patrick.net

To days Liberals are either happy people that don't want to be marginalized by other happy people. So they want the other would be happy people to give up things that makes them the happiest the most. I'm talking to you, Warren Buffet.

Or unhappy people that don't want anyone happier than they are, so they spend a lot of time crafting up ways to crap on every ones parade.
"What do you mean I can't ride my "Big Al's gay boat ride" float in the St. Patrick's day parade?"

Stalin and Mao were extremely intolerant.

dodgerfanjohn says

Homeboy posted "The simple act of disagreeing with another is not an abridgment of free speech".

In otherwords he builds a strawman. I never argued about anyone abridging free speech.

You wrote, in the very first post, that one of the core "tennents" [sic] of the liberal belief system was "very strong support of free speech." Then you wrote "But that has diminished a great deal". And later, you wrote, "IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech."

How can you now say that you "never argued about anyone abridging free speech"? Did someone steal your screenname?

mmmarvel says

dodgerfanjohn says

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Southern rednecks, christian fundamentalists, and conservative republicans don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The Southern Baptist bible belt is in the South, and while there's a libertarian unabomber streak in the midwest, the midwest is also very much fundamentalist Christian -- "Christianist" actually -- these days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/blue-states-red-states_n_1976768.html

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Education Union elitists, gay fundamentalists, and Liberal Democrats don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

The California Liberal belt is in the West, and while there's an elitists Weathermen streak in the North East, the North East is also very much deviant perversion -- "Perversionist" actually -- these days.

(I'm finding it hard to spoof a guys post about IDIOTS that riddled with typos and bad grammar everywhere. I'm just as bad, but hey I don't go around calling everyone I disagree with an Idiot.)

Oh look who it is? If it ain't Mr. "Guess what I'm bitching about?"

I was told there wouldn't be any Math.

In the recent election we had conservative Republicans actively monkey with early voting in the attempt to limit certain people from voting.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13682483-florida-limits-early-voting-black-churches-may-move-souls-to-polls-to-saturdays?lite

even to the point of appealing to the supreme court:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/31/federal-judge-restores-3-early-voting-days-in-ohio/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/ohio-appeals-to-supreme-court-on-early-voting/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/justices-reject-appeal-over-early-voting-in-ohio.html

Now THAT was a nexus of stupidity. Conservative southern racists (back before the 1970s they were all Democrats) were very successful with similar institutional vote-suppression bullshit but eventually got beaten back by liberals, including liberal Republicans.

But you guys are still at it with this active stupidity, after the conservative Dems mostly turned Republican and the liberal Republicans disappeared from the map.

There is nothing to "disagree" about this particular issue. If you support conservative Republican attempts at vote suppression, you are both evil AND stupid.

Stupid, because you can't learn from history.

Similarly, there is nothing to "disagree" about not demonizing gay couples, not being afraid of "darwinian" evolution, studying climate change and making draconian economic policies if the science indicates to future disaster, the Republican party's neocon-led warmongering in 2002-2003 was a massive mistake, etc.

Conservatives need to figure out that you guys are living in the 21st century and you can't go back to the 19th, no matter how bad you want to.

Change is going to happen.

Bellingham Bill says

nexus

It only sounds smart if you use it once per thread.

Bellingham Bill says

If you support conservative Republican attempts at vote suppression, you are both evil AND stupid.

Stupid, because you can't learn from history.

California has 55 electorate votes, don't lecture people about election fixing.

We live in a democratic society where most of the 50 states have closed primaries while the majority of registered voters are independents. Don't lecture people about election fixing.
The media can saturate the pop American psyche with douche bags that don't warrant a second mention, while stone walling the greatest men our country has to offer. Don't lecture me about election fixing.

Republicans losing touch with the electorate of California isn't vote suppression.

You guys just suck too much. Here's a nickel, go find a new ideology, one that doesn't suck as much.

