Texas GOP rejects critical thinking skills. Really.

republicanidiots:

(Source: thekintners, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Political dog-whistles don't have an off-switch

downlo:

This is just common sense. If your party has a long history of using racist coded language to win elections, then you can’t blame minorities for distrusting you when you suddenly start courting their votes. If your party has a long history of using racist coded language to discredit and attack prominent black people, then you can’t blame minorities for detecting racism in your attacks of Susan Rice (emphasis added):

[Jonah] Goldberg and [Charles] Murray…are casting about for a way for the GOP to win over minorities without saying ‘sorry’. Indeed, they are looking for a way to win over minorities while saying ‘you’re welcome!’ in an aggrieved, long-suffering sort of way (this white man’s burden hasn’t been lifting itself, y’know!)

[…]

If you have earned people’s distrust, by not saying what you mean, you have extra work to do, convincing people you mean only what you say. If white people have found tribalism an attractive value, for so long, why shouldn’t non-whites find white tribalism to be off-putting, to a comparable degree?

[…]

Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Rice’s handling of Benghazi was plausibly incompetent…Problem is: if you have a history of saying abstract things, signaling something else, you have painted yourself into a rhetorical corner when it comes to saying abstractly negative things about Susan Rice and not having black people suspect you are really saying something else. It’s also obvious why Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, etc. do not remove the suspicion that you are trying to paper over your race problem without addressing it.

It might seem unfair that you can’t just be taken at your word, that you get accused of tokenism when you hope appointments of prominent blacks will betoken your good intentions. But, if you don’t like it, build a time machine, go back in time and kill Lee Atwater as a child or something. It’s a bit like whites who complain about the unfairness of being unable to say the n-word – even though every black rapper can! It’s not exactly mysterious how and why this admittedly superficially unfair state of affairs arose, so it’s a bit hard to see who you could complain against, unless it is your own ancestors….

The GOP made its bed decades ago, and now Republicans are complaining because they have to lie in it. Too fucking bad.

5 Conservative Explanations for Romney’s Loss

downlo:

thenationmagazine:

From Ben Adler’s latest.

1. Romney was too moderate.

“As I wrote would happen, Mitt Romney tried to blur lines with Barack Obama. He did not defend social conservatism, but let those attacks go unanswered. He did not articulate strong fiscal conservatism and he never repudiated Romneycare, thereby failing to make any credible attacks on Obamacare.” —Erick Erickson, RedState (11/12/2012)

2. The American people are a bunch of stupid, mooching jerks.

“The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.” —Bill O’Reily, Fox News (11/06/2012)

3. It was the media’s fault.

“I don’t believe the Republican Party has the ability to rebrand itself against the mainstream media machine that blatantly works to support this president and other liberals as well as the Democrats and works blatantly to try and tarnish the brand of what the Republican Party stands for.” —Herman Cain, Focal Point With Brian Fischer (11/07/2012)

4. We didn’t really lose.

“Obama won a smaller percentage of American votes in his reelection than in his win in 2008.

America gave him less support after watching him govern for four years than when he ran promising hope and change. Normally a reelected president expands his margin of support.” —Grover Norquist, National Review (11/07/2012)

5. We only lost because of Hurricane Sandy.

“The president was also lucky. This time, the October surprise was not a dirty trick but an act of God. Hurricane Sandy interrupted Mr. Romney’s momentum and allowed Mr. Obama to look presidential and bipartisan.” —Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal (11/07/2012)

Despite constantly banging on about personal responsibility, many conservatives seem to have a lot of trouble accepting responsibility for their failures.

glaserface:

apathetichumans:

By Jim Morin

THAT’S WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING

glaserface:

apathetichumans:

By Jim Morin

THAT’S WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING

(Source: , via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

(via suckmesleezi)

(Source: eclecticbanana, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Also, Mitt Romney says the “worst” part of Obamacare is that “the federal government will get between you and your doctor.” Just like Republicans do with patients and doctors at Planned Parenthood, right Mitt?

(Source: inothernews, via womanistgamergirl)

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

 In reference to Neil Monro, who works at The Daily Caller. 
 Video here (via Buzzfeed). 
Remember when George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were yelling at us all the time to “respect the president” … “support your president”?
How come Republicans are never concerned for the lack of respect shown to President Obama?
Oh, that’s right, 2 sets of rules… One for Democrats & One for Republicans.

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

 In reference to Neil Monro, who works at The Daily Caller. 

 Video here (via Buzzfeed)

Remember when George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were yelling at us all the time to “respect the president” … “support your president”?

How come Republicans are never concerned for the lack of respect shown to President Obama?

Oh, that’s right, 2 sets of rules… One for Democrats & One for Republicans.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Cynical, revisionist conservatives are at it again, this time attempting to claim “Democrats are the ‘real’ racists!”

communism-kills:

HISTORICAL NOTE: before (and during) the civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, a faction of the Democratic party was indeed white, middle class and furiously racist.  Called “Dixiecrats” and led by the defiantly racist Dixiecrat Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, they left the party en masse, FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, as a reaction to the Democrat-controlled federal government’s Civil Rights Act of 1964, forced desegregation of Southern institutions, and the end of Jim Crow.

