According to Washington State Wire, "When state Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake, left the Senate floor Tuesday to nurse her newborn son, Senate Democrats ... demand[ed] an immediate vote on a bill sponsored by a Democrat that did not appear on the afternoon schedule. ... Members of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted yes as their names were called. Members of the Majority Coalition Caucus voted no. And just in time, Holmquist Newbry emerged from the lounge to cast her vote. The motion failed 25-24."
Thankfully, the Democratic attempt to take advantage of a working, nursing, mother to undermine the democratically elected will of the people of Washington failed.
Next time, maybe the Senator should just nurse her child on the Senate floor. That's basically what former Senator Majority Leader Lisa Brown did 20 years ago, as a freshman -- fed her one-year-old son from a bottle on the Senate floor -- and some Republicans complained about it and, properly, got in trouble over it.
It seems like Democrats are determined to send women backward in time to when they are second-class citizens just because they are mothers.
OK, that's a bit harsh. The truth of the matter is simply that the Democrats don't really care about women at all, unless the women are on their side, or they can use those women to their advantage. But a Republican nursing mother? They couldn't care less about her, obviously.
Expect snarky and lemming like hate-filled leftist responses which a post like this will get. The challenge for conservatives here and in the government is to make more noise about their being maligned by others and make it an emotional argument, not just a logical argument. Emotional arguments usually win - that's also a truth that some won't like hearing.
Posted by: KDS on March 16, 2013 05:41 PMLikewise, the Democrats would have gained nothing but a procedural protest against the current "majority" if the motion had passed. Heck, the bill in question was relatively minor, and could have easily been scuttled once the "majority" was back in place.
Furthermore, the architect of this "coup" was not privy to why the senator was absent, and would not likely have been keen on the political implications if he did:
Frockt said he was unaware of the reason for Holmquist Newbry's absence. He just knew that when Honeyford made his motion to excuse her, the majority caucus was down a member. "I didn't know her baby was here," he said. "I didn't know she was nursing. All I knew was that they had a member who was absent from the floor."
Certainly he wouldn't have made the motion if he had known, he said. "In a 25-24 situation, this is the kind of thing that could happen."
All you're showing is that Republicans here are willing to squeeze every last possible bit of victimization out of an event, and whine as loudly as possible about it afterwards. Sure, Frockt should be censured by the Democrats for this. However, given that the current "majority" has done little to nothing for "working, nursing mothers", it's pointless and amusingly hypocritical whining.
@1: Yet again, showing people that you're a damned moron, and off in your own little dream world. Unless the "Marquis of Queensbury rules" include a section on being stabbed in the back by "colleagues", I doubt that they apply to Republicans.
Posted by: demokid on March 17, 2013 08:55 AMPosted by demokid at March 17, 2013 08:55 AM
The in-fighting that the Republicans have does not help their cause and it hits below the belt, nor does it speak to the Marquis of Queensbury rules that they use in response to outside their party.
Case and point - the last two presidential candidates;
McCain and Romney. They were largely inept at responding to attacks from the Obama campaign and spent time on dispersing campaign platitudes and not appealing to the emotional argument. They also let the Obama campaign frame them as bad and did not take the offensive (although McCain did not have much of a leg to stand on after 8 yrs. of Bush). Romney dropped the ball and his campaign was inept - which @2 would like to see all day long.
Republicans are largely gutless and lack an emotional punch, except for Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and to a lesser extent Rubio when it comes to responding to the media or to the President. Emotion is what resonates with the voter, whether the facts are correct or not - its all in how they are presented.
The Democrats presented the war on women with emotion, although most of their premises were bogus - yet it resonated to an extent because of the presentation and painted the Republicans as not supportive of women's rights and it worked, largely because the Republicans failed to mount an emotional rebuttal to refute the charges from Democrats, so they stuck with a lot of single women that influenced the outcome of the 2012 election.
Posted by: KDS on March 17, 2013 09:17 AMBlaming it on inept campaigning gets away from the actual issue -- winning elections is about appealing to centrists, not the fringe, and the modern Republican Party is getting worse and worse at this. The "emotional" arguments that the Republicans made about African-Americans, immigrants, the working poor, women, etc. did a remarkable job of pushing away centrists, especially those working-class centrists that the Republicans need to win.
The Democrats presented the war on women with emotion, although most of their premises were bogus - yet it resonated to an extent because of the presentation and painted the Republicans as not supportive of women's rights and it worked, largely because the Republicans failed to mount an emotional rebuttal to refute the charges from Democrats, so they stuck with a lot of single women that influenced the outcome of the 2012 election.
What premises were bogus? You had a number of Republican candidates looking to get elected to Congress that were expressing opinions about rape and women's health that were either completely wrong or thoroughly insensitive to their female constituents. If I'm voting for a candidate and it seems that they cannot effectively represent my interests in Congress, why precisely would I go out of my way to vote for them?
