Michele Bachmann is the Minnesota representative who embarrasses us all. She is, of course, a Republican, and one of the dumber ones — she’s our anti-gay, anti-science, anti-American, far-right-wing kook, and we need to get her out of office … she’s up for re-election this year.
My oldest son Alaric is an activist and organizer for the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party here in Minnesota, and he’s campaigning for the sensible opposition, El Tinklenberg. He’s asked me to promote an event going on TONIGHT, a fundraiser and rally for Tinklenberg in St Cloud. If you’re somewhere in the region, stop by. If maybe you aren’t a Minnesotan, but you’d like to help out financially (really — Bachmann is flaming insane, and the entire country ought to be interested in ousting her), call 320 217 5394 and chip in a few bucks (you might also find my boy on the other end of the phone line. Tell him hello from me.)
Here are the details on the big event.
Please Help Us
DEFEAT
Michele BachmannCindy Harner, Rich Kelly
and
Rick MillerInvite You to Come, Meet and Support
El Tinklenberg
Candidate for Congress in the 6thThursday, June 5
7:00 – 9:00 PMHome of Rich Kelly:
524 7th Avenue South, St. Cloud
Co-hosts include:
Senator Tarryl Clark
Representative Larry Haws
Representative Larry Hosch
Candidate Joanne Dorsher
Candidate Rob JacobsContribute What You Can!
ALL ARE WELCOME!
RSVP to Rick Miller 320-293-3935 [email protected]
Work fast. I just got this notice myself, since my connection to the internet is only intermittent while I’m out of town.
See if you can get Tinklenberg to unequivocally condemn ID/creationism as pseudoscience. I’ll respect him a good deal more if he calls it the rubbish it is, instead of weaseling around about religious freedom and all that. Sure, the 1st Amendment is enough to keep ID out of the schools, but I’d like to hear him care about science first.
He’s better either way, but pushing them to a more ideal position is worth a shot as well.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“El Tinklenberg” – sounds like a Mexican masked wrestler.
How did you happen to name you son Alaric? Anti-Roman sentiments?
I’d never heard of Michele Bachmann before, so I spent 5 minutes researching her. From a cursory glance, she seems slightly insane in some of her views (she described homosexuality as a “sexual dysfunction”, and is a passionate supporter of teaching ID in schools). I would certainly not have supported her in the Minnesota Republican primaries, were I a Minnesotan.
But I would probably still reluctantly vote for her in the general election, if I were a Minnesotan. On the most important issues (i.e. the economy and the War on Terror) she seems sound, and I want to see a Congress with plenty of Republicans solidly committed to staying the course in Iraq.
I like this description of her politics (from fellow MN Republican Gary Laidig):
The language — everyone/nobody/no one/etc — perfectly reflects the all-or-nothing thinking that plagues the American far-right neocon movement.
Tinklenberg?!!! That is sooo funny! If I could vote there I’d go for just the bumpersticker. Seriously, if he’s a farmer your vote is pretty safe for him actually knowing bullshit when he steps in it.
Alaric is Cirala spelled backwards.
Walz is starting to look safe down south, so hopefully the DFL will be able to contribute more resources to bringing Bachman back home.
Walton#4:
I see…
So, in your capacity as an American wannabe, you place religious ignorance over science (pushing ID onto innocent school children only qualifies as “slightly insane” does it?) You place intolerance and homophobia over human rights, militarism and warfare over peace (what was that you were babbling about earlier? Oh yeah, that you were “pro-life”…), and by saying you’d “reluctantly” vote for this nutcase despite all that, you place party over country.
Does that about sum it up, little fella? These are your priorities? These the “values” you would apply as an American voter? All I can say is, please stay away.
Bachmann is Mrs. Coulter as played by Nicole Kidman in the film version of “The Golden Compass.” Phony and faux charming and perfectly evil. For a running tally of her stupidity and wickedness, please see http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/
It really is imperative we get rid of her. We don’t have to keep idiocons around any more to make Bush look better by comparison, so she serves no useful function whatever.
>How did you happen to name you son Alaric? Anti-Roman sentiments?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/one_down_two_to_go.php#comment-432266
“He’s named after the Visigoth, of course. When you see little babies, don’t you immediately think of fierce destructive warlords who will topple great civilizations? Man, you should have known him when he had the colic.”
I’d never heard of Michele Bachmann before, so I spent 5 minutes researching her.
Well, that seems enough on which to base a political judgment. You should probably reserve judgment, though, until you hear what Limbaugh and Coulter have to say.
But I would probably still reluctantly vote for her in the general election, if I were a Minnesotan.
One reason I, for one, am happy you are not a Minnesotan, or a US citizen, or a citizen of any country on our continent, for that matter.
On the most important issues (i.e. the economy and the War on Terror) she seems sound, and I want to see a Congress with plenty of Republicans solidly committed to staying the course in Iraq.
Walton is what Steven Colbert referred to as backwash.
So Walton is a pro-torture creationist? Figures.
So, in your capacity as an American wannabe, you place religious ignorance over science (pushing ID onto innocent school children only qualifies as “slightly insane” does it?) You place intolerance and homophobia over human rights, militarism and warfare over peace (what was that you were babbling about earlier? Oh yeah, that you were “pro-life”…), and by saying you’d “reluctantly” vote for this nutcase despite all that, you place party over country.
Hello! NeoCon! Bad thinking and fucking people over are par for the course.
It’s like Jack Sparrow standing there saying, “Um, Pirate.”
I just called, planning to give, but the line doesn’t seem to be set up for donations. The person on the other end answered as if it were her personal phone, and then she seemed to offer to let me speak to Tinklenberg.