CaptainShuddup says

like I said above, what I hate is all the stupidity. Education Union elitists, gay fundamentalists, and Liberal Democrats don't have the market cornered on stupidity, but it's close and there's certainly a massive nexus of the stuff to be found in these three communites -- which, to be honest here, largely overlap.

Education Union elitists? wtf?
Gay fundamentalists. really?
But liberal democrats, I see your point. The liberal democrats are the ones that give Obama shit for selling out to wall street and the fed. The liberal democrats are the ones who have problems with Obama's executive power abuse. And yes, those annoying liberal democrats who want to rebuild the fucking decimated middle class.

Captain, you could be the poster dude for the old white guys with a bleak future who ironically rail against the only people who will save them.

You are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. Wealthy conservatives have held you hostage and yet you have sympathy for them while you hate those who are trying to save you.

You sir, remind me of a certain Berkeley coed:

Excellent analysis, and good photoshop job.

Bellingham Bill says

Now THAT was a nexus of stupidity. Conservative southern racists (back before the 1970s they were all Democrats) were very successful with similar institutional vote-suppression bullshit but eventually got beaten back by liberals, including liberal Republicans.

When Nixon made his deal with the devil, and set about the business of curing the Democratic Party of the South, some of his fellow Republicans feared they would lose the black vote for a generation. That proved wildly optimistic. No Republican since has come close to Nixon's Republican predecessor --Eisenhower-- who got 40% of the black vote.

Ohio Republicans tried to take away Sunday voting this year. It was a blatant attempt to suppress the black vote. One of them even admitted it. [1] The black share of voter turnout in Ohio went up more than 30% from 2008.

You're absolutley right that voter suppression targetting minorities is stupid. Especially when you're this blatant about it.

[1] http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/08/19/ohio-republicans-finally-admit-limited-hours-intended-to-suppress-black-voters/

What's worse is that the Ohio Republicans wanted to open the early polls for only military members!

That's something Godwin-worthy.

Plus the turncoat governor Crist is spilling the beans on Florida's GOP voter suppression effort apparently.

Former GOP chair, governor - both on outs with party - say voter fraud wasn’t a concern, but reducing Democratic votes was.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

If people come to the realization that this crap was actually happening, say goodbye to the Republican party as a going concern.

What do you do for an encore? Whoops, our bad! We're not so anti-American any more! Or do they double-down, "don't vote for us, we don't need your vote anyway, moochers!"

Or maybe us liberals are just supposed to "tolerate" this?

dodgerfanjohn says

As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:
-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.

...

There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.

What utter nonsense. You have a profound misunderstanding of what free speech is all about.

Free speech is not a guarantee that others will be polite to you when you say stupid things. It is not there to shelter your preconceptions from the winds of harsh criticism. On the contrary: free speech is the right of others to expose the stupidity of what you're saying. When speech is so exercised, it is the opposite of intolerance. It is an attempt to set you straight. Whether you take it that way or not is entirely up to you.

You have the same right, of course, but be warned: the genius of free speech is that shitty ideas lose in a fair fight. If you think you can do better than your fellows who are --I'm sorry: whose ideas are-- getting evicerated, then sack up and sit down. If you have a defense of your point of view, stop bitching, and field it. The only risk you run is the same as everyone else: the risk of coming off a fool.

When that happens, just remember: the other guy is only the messenger.

I try to be as civil as possible when discussing politics unless I believe that someone advocates physical violence or taking away rights of their political opponents. Otherwise, I try to do my best to treat political discussions in the format that I would have in a coffee shop - a certain 19th century russian civilized decorum you could say. There's no reason why politics have to be so emotionally charged and bring out the worst in the debaters.

And I thought I had too much time.

msilenus says

You're absolutley right that voter suppression targetting minorities is stupid. Especially when you're this blatant about it.

[1] http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/08/19/ohio-republicans-finally-admit-limited-hours-intended-to-suppress-black-voters/

no.. such comments were actually twisted to sound that way..

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ohio-republican-stands-by-jab-at-black-turnout-ma

Preisse's comment to today's Columbus Dispatch were taken as a smoking gun by Democrats and progressives, who said — as one liberal Ohio blogger wrote — that Preisse had acknowledged an effort to "suppress black voters."

