our social chaos. not only did it shift the tax burden from businesses to the working classes (i.e., YOU) (during the 1970s, it was 70% of all tax revenue came from businesses, 30% on individuals; during the 1980s, it was 70% taxes on individuals, 30% taxes on businesses).

secondly, lower taxes for individuals don't amount to shit when you have less wages!!!1111 i want you to grab a microeconomics book and look at a few stats on real wages and adjusted wages--real meaning the actual literal dollar amount, with the adjusted being gauged on inflation. in 1972, the working class (i.e., YOU) was at it's highest buying power. now our wages are, adjusted for inflation, down to 1950s buying power.

what went wrong? reagan couldn't solve the inflation problems that first arose during the carter era. as traditionally indicated early in his term, inflation was determined by rising consumer prices for goods. in other words, if prices for our items got much higher, it meant inflation. but to rid inflation using these indicators, it would hurt his big business backers. so, rather than solving inflation, he just changed the definition of inflation to be gauged primarily on worker wages, meaning the higher our wages go on average, the more "inflation" we have. hence, not only did reagan shift the tax burden heavily on the working class, he set in standards that encourage businesses to lower our wages. if we go by the old standards that vilified carter, we are still in severe inflation. reaganomics is the ultimate scam on society.

you really want to fix our society? 1) change the inflationary indicators back, 2) raise wages, and 3) restrict credit. i'd gladly pay higher taxes if i were a fucking billionaire. they need tax cuts like mr. burns needs an ivory back scratcher. perhaps you bought into rush limbaugh's crap about "protect the wealthy, because, someday, you might be wealthy too." i don't see how our prior tax systems were somehow making them poor, now were they?

as for restricting credit, credit only serves to knock the supply and demand checks and balances out of whack. credit is an artificial inflator of the income curve, and only serves to make things more expensive. did you know that my grandparents bought a very nice house with cash in the early 1950s? we surely can't do that anymore. did you know that my parents paid cash for brand new cars? sadly, we can't even pay cash for newer leased cars anymore! you call "reaganomics" good? you need your head examined!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

3. Tax cuts for the wealthy isn't a bad thing. Why? First, they share a disproportionate burden of the taxes, if you look at the percentage of income that is confiscated.

let's all cry for the walton dynasty now. if they pay taxes, grandma walton might not get 10 new rolexes for christmas.

Conservatives believe (correctly) that such a tax scheme is a disincentive to economic prosperity and is morally wrong.

please. what a load of bull. "morally wrong"? now i know why religion is fucked up in this nation.

Also, when you offer businesses tax incentives and lower loan rates, businesses (including small businesses that are NOT run by billionaires) can afford to spend more and hire more, thus spurring the economy. It's simple econimics.

republicans treat small businesses like they treat farmers: like stupid, inane cattle. first of all, their policies only help large corporations to buy up smaller ones. i don't know how corporate buyouts serve to help small business. it surely only eliminates it. republicans, not only, contribute to eliminate competition in the business world, but it's against the spirit of true capitalism. what we have now is bastard capitalism.

And I would challenge any company to run their business like liberal Democrats. With 40+ years of the government being run mostly by Democrats, we've got ourselves trillions of dollars of debt by spending increases of upwards of THREE TIMES the rate of inflation.

oh you are just deluded now. your demi-god reagan gave us nearly a $7 trillion debt, compared to only about $300 billion before he came into office. if bush ii stays on track with his spending, i'm sure we'll reach $10 trillion if he gets reelected.

I find it amazing how you've protrayed Republicans as the tax-and-spenders and you've ignored the social programs of FDR, LBJ, Clinton and other Democrats.

and i find it amazing how you brush off excess military spending as "necessary." likewise, i think social programs are far more necessary and a better usage of my tax money than $200 billion on fighter jets. likewise, if republicans were consistent in their desire to repeal welfare, i'd perhaps see your point, but it's hypocritical. while ready to ax welfare for people, they haven't touched corporate welfare. but that's right. big business needs government money to fuck the world.

Finally, I jokingly suggested that you accuse us conservatives of being "sexist, racist, homophobic, etc." to complete your laundry list of false, but typical, accusations.

AND YOU DID!