I’ll try to give via the Web site, because his opponent is a flaming screwjob.
http://www.tinklenberg08.com/issues.html
I wanted to let everyone know that there is a Democratic challenger to Sally Kern in Oklahoma District 84. Ron Marlett, who needs to win! From his site:
Defeating Sally Kern will send a message to those in other parts of our great country that hate is not a family value and intolerance is never a welcome visitor.
Ah Visigoth. Good, I can get behind that, my first thought was something more sinister. Micheal Moorecock novels, and although I have nothing against them I can only image what babblement admiting to reading Moorecock on the intertubes would bring. ;)
I’m not much for any politician, but you’re right, this one has to go. Apeshit woman.
Yes! I can finally vote on something pertaining to her! I’ve wanted Michele Bachmann out for ages. Even my extreme right-wing friends dislike her, though that’s unsurprising.
I am one of those poor students, so I can’t afford to donate, but I certainly cast my vote away from Bachmann. That’s important enough.
To Professor Myers: No, I have explicitly said on numerous occasions that I am not a creationist and that I oppose teaching creationism (or intelligent design) in schools.
Nor am I “pro-torture”. I haven’t said anything about torture, and I find the suggestion offensive. Indeed, Senator McCain (who I strongly support) has been vocal in his opposition to the waterboarding of prisoners at Guantánamo, and I fully agree with him.
I don’t agree with Ann Coulter on everything, or indeed more than about 50% of the time. I don’t know why it is that the second I mentioned her name, most people here stopped taking me seriously.
I don’t know why it is that the second I mentioned her name, most people here stopped taking me seriously.
*whoosh*
Walton… I understand your point but… While you may agree with 50% of her stuff, but dude, the other 50% of her stuff is FUCKING INCREDIBLY NONSENSICAL APESHIT! She’s DANGEROUS. You can’t possibly think this is a good idea to have someone that is 50% batshit insane, right?
So you haven’t heard about this?
P.Z.: You warned us here in Oklahoma about Sally Kern (we already knew!). Now you have your own Sally! However, I doubt that anyone is quite as ignorant and misguided as Kern.
#17. One can click on the link there and make a contribution to Kern’s opponent, Ron Marlett, and help us get rid of Silly Sally Krazy Kern! We all need to help remove the Bachmanns and Kerns from public office.
Is anyone else finding it interesting that a guy named Alaric is fighting off the barbarians who are intent on destroying our civilization? Thank you Alaric!
You like Ann Coulter, who thinks we ought to bomb, kill, and torture the Muslims and Democrats, and who has announced and written extensively on her support for young earth creationism against evolutionary biology (and a sad, sorry exercise in ignorance that was), and we’re supposed to believe you only like some of her opinions? They’re all odious!
So, next are you going to casually mention your appreciation of the fine work of Adolf Hitler, merely weakly expressing some reservations about the Jew business and the unfortunate excesses in Poland and France and Russia?
Any Representative brave enough to sexually assault the President of the United States in public (on live television, no less) is alright in my book.
Can’t blame her, really. Her husband is deeply involved in that ex-gay ministries nonsense and picks out her pantsuits, so she’s probably not getting much action at home.
Windy beat me to it, but “anti-torture” McCain allowed the WH to change the final language of the anti-torture provisions he sponsored in such a way as to permit precisely what was already occurring. Update your rolodex.
It would behoove us all to stop listening to what politicians say and root our judgments in what they do.
To Professor Myers. I feel a clearer explanation is called for, and I apologise for not giving one earlier.
Firstly, I am a frequent reader of Ann Coulter’s columns etc., and I would like to make clear that I don’t take everything she says seriously. In particular, most of her remarks about evolution and creationism seem to me to consist of meaningless platitudes. She is a political commentator, not a scientist, and she seems out of her depth when talking about science. (As am I, but at least I recognise it.) She sees scientific issues in political terms (as, sadly, do so many people on both the left and right in the US), and I think she’s wrong.
As an avid amateur historian, I also disagree with her fairly simplistic take on the history of the Cold War. In her revisionist book on McCarthy, she conflates the liberals of the Cold War with the liberals of today, which leads to counterfactual (and empirically wrong) statements such as “liberals have always wanted to surrender to America’s enemies”. In actual fact, I think any sensible historian would have to acknowledge that “Cold War liberals” such as Kennedy and Johnson, were as vigorous as any conservative in opposing communism and protecting America. So I think she’s wrong in that area as well.
And thirdly, I would acknowledge that she can be insensitive, as well as downright offensive. I don’t think there was any need for her to refer to Muslims as “ragheads” and “camel jockeys” at the CPAC, for instance; she plainly did that purely for shock value, rather than to make a serious political point. I was also unimpressed when she referred to Senator McCain’s “hysterical opposition” to waterboarding prisoners; considering that Senator McCain, unlike Ann, has actually been waterboarded (when he was a POW), I think she should respect his opposition to it, even if she doesn’t agree. So there are times when I’m embarrassed to be a Coulter fan.
But despite all this, I think she can be a witty and entertaining writer, and she does make some good points. She’s been good at pointing out the problems with Obama’s candidacy, for instance – his lack of experience, his association with extremists (don’t tell me that you, as an atheist, approve of Rev. Jeremiah Wright?), his lack of substantive policies, and his desire to effectively surrender in Iraq (the popular and politically safe option, but one which will be disastrous in the long term).