"Thankfully, the Democratic attempt to take advantage of a working, nursing, mother to undermine the democratically elected will of the people of Washington failed.
Next time, maybe the Senator should just nurse her child on the Senate floor. That's basically what former Senator Majority Leader Lisa Brown did 20 years ago, as a freshman -- fed her one-year-old son from a bottle on the Senate floor -- and some Republicans complained about it and, properly, got in trouble over it.
It seems like Democrats are determined to send women backward in time to when they are second-class citizens just because they are mothers."
@7- "You had a number of Republican candidates looking to get elected to Congress that were expressing opinions about rape and women's health that were either completely wrong or thoroughly insensitive to their female constituents."
It seems you are speaking mostly about Akin and Mourdock who made boneheaded statements about rape lost and deserved to lose ! If that's your contention, I agree with it, but if you are also speaking of GOP candidates who were elected, I disagree.
That you believe any of them didn't know is comical.
Posted by: pudge on March 17, 2013 10:43 AMI know... no Republicans seemed to tell him about it either, eh? I'd almost say that they were keen on getting as much mileage out of this as possible instead of being fair to their colleague.
If this were something more substantive than a simple protest vote -- such as, say, a vote on a bill to change the state's allocation of Electoral College votes? -- I might be more open to an argument that this was somehow unfair. However, there would have been no substantive impact from this if the motion had managed to pass. Heck, it was a *bipartisan* bill that they were looking to move forward.
Face it, it was a minor vote of resistance against two senators that betrayed their own constituencies, nothing more. Your overblown hyperbole is tired and pretty far removed from reality, pudge.
Posted by: demokid on March 17, 2013 11:34 AMThe facts are simple. They took advantage of a nursing mother to try to score political points, because they only care about women insofar as saying so helps them win elections.
Posted by: pudge on March 17, 2013 12:06 PMAnd Democrats and those on the Left do the same thing when it comes to those with darker skin or lower class. They pretend to be the party that supports minorities. Until the minority has the wrong political preference. Then they are vilified as Uncle Toms or worse.
Today's Left follow a hateful ideology based on groupthink and denial. No matter the facts.
Posted by: Leftover on March 18, 2013 04:52 AMThe democrats will stop at no dirty tricks to further their communistic agenda, much like the Muslims who are told to lie to further their agenda of worldwide domination.
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 18, 2013 12:09 PMOne event by one politician that was explained is hardly the cataclysm for women's rights that you're discussing. Again, Frockt should be censured for what he did, but one event is not a trend.
Of course, if a simple procedural vote in a state legislature -- not even a vote on an actual bill! -- counts as a massive blow against women, what about the largely Republican efforts to require doctors to rape patients looking to receive a legal abortion?
Posted by: demokid on March 18, 2013 05:41 PM@14: The Democrats support the Islamics and their centuries long war on women.
I'm very interested in seeing the part of the Democratic Party platform that says that they support "Islamics" and discrimination against women. Please quote it.
Posted by: demokid on March 18, 2013 05:44 PMIn other ways, this analogy is plausible.
A majority of the delegates at the Democrat Convention did not want to acknowledge God in their platform - even though it was adopted by the chairman without a rollcall vote, but I know and you know that it did not reflect the TRUE feelings of the delegates - they would have not voted a 2/3 majority for acknowledgment of God.
Another thing to consider is the equivalent of "Sharia law" by the left is giving the poor and targeted minority constituents the "narcotic" of free stuff (i.e. Obamaphones, food stamps, welfare, disability). The desired effect is to make them indebted to the Democrat party and big government, just as Sharia law makes constituents indebted to Allah.
This is what the Democrat party has brought us recently and I hope the trend is broken and it goes back to a less virulent strain like in the 1970's-80's, but I see no signs of that happening at this time.
Posted by: KDS on March 18, 2013 07:07 PMThat's pretty much what I thought. No proof of anything.
Of course, the fact that you can complain about Democrats being atheist and "Islamist" in almost the same breath is equally as amusing.
Posted by: demokid on March 18, 2013 08:26 PMPosted by demokid at March 18, 2013 08:26 PM
Do you have anything of substance to demonstrate that they are not majority atheist (i.e. Democrats in congress are majority Christian) ? The ACLU is certainly more atheist than Christian and that organization is predominantly Democrat/leftists.
I did not say they are Islamist, but brought up that there are some disturbing things they have in common. I'll leave it to others including Pudge to judge the validity of these for themselves.
Posted by: KDS on March 18, 2013 08:55 PMDon't be absurd. Here is a breakdown in the House or Senate. I only see one "atheist" listed in either list. Likewise, a majority of registered Democrats are Christians.
