University of Cincinnati College RepublicansMy sources tell me that, last week, this group of geniuses was putting up posters on campus asking, "Where's the Birth Certificate, Mr. President?"
Current as of: 3/2/2009
Purpose/Description: We wish to be a political vehicle for all spectrum's of the college student. UC CR wants to be an outlet for a student to engage in the Republican cause in Cincinnati and abroad. The work of the College Republican National Committee is guided by three primary goals: to help elect Republicans; to support the President’s agenda; to prepare future leaders of the Party. The CRNC serves as the grassroots arm of the Republican Party.
(snip)
Yep, these mofos are stoooooopid and bat-shit crazy.
Posts
12 comments:
President Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame that the two sides (pro/anti abortion) should stop demonizing each other and begin to talk again.
This goes for ALL tings politics. It sickens me to see that all political groups do these days is bash the other side. One side is as ignorant and misinformed as they believe the other side is, they just refuse to believe it.
What's the point in doing nothing but bashing the other side? It's exactly the reason politics in the US are the way they are today. Nothing gets done, and people make character judgments based on who a person voted for.
(BTW I'm non partisan, voted for Obama and otherwise split the ticket voting the last election).
Shorter Drew: pointing out other people's ignorance is ignorance in and of itself. Good to know.
Which it seems a lot of these blog articles do...on BOTH sides.
What's the point in doing nothing but bashing the other side?Good question. The point is that we must point out the misinformation and disinformation being thrown out there by the Republicans. And in doing so, have some fun at their expense as well.
If we don't point out, for instance, that College Republicans are stupid for embracing the "Obama is not a citizen" story, then we are legitimizing it by omission.
As for playing nice, it is virtually impossible to point out ignorance and stupidity with any more grace than what I have shown. But since you asked so nicely, I'll make sure not to laugh the next time I post about these buffoons.
(BTW I'm non partisan, voted for Obama and otherwise split the ticket voting the last election).
Umm... maybe it's time you picked a side.
There is plenty of misinformation being thrown out by the left as well, but I'm not sure anyone here would be so willing to admit that.
As far as being non partisan...I'll pick a side as soon as either one starts to show a shred of integrity.
The "pox on both your houses" position is such intellectually lazy bullshit. Sometimes one side is actually lying more than the other. Driving 60 in a 55 is speeding, but it's not the same as going 90.
What right-wing blogs are you complaining about this on BTW, since you're completely non-partisan and all?
Heh...I think the left side is bad and then I read this: http://chicagoray.blogspot.com/2009/05/colin-powell-may-find-himself-back-in.html
Anyhow, a moderate, non partisan position is NOT lazy, and I'd appreciate you watching your mouth (though it doesn't surprise me) when you "debate" with me. It just shows tact and intellect. I could argue that using profanity is also lazy. But we're not attacking each other, now are we? :)
90 is more dangerous than 60 in a 55, for certain. But whose lies are more dangers, TODAY? Yes we can go back several years and look at Bush's lies, but that is in the past, and as most liberals say, "move on". It's a shame that politicians today would turn fellows like Henry Clay around in his grave, but that's just how it is. The two party system is polarizing, and in the past 5 years it has been worse than ever.
Look, if you want to get into the true causes of the hyper-partisanship of the past several years, how about going back to 1995, when Tom DeLay & Newt Gingrich decided that they would have the House do whatever they wanted without any sort of discussions with the Democrats. Or to 2003, when the republicans in both houses broke long-standing rules of decorum to jam their agenda through Congress - see the Medicare part D bill. Or in 2005 when they threatened to invoke the so-called nuclear option to bypass filibusters because they were undemocratic. Or in 2005-2006 when they demanded that all judges be given an up or down vote without any discussion of their record - of course now they're threatening to block any prospective SCOTUS nominee, sight unseen. Or now, when they've just decided to oppose any sort of Dem-sponsored legislation even when they're brought into the negotiation process.