I also think some of her apparently offensive comments, while ill-phrased, have been taken out of context and misjudged. The infamous “Jews need to be perfected”, for instance – watch the whole interview, and you’ll see that she was explaining the orthodox position in Christian theology (i.e. that Jews can be saved under the “old covenant” by following the law, but Christians can be saved under the “new covenant” through faith). I’m aware that you view Christian theology as worthless nonsense, and I’m not here to argue that. But she wasn’t being an anti-semite; she was expressing what most Christians believe, just in a rather insensitive way.
In conclusion (sorry for the essay!), Ann is a partisan warrior. She’s not the most heavyweight political intellectual; she’s a pundit and populist, and her work is designed for a mass audience (hence the tendency to prioritise witty one-liners over serious engagement with ideas). So she sometimes over-simplifies things, or lacks sound reasoning, and from time to time she talks utter nonsense. And I do think she intentionally shocks people at times, and sometimes crosses the line from being un-PC to being simply distasteful. But she also often makes valid and insightful points, and she’s a useful part of the conservative debate. For as long as the left has propagandists like Michael Moore, we need similar figures to combat them.
Uhhh, folks. There’s only one problem with El Whojamacallit – HE IS ENDORSED BY THE BLUE-DOGS! (see his website) NOW, don’t get me wrong, I would in general agree that any Dem is better than La Diabla Bachmann. However, be certain that you know who and what the Blue-Dogs stand for. They have endorsed the tel-co retroactive amnesty. They have sided with shrub’s gang on FAR TOO MANY issues. Do some research and find out for yourself. Check out columnist Glen Greenwald’s archives at Salon.com for some background.
If no other Dems are in the race, I concede the lesser of two evils, as it were. But only by a smidge.
Unfortunately, TSL… It’s always a matter of lesser of two evils if you ask me. Politicians always are sorta the same.
Ah, if only it were that easy…
Insisting on evidence and facts and actions is hard. Far easier to kick back for another episode of American Idol, and let the preacher tell you what to think and do when you go to church next Sunday.
Shorter Walton (doesn’t matter which comment):
I…I…I…I…I…me…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…my…I…I…I…I…I…
(damn it! backslid already! guy gets my goat…)
Does anyone know what El Tinklenberg’s stance is on second amendment rights? I sincerely do not know anything about him, and his website just refers to hunting and fishing rights. This seems a little evasive.
Careful now, Dems, I did not state my opinion either way – yet. I just want to know what the candidate thinks!
She is a political commentator, not a scientist, and she seems out of her depth when talking about science. (As am I, but at least I recognise it.)
I wonder why you’re so incapable of recognizing it in any other sphere, then…
If it makes you feel any better, Walton, I stopped taking you seriously before you mentioned Coulter. Around when you first mentioned something about conservative politics being your “passion” and began this pattern of cloying meta-analysis of every interaction in which you were engaged. I didn’t write you off then, but have since found several reasons other than your affection for that woman to continue not taking you seriously. Sorry.
Insisting on evidence and facts and actions is hard.
But for those who make the effort, it’s fun and rewarding, and worth doing for its own sake.
I can’t look at his name (Tinklenberg) and NOT think either “Tinkle-berg” or (German) “Tinkelnberg” (Pee mountain).
Not to knock the guy, if I were Minnesotan, I would vote for him, considering the opposition, but still…
If he’s a “Blue Dog”, I hope he’s reasonably pro-RKBA.
A major reason the Dems won their razor thin majority is thanks to pro-RKBA Democrats like Sen. James Webb (VA-D).
It’s amusing Walton that in the end you claim that she has some “insightful points”.. which according to your previous writing are apparently:
We should stay the course in Iraq – what new insight? Only the opinion of every idiot republican that we’ve heard over and over again. The only republicans that don’t say this are those who are scared they’ll loose in november or the few who actually understand the situation in Iraq. And know that while of course it would be bad when we leave, it’s not going to be getting any better if we stay, as evidenced by the last 5 years or so.
Obama has no experience, Obama had a nutty pastor, and Obama was friends with some total left-wing professors. Again, where is the “new” in this “insight”? I swear I’ve been hearing all this crap since forever. Unfortunately no one escapes the nutty pastors in this country, and Mccain specifically sought out the endorsements of much bigger crazies then wright. And for most of us Obama supporters, the “no experience” is a plus, and we like crazy left wing professors, at least they are fun.
Ann coulter is not an intellectual heavyweight? You have a talent for understatement. A more correct description would be that she is an ignorant stupid airhead, parroting party talking points, with the intellectual ability and originality of a sumo wrestler, singing old japanese pop songs while drunk with sake and smoking pot.
But she also often makes valid and insightful points, and she’s a useful part of the conservative debate. For as long as the left has propagandists like Michael Moore, we need similar figures to combat them.
often!? And you are curious why the thread collectively views you as dim? I dare you to find a single valid or insightful thing ever written by Coulter.
I’m afraid, Walton, that your apologia conveys more than you intended. One counters propaganda with propaganda in pursuit of war, selfishness, and dishonesty. But not truth or justice. Noble ends require dignified means.
Walton: “For as long as the left has propagandists like Michael Moore, we need similar figures to combat them.
”
Letting alone that you already have Limbaugh, O’Reily and Fox News, the cure for propaganda is not more propaganda. That’s like saying we should combat creationism by making up wild claims about evilution.
I’m curious on how you stand on Coulter’s other policies. Do you agree with Coulter that women shouldn’t have the right to vote?
Don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it!
Coultergeist would not be welcome at any sumo, singing, sake & pot party I’ve ever attended, that’s for damn sure.
The phone number above actually calls directly to Alaric. To call the Tinklenberg campaign office for info on the campaign or contributing, please dial (763) 785-4676. El Tinklenberg is a fantastic candidate with a real shot at taking out Michele Bachmann!