Do some research before you shoot your damn fool mouth off.
The ACLU is certainly more atheist than Christian and that organization is predominantly Democrat/leftists.
The ACLU is nonpartisan and not affiliated with any religion. There is nothing in particular about them that would require members to be Democrats, liberals, or atheists. In fact, they have represented or supported religious groups numerous times in court cases regarding freedom of religion.
"Low information" voter indeed.
ONE politician? You've already been told that *all* the Democrats voted for it, so why are you lying and saying it was only one?
And we've already "explained" to you that there is no reason to think he didn't know. That's just beyond reasonable belief.
... is hardly the cataclysm for women's rights that you're discussing.
Huh. Because this is worse than what a few Republicans did to Senator Brown 20 years ago -- and it was actually only a few, as opposed to all of them, as we have here -- and it was a much bigger deal.
So the problem is twofold. First, there's an obvious double-standard here. Second, the Democrats do this sort of thing all the time: the pretend to be for some "minority" group, but it's really all about pandering to win votes. This isn't a cataclysm for women's rights, it's just yet another example of how the Democrats don't actually give a damn about women's rights.
It's like how the left attacked Adam Carolla last week for daring to ask questions that might actually lead to helping blacks and Hispanics. He was called a racist, even though they're the ones who are not only exploiting their plight for their political agenda, but then doing nothing to actually help them.
Again, Frockt should be censured for what he did
You're admitting he knew, then. Oops!
one event is not a trend.
No, it isn't. But it's not just one event. How about when the Sen. Karen Keiser-led Democratic caucus put out a smear against Sen. Val Stevens, literally accusing her of condoning domestic violence? In fact, of course, she did nothing of the sort, and the transcript and audio proved they were just flat-out lying.
And how did they justify these lies? By attacking true criticisms as lies. Keiser said of a mailer that showed Fred Walser behind bars, "There's a bright line between personal attack and political speech. I thought that (Republican piece) was a personal attack and totally a misrepresentation." But it wasn't: Walser was convicted of a gross misdemeanor and sentenced to a year in jail. Literally. Right around the same time he filed to run against Stevens. Somehow the "misrepresentation" justified an out-and-out sexist lie?
This is the normal state of affairs: if you're a conservative or Republican woman, then Democrats prove they are not actually in favor of your rights as a woman, will not respect you as a woman, and will do everything they can to destroy you, including sexist attacks like the ones against Stevens and Holmquist Newbry.
Oh you're not even making any sense. Really? Republicans attack minorities for having the "wrong political preference"? Republicans call people Uncle Toms?
Please. Who do you think you are fooling?
The ACLU is nonpartisan and not affiliated with any religion.
And yet, they support atheist causes far more often than Christian or religious causes, these days.
There is nothing in particular about them that would require members to be Democrats, liberals, or atheists.
No, but they are dominated by liberals and atheists, and their chosen causes -- far more often than not -- reflect that.
In fact, they have represented or supported religious groups numerous times in court cases regarding freedom of religion.
And, these days, far more often, support atheists regarding freedom FROM religion.
ONE politician? You've already been told that *all* the Democrats voted for it, so why are you lying and saying it was only one?
Please. One politician made the motion. After that point, it was a matter of voting on it. You still haven't shown that the Republicans cared enough about their colleague to raise it themselves to Frockt and delay the proceedings.
And we've already "explained" to you that there is no reason to think he didn't know. That's just beyond reasonable belief.
What is beyond reasonable belief (and very telling of your desperation) is that you've beaten this dead horse for this long. Voting on one procedural motion does not make for a consistent pattern, nor does dredging up .
Huh. Because this is worse than...
Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to make the case that a large coalition party sometimes shafts it's constituent groups, I agree. Ask fiscal conservatives about Medicare Part D, or civil libertarians and the Patriot Act. You're not saying anything new here.
Still, women, and younger women in particular, are more likely to favor Democrats over Republicans. You can certainly try to blame it on a few bad Republicans, yes, or on messaging.
However, the Republicans have been doing a great job of digging a hole for themselves here. (In some cases, Democrats handed them a shovel...) Have Republicans ever made the case that they are "pro-woman"? It isn't simply a consistent lack of support for equal-pay lawsuits, women's healthcare, or reproductive rights, or their tone-deafness on issues such as rape. It's that, faced with these issues, they are appear to be completely incapable of coming up with reasonable policy solutions that appeal to a majority of women.
Oh, and as far as the whole mess about Val Stevens... I think that you're absolutely right that it was an inaccurate mailer. Walser was a lousy candidate.
But I'm fascinated at this label of sexism that somehow crept into your pet cause. Aside from the fact that Stevens is a woman, where precisely is the sexism? If Stevens was a man, you would need to change absolutely no details about your story, and it certainly wasn't the case that they focused on her being a woman in the slightest.