You AGAIN prove my point.

sexist = clarence thomas, bob packwood
racist = jesse helms, strom thurmond
homophobic = justice scalia, many more

so are we supposed to lie now and sing the praises of republicanism?

rush limbaugh, if we were alive during nazi germany:

"now, you know, those liberals are gonna come up one day and say that we've killed all the jews..."

My point is not that the accusations are false because they are predicted. It is that liberals resort to these accusations when they have very little to say of any real substance.

whether you like it or not, prejudice most certainly dictates political policy. if your senator is sexist, how can you expect them to uphold women's rights? if your senator is racist, how can you expect them to uphold minority rights? if your senator is homophobic...well, we've already seen the fruition of that statement.

The accusations are false because they are not at the core of conservatism -- and because conservative Republicans aren't the only group housing a small minority of bigots.

not only does the republican party house a "small minority" of bigots, they champion their causes. no, i don't think a majority of americans are as sick as the republican legislature, but this minority is given an inequitably high proportion of the attention.

First, the core beliefs of conservatism involve limited government, personal liberties, and personal accountability. Nowhere is bigotry implied.

oh yes. i see. here's what happens in practice:

"limited government" = let business get away with murder

personal liberties is a lie. the fcc, for instance, which is run by colin powell's son (nepotism, anyone?), has taken a laissez-faire stance on business regulation, while tightening content regulation. not only does the republican party wrongfully interject the religious values into their legislation, but they use these values as the basis to restrict personal liberties. everyone knows this is true: conservatism is against business regulation, but is for social regulation. what you define above is not conservatism, but libertarianism. try again.

"personal accountability" = send teenagers to life imprisonment without parole; increase the death penalty. only ironic that most of these cries come from the "christians" in the republican party. in fact, it was a conservative protestant religious leader who was instrumental in getting teenagers tried and sentenced as adults.

Second, while the extreme right admittedly has a few racists, the same is ALSO true of the extreme left -- those who suggest that the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate for the SOLE reason that it was written by white men.

you will always have your extremists in either party, granted. but the difference is that, while democrats have turned a blind eye to extremists, republicans still embrace them. perhaps it is not at the same level as during the 1940s-1960s, but it is still a problem. fiscal conservatism is not my enemy. in fact, the jesse ventura wing of the reform party fascinates me. now he's a great fiscal conservative who has truly reduced taxes and spending. hypocrisy (appearing to spend less, when you're really spending more on military schemes), deception (redefining inflation, because you can't fix it), and social conservatism (denying homosexuals anti-discrimination rights on stereotypes [justice scalia thought rights for homosexuals would be giving rights to a "disproportionate and wealthy minority"] and conservative religious bases) are.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[Bathtime Fun Whortense]

Originally posted by Se7en:
and even harder to take them seriously when they go by "bathtime fun whortense", it's actually melon, is it not?...but anyway...

melon needs a break. was it harder to take bono seriously as mr. macphisto? no, it's called irony. my points are just as valid under any other name.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[Se7en]

Originally posted by Bathtime Fun Whortense:
was it harder to take bono seriously as mr. macphisto?

yes, i couldn't help but laugh...


------------------
The numeral 7

[Se7en]

Originally posted by Bathtime Fun Whortense:
my points are just as valid under any other name.

this is true....

------------------
The numeral 7

[Se7en]

...but that doens't mean i can't laugh, nor does it mean i have to agree...

*i'm rambling...do forgive me*

------------------
The numeral 7

[This message has been edited by Se7en (edited 11-07-2001).]

[U2Bama]

lol at this thread

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Bathtime Fun Whortense:
rush limbaugh, if we were alive during nazi germany:

"now, you know, those liberals are gonna come up one day and say that we've killed all the jews..."

Let the rest of the forum note that Whortense just associated conservatism with Nazism.

Whortense, my opinion of you was already eroding before you said this. I now find your political beliefs to be completely worthless. You are an idiot and a demagogue, and I simply not going to engage you further in any sort of political discussion.

[Bathtime Fun Whortense]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Let the rest of the forum note that Whortense just associated conservatism with Nazism.

let this forum note that bubba wouldn't know a metaphor even if it ran into him like a freight train.