Preisse scoffed at the criticism, telling BuzzFeed of a disputed voting plan put forth by Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, "I believe it should be easy to vote, and I believe that under this plan it is.

"I believe that Republicans and Democrats of good will can have a difference of opinion, an honest difference of opinion here, but I also believe that there is no question that the forces of Obama and the other side of the aisle would love to just throw the barn doors open and have 24-hour voting and just go too far in the other direction," Preisse said. "It seems to me we can have a reasonable discussion about this."

Of Democrats' early voting efforts, he said, "How far should the taxpayers be asked to go to accommodate that political operation? That’s where we’re having a difference of opinion."

CaptainShuddup says

And I thought I had too much time.

Very sloppy job took me less than 5 minutes

You nailed my bitchtits perfectly.

Very well done.

Bellingham Bill says

Republicans losing touch with the electorate of California isn't vote suppression.

You guys just suck too much. Here's a nickel, go find a new ideology, one that doesn't suck as much.

It was the Rep electorate which voted in Rep government which created California for the 21st century, and a blue print for the world for follow.

Heck even Billy Bob Clinton visited the new miracle which fueled the telecom tech revolution, which created new industries and jobs. He was trying to take some credit and always join the party.. but no one cared why he was here or what he had to day... California became a top 10 world economy on its own long before Clinton became President.

And today, we have the Liberals taking everything down which was created ... taking us back to the stone age. Perhaps all you have is to point to a Ipod/Iphone as your great achievement.

You are now being judged.. will you succeed as great as the California GOP of years past or fall and go Bankrupt as New Your City did during the Liberal heydays of the 1970s?

thomaswong.1986 says

no.. such comments were actually twisted to sound that way..

Do you know what twisting a statement is? You accused my source of doing that, and then apparently tried to support the claim by providing Preisse's later remarks on his original remarks. That's bogus. To support your claim of unfair quoting, you'd want to add more context to Preisse's original remarks.

No. The quoting of his remarks was entirely fair. And his later 'clarification' is just a restatement of what he said earlier, except without using the word 'black.' (A rare trick, that: attempting to clarify a position by becoming less specific.) He prefers to describe the law in terms of undermining a voter turnout operation. He's welcome to phrase it that way, but a spade is a spade, and that is still voter suppression. And if you think he's being more forthright in his later statement about whom the suppression is aimed at, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Honestly, the people who say, "I don't tolerate stupid ideas." Well, did you ever think that people who disagree with you think your ideas are stupid? If so, does the fact that they think your ideas are stupid is any reason to shut them up? Honestly, I think we have to remember that we live in a pluralistic society with competing ideologies and different points of view and we should be careful before labeling those ideas stupid and bigoted.

And note to liberals, just because something's old doesn't mean it's bad.

ph16 says

Well, did you ever think that people who disagree with you think your ideas are stupid?

"stupid is what stupid does"

If conservatives were honest with themselves they'd see how much harm their ideologic attachment to bullshit has been doing to them and their country since 1980 if not earlier.

The history of this nation 1950 to now has us becoming more conservative, and making bigger and bigger policy mistakes.

Liberals haven't covered themselves in glory opposing this slide into ruin, but they have not been active participants in much of it (other than being goaded by conservatives into doing stupid things like intervene in Indochina in the mid-1960s, or signing off on conservative stupidity like NAFTA, NCLB, and the 2002 AUMF).

Now, I do think all the unfunded pension liabilities of government unions is a policy mistake we can ascribe to "liberals", and in the scheme of things it's not small, $2T+.

But this is a very large, wealth-creating economy still. $15T+. Problem is the top 10% own 90% of its productive assets and clear maybe a third of the income.

This is simply unsustainable. Economies can't get so asymmetric in their wealth flows -- they will eventually seize up and collapse, just like the many bank panics of the 19th century, the Great Depression, and the current Great Recession.