So stop whining about your poor victimization here, pudge... it's a tired act.
Posted by: demokid on March 19, 2013 04:35 AMYes, yes, and yes. Do you even live on this planet?
Please. Who do you think you are fooling?
No fooling, just dealing with your self-delusion.
And yet, they support atheist causes far more often than Christian or religious causes, these days.
Dude, do I need to do all of your research for you?
No, but they are dominated by liberals and atheists, and their chosen causes -- far more often than not -- reflect that.
Their "chosen causes" are reflective of their stated mission and are not partisan. The only thing that is partisan is the group of conservative yahoos that cry and complain about a selection of their cases, while staying quiet when they actually receive support from the ACLU. Quite hypocritical.
And, these days, far more often, support atheists regarding freedom FROM religion.
This isn't incompatible to their mission to allow people to worship as they choose, whether they have a religion or not.
One politician made the motion.
Yes, motions are not made by multiple people, but by single people.
After that point, it was a matter of voting on it.
Right, and EVERY DEMOCRAT voted for the motion to take advantage of a nursing mother's absence.
Voting on one procedural motion does not make for a consistent pattern
Stop lying. NO ONE ever made that claim.
Blah, blah, blah.
And here we see how completely dishonest you are. You attack for a claim no one ever made -- that one example makes a pattern -- but then every bit of evidence we provide for a pattern, you pretend doesn't matter.
Still, women, and younger women in particular, are more likely to favor Democrats over Republicans.
So? What's that got to do with anything?
Have Republicans ever made the case that they are "pro-woman"?
They make the case that they are pro-PERSON. Yes. All the time. They actually believe in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas the Democrats explicitly don't.
It isn't simply a consistent lack of support for equal-pay lawsuits, women's healthcare, or reproductive rights, or their tone-deafness on issues such as rape. It's that, faced with these issues, they are appear to be completely incapable of coming up with reasonable policy solutions that appeal to a majority of women.
There should be no such thing as equal-pay lawsuits. Every company should be free to pay every employee whatever they and the employee agree upon, period. That is what liberty demands.
There is no such thing as "women's healthcare." There's just health care.
And please stop using such a dishonest phrase as "reproductive rights." The Republican Party is literally as much in favor of reproductive rights as the Democrat Party. The question is, what happens after you've already reproduced? Most Democrats think you should be allowed to kill the human child in the womb, most Republicans think you should not. Science is on our side here, obviously.
And as far as rape, yes, I do agree Republicans are insensitive. That is one of the great things about them: they tend to be far less likely to pander or be run by emotion. With the exception of whatshisname who said something scientifically stupid (that raped women generally don't give birth because their body terminates the pregnancy somehow ... which is possible, but not the normal course of events), every other example I know of was someone saying something reasonable, but people being offended by it for no good reason.
Oh, and as far as the whole mess about Val Stevens... I think that you're absolutely right that it was an inaccurate mailer. Walser was a lousy candidate.
And the Senate Democrats, led by Karen Keiser, fully backed him with sexist lies and PDC violations.
Aside from the fact that Stevens is a woman, where precisely is the sexism?
The absolutely clear implication in the piece is that Stevens was betraying her own gender somehow. At least, that's what the left and 90 percent of the media would be saying if Keiser and Walser were Republicans, and Stevens were a Democrat.
So stop whining about your poor victimization here, pudge... it's a tired act.
Nonense. I'm not doing that at all. I am just pointing out the fact that the Democrats only pretend to be on the side of women, and that they betray their real views and intentions in their partisan deeds like this.
Really? Republicans attack minorities for having the "wrong political preference"? Republicans call people Uncle Toms?
Yes, yes, and yes. Do you even live on this planet?
I'm beginning to think you don't. I've never heard Republicans say those things. Ever. I've heard them say that they think this group or that one should vote Republican, that we better serve their interests, but I've never heard -- ever -- racist epithets thrown at someone just because they were a Democrat instead of a Republican. "Uncle Tom" is an epithet, in my experience, used exclusively by the left, of conservative or Republican black people.
Dude, do I need to do all of your research for you?
No, but please do let me know when you actually HAVE some research that is pertinent to what I wrote. Your link adds nothing to the discussion at all.
Their "chosen causes" are reflective of their stated mission and are not partisan.
I didn't say "partisan," I said leftist and atheist. And they are. Please don't ask me to believe, for example, that the ACLU's assault on Arizona's SB 1070 is reflective of a sober appreciation for their mission. They have told outright lies about SB 1070 in an attempt to convince people that this policy somehow violates anyone's civil rights, even though it clearly does not.
This is a normal practice for them. Pick a liberal political side, lie to make your case, and demonize the opposition even when you're wrong. It's not what they always do, but they do it often, and when they do it, it's always from the left or atheist perspectives.
