Monday, January 28, 2008

"You're a Liberal!" -- "Am Not, YOU Are!"

Jesus, does it get any better than this? Both of the frontrunning Rethugs are hurling "The L Word" at each other like a couple of schoolyard third-graders on recess.

The L Word. As in "Liberal".

Liberals!!! Oh my god!!! It's the end of civilization as we know it! Dogs and cats, living together! (Bill Murray, in Ghostbusters)

Who'da thunk it, forty years ago, when being a Liberal was a good thing?

You remember the Liberals, don't you? The people who brought you the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, Social Security, the end of Jim Crow laws, etc etc etc.

For some perspective on those goddam atheistic commie pinko America-hating terrorist-enabling liberals, take a look at the brilliant satire A Day in the Life of Joe Republican by John Gray, who wrote it way back in 2004.

This is some great stuff. It's too bad more Rethugs can't read it. Won't read it. Wouldn't "get it" if they did read it. Morons.

20 Comments:

The Truffle said...

This is the GOP in 2008. Even their smear campaigns are stupid.

pepsiholic said...

The Jim Crow law... how about something more recent ;)

The Civil Rights Act:
In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.

betmo said...

thought you'd be interested in this:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/
state-union-tiger-team

Farnsworth68 said...

PH, as usual, you miss the point. You cite a bunch of Democrats who were against the Civil Rights law, but I never once said that "Democrats" were responsible for any of this stuff.
I said "liberals" did it.
You are obviously pretty young, so you can't remember the days when there actually were Liberal Republicans (e.g. Wayne Morse, Mark Hatfield, Charles Percy, Nelson Rockefeller, et al.; even Dwight D. Eisenhower's doctrine of "dynamic conservatism" would be seen as hopelessly liberal in today's Rethug party).
The phrase "Liberal Republican" looks like an oxymoron now, but it wasn't always that way.
The Dems you cite were conservatives, and it has always been conservatives who, by their very nature, have tried to put roadblocks in the way of progress, in politics as in pretty much everything else.
So why do you think so many southern Democrats switched parties and became Rethugs?
I was because they were CONSERVATIVES!
So where's your rebuttal to pretty much everything else in this post?

Farnsworth68 said...

Thanks, Betmo. Here's a clickable link to that page, Smirk of the Union.

pepsiholic said...

Wow, that was some pretty twisted logic you threw out there Farns ol buddy... even if a democrat voted against the civil rights act it's because he was a conservative... therefore secretly a republican... How's that former KKK member Byrd doing... when was it he switched? How about George Wallace... when was it he switched parties? Al Gore senior? Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Fritz Hollings? The only two major democrats that switched to republicans was Thurmond and Helmes. The myth that democrats left the fold to become republicans is just another liberal myth. Those that left the democrats became the Dixiecrats and then later rejoined the democratic party.

Yes, the word liberal today is a dirty word... They want to force gay marriage down our throat even though the majority of Americans are against it, they want to remove our guns, our school systems are screwed up (no more rulers on the knuckles), you can't spank your child without worrying about child protective services throwing you in jail, the only safe joke to tell at work is "What's invisible and smells like carrots???? Bunny farts. PC has run amok, you have to screen your wall calendars to ensure that there isn't any cleavage, liberal unelected judges try to "interpret" the constitution, and they put their party above the greater good of the United States... they would rather we lose in Iraq and it descend into chaos and become a new AQ base than Bush get credit for winning in Iraq. They cry that Bush tax cuts didn't go to the poor, when the lower 40% in the tax brackets don't even pay taxes, and many receive money back that they didn't even pay in. Liberals believe that the government should run every aspect of my life. That the money I earn is really theirs and they should give it to people who are less fortunate (too lazy to work) (I have no problem giving to those who are actually disabled), That terrorists should have the same rights under the constitution as U.S. citizens, But... that's my own personal view.

Liberals used to care about bringing up the standard of living around the globe. Now they are a bunch of protectionalists that are against free trade.

Farnsworth68 said...