I’ll admit it. I love Moorecock. The Elric Saga was my introduction to pulp fantasy and set a bar that has been very difficult for most (including some other works by Moorecock himself) to reach. It develops some wonderful space between dark fantasy and sword & sorcery. A space where imagination soars yet the relation between action and consequence is not lost.
Walton,
Coulter is an odious, deluded, attention-seeking sub-human deserving of no respect. Anyone who finds redeeming features in that pile of excrement is tarred with many of the same qualities.
When the occasional creationist wanders through here to have her arse paddled, there’s usually some humour. You, on the other hand, are just repellent with your “I’m a reasonable man with different opinions to you”.
Please, do us a favour, and fuck off to townhall.net, where you’ll fit right in.
Response to DavidOne above: You, on the other hand, are just repellent with your “I’m a reasonable man with different opinions to you”. – What exactly is so repellent about that idea?
This is a remarkably intolerant community (with a few exceptions). Some people here just don’t seem to acknowledge that you can respect someone as a fellow human being without agreeing with their political views, and that “I disagree with this person” need not mean “this person is scum and not worth listening to”. Some of you seem to see everyone in these simple terms; either they’re an atheist liberal progressive, or they’re your enemy.
Ironic, really, that this is rather reminiscent of the way Coulter and others seem to view the world (either you’re a God-fearing Christian conservative, or you’re a godless liberal who hates America). I don’t know if this kind of vitriol on both sides is an American thing, but it’s neither necessary nor constructive. I have friends who are conservative and friends who are liberal, in RL. It really ought to be possible to have a civil conversation with someone while not agreeing with their political ideology.
Now there’s a minefield. I mean, what exactly does “pro-RKBA” mean? Personally, I think it means localities should be able to legislate firearms regulations appropriate to their particular history and current context.
My father-in-law is about as politically moderate a man as I’ve met, but has said flat out that if firearms registration laws are passed, he’s not registering his weapons.
My wife’s grandfather is an avid sportsman, donates to the NRA solely because they support his hunting and fishing club, but doesn’t actually put any stock in their politics (thank god!). He thinks a national handgun ban is “reasonably pro-RKBA”, as long as consumers can still purchase shotguns and rifles.
Unfortunately, most 2nd amendment issues voters I’m associated with define “reasonably pro-RKBA” by NRA fiat. And the NRA lies. Period. They have lied about the positions on firearms of nearly every candidate for national office that I have ever supported.
When you look at most candidates positions on firearms regulations, they almost universally agree that it is important that there is a personal right to keep and bear arms and also almost universally agree that there is a necessary amount of regulation to “insure domestic Tranquility”. The only disagreement is just how much regulation is “reasonable”. Most candidates are not too far apart, really. But in the propaganda of idealogues, you’d think everyone on the right would require citizens to walk around armed and everyone on the left would have stormtroopers going door to door confiscating guns.
It’s no wonder El doesn’t explicitly state a postion on RKBA.
OOH, OOH, Pick me, Pick me . . .
OK Walton, here’s why it’s not that simple as differing opinions.
Your professed politics support the subversion of the US Constitution. Your professed politics (heretofore expressed as ‘YPP’)support the generalization and stereotypifying of all non-white xtian persons. YPP support pre-emptive war. YPP support working from the standpoint of FEAR, rather than reasoned consideration. YPP support xenophobic exclusionism. I’m sure others can add to this list . . .
YPP are quite simply NOT the equal of that of your oposition here (in which I count myself) because YPP HURT first, rationalize later.
OUR PP ask questions first, put people first; put fairness, equality of opportunity, mutual respect of all non-violent cultures, caring, compassion, TRUTH, and justice FIRST. Then we don’t have to rationalize later.
(How’sdat – did I do good?)
LOL. When I lived in Chile, back in 1990 when they were holding elections to finally replace Pinochet, I knew a man, a baker, who one day had his hands all bandaged up. I asked about it and he told me he had dropped a tray of bread on his fingers. When he stepped away, his wife told me that wasn’t quite true. He’d actually been in a fight with his boss about the election and his boss had broken all his fingers.
When I asked what he was going to do about employement now, his wife said, “Oh he’s still working. It’s blown over. It was just politics.”
Heh. Just politics. And that degree of passion was by no means unusually extreme. The unusually extreme were the guys that cut peoples’ eyes out at political rallies.
You see, the vitriol is not at all particular to our nation. I would even venture to say that by comparison to many countries, we are remarkably temperate.
Uh, sorry. That was supposed to be:
“non-white, non-xtian . . .”
Now, you have to admit that Hitler was right about motorcycles:
Actually, no it isn’t. We all have a very good idea what you think because you blather on and on about yourself as if your worldview and how you came to it are the most important thing the world wants to hear. Frankly, nobody wants to read a couple hundred word rationalization defending a douchebag like Ann Coulter–not even when your are the main character in that story.
Can you say “egotist”, little fella? Sure, I knew that you could…
I can be reached generally after 5 PM. I work doing fundraising for other democrats during the day. Anybody can give online at tinklenberg08.com or just try to reach me after 5 (or call my cell at 3204915704)and I could talk to someone to get a pledge packet sent out. We are just getting this fundraising operation going so I have been working out of my house promoting this event. My girlfriends daughter is generally home during the day so she is the one who answered.
Moorecock is great I was just trying to lighten the mood before the can of worms exploded. and beside you do have to admit he is a bit nutty, and there is no telling what some of the loons would be able to read into his works.