Conservative minarchist ideology does not have any solutions for this challenge of rising inequality, this desire to return to the "old" will just make the imbalances worse.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

So, "tolerating" stupidity is a form of stupidity, too.

fwiw, I don't think today's "liberals" understand the problems and available solutions all that well, either. They seem to be center-right bumblefucks to me most of the time, TBH.

Ah, here we come with the pluralistic "everybody's idea is potentially stupid" retort. Really???

When someone complains about the "religion of science", I'm suppose to engage them in a serious debate?

When someone says that dinosaurs existed with mankind, I'm suppose to assert that "no they didn't"?

When someone says that free speech means I can say anything I want anytime I want, I'm suppose to say "ummm, that's not what I was taught in law school"?

I'm suppose to believe in people who never have looked at a blastocyst under a microscope harp about how a 60 cell ball is a human being?

I'm suppose to listen to people who contort themselves to say that throwing awaying IVF embryos is OK but stem cell research is bad?

In essence, I'm suppose to condone uneducated viewpoints as part of tolerance but allow such uneducated viewpoints to mock my education? How about people get educated so we can have a real discussion?

Nowadays, I'll acknowledge your "opinions", I just won't give any respect to the uneducated ones. Flame away.

We have become a nation of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. This republican vs. democrat bull shit is just distraction, as are the social issues (gay rights, abortion) that consume the media reporting. Meanwhile your rights and freedoms are being quietly legislated away by BOTH parties, and nobody is reporting it. Who would care? Arguing about who can have gay sex in a Chick-Fil-A is way more interesting than all those dusty laws like habeus corpus, freedom from illegal searches and seizures, and being allowed to freely move yourself and your property from place to place. It's already illegal to rent a moving van to go state to state. And the next big thing is a lock on debit cards, where you won't be allowed to spend more than $10000 abroad on any one trip.
The Iron Curtain Mark II is descending, and the mice are quibbling about their genitals.

Quigley says

This republican vs. democrat bull shit is just distraction, as are the social issues (gay rights, abortion) that consume the media reporting

gay rights are not bullshit to gay people, and restricting the legal availability of abortion services is not bullshit to pro-life people.

Quigley says

t's already illegal to rent a moving van to go state to state

News to Budget!

Quigley says

And the next big thing is a lock on debit cards, where you won't be allowed to spend more than $10000 abroad on any one trip.

LOL. It's amazing how off into tinfoil land you are with all of this. There might be a requirement to declare outgoing debit card balances to match how we must declare $10,000 in outgoing currency, but think about what you're writing more por favor.

Quigley says

It's already illegal to rent a moving van to go state to state.

You sure about that?

rooemoore says

You sure about that

Oh no! Your avatar isn't animated anymore! It was the best damn thing on this site. No offense, Patrick.

Dan8267 says

rooemoore says

You sure about that

Oh no! Your avatar isn't animated anymore! It was the best damn thing on this site. No offense, Patrick.

Yeah I noticed that too. Perhaps it was too risque for Patrick?

Lets find out:

This thread and original theme of the supposed end of liberal "tolerance" - now comet ely screwed - bring to mind the old quote by Asimov:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Oh, and apocolypsefuck, have I mentioned lately that I think I love you?

Bellingham Bill says

gay rights are not bullshit to gay people, and restricting the legal availability of abortion services is not bullshit to pro-life people.

I think they are minor topics though that should consume far less media attention and I believe they are used to divide and conquer and to get people watch TV and commercials - after all nobody would want to watch the sad and boring state of the US debt clock although it is a million times more important and relevant. Gays have all the rights that straights have except for the right to get married, which is not a civil right but a fight for inclusion into a government-endorsed lifestyle. IMO marriage brings more governmental headaches/intrusions into your life (not to talk about divorce lawyer sharks and realtors) than it has advantages. Ideally government should get out of marriage business completely and let either states handle it (still some form of government) or just churches and written contracts between the two parties define the terms. Abortion should also be handled on the state level so you can always go to where it's legal if necessary, but it certainly should not be sponsored with taxpayer money. All in all fringe topics that should not consume so much attention.