PH--Your complete lack of knowledge of historical context and your irrational insistence on the ersatz "history" you are being fed by the wingnuttery blogosphere are both quite refreshing and truly awe-inspiring.

Don't forget that Trent Lott was among the I'd-rather-switch-than-fight conservative Dem crowd. I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to do the research, but I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that there were a TON more than the "top three" in the Democratic Party in the south that switched over the the Rethugs. No, it did not happen all at once, and not every single elective office switched, but considering that Thurmond and Helms were the very brightest stars in the southern Democrat fimament, it stand to reason that shitloads of lesser thugs and racist assholes, all under the covering camouflage of the code words "states rights", would follow them.

And yes, any Democrat from the south who voted against the Civil Rights act WAS in fact a conservative. You need to try to wrap your mind around the fact that "Democrat" and "Republican" used to be just convenient labels and had little to do with an individual politician's basic philosphy. That's why you had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in those days. I know that's more than a little difficult for you to swallow, but it's true.

And George Wallace? He first big run for president in 1968 was as an Independent because he knew from previous attempts that most of the rank and file Dems outside the south (notable exceptions: Wisconsin, Indiana, Maryland, states where he picked up some 30% of the vote) would not support him. It wasn't until four years later that he came back as a Democrat, after the initial successes of Nixon's "southern strategy" opened up the floodgates of racism and he knew that he could throw a monkey wrench into the already-divided -- some would say crippled -- Democratic party.

Oh, and about us liberals wanting to give "your" money to those who are less fortunate, i.e. those who are "too lazy to work". Please go back to the Day in the Life of Joe Republican and see why you even have all that money in the first place, as well as the health to enjoy it. Of course there are problems with the liberal system (but I challenge you to show me any system that doesn't have problems and opportunities for abuse -- and the current crop of "compassionate conservatives" have elevated cronyism and profligate spending to an art form).

But I can tell that reason and logic are falling on deaf ears, because you are most likely the kind of person who says, "It is better that 1,000 people starve to death than one single undeserving person get a free meal."

pepsiholic said...

Farns, you may want to back and check your history books. Wallace wasn't an independent and then a democrat. He started off as a democrat, ran as an independent and then rejoined the democrats.

George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998), was a United States politician who was elected Governor of Alabama as a Democrat four times (1962, 1970, 1974 and 1982) and ran for U.S. President four times, running as a Democrat in 1964, 1972, and 1976, and as the American Independent Party candidate in 1968.

Trent Lott... can you help me bud, I can't find where he was ever elected as a democrat. I mean you did say he was a "top three" that switched. Now what were you saying about "Your complete lack of knowledge of historical context and your irrational insistence on the ersatz "history" you are being fed by the wingnuttery blogosphere are both quite refreshing and truly awe-inspiring."

Wow, the last I heard, Wikipedia was left leaning.

Let's see what my wingnuttery Wikipedia site says about what happened to the political landscape down south after the failed civil rights act.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats)dissolved after the 1948 election.

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections.

In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, yellow dog Democrats were voters in the U.S. Southern states who consistently voted for Democratic candidates because of lingering resentment against Republicans from the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. The term arose from the notion that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican.

And what happened after the civil rights act...the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. With the party slogan: "Segregation Forever!," the Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, (a) formed the States' Rights Democratic Party for the presidential election of 1948, (b) remained Democrats for all local elections and all subsequent national elections, and (c) declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

Jeez Farns, wouldn't the misses be upset about a missing paycheck?

Farnsworth68 said...

Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough describing Wallace. I thought it was clear that his two previous half-hearted presidential attempts (1960, 1964) had been as a Democrat. Thanks for allowing me the clarification.
And Trent Lott? Look at this entry in Wikipedia, 1st and 2nd paragraphs under "Political Career":
"Lott was raised as a Democrat. He served as administrative assistant to House Rules Committee chairman William M. Colmer, also of Pascagoula, from 1968 to 1972. Colmer, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, endorsed Lott as his successor in Mississippi's 5th District, located in the state's southwestern tip, even though Lott ran as a Republican. Lott won handily. Lott's party switch was part of a growing trend in the South..." [Emphasis added]
What "wingnuttery Wikipedia site" are you using? I can hardly criticize your sources if I don't know what they are.
And finally, YOU are complaining about Wikipedia.com being "left leaning"? That's pretty funny, since you were the first one to cite it in this interchange, way back on January 18 -- am I supposed to now believe that you are citing questionable "left-leaning" sources to prove your point?

pepsiholic said...

Farns, how could Lott be one of the top 3 democrats to switch when he was never elected as a democrat? He was elected as a republican. I don't care that he was raised a democrat, was trained by a democrat he was NOT a "top 3" democrat that switched parties.

And I notice you a very, very quiet on the "but I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that there were a TON more than the "top three" in the Democratic Party in the south that switched over the the Rethugs."

Why is that?

pepsiholic said...

Farns, I use Wikipedia a lot because liberals typically will try to ignore facts from rightwingnutblog sites. Not that there's anything wrong with the facts from conservative sites. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are more fact based and liberals are more emotional based. If a conservative site has a history of making stuff up, he'll lose readers. Liberal sites usually gain readers (why aren't your numbers higher?) An example was an article in Truthout.org... a guy wrote a story saying that the guys coming back from Iraq (don't quote me on the exact numbers) were suffering about 60% PTSD. Now since we were both in the military, we both know that for every guy on the front line he has about 3 supply people back on the base. That 60% number seemed way high. I wrote him to find out his source. After several e-mails he finally referred to an article in the USA today. Yes, the article said 60% of the troops were home sick, missed their love ones, stuff like that but only 4-5% had PTSD. This guy had knowingly falsified data to further the liberal cause. Liberals will use numbers and data even after it's been disproved. You know... like 700,000 Iraqi's killed... I belong to a political e-mail group (one of the liberals said he wanted to see me take you on... I wonder why he's being so quiet??? I guess he recognizes who's winning) Anyway... there's this one female who won't face reality... she keeps on insisting that the rich pay no taxes... even after I show her this: The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

Some liberal myths like racist democrats turned into republicans, the rich pay no taxes just won't go away.

Farnsworth68 said...

Okay maybe I was a little rash including him in the top three. But he did switch parties. Just because he did before he ran for office is essentially meaningless.
I'm willing to reduce my "top three" to "top two".
Happpy now?

Farnsworth68 said...

Oh, and your "statistics"?
I used to work in a government research unit, and we used to say that statistics are like "women of easy virtue": Once you get 'em down, you can do anything you want with 'em.
And don't forget the immortal three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
So where are those wingnuttery sources of yours?
Oh, and one final shot: Those who refuse to believe that racist Democrats did not switch to the Republican Party are, at best, uninformed -- disingenuous is actually the better term.
So tell all those liberal pen pals of yours to drop on by and watch the fun.

pepsiholic said...

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

pepsiholic said...

Farns, if the racist democrats left for the republicans, why did Byrd a KKK member stay with the democrats? He was the one who fillibustered the Civil Rights Act?

And where's that list at? Can't substaniate your claim that a "ton" switched?

Farnsworth68 said...

When did I say ALL racist Democrats?
And so what if Byrd was KKK? So was Hugo Black in his youth, but he turned out to be arguably one of the most liberal Supreme Court justice in history, on racial discrimination and First Amendment cases.
And Robert Byrd? So what? Who cares what a man was in his youth if his later life demostrates a change of heart?
For example, In the NAACP Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress, Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently." [--source]
Rethugs are always generous in forgiving pecadilloes among their people as "youthful indiscretions" (such as Henry Hyde's dismissal of his extramarital adventures resulting the birth of a "bastard child" which happened when he was about 41 -- talk about a case of arrested development...)
And that list of "tons" -- I already said that I didn't have the time or the inclination to do it. Instead, my tactic is to make outrageous statements and let my enemies do the research to try to prove me wrong.
Which you still haven't done.