Walton the reason I think both sides of American politcs get so blindly heated is that the two party system is broken. The party of the majority has simply too much power to affect the daily lives of individuals coupled with not enough real choices at the ballot. Of course people are going to be frustrated. Liberals are going to be even more frustrated because the “Liberal” party available isn’t even liberal it’s kind of sort of moderate. I mean you don’t even have health care for crying in the rain! As to why the Republicans get so nasty… I can’t help you there but the undoubtedly do I just can’t empathise with them enough to guess.
It’s very simple, really, Walton. If you support the war in Iraq, you are not a serious person. It’s roughly equivalent to believing the world is flat, though quite a bit deadlier. Like most American military actions after WWII, and most before, the war in Iraq is about killing dark people to bring profit to corporate interests. This is ‘conservativism’? ‘Evil’ is the word I would use.
The only supporters of the war are either eating from the trough, dangerous ideologues, or systematically deluded. Which are you?
No doubt you’ll view my opinion as intolerant. Yes, it is difficult to tolerate war crimes and mass murder. People that go along with it are dangerous. Yes, I don’t like the killing of innocent people – I’m just funny that way. Nothing ‘left-wing’ or ‘liberal’ about this, just basic right and wrong, Virgil. On the other hand, unlike the American Neocons you admire, I have no desire to force people to agree with me. Unlike them, I actually believe in tolerance.
There is one issue on which I agree with many conservatives: I support the death penalty for mass murderers. Bush, Cheney, and Rice deserve to die – they are not fit to walk this planet with decent people.
You really think that the ‘war on terror’ makes sense, that the war against Iraqi children makes sense? Then you are the same as the IDers, the flat-earthers, the UFO abductees. The fact that your opinion is more common than the others does not make it one jot less crazy.
Reasonable people can disagree about economic policy, about standards of public discourse, about education. No reasonable person supports the war in Iraq, period. You’re a joke, Walton, but I can’t laugh as the children die and the terrorists gain support. Perhaps you can. Yes, Walton, the war in Iraq has strengthened support for terrorism, as every serious person knows.
Oh by the way Walton, your false equivalence between American conservatives and liberals is a joke too. It is very, very common for American conservatives to make thinly veiled threats of violence against liberals, to call them traitors, and to call for them to be expelled from the country. The other way – very rare in comparison. Sometimes there is a genuine asymmetry between disputants, like creationists vs. defenders of science, like Martin Luther King vs. Bull Conner, like a murderer vs. a crime victim.
TSL post #48:
I believe you meant “hereinafter expressed as ‘YPP'” rather than “heretofore expressed as ‘YPP'”
Otherwise, yes indeedy. Well done.
#57: Just out of interest, are you the same person as User:KillerChihuahua on English Wikipedia?
#57
Mmmm. Indeed. Just so. It would appear I’ve confused my ‘fores’ and ‘afts’ in the absence of a copy-editor.
Many thanx, KC. (Sincerely)
Carry on.
TSL: its a hazard of dealing with talking heads who sound like horses asses – one gets the “fore” and “aft” confused. Its to be expected that such errors occur in such situations.
Minnesota has a _Republican_ representative in Congress?? I thought you farmer-democrats had *laws* against that kind of thing!
TSL: In case I was unclear, that was a message of sympathy and understanding – W being the confusing element.
And you are quite welcome, thanks for such a great straight line in return.
Pretty funny. Somewhere here is an opportunity for an interthreadual shit/shinola/burro/burrow joke, but I am too tired to make it work.
PZ…
In 2006, you were not for Tinklenberg. You were for his opponent, ultra-leftist Patty Wetterling. She was actually quoted as saying that she was too liberal to win the district. She promised not to run in 2006, which was when Tinklenberg decided to get involved in the first place and lay a lot of groundwork to defeat Bachmann and win the district. Wetterling’s senatorial bid didn’t go as well as she liked, and she had money left over that could only be used in a federal race. So she broke her promise, ran, and screwed up everything Tinklenberg had set in place.
With your blessing.
And you know what? She lost. She lost and let a nutcase like Bachmann serve for 2 years in Congress. It’s a conservative district. That’s what happens.
Have you learned anything? Or are you going to promote Tinklenberg as if nothing happened in 2006?
For as long as the left has propagandists like Michael Moore, we need similar figures to combat them.
A false equivalency demonstrating, yet again, your moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
“You like Ann Coulter, who thinks we ought to bomb, kill, and torture the Muslims and Democrats”
Worse, far worse, the demented, foulmouthed harridan argued in favour of invading Canada.
Walton dribbled:
Some people here just don’t seem to acknowledge that you can respect someone as a fellow human being without agreeing with their political views
LOL
that’s just what creationists say.
do you know why we don’t respect creationists, Walton?
If you can figure that out, you’ll at least begin to understand the reaction shown to yourself here.
that we respect people’s rights to VOICE their opinions, hardly means we have to respect the opinions themselves.
…especially when those opinions are based on little more than the equivalent of Jack Chick tracts.
oop, Lakers/Celtics are on.
gotta go.
(go LAKERS!)
man, Minnesota fans must be confused about this one. I mean, the Lakers CAME from Minnesota originally, but now you’ve got Garnett playing for the Celtics…
Where do the Minnesota fans sort themselves on this one?
Where do the Minnesota fans sort themselves on this one?
A former Minnesotan who grew up HATING the Celtics…and continues to living in Boston.
GO KG!!!!!!
#62 – KC
Patience mi Amigo. Merely EOD in the NW; so cometh change of venues. Plus, Disturbed’s latest showed up in that amzn box today. Reveling *profoundly* …
*Meanwhile*, back at the …
KC: I *got* it. *And*, I *get* it. No worries, Mate. Queued up we are. By all means, copy-edit my particular ‘godless ejac . . (hmmm, can’t do that word in print myself – modicum of humility and all that – let’s try…) profundity’ any time you wish.