The only thing that is partisan is the group of conservative yahoos that cry and complain about a selection of their cases, while staying quiet when they actually receive support from the ACLU.
I normally don't go out and make posts praising anyone, so no, you won't often see me voicing appreciation in a post for when the ACLU does something I agree with. But I've been plenty fair to the ACLU, and I recognize they stand for civil liberties much of the time. But much of the rest of the time, they stand for liberal causes, irrespective of civil liberties.
And sometimes -- as with their support of hate speech laws in recent years -- they stand explicitly against civil liberties. I love this doublespeak: "This law would punish acts of discrimination, but not bigoted beliefs," Anders said. "Congress should act to punish persons for violent acts when victims were selected only because of who they are."
And how is punishing targetting someone "because of who they are" not punishing them for their "bigoted beliefs"?
And they explicitly ignore many other fights over hate speech when leftist opinion is heavily against their purported views.
Please, stop pretending this isn't a leftist group with a leftist agenda, just because it does some things -- many things -- that all civil libertarians, including myself, can appreciate.
This isn't incompatible to their mission to allow people to worship as they choose, whether they have a religion or not.
It is when being "free from religion" means not hearing about religion from someone else who is freely expressing theirs, such as the case where a longtime war memorial with a cross on it was attacked as being unconstitutional, and then when the city sold the property so the memorial could remain, THAT was attacked as unconstitutional, and then when they tried to sell it the feds instead, THAT was attacked as unconstitutional. NONE of those things was unconstitutional, NONE of it impinged on anyone's rights or caused harm to anyone in any way.
What was clear is that the ACLU and atheists simply wanted the cross taken down, regardless of whose property it was. They were just, simply, against the public display of a cross, even if by a private group on private land.
1) Instructive to note that they cannot see the greatness that is the USA as immigrants and those in other countries with real human rights violations and lack of basic rights look to the USA as a beacon of hope and freedom. In other words, there is a lot of ridiculous hyperbole about Republicans and "Gay Marriage" while actual gays in Iran are being stoned to death and women are forced in to arranged marriages. The reality is that those on the Left have been very good at Allinskyifying Republicans and the Republicans have been very bad at countering the hyperbole.
2) People on the Left often agree with and live by most conservative ideals, and only decry them when they are labeled as such. They also often live quite luxurious lives or lives that are not green, etc. and yet still self identify on the Left and believe that they are living sanctimoniously. For example, a Prius does far more harm to the environment during its creation than can ever be recouped during its operational lifetime.
The Left is a cult of personality and collectivism. It is more important for people like demo kid to feel that they are part of something meaningful and consistent with their beliefs than to do anything that works or that is actually possible or sustainable. They will get excited about Pay Toilets, Bike Lanes, Mass Transit, Social Programs, Massive Educational expenditures and bonds. Even when all of that cost is feel good nonsense which has done little to help anyone in the Puget Sound. But it has fed the sanctimonious and bottomless egos of those who think that bikes will eventually be a significant mode of transportation in a rain soaked and often quite cold climate. And those same people who propose one more new fangled curriculum and declare that it will finally bring Seattle Public Schools in line with successful private schools or schools in other countries.
There is no point in trying to reason with those on the Left. They really believe that wasting millions or billions will lead to success because they want to be popular and accepted within their cult.
Posted by: Leftover on March 19, 2013 11:49 AMI mentioned the ACLU, who predominantly atheist and I will guarantee you that more Democrats than you portray are atheist (they won't admit it and I have a difficult time believing some of their responses, because their actions speak for themselves). Demokid - you fail to address the platform at the 2012 Democrat convention - why ? Because it contradicts your hypothesis and the post about the makeup of congress ?
@6 - Face it, the Democrats (Demokid, MikeBS, et.al.) are in denial, have a very weak self-awareness have morphed into a cult and are similar to the Islamists in that they often refuse to admit they are wrong even when it stares them in the face. Some conservatives are that way to an extent, but they are less evasive of the truth.
Yes, even if they are civil, they try to shut down viewpoints different from their wown with obfuscation and hyperbole and other offensive tactics and are not open to reason. One suggested that the reason the left does not care about the debt left to our grandchildren is because deep down, they don't believe we will exist in 50 years (i.e. nuclear holocaust)
That's the only logic I see that seems halfway reasonable.
Posted by: KDS on March 19, 2013 06:45 PMPudge: They make the case that they are pro-PERSON.
Nothing is more succinct, gets straight to the heart of the matter, than this little exchange.
Democrats see people as members of groups to be used and played against each other for political gain.
Republicans see people as individuals, to be won over by reason and logic.