Whortense, my opinion of you was already eroding before you said this. I now find your political beliefs to be completely worthless. You are an idiot and a demagogue, and I simply not going to engage you further in any sort of political discussion.

what a complete and utter cop out. rather than going to the rest of my points, you go to, count this, one metaphor regarding my point that, ahem:

"it's funny that if a republican warns you ahead of time of these accusations, it somehow negates the truth."

perhaps it's a tasteless metaphor. i would perhaps have been better to substitute rush limbaugh for pat robertson, who has openly denied the existence of the holocaust.

"Let the rest of the forum note that Whortense just associated conservatism with Nazism."

well, you don't need me to say that, which i didn't (blowing me more out of proportion than a clinton impeachment trial). pat said it a long time ago.

since you wish to be blunt in personally insulting me, i will not hesitate to be blunt myself. you are a sheer coward, for, in the face of surmounting political argument i have given before you, you have resorted to personal insults and, count again, one metaphor.

you are incredibly hopeless. it is my utter hope that republicans like u2bama are better representative of the republican party rather than you.

and if you try and ban me for what i've stated here, let the forum note that i've saved this thread to my hard drive, and that bubba resorted to personal attacks, rather than continue arguments.

allow me to repeat once again for those who didn't catch it:

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
You are an idiot and a demagogue

likewise, as you forced me to apologize for stepping too far in that last michael moore thread, which i honestly and sincerely meant, i am expecting an equally honest and sincere apology for this incident. you know my e-mail address. now send it, and i will forget about this little incident. otherwise, you've opened a pandora's box i'm not sure you want to see the contents of.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[This message has been edited by Bathtime Fun Whortense (edited 11-07-2001).]

[Achtung Bubba]

From your last post:


let this forum note that bubba wouldn't know a metaphor even if it ran into him like a freight train.


perhaps it's a tasteless metaphor. i would perhaps have been better to substitute rush limbaugh for pat robertson, who has openly denied the existence of the holocaust.

"Let the rest of the forum note that Whortense just associated conservatism with Nazism."

well, you don't need me to say that, which i didn't (blowing me more out of proportion than a clinton impeachment trial). pat said it a long time ago.


So... it was a metaphor, and yet, you state twice that it is more than a metaphor.

You imply that, because the idiot Robertson denies the Holocaust, mainstream conservative Republicans are philosophical kin to Nazis.

A metaphor? I don't think so.


I can in fact debate you on your entire reply, but I simply refuse to do so, on the basis that you have again implied that my political beliefs are in line with Nazism.

Am I blowing this out of proportion? No, because you're equating my political beliefs WITH THOSE OF ADOLPH HITLER.

Attaching my beliefs to Nazism for a second time further demonstrates that you ARE an idiot and a demagogue.

I will NOT apologize, especially given your backhanded explanation about your "metaphor".

I won't delete or suspend your account, but, as far as I'm concerned, you can go to hell.

[TheU2]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Yeah, David Denkins did WONDERS for that city, huh?

That's Dinkins.

A New Yorker,

CK

[TheU2]

Oh, and one more thing. His name is Mark Green.

CK ejumakating the masses.

[TheU2]

I'm a democrat. I voted for Bloomberg. He gave me $500.

CK

[Achtung Bubba]

Man, that list was thought-provoking when I first saw it -- eight years ago.

(Thanks also for adding in your two cents, Se7en. Brilliant observations.)

This list (first generated by the ironically named "Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting", I believe) is about the only documentation I've ever seen chronicling the horrors of Rush Limbaugh, and it's fairly unsuccessful:

In the first case, a few of the comments are jokes. Rush admits to using humor, and occasionally he may cross the line of good taste. But so does Bill Maher.

(Of the ten comments posted, that takes care of two of them -- the "gay turning his back" and the "Mexican in the marathon" comments.)

Other comments may be taken *completely* out of context, specifically when I recall Rush's main points about certain aspects of our culture. The "Homeless Olympics" was probably in response to some of the bizarre things the liberal homeless advocacy has tried in the name of "helping the homeless", including giving them shopping carts and showing them videos on how to properly "dumpster dive" for food. It's "illustrating absurdity by being absurd". The "poverty line" comment, if it's in the context that I've heard it before, was made about the level of poverty in the US compared to the Third World; we have the richest poor in the world, including many who own a car, several TVs, and a refigerator, and that's "not so bad".