Cheers.
Carry on.
“Worse, far worse, the demented, foulmouthed harridan argued in favour of invading Canada.”
Can we feed her to Rick Mercer? PLEASE?!??!? *bouncebouncebouncebouncebounce*
1-0 KG
just making sure ichthyic knows the score :)
just making sure ichthyic knows the score :)
>:(
I really thought in the 2nd we were gonna take that game.
well, it’s a seven game series, still…
I have an honest question for commenter Bad regarding comment #64.
I admit up front that I am completely ignorant of the inner workings of Minnesota politics. From what I understand from your comment, there was some ethical breach in the last election cycle that you object to, and therefore P.Z. should not vote for his next best, but do something else. Vote for Bachmann? Abstain? Write a blog post? What?
I don’t expect a full education in local politics, but please feel free to clarify your point.
*pendant mode on*
By Moorecock I think you mean Moorcock. Not Moopcock either.
*pendant mode off*
And More Cock is something else entirely.
I kept thinking this was Spanish. I was wondering, “What’s ‘The Tinklenberg’? It turns out El is a name now? Anyway, good luck to him/her.
You named your son Alaric?
(I’mnotgonnasayitI’mnotgonnasayitI’mnot… yes I am)
Is he a goth?
I’m sorry, but El Tinklenberg is a character from a Mel Brooks movie about the Spanish Inquisition, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
Yeah. Woops. Without even looking too closely you can probably find several misspellings amid my posts. Sometimes I really am a maroon.
wazza Alaric, or at the least the greatest/most famous one, was a Visigoth. A civilised and cultured society. They conquered northern Italy and doubtless it was quite of few of their genes and memes that underlay the Rennaissance.
#76 – Shane, it might be that you wanted ‘pedant’ rather than ‘pendant’
As an aside, your American politicians are crazy, but so are oour British ones.. just not in the same directions.
“Together we can get our country back on track, and ensure that if you are willing to work 40 hours per week, the American dream is within your reach.”
What is this guy, a closet right-wing neo-con? “Willing to work?” Monster!
Paul (TIC)
“Yeah. Woops. Without even looking too closely you can probably find several misspellings amid my posts. Sometimes I really am a maroon.”
My fault, I could have sworn his name was spelt with an ‘e’… mind you I’m serriously disgraphic and can barely spell my own name even at my most lucid (you should see what happens when I stop trying, it becomes very clear why I like Chaucer).
Cross into the light…
There is salvation in the light…
ALL ARE WELCOME!
ALL ARE WELCOME!
Regarding Walton, it’s really amusing that he represents himself as an eighteen year old kid from the U.K. Two observations if he’s not lying:
Primo- He has come into his political awareness over the last several years during the period of the greatest failures of Conservative governance, witnessing the Iraq debacle, the Katrina debacle, the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the meltdown of the U.S. economy, failed energy policy… the list goes on. He cannot blame U.S. mass media filtration for the paucity of information coming into his ken. He still, however, idolizes U.S. Conservatives, even though they are at the height of their incompetence.
Wally, Conservatism is the U.S. is now rooted solely in hatred of “the other”, usually gays, blacks, muslims, atheists, and liberals. Even the so-called intellectuals of the movement were motivated mainly by bigotry. Look up William F. Buckley’s writings about desegregation in the ’50s, or Norman Podhoretz’ nastly piece of work titled “My Negro Problem, and Ours”. Conservatism itself is the problem, Coulter just blurts the really troggy stuff that they all feel.
Segundo: If Wally is eighteen, and believes that a shooting war against Islamofascism is necessary for the future of civilization (rather than a matter for law enforcement on various national and international levels, as most libs think it is), WTF is he doing sitting on his ass trolling here?
Man up, chickenhawk, is the war merely a sham and a scam, or are you a scared little shirker who is content to let others take the risks?
Sorry about being long-winded, I just wish I had Wally here so I make him crap his pants.
Stay the course in Iraq…I don’t know which to do first, puke or fall apart into a stream of obscenities.
Sorry, meant to say “Conservatism IN the U.S.” in post #86.
Still would love to scare the crap out of Wally, though.
I just donated $100 because if your kid is at all like you (which I suspect since you are plugging him), he’s probably only going to be working for a decent campaign. And the bitch voted against SCHIP.
I’m gay. And to be honest, crapstains like her cannot hurt me. Note to crapstains: You may have beaten the snot out of me in junior high, but since then I have gotten a little meaner and more than happy to bash back. That may be figuratively by pledging to local drives that donate dollars to LGBT or AIDS charities per hour that Fred Phelps pickets (Please Fred, keep going! The AIDS Clinic needs more money!) Or it may be literally if you try to physically screw with me or the BF – I will be happy to hand you your ass in a paper bag, sport. Sure you might delay the inevitable with regard to myself and my husband getting married in the US (though we are this month in CA – Eat that!) but you no longer have any power to harm me.
In a word: (gesture involving extension of the third finger of both hands)
However I’m also an ER doctor, and when you pick on 5 year olds that really pisses me off. Having intubated not that long ago a 5 year old asthmatic, who with adequate access to care and the right medicine a few days before might not even have needed to be hospitalized, I am a shade sensitive about the issue of SCHIP. Voting against SCHIP is like setting a cat’s tail on fire. It shows not only that you are a waste of oxygen and skin, but that you are a truly evil person who should be locked away where you will no longer present a risk to your fellow man.
Good luck El Tinklenberg. And keep working your ass off, Alaric.
getting married in the US (though we are this month in CA
congrats!
In reply to post #86.