Bravo, Pudge, Bravo!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 21, 2013 08:14 AMGreat point. Another note about the defectiveness of the Left:
All for the sake of some green goal or alleged saving of the earth, even though the earth does not need saving, think of the implications of Left Green/Climate policy on the very groups the Left claims to champion.
It is no sweat off demo kid's back to pay more for a Prius, or for electricity due to some ethanol subsidy or Climate/ Carbon policy, but think of what those little costs mean to someone in the third world who is already struggling with malnutrition, disease and a lack of energy, clean water and other basic energy uses. The sanctimonious policy here in the UN and other NGO clusterfarks mean that the third world and the poor in the second and first worlds suffer the most.
It hurts the poor guy living in a trailer in Algona a lot more to needlessly pay $3.99 a gallon as he commutes to and from Issaquah for his janitorial job than it does the rich fully REI tech fabric clad bicycle commuter heading to his Belltown Internet tech job from his Hipster Ballard neighborhood.
You know, the guy who wears "Smart Glasses" even though he does not need them and who voted Obama because all of his friends thought it was cool and posted on Facebook.
That $3.99 all due to extra taxes for transit that is not going to Algona, and for Carbon and Climate policy that is not changing anything, and mostly going to pad research grants and subsidize failing battery and solar companies.
Posted by: Leftover on March 21, 2013 11:33 AMI'll be blunt here. You're a complete asshole, and discussion with you is an utter waste of time.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on March 21, 2013 09:06 PMlol, what Andrew "demokid" does not realize is that republicans were simply taking a well-worn page from the democrat playbook and behaving just like democrats in exactly the manner he described. Will he recognize his own party's very frequent behavior?
Posted by: Michele on March 22, 2013 11:36 AMPfft. If there was any iota of truth that conservatives cared about the poor, you might have more of a leg to stand on here. I'd be more than open to having a real conversation with anyone about ways to bring benefits to developing countries, but you're smashing together a number of things here that aren't related.
@31: I'll be blunt here. You're a complete asshole, and discussion with you is an utter waste of time.
Aha! The brain trust of the group. The level of your arguments astound me.
Trust me... I find most conservatives to be pretty vile myself.
@32: Will he recognize his own party's very frequent behavior?
"My own party" is not the Democrats. Still, that's not the issue here. All parties try to use whatever they can to their advantage. However, pudge is being blatantly dishonest by drawing conclusions and making assertions that make little sense and are not supported by facts. But hey... "low information voters" seem to be really lapping that up!
First of all, you're an idiot. There may be some pretty unspeakable things done to women in Iran -- abuse at the hands of the "morality police" being a big part of that -- and gays are persecuted, but few women are forced into arranged marriages anymore. Still, discussions of civil rights aren't really good to have on a relative basis. If, say, the government severely restricted your freedom to speak or assemble, but then stated that it wasn't as bad as it was in China, would that REALLY be a good defense?
People on the Left often agree with and live by most conservative ideals, and only decry them when they are labeled as such. They also often live quite luxurious lives or lives that are not green, etc. and yet still self identify on the Left and believe that they are living sanctimoniously. For example, a Prius does far more harm to the environment during its creation than can ever be recouped during its operational lifetime.
Your argument is too vague to make sense. "Conservative ideals"? "Luxurious lives"? Buying a Prius? You're dwelling in stereotypes and overly broad generalizations.
The Left is a cult of personality and collectivism. It is more important for people like demo kid to feel that they are part of something meaningful and consistent with their beliefs than to do anything that works or that is actually possible or sustainable.
And the Right is not? So far I have found little of value from a public policy perspective coming from the emergent Tea Party right wing, nor does it seems as if there is anything really sustainable or rational coming from that quarter.
There is no point in trying to reason with those on the Left. They really believe that wasting millions or billions will lead to success because they want to be popular and accepted within their cult.
And there's no point in trying to reason with those on the Right lately, either. Assuming that tax cuts, deregulation, and abortion laws should be the only business of government is laughable at best, sad at worst.
@27: I mentioned the ACLU, who predominantly atheist and I will guarantee you that more Democrats than you portray are atheist (they won't admit it and I have a difficult time believing some of their responses, because their actions speak for themselves). Demokid - you fail to address the platform at the 2012 Democrat convention - why ? Because it contradicts your hypothesis and the post about the makeup of congress ?
Because you aren't making sense. You're stating that a "majority" of Congress is atheist, when they are not. You are stating that the Democratic Party is becoming simultaneously "Islamist" and "atheist", which doesn't make sense either. At best, you're a liar, looking to spread misinformation. At worst, you're ignorant. What is it?
I care as much about the poor as any liberal does. Please stop lying.
Trust me... I find most conservatives to be pretty vile myself.
If you are in the least bit open-minded and reasonable, you must admit that you find most people to pretty vile, and that you don't find conservatives any more vile than liberals.