A pile of shit does not smell nice just because you try to call it “apple pie.”  Neither will you folks in the GOP ever be known as “the good guys.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

-

Alex Pareene at Salon keenly calls bullshit on the latest feeble attempt by conservatives to re-write history, this time by a rag known as “The National Review:”

“The 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Lyndon Johnson’s role in ensuring its passage, was one major victory in a years-long effort by the party’s liberals to make the Democratic Party the civil rights party, and it worked so well that the racists were effectively no longer welcome. They responded by changing their positions or changing sides. It wasn’t an overnight change, obecause politics is slow, but it happened: Robert Byrd and even George Wallace changed their positions on black civil rights and apologized. Those who couldn’t adapt, or those for whom bigotry was more genuine belief than political opportunism, left the party. Strom Thurmond became a Republican. Lester Maddox launched a third-party presidential bid against Jimmy Carter and eventually endorsed Republican Pat Buchanan in 1992. Maddox was also a charter member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the white supremacist paleoconservative group that once counted Trent Lott, Thurmond and Jesse Helms as members. These guys are the heirs to the conservative white Southern Democrat tradition. I’m not really sure they themselves would consider it a pernicious lie to say as much.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/28/the_new_face_of_democrats_are_the_real_racists/

-

#democrats     #dixiecrats     #george wallace     #republicans     #racists #revisionists     #liars

(Source: phyllis36, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

thenoobyorker:

Image: Leif Parsons NY Times

The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses: first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop; second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all. It is not entirely implausible to think that doctrines like these stand behind a vast swath of Republican proposals, including the recent budget, with its emphasis on providing greater economic benefits to the rich, transferring the burden to the middle-classes and poor, and especially in its proposals for reducing public services. Fuzzier versions of the theses have pervaded Republican rhetoric for the past decade (and even longer).
There are very good reasons to think both theses are false. Especially in the case of the Republican dynasties of our day, the Bushes and the Romneys, success has been facilitated by all kinds of social structures, by educational opportunities and legal restrictions, that were in place prior to and independently of their personal efforts or achievements. For those born into environments in which silver spoons rarely appear — Barack Obama, for instance — the contributions of the social environment are even more apparent. Without enormous support, access to inspiring teachers and skillful doctors, the backing of self-sacrificing relatives and a broader community, and without a fair bit of luck, the vast majority of people, not only in the United States but throughout the world, would never achieve the things of which they are, in principle, capable. In short, Horatio Alger needs lots of help, and a large thrust of contemporary Republican policy is dedicated to making sure he doesn’t get it.

The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’ by Philip Kitcher [NY Times]

thenoobyorker:

Image: Leif Parsons NY Times

The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses: first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop; second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all. It is not entirely implausible to think that doctrines like these stand behind a vast swath of Republican proposals, including the recent budget, with its emphasis on providing greater economic benefits to the rich, transferring the burden to the middle-classes and poor, and especially in its proposals for reducing public services. Fuzzier versions of the theses have pervaded Republican rhetoric for the past decade (and even longer).

There are very good reasons to think both theses are false. Especially in the case of the Republican dynasties of our day, the Bushes and the Romneys, success has been facilitated by all kinds of social structures, by educational opportunities and legal restrictions, that were in place prior to and independently of their personal efforts or achievements. For those born into environments in which silver spoons rarely appear — Barack Obama, for instance — the contributions of the social environment are even more apparent. Without enormous support, access to inspiring teachers and skillful doctors, the backing of self-sacrificing relatives and a broader community, and without a fair bit of luck, the vast majority of people, not only in the United States but throughout the world, would never achieve the things of which they are, in principle, capable. In short, Horatio Alger needs lots of help, and a large thrust of contemporary Republican policy is dedicated to making sure he doesn’t get it.

The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’ by Philip Kitcher [NY Times]

(via genericlatino)

kileyrae:

It  makes sense if you don’t think about it.

kileyrae:

It  makes sense if you don’t think about it.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

It’s only considered “class warfare” when we fight back.

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

It’s only considered “class warfare” when we fight back.

(Source: progressivefriends)

dreams-from-my-father:

liberalsarecool:

This if the Godfather of government mandated health care that would proudly “kill” Obamacare. Love when pro-lifers use death analogies to explain their politics.

This is the face of the out of touch an arrogant banker who gambled your life savings and foreclosed your house. I would like to ask each of the GOP supporters, why do you hate America so much??
Bush led the US to the brink of collapse, the GOP is set to finish the job. 

dreams-from-my-father:

liberalsarecool:

This if the Godfather of government mandated health care that would proudly “kill” Obamacare. Love when pro-lifers use death analogies to explain their politics.

This is the face of the out of touch an arrogant banker who gambled your life savings and foreclosed your house. I would like to ask each of the GOP supporters, why do you hate America so much??

Bush led the US to the brink of collapse, the GOP is set to finish the job.