Regarding Walton, it’s really amusing that he represents himself as an eighteen year old kid from the U.K. – Erm, why would I “represent myself” as being a nineteen- (not eighteen; it was my birthday on Tuesday) year old British national if it were not true? If I wanted to invent some kind of fictional online identity for myself, I would invent something much more impressive and exciting (like a heroic war record, or a higher degree in a challenging academic discipline). But I did nothing of the sort. I have told the truth. I am a 19-year-old British student, doing the first year of an undergraduate degree. I’m no one particularly special or important. If (for some bizarre reason) you want any more information about me, you can find it on my Wikipedia userpage as User:Walton One.
If anything, stating my age and nationality has caused people to take me less seriously, and I wish I hadn’t done it.
I haven’t bothered to respond to much in this particular thread (mostly because many people’s arguments seem to consist of “you’re a conservative, therefore you’re inherently evil and/or stupid and we don’t have to take you seriously”), but I am not willing to stand by as I’m accused of lying.
Walton, I apologize for doubting your veracity as to your age and origins. That being said, I still think that your admiration for the American conservative movement, in light of its many epic blunders, bespeaks either naivete or sociopathy. I would like to think that naivete is the reason. Read up on the movement, see that bigotry and authoritarianism lie at the roots, like Nidhogg gnawing at the roots of Yggdrasil.
Start by looking up “Southern Strategy”, read Podhoretz’s “My Negro Problem, and Ours”.
To Longtime Lurker at #92: Apology accepted, and I too apologise for my angry reaction. I do disagree with your analysis of American conservatism, however.
I am familiar with the “southern strategy”, if you’re referring to what I think you are – i.e. Nixon’s strategy in the 60s to win over disaffected Southern white Democratic voters to the Republicans, in the wake of Kennedy and Johnson’s support of civil rights, which caused traditional Southern Democrats to split from the Democratic party. Yes, that was a cynical approach, which undoubtedly exploited racial bigotry and fear in order to win votes. And I don’t think Republicans should be proud of it. But I will say this: firstly, it was a long time ago (comparatively); and secondly, racial politics in the South was something which could not be ignored by any pragmatic political through most of the twentieth century. Isn’t it also true that FDR’s “New Deal coalition” also relied on the solid support of southern racist white Democrats in order to keep and retain office?
Furthermore, I also think your analysis depends on what one defines as “conservatism”. The mainstream American conservative tradition, as I understand it, has at its root a distaste for big government and for governmental interference in citizens’ lives; since America is a nation founded on the concept of individual rights and small government, a support for those principles has always been “conservative”, and this form of conservatism was an obvious reaction to the statist, centralising tendencies of the New Deal and the exponential twentieth-century growth of government power. Unfortunately, the American conservative movement seems to have been increasingly hijacked by Christian fundamentalism, which is, paradoxically, inherently authoritarian in its outlook (in terms of its advocacy for state support of traditional moral and religious values).
Sorry for this rather incoherent response (I’ll expand on it later on).
The mainstream American conservative tradition, as I understand it, has at its root a distaste for big government and for governmental interference in citizens’ lives;
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Well, as long as those lives weren’t propertied white men. Black folks? Fine, do what you want. Women? Fine, do what you want. Wage laborers? Shoot ’em if you need, but do what you want. Latinos or Asians? Fine, do what you want. White, rich men? Better protect their interests above all else.
Remember, the poor and rich are both barred from sleeping under the bridge. Everything is equal!
“Furthermore, I also think your analysis depends on what one defines as “conservatism”. ”
Walton, the conservatism you espouse is a phantasm, the movement was always rooted in preserving straight white male privilege. I am a straight white male, but I would like to see a country where EVERONE has a shot at “live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. As it stands now, American Conservatism is a failed movement, a movement that has done more to damage the American people than any other American political ideology.
“The mainstream American conservative tradition, as I understand it, has at its root a distaste for big government and for governmental interference in citizens’ lives”
Feh, ever research the history of sodomy laws in this country? How about the whole “war on drugs”? Conservatives are about non-interference in corporate doings, their record of butting into citizens’ personal lives is abysmal.
The New Deal was enacted to dig the country out of a hole dug by “conservative” de-regulation taken to absurd extremes, leading to the Great Depression. It allowed the U.S. to navigate the perilous course between Fascism and a Communist uprising.
We now see an economic meltdown in the U.S., also sparked by “conservative” de-regulation of the credit industry. Now, your modern conservatives have presided over the greatest growth government, the greatest lessening of personal freedoms, in the history of the country- all accompanied by a staggering stupidity and incompetence, the hallmarks of governance by the “government is the problem, not the solution” types.
Walton, who would YOU consider to be a paragon of conservatism?
“Remember, the poor and rich are both barred from sleeping under the bridge.”
MAJeff, sleeping under the bridge is a right reserved for trolls!
Walton, who would YOU consider to be a paragon of conservatism? – Margaret Thatcher. Or, if I have to pick an American, Ronald Reagan.
Now, your modern conservatives have presided over the greatest growth government, the greatest lessening of personal freedoms, in the history of the country. – This is arguably true, but I don’t think the Bush administration is a particularly great example of conservatism. Far from reducing the range of government intrusion into citizens’ lives, the current administration has actually expanded the federal bureaucracy, reduced civil liberties and been fiscally irresponsible. Hence why many more libertarian conservatives, such as Bob Barr, have abandoned the Bush camp and even left the Republican party. While I don’t by any means agree with Barr on everything, I respect his principles.
Bush has, sadly, polarised the conservative movement into authoritarian and libertarian camps – I don’t know how easily American conservatism can recover from that.