Farnsworth68 said...

Oh, and speaking of taxes. The decade that saw the greatest sustained expansion of the American economy was the 1950s.
In case you forgot -- or didn't know -- the president for most of that decade was Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Guess what the highest marginal tax rate was during those years.
30%? 50%? 70%?
No, you guessed wrong. It was, in fact, 90%.
We used to have a truly progressive taxation system in this country, and contrary to what Rethugs would like to think, there was no correlation at all (proved time and again since the advent of Trickle Down Reaganomics) between lower tax rates and a good economy. In quite, it's just the opposite.

pepsiholic said...

Uh Farns... you left out that the 90% tax rate applied to anyone making over $400,000.00. What was the average wage back the... $3,000.00? And if taxes have no impact on the economy, why did the New York Times write this?:

THE 10 percent excise tax on pleasure boats, coming on top of the recession, is helping to scuttle parts of the local boating industry, say those who make their livings building, selling and maintaining the boats.

The luxury tax, which began Jan. 1, is applied to that part of a new boat's sale price over $100,000...The company has broken sales records in the last three months, Mr. McMichael said, but the sales have been for used boats.

The executive vice president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Frank Scalpone, said the tax had already adversely affected the nation's top boat builders. He cited companies like Pearson Yachts, O'Day Corporation, Shannon Boat Builders and Bristol Yachts as ones that have been forced out of business. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4DC1239F932A15754C0A967958260

Yeah, how many workers forced into the unemployment line because of the increased taxes?

In regard to corporate taxes... I'm not sure if you heard but there's a company that says that it can make ethonal for $1 a gallon using microbes from organic material. It's so promising GM bought stock in the company. In the republican world, this company would make eyhonal for $1 a gallon, sell it for $3 a gallon, make obscene profits, build more factories (using the workforce) hire lots of more workers to run them and flood the market with ethonal to the point that the demand for oil lowerd, lowering the price of oil until ethonal and oil were the same price.

In the liberal word: Obscene profits!!! $2 a gallon profit!!!Tax the hell out of them!!!!!!! The company makes minimul profits, can't build new plants, can't hire more workers, nobody wants to investine in a company that isn't going to make a good return on their investiment and the price of oil stays high.

What is it with liberals trying to steal other peoples hard earned money? Envy? I don't remember anywhere in the constitution where it says that we shall steal from the rich so liberals can keep all the money that they "work" for.

pepsiholic said...

Have a nice weekend bud, won't be on, we're having a big superbowl party here and I've got a lot of jelloshots to make and steaks to buy. I figured I'd leave you with a joke:

Father-Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

Farnsworth68 said...

PH--
1. Father-daughter joke: Admittedly pretty funny but sadly it's a false allusion with no application to the real world.
2. Your immediate previous post: When did I ever say that taxes have no effect on the economy? If you'll go back and actually read the post, I said there was no correlation between lower taxe rates and a good economy. We're talking income taxes here, so let's try to stay on topic. Luxury taxes are an anomaly in this discussion since they are not progressive taxes.
As usual, you are missing the point. As you will see, I said "marginal tax rate of 90%". If you don't understand "marginal tax rate", take a look at this. And that $400,000 figure? According to the inflation calculator, that's equivalent to $2,766,518.83 in 2006 dollars. So what's that $3,000 figure for average workers got to do with it?
Nothing.
The point is that the 1950s were a time of unprecedented growth in the economy of the United States, and those that reaped the most benefits were expected to return the most reinvestment to it (and that, ultimately, is what taxes are all about--reinvestment in the nuts and bolts workings of the country; police, fire, national defense, regulation of reckless corporations, clean food, clean air, sewage disposal, water treatment, etc etc etc are not free). Remember, from those to whom much is given, much is expected.
I suggest you go back and reread Day in the Life of Joe Republican and maybe this time you will "get it".
So have a good weekend, BBF. Catch you on the switchback.
PS: I hope your team loses...