And I'm sorry if it bothers you that people might, just might, want to look into whether the Bush administration lied about the rationale for going into the Iraq war, and if they might have broken international law. And if you can't understand how investigating whether acts of torture were committed, and if so holding those parties legally responsible, because if we don't then future presidents will do the same because there's no reprecussions, then I don't know what to tell you.
So yes, I do find your position intellectually lazy, because it allows you to just say "well I know that terrible acts were committed under the Bush administration and they drove the economy into the tank, but Nancy Pelosi said a few bad words so they're both just as bad." It lets you just eliminate any sort of judgment of the degree of the offense, wag your finger at both sides, and then go on about how things were so much better in the good old days. Which is easy and doesn't require much critical thought.
And if you can't deal with me calling your position what it truly is (I'll spare your virgin eyes and ears and not use the real term), that's your problem, not mine.
I won't disagree with you about the bastardization of the Republican party due to the Bush administration.
Although...The Bush administration driving the party into the tank...that's nearly laughable. I don't need to remind you that in 2006 Pelosi and company took control of congress. And all this time, Pelosi and Dems were screaming and crying for Republicans to listen to them and hear what they had to say. Now they're in power, and they're doing exactly what Repubs were doing to them: flipping them proverbial finger. Turnabout is fair play, sure. But we're talking about running a country here, NOT getting their retribution because somebody's feelings got hurt.
Fannie Mae was under intense pressure for the CLINTON administration to expand mortgage loans among low to moderate income earners, and look where THAT got us.
Look, I know and you know that bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship isn't a good thing. Until BOTH sides realize that they are part of the problem, THEN they can become part of the solution. The parties have begun to move further and further to the extreme of the party lines, and that's not good. Work needs to get done, hands need to reach across the aisle, or else things will only get worse. Exactly what happened in 1994. Things got better...then worse. And things will get better again. And they will get worse again.
You seriously need to get your facts straight. This administration bent over backwards to include republicans in the negotiations over the stimulus package, gave them some of what they wanted (a courtesy never extended to the Dems during the Bush administration), and they still voted overwhelmingly against the bill. 3 Senate votes, and at most a handful of House votes (I don't remember there being any, but for expediency's sake I'll concede to a handful). Then the repubs introduced a stimulus bill of their own that was comprised of nothing but tax cuts, which is just insane if you're looking to stimulate the economy.
The Dems reached across the aisle and extended their hand. They got it smacked back in their face. The right has no interest in entering into a cooperative relationship that consists of anything other than giving them everything they want. They're not interested in good government; they want to get in the way of government. There's simply no possibility of bi-partisanship. It's the equivalent of asking a girl to go to an Italian restaurant, and she says she prefers snow tires and tree bark. If you can find a bi-partisan solution to that situation, you're a better person than me.
And let's get over the "expand mortgage loans among low to moderate income earners" crap, because I know you're going towards the CRA excuse. This had nothing to do with low-income homeowners. It had everything to do with the deregulation of the mortgage industry to where anyone could become a broker, set up $500,000 mortgages for $100,000 earners, and sell those mortgages off with no responsibility for what happens after that point. NINJA loans, 105% financing, interest only loans, that's what got us in this mess, not Fannie Mae. Any honest analysis of the situation has to come to that conclusion.
Respond if you want, I've wasted enough keystrokes, pixels, and bandwidth discussing this topic. You're clearly going to take the Broderistic "if only they could just work together" point of view, without any sort of understanding as to why things are where they are (I think you do understand but it's just easier to wag fingers in both directions and say it's both parties fault), and I just have no further patience to listen to that anymore, because it's just crap.
Hi, Drew,
I don't think you're rerunning the CRA canard on FNMA; the two have nothing to do with each other, as I'm sure you know.
But if you want to lay blame for what happened there, point your finger directly at Countrywide Financial. They essentially held a gun to FNMA's head, forcing them to buy the risky loans Countrywide was making. Here's the proof:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html
Read into the second page, under the subhead "You Need Us".
While both Democratic and Republican Congresses played a role, the primary blame appears to be attached to Countrywide and their ilk...
Post a Comment