However, pudge is being blatantly dishonest by drawing conclusions and making assertions that make little sense and are not supported by facts.
You're lying. Everything I said is -- at least -- more likely than not, and is perfectly supported by the facts.
And the Right is not? So far I have found little of value from a public policy perspective coming from the emergent Tea Party right wing, nor does it seems as if there is anything really sustainable or rational coming from that quarter.
No one believes that, who actually understands the policies. No one. Not a single person, anywhere.
I'll just name one obvious one: favoring modest cuts in the budget, without tax increases, leading to a balanced budget in a decade or so. This is obviously possible, and it is valuable and sustainable and more than rational.
For a procedural vote on a bipartisan bill that did not even manage to succeed... and if it did, would have had little impact. Likewise, this would have happened if any Republican had been absent from the chamber for any reason, and was only planned as a protest vote by the Democrats and nothing more. Your ENTIRE argument is based on the fact that the Democrats made this motion... yet there is nothing that you've said that suggests that this would make any difference whatsoever to the business of government.
If anything, Frockt was stupid for not paying attention to the reasons why the Republicans were down a member... but that's pretty much it.
Voting on one procedural motion does not make for a consistent pattern
Stop lying. NO ONE ever made that claim.
You're the only liar, and you don't even have the decency to admit it. From above: It seems like Democrats are determined to send women backward in time to when they are second-class citizens just because they are mothers. You stated that they had the determination to make women second-class citizens... by making ONE vote on a procedural motion.
And here we see how completely dishonest you are. You attack for a claim no one ever made -- that one example makes a pattern -- but then every bit of evidence we provide for a pattern, you pretend doesn't matter.
You have zero evidence. You continue to have zero evidence. An argument based on hyperbole isn't an argument, it's just pudge trying to manufacture some kind of slight -- any kind of slight! -- against Republicans. Trying to invent a pattern is simply your own feeble attempts to grasp at straws here.
The absolutely clear implication in the piece is that Stevens was betraying her own gender somehow. At least, that's what the left and 90 percent of the media would be saying if Keiser and Walser were Republicans, and Stevens were a Democrat.
In other words... you have no proof, just "implications" that you see, and what you somehow predict the "left and 90 percent of the media" would be saying in an alternate universe. Typical right-wing peudo-victimization...
Nonense. I'm not doing that at all. I am just pointing out the fact that the Democrats only pretend to be on the side of women, and that they betray their real views and intentions in their partisan deeds like this.
You haven't shown anything of the sort -- you've pointed out a procedural vote and an election mailer that did not make any claim that the candidate was being a "traitor to her gender".
Where am I lying? Please provide proof to the contrary.
If you are in the least bit open-minded and reasonable, you must admit that you find most people to pretty vile, and that you don't find conservatives any more vile than liberals.
I find that the opinions expressed by conservatives are often bigoted, close-minded, and overly selfish and self-involved. That's certainly not EVERY conservative, and that doesn't mean that I like every liberal or find them to be uniformly altruistic. Still, I find the implicit philosophy of modern conservatives to be pretty repulsive, and I don't exactly enjoy the company of folks that believe that these are actually good ideas.
You're lying. Everything I said is -- at least -- more likely than not, and is perfectly supported by the facts.
Hardly. Your statements are far more often supported by your own opinions and interpretations, rather than actual facts.
No one believes that, who actually understands the policies. No one. Not a single person, anywhere.
Apparently, you don't.
I'll just name one obvious one: favoring modest cuts in the budget, without tax increases, leading to a balanced budget in a decade or so. This is obviously possible, and it is valuable and sustainable and more than rational.
Laughable. They DON'T favor "modest" cuts in the budget. They favor cutting programs that they personally don't like, and granting tax cuts at the expense of social programs. There is no rational assessment of what works or what doesn't, simply a blind devotion to deregulation and tax reduction at any cost.
You realize that's a non sequitur, right? And it only didn't succeed because the nursing mother returned in time, even though they attempted to finish before she returned. (Well, we don't know how Owen would have voted as the tiebreaker ... hopefully, he'd have more integrity than every Senate Democrat).
Likewise, this would have happened if any Republican had been absent from the chamber for any reason, and was only planned as a protest vote by the Democrats and nothing more.
So they protested by taking advantage of a nursing mother. Again, a non sequitur.
Your ENTIRE argument is based on the fact that the Democrats made this motion
Yes, my entire argument is the fact that they took advantage of a nursing mother.
Finally, you're getting it.
If anything, Frockt was stupid for not paying attention to the reasons why the Republicans were down a member... but that's pretty much it.
Not just Frockt, but EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT. That you think they didn't know she was gone is pathetic. You probably believe Senator Kline didn't know his short, thrice-sponsored, gun bill gave sheriffs authority to enter and search a gun owner's home without a warrant or reasonable cause, too.