(That eliminates another two, leaving six.)

And the Strom Thurmond comment doesn't offend me nearly as much as it apparently offended the makers of this list. Thurmond's values do match those of a lot of people of his time (that's why he got elected) and of this time (that's why he's been re-elected so often). And while his comment about homosexuality not being normal may be offensive to some, it's not from out of nowhere. The Bible seems to condemn the practice in several places, and homosexuality certainly doesn't use the practices of sexual reproduction towards any contiuance of this species.

With that comment taken care of, that leaves five statements.

Some of those comments may make sense in context -- or be factually true. Even if they aren't, we have five instances in about six years (1988-1993) in which Rush made a factual error or simply shot his mouth off.

With approximately 4,500 hours at their disposal, Rush's political enemies come up with this list of grievances?

Pathetic.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

What did you find, Dad?
Me? Illumination.

[Se7en]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

(Thanks also for adding in your two cents, Se7en. Brilliant observations.)

hey now....

------------------
The numeral 7

[Bathtime Fun Whortense]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
So... it was a metaphor, and yet, you state twice that it is more than a metaphor.

You imply that, because the idiot Robertson denies the Holocaust, mainstream conservative Republicans are philosophical kin to Nazis.

A metaphor? I don't think so.

whatever... it's a metaphor. i'm telling you that now. "i don't think so?" too bad. you're wrong. period.

you couldn't quite understand my little bit about, ahem:

"it's funny that if a republican warns you ahead of time of these accusations, it somehow negates the truth."

so i made a metaphor that's easily understood. anyone who bothers to put time in this forum will realize i use world war ii quite often as metaphors, because, quite simply, people don't know their history enough for me to use other metaphors.

i will make no secret that i hate rush limbaugh. it's quite obvious you must worship him or something, so it pains you for me to criticize him. too bad. learn to think for yourself. i haven't listened to a "liberal commentator" in years. and i can debate circles around people, because, quite simply, all that i say comes from me, not someone else.

I can in fact debate you on your entire reply, but I simply refuse to do so, on the basis that you have again implied that my political beliefs are in line with Nazism.

i don't believe you. you can't debate my entire reply. hence, you're resorting dismissing your opponent as an extremist. a very rush-worthy response, because he's not exactly the brightest apple to fall from the tree either. i'm calling your bluff.

Am I blowing this out of proportion? No, because you're equating my political beliefs WITH THOSE OF ADOLPH HITLER.

and you've equated liberalism with communism more than once. and, no, i'm not equating your beliefs with adolf hitler. but i know how you are. because you've deemed it, it's done, no matter how hard one will say to the contrary. plus, you're trying to divert attention to give the allusion you're the "dominant" one in this debate. another republican tactic, one that, contrary to most republican tactics, i admire, but i also don't hesistate to call people on it.

Attaching my beliefs to Nazism for a second time further demonstrates that you ARE an idiot and a demagogue.

cry me a river. if you can't take the heat in this forum, then do everyone a favor and stick to lemonade stand.

if i remember correctly, since september 11th, you've equated liberals to "terrorist-symathizers" and went on a bit of a mccarthy-style tirade, labelling the one opponent to the war in congress a "communist" (making sure, of course, to put "communist" in large capital letters). as soon as you denigrated to demagogery yourself, i should have dismissed you.

I will NOT apologize, especially given your backhanded explanation about your "metaphor".

considering that you never apologize to anyone on this forum, i wouldn't expect it anyway. to quote that bible quote that's often thrown at me, "pride before the fall."

besides, you'd have failed the second rule of the republican diversion tactic:

rule 1: dismiss your opponent an extremist if you can't debate him/her on virtues of the actual debate

rule 2: never back down and never apologize

I won't delete or suspend your account, but, as far as I'm concerned, you can go to hell.

an excellent cop-out. when you're ready to debate like a mature adult, then come back to free your mind. good bye.

------------------
~whortense wiffin
walla walla, washington

[TheU2]

I'm getting sick of this bibartisan bullshit. Do you people ever cross party lines or are you so brainwashed by your party's so called ideals that you only vote based on whether you see an elephant or a donkey.

I've voted for both in the past.....

A democrat who voted for Guiliani and Bloomberg,

CK