I'm not sure I agree. Social progressiveness has always been the core of the American experience and it's the way the country has dealt with issues similar to these in the past that have helped to define America as a nation. These are not rri ge issues, they are the latest front in a decades long battle to drag ourselves into a better and more full filling & productive life for a people.

If there is one thing that defines "Americanism" I hope that would be it.

Who says librhuls are intolerant?

So long as you live in a good neighborhood with good schools and have like mad education yo, you're aye okay in my book. You dumb fucking redneck, christian, republican tea baggers

Bellingham Bill says

If people come to the realization that this crap was actually happening, say goodbye to the Republican party as a going concern.

Why ? Most republicans are fine with this. They knowingly lie through their teeth that it's about voter fraud. But really it shows a lack of integrity, or the values that this country is based on, they know what it's about and they are okay with it.

dublin hillz says

There's no reason why politics have to be so emotionally charged and bring out the worst in the debaters.

Hmmmm. You may be right. Ooops.

Bellingham Bill says

unfunded pension liabilities of government unions is a policy mistake

The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).

It wasn't the unions. Their job is to push for better benefits. If the politicians agree and then don't fund what they agreed to, that isn't the unions fault.

Yes, yes, I know. I have a bias. Someone really needs to make an ad hominem attack and put me in my place.

Excellent thread by the way.

Bellingham Bill says

I don't think today's "liberals" understand the problems and available solutions all that well, either. They seem to be center-right bumblefucks to me most of the time, TBH.

I agree with this. It's almost like there is some kind of conspiracy to shift the whole thing to the right. "oh you want to go with the guy to the left ? That's cool, we've worked it out so that he's right about where we want it."

It's like a negotiation, where we are at an extreme disadvantage.

marcus says

Bellingham Bill says

unfunded pension liabilities of government unions is a policy mistake

The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).

It wasn't the unions. Their job is to push for better benefits. If the politicians agree and then don't fund what they agreed to, that isn't the unions fault.

Pension benefits should not be negotiable and just be regular 401Ks tracking whatever assets they are invested in with all the risks and benefits. Any "guaranteed" returns must come out of the active teachers paychecks to guarantee funding for the retirees and it must be frequently adjusted.

mell says

Pension benefits should not be negotiable and just be regular 401Ks tracking whatever assets they are invested in with all the risks and benefits.

Okay. Then raise the salaries. It's all the same really. Lower pay with a defined benefit pension, or higher pay with a 401k (403b whatever). I think I might agree that since the politicians can't be trusted, and they can't renig on salary as easily as they can pension, that higher pay without the defined benefit is a better choice.

marcus says

The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).

From what I gather, the late 1990s goodtimes allowed Sacramento politicians -- both parties -- to throw a lot of pension promises at the various unions.

But for pensions to pay out as promised their multihundred billion dollar funds need to be earning 7%+, not the 2% of last year.

To put this in perspective, that missing yield is on the order of $30B, and that has to come out of either government payrolls, higher taxes on taxpayers, or the employees via higher pension contributions, since contract law is apparently on the side of the employees who are unconditionally owed what they were promised.

$30B is $800 from every man, woman, and child in the state.

“We had no idea what we were doing,” said Tony Oliveira, who as a supervisor in Kings County, in central California, voted to increase employees’ benefits, and now is on the board of the state’s enormous pension fund. “This was probably the worst public policy decision in the state’s history. But everyone kept saying there was plenty of money. And no one wants to be responsible if all the cops quit to get paid more in the next town.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/22union.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The funds are still banking on 7%+ returns. Insanity when the TNX has been under 2% nearly all year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5ETNX

flim-flam is the order of the day here. The reality of the true situation is pretty horrible, unless you're a state retiree, then you're styling:

Mr. Seeling, for his part, is now enjoying retirement with a pension of about $78,000 a year.

“I can live on it,” he said. “I wish I had more. But it’s enough. I don’t think anyone needs that much more for a comfortable life.”