Even the Senate Democrats are laughing at you for believing they didn't know.
You stated that they had the determination to make women second-class citizens... by making ONE vote on a procedural motion.
You're a liar. I said no such thing. The context does not even remotely imply that my statement was based on just that one incident, and in subsequent comments -- before you made this false claim, after you said "one event is not a trend" -- I gave more evidence. And I can give even more. How about the fact that when conservative women are attacked by leftwing men, NOW and other pro-women groups are almost always silent, but if it is a liberal woman in the least bit slighted by a rightwing man, they are up in arms? Again, it's because they don't actually give a damn about "women." They only care about their ideology and agenda.
You have zero evidence.
Except for this vote. And Keiser's smear on Stevens. And the double standard of NOW and other leftwing women's groups. Except for the actual evidence, yes, I have no evidence.
it's just pudge trying to manufacture some kind of slight -- any kind of slight! -- against Republicans
The fact that you continue to deny what actually happened undermines any kind of point you're trying to make, you know.
In other words... you have no proof
Yes, I do. I linked to it. It's unmistakable.
what you somehow predict the "left and 90 percent of the media" would be saying in an alternate universe. Typical right-wing peudo-victimization...
Oh come on. Everyone, including you, knows that's entirely correct. Where were the cries of racism when Democrats threw oreos at a black Republican candidate for legislature? But when a conservative judge asks a very simple and obvious and reasonable question -- whether more blacks are incacerated because they commit more crimes -- the Seattle Times withdraws its endorsement and he loses reelection, despite the fact that he (Richard Sanders) has done more for the rights of the accused in this state than any judge or justice in our lifetime.
The double standard is obvious to everyone, including you. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Where am I lying? Please provide proof to the contrary.
You can't be that stupid. Please stop pretending. You said, "If there was any iota of truth that conservatives cared about the poor, ..." directly implying conservatives do not care about the poor. That is a lie. The proof that it is a lie comes in two basic forms. First, on every reasonable measure of helping the poor, conservatives are equal to or ahead of liberals. Second, you have no evidence to back up your claim that conservatives do not care about the poor, which -- regardless of whether the claim is true -- makes it a lie, because asserting as true something you know you can't know is true, is lying.
And please do not pretend to think that voting to make government pay, and force, other people to care for the poor, is actually caring for the poor.
I find that the opinions expressed by conservatives are often bigoted, close-minded, and overly selfish and self-involved.
Exactly as much as liberals, sure.
That's certainly not EVERY conservative, and that doesn't mean that I like every liberal or find them to be uniformly altruistic.
Conservatives are as altruistic as liberals. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand conservatism, or altruism, or both.
Now if you mean by altruism, "putting someone else's wants above your own," no one is ever altruistic. That sort of altruism does not exist, and never has, in the whole of mankind. We always do what we perceive to be in our own self-interests. Always. We don't think of it that way: when I give money to charity, I don't think, "I am doing this because it makes me feel good and it helps me become the man I want to be." But that is precisely why I am doing it. I am moved by the mission of the charity, which makes me WANT to help. It becomes my DESIRE to help. So therefore, I do, because it is what I WANT. That isn't altruism, but that is how all people always function, even those who give their lives for others.
That pedantry aside, you could still say, well, liberals want to help others more. Except, of course, that they don't. They just want to help people differently, in a way that -- in my view, which is why I am a conservative and not a liberal -- doesn't actually help them. I think our inner cities like Detroit and Newark are proof positive that the traditional liberal concept of charity doesn't work, that regular handouts do not raise people out of poverty.
I find the implicit philosophy of modern conservatives to be pretty repulsive
So? I find the same thing about liberal philosophy. That doesn't imply that the people who follow the philosophy are vile.
... and I don't exactly enjoy the company of folks that believe that these are actually good ideas.
Yes, because you're a close-minded bigot. Exactly.
What's so weird to me is that I know far, far, far more conservatives who don't mind having liberal friends, than liberals who don't mind having conservative friends. To a conservative, liberals are wrong. But to a liberal, conservatives are the enemy.
Hardly. Your statements are far more often supported by your own opinions and interpretations, rather than actual facts.
Everyone here, including you, know that's a lie. Shrug.
They DON'T favor "modest" cuts in the budget.
Well, you got me. In fact, they favor modest increases to the budget.
They favor cutting programs that they personally don't like, and granting tax cuts at the expense of social programs.
False. You're lying again. Yes, they do favor cutting programs they personally don't like -- as everyone does -- but there has never been a single proposal to cut taxes at the expense of social programs. You are lying.
There is no rational assessment of what works or what doesn't
You're lying.
simply a blind devotion to deregulation and tax reduction at any cost.
You're lying.
It seems like the more deep a hole you dig, the more dishonest you get.