As to the kind of conservatism to which I subscribe, I think George Will said it best: “Government should defend the shores, deliver the mail and get out of the way.” Government intrusion into citizens’ lives “for their own good” inherently makes people less free – and both the right and the left are guilty of this at times, because the temptation of government is always to expand its own power at the expense of individuals’ interests.
Yet I’m not a real libertarian, because I’m also hawkish on national defence and foreign policy – a strong military is needed, as is a proactive, interventionist policy of fighting terrorism. But I’ve expanded more on that on other threads.
Or, if I have to pick an American, Ronald Reagan.
*shudder*
Now, MAJeff, you and I both knew that he’d nominate the ghoul-king. The answer was obvious.
Walton, please outline a proactive, interventionist policy of fighting terrorism for us. Would the Iraq invasion fall under this rubric?
Walton, please outline a proactive, interventionist policy of fighting terrorism for us. Would the Iraq invasion fall under this rubric? – No, it would not, as I’ve said on other threads.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a strategic and geopolitical mistake. Saddam had no known links to al-Qaeda or any Islamic terrorist group, and indeed he presided over one of the most secular régimes in the Middle East. The invasion, while doing short-term good in getting rid of Saddam (who was a truly brutal dictator and a threat to his neighbours), has also done longer-term harm in allowing terrorists, and Iranian-backed militias, to gain a foothold in Iraq. I think we all agree that the current situation is something of a mess; distasteful as it sounds, it might have been better to leave Saddam in place.
So no, I don’t think the Iraq invasion was a sensible response to terrorism. But I should be quick to add that, to the best of my knowledge, pulling troops out of Iraq at this stage would be a disaster, and would lead to total collapse into insurgency and chaos (or alternatively an Iranian takeover) and would help the terrorists. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the invasion, we can’t turn the clock back now.
I hope that clarifies my position. When I say “I am a conservative”, I don’t mean “I am a devoted admirer of the Bush administration and agree with everything it has ever done”. I also note that you chose to pick up on only one small part of the points I made in my previous post.
Now, MAJeff, you and I both knew that he’d nominate the ghoul-king. The answer was obvious.
Yeah, it’s been mentioned before. I’ll admit, I wasn’t sad he died. Not sad at all.
Jeff: just for you:
http://thepaincomics.com/weekly040609a.htm
Too bad the stake wasn’t laced with HIV and pounded into him while still in the White House.
And apparently you’re not a real conservative either because you want to restrict women’s reproductive rights and support nonsense like the “war on drugs”. Presumably there are plenty of other areas where your ideology compels you to want to interfere in people’s lives. This is the conservative’s dilemma, isn’t it?
So much for defending the shores, delivering the mail, and getting out of the way…
A bit more on what I just posted a bit ago…and a bit of a request.
While Ronnie, may he rot, was President Benetton’s Colours magazine printed an obit for him dying from AIDS, which included a marked-up photo of the bastard with KS. I’ve been looking for it for years. If anyone has or knows of a copy, I’d love to get in touch with them.
Walton, read up on Reagan, know that he planted the seeds for a lot of the problems we now face. He was the one who showed Dick Cheney that “deficits don’t matter”, thereby leading to the profligate spending by Little Boots Bush, which led to the U.S. being indebted to China (Communist bogeyman) and Saudi Arabia (Wahabist bogeyman). Reagan broke laws to sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and conventional weapons to Iran, all to fund a nasty little war in Central America (the destabilization of El Salvador led to a lot of illegal immigration to the States, and formed the kernel which grew into the now notorious MS-13 gang). It was Reagan proxies who killed a bishop and several nuns in El Salvador. Reaganomics, which even G. Bush the elder criticized as “voodoo economics”, ultimately led to the conditions which fostered our current recession- Greenspan’s folly! Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was a deranged fool whose policies helped foster environmental degradation. Reagan’s “War on Drugs” has also been a disaster. Reagan’s AIDS policy, a national disgrace leading to international peril. Reagan reversed Carter’s energy policy… Carter famously said:
“Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation.” By the end of the 1980s, the nation would reduce “our dependence on foreign oil by one-half.”
Reagan jettisoned Carter’s programs, setting the stage for our current energy crisis, and incidentally provided a lot of funding for Sunni extremism. Oh, how about the Reagan administration providing training for Osama Bin Laden?
You may sputter and yelp that Reagan “won the Cold War”, but guys like Kennedy and (dare I say it) Nixon did much more of the heavy lifting than he did. Hell, Karol Wojtyla and Lech Walesa did more of the heavy lifting than Reagan. Reagan just came in toward the end of the fourth quarter, scored a safety, and claimed that he won the game.
Reagan was a disaster for much of the world, and his policies laid the foundation for much of America’s current difficulties.
Walton, face facts, Bill Clinton was a better conservative president than Ronald Reagan.
I presume the admiration for Reagan extends to his support for the unlawful activities of those in his administration who illegally supplied weapons to Iran.
Now it is possible that at the time he was suffering from the early effect of Alzheimer’s, which would excuse his lack of oversight, but would also preclude his being given credit for ending the cold war.
Neil: “and therefore P.Z. should not vote for his next best, but do something else.”
No, the issue is simply fully endorsing Tinklenberg now without acknowledging that it was a mistake to endorse his primary opponent in the last cycle. He should support Tinklenberg now. He also should have last time as well.
i just donated to Tinklenwhatever without knowing a damn thing about him. i don’t need to know a damn thing about him except that he’s running against that contemptible piece of work Bachmann. i’m a moderate, and if the GOP ever puts up sensible candidates, it’d be great to actually have a choice to make based on issues. ah well. in the meantime get her ass outta there.