Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My guess is it boils down to the principle that white male Christian conservatives have no moral or legal responsibility for what white male Christian conservatives do.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I seriously have no clue where you and paft are going with this or how its connected to even this particular thread.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It comes from repeated demonstrations of the Republican Party passing blatantly theocratic legislation and people saying "But that's not what it is" without ever saying what it is, if they have the ability to say it's anything at all.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I was commenting on how the Republicans and conservatives I've spoken with (i.e. people I can talk to one-on-one) do not resemble talking heads or the type of person who becomes the poster child for that kind of rhetoric. I sometimes think of the talking head or spokesman as taking on the role of artificial life form, as they simply do not resemble people I interact with on a daily basis in the same way that there was just something "off" with the pod people that altered Kevin McCarthy that something was amiss.

You are going on about theocracy and from earlier, your favorite line involving vice and virtue (it was clever once. Now it produces eyerolls).

You can see how someone might reasonably be lost in a WTF moment of head-twisting confusion.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, as a counter to that anecdata you should listen to Joe Cironi's radio program and the callers there. Most of them make Sean Hannity warm and fuzzy-wuzzy by comparison. It's not a line, and it's not a joke. I'd tell you to google the term and see what I'm raising comparisons to do that with, but that's probably too much work. Most o' them chuckleheads sound like Pornstache, in fact.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know people who are more charicature than human exist. I wonder though how representative a sample that is given that radio hosts attract like minds with regards to their callers.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What do you find confusing about it?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It's conspicuous lack of any kind of continuity with the comment it was replying to.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Where exactly does this continuity break down? You said you'd never heard a Republican say they considered the wealthy inherently more responsible and competent than the nonwealthy. I pointed out the Republican commentators who routinely reviled union members and the poor and pointed out that the policies pursued by the Republicans are quite consistent with this contempt. How does this indicate a "lack of continuity?"

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"You said you'd never heard a Republican say..."

Stop right there. I said the following:

"In all the political conversations I've had with Republicans and/or conservatives"...

[paft.livejournal.com]

jc: Stop right there. I said the following: "In all the political conversations I've had with Republicans and/or conservatives"...

...that you had " never heard this (the notion that the wealthy are inherently superior to the non-wealthy) mentioned as a reason.

I pointed out Republican commentators who have said this, and that the policies pursued by the Republicans are quite consistent with this contempt. Again, how does this indicate a "lack of continuity?"

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

the thread is just a reason to get all their favorite buzzwords in there: whites, males, christians, corporations, limbaugh...

did i miss any?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Your trolling makes the thread complete.

Have you ever actually taken a shot at arguing?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

i'll leave you to argue at windmills. spin away, the breeze is fine today.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Why do you come here?

Isn't trolling against the rules? Or should I just add you to the list of the forum's pet trolls?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How about we not call each other trolls. Can we do that?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yes, a term tends to lose of its value when it's used indiscriminately. Just look at words like socialism, fascism, Nazi, etc.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Let the staff decide what's trolling, OK?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Do you think I've been unfair in my application of the term?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually none of my favorite buzzwords are in this particular thread. But thanks for trying and failing to argue.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

there's still time. i know it's not easy, but do try and keep them to this century.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Enough.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Got anything substantial to add?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

substantial is a relative term around here. any disagreements with paft and her odd debating techniques apparently constitute trolldom.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Only the ones which get personal. Are you aware of the definition of "personal"?