WWTBAM Bored

Less than two hours left until the spotlight shines on the center ring. Brace yourselves, but I'm going into the lion's den. I'm actually going to watch FAUX News tonight.

I ended up with this random card. I think I might get a coverall tonight...



("Republican Debate BS Bingo" cards don't come with a free space in the N column because Republicans don't believe in handouts.)

While I think that it has been a total circus, I hope you treat the dem debates, if they happen, hey hey hey, with the same disdain.

Pastor, you are truly one of Saul Alinsky's proud creations.

Beebs52 wrote:While I think that it has been a total circus, I hope you treat the dem debates, if they happen, hey hey hey, with the same disdain.

There will be six Democratic debates starting October 13. If the nomination wraps up early, some of the later ones might get cancelled.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/ ... -schedule/

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Pastor, you are truly one of Saul Alinsky's proud creations.

Flock, you do know that nobody on the left gives a shit about Saul Alinsky. He is the convenient boogeyman that those on the right feel is somehow influencing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and God knows who else in the Democratic party. In fact, if anyone is using Alinsky's tactics in today's politics, it's your buddies in the Tea Party.

Now that I'm awake, I can recap my game. Yes, I watched every second of the 2-hour primetime debate. And because it wouldn't be a game without some in-house competition, I forced April and my twins to watch and play, too. They wanted to watch this debate even less than I did, but hey, it was an important public service.

Overall, we were throughly disappointed last night. Not because I forced myself and family to watch 2 hours of slander and pander, but because more than half of the buzzwords throughout our cards never came up during the primetime debate. The final scores were 10, 11, 11, and 12. If you were playing along with my card, then you know that I came out the loser with just 10 squares--"Weak leadership", "Repeal Common Core", "Rape", "Islam/Muslim", "Hillary's e-mails", "Big government", "Traditional marriage", "Repeal Obamacare", "Job killer", and "Benghazi".

Nobody in our family scored even one Bingo. Cory was the only one to get four on a line, and that didn't even happen until the final five minutes, when Chris Christie ended his closing comments with the buzzword "Weak leadership" (which was also on my card). Cory's foursome was "Weak leadership", "Vouchers", "Bergdahl", and "El Chapo". He was denied the Bingo because nobody on the panel used the buzzword "Monica Lewinsky".

Some of the other buzzwords on their cards that also came up in the debate: "Ronald Reagan", "Jesus", "Run as an independent", "Build the wall", "Entitlements", "Birth certificate" (though not in the exact sense that the game runner obviously intended), and even "Saul Alinsky".

Other buzzwords that missed the debate: "French", "Nazi", "Marxism", "Solyndra", and "Caitlyn Jenner".

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Pastor, you are truly one of Saul Alinsky's proud creations.

Flock, you do know that nobody on the left gives a shit about Saul Alinsky. He is the convenient boogeyman that those on the right feel is somehow influencing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and God knows who else in the Democratic party. In fact, if anyone is using Alinsky's tactics in today's politics, it's your buddies in the Tea Party.

You sure are influenced by his tactics. No substance here, just ridicule for your perceived enemies.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating...."

It sure cuts off rational debate on issues and marginalizes candidates that the left doesn't like.

What I find interesting is why someone who would never, under any currently viable scenario, vote for one of those candidates, spend their time, their family time, watching it. Do they really care the differences between Donald's answer and Ted's, or Jeb's. At the end of the day, no. But they will make comments and analysis, like their opinion matters.

I will likely vote for one of those candidates, but I had no interest in the media show.

BackInTex wrote:What I find interesting is why someone who would never, under any currently viable scenario, vote for one of those candidates, spend their time, their family time, watching it. Do they really care the differences between Donald's answer and Ted's, or Jeb's. At the end of the day, no. But they will make comments and analysis, like their opinion matters.

I will likely vote for one of those candidates, but I had no interest in the media show.

Because it's socially acceptable among the group of people they associate with to mindlessly ridicule what the group wants to marginalize. I used to be one of those people who participated in that. As an example off the top of my head, in college I mindlessly made fun of Reagan and actually used phrases like "Ronald Ray-Gun, Zap" when referring to him. I was not familiar or interested at that time about the facts of the issues facing our country at that time. I just went along with these "political views" because it seemed funny and cool and it was accepted by the crowd I was in.
This is the same thing as these people who mindlessly refer to 'Faux' News. It has no basis in fact, just emotion. In my opinion, the Good Pastor will never accept anything that comes from Fox News because he buys into the idea that anything they report that conflicts with his group's narrative is a bunch of lies. Rush Limbaugh (here's one for you SSS) calls them Low Information Voters. But then again, anything he says, no matter how much the facts support him, is irrelevant for the same reason.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Pastor, you are truly one of Saul Alinsky's proud creations.

Flock, you do know that nobody on the left gives a shit about Saul Alinsky. He is the convenient boogeyman that those on the right feel is somehow influencing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and God knows who else in the Democratic party. In fact, if anyone is using Alinsky's tactics in today's politics, it's your buddies in the Tea Party.

You sure are influenced by his tactics. No substance here, just ridicule for your perceived enemies.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating...."

It sure cuts off rational debate on issues and marginalizes candidates that the left doesn't like.

Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

Primary media spokesman? Your delusions are more entertaining than the debate, and that's saying something.

tlynn78 wrote:

Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

Primary media spokesman? Your delusions are more entertaining than the debate, and that's saying something.

I must confess I pay El Rushbo little attention, but you seem to be correct about him.

Not through lack of effort on his part, he seems to be losing prime media outlets left and right (no pun intended) in various cities.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/rush_li ... r_partner/

The difference between Limbaugh and the others is that he has a bad sense of humor and folks like Hannity have no sense of humor at all.

silverscreenselect wrote:
Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

1. The Tea Party is not a political party.
2. There is no primary spokesperson.
3. Travis might think you have a crush on him (Limbaugh).

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

1. The Tea Party is not a political party.
2. There is no primary spokesperson.
3. Travis might think you have a crush on him (Limbaugh).

I guess they didn't get your guidebook, Flock:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... t-gingrich

Money quote:

In fact, quite a number of conservative-thought leaders hate Alinsky but love his books. His advice shows how to get results, regardless of whether you're a lefty or righty.

"The best way to describe Alinsky is a 'pragmatic populist,'" Sanford D. Horwitt, author of "Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and Legacy" told me in a telephone interview. "Alinsky had no patience for rigid ideologues."

As a result, the "father of community organizing," as he is widely known, may be more passionately popular on the right these days than he is on the left.

For example, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organization that assists tea-party groups, has distributed Alinsky's books in training sessions.William F. Buckley Jr., the late conservative icon, described Alinsky as "very close to being an organizational genius."

The sincerest form of flattery may come from conservative adaptations of Alinsky's model like David Kahane's "Rules for Radical Conservatives" and the very similarly titled Michael Patrick Leahy's "Rules for Conservative Radicals."

tlynn78 wrote:

Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

Primary media spokesman? Your delusions are more entertaining than the debate, and that's saying something.

I couldn't say it better. And my statement woulda had expletives in it.

BackInTex wrote:What I find interesting is why someone who would never, under any currently viable scenario, vote for one of those candidates, spend their time, their family time, watching it. Do they really care the differences between Donald's answer and Ted's, or Jeb's. At the end of the day, no. But they will make comments and analysis, like their opinion matters.

I will likely vote for one of those candidates, but I had no interest in the media show.

As someone who is unlikely to vote for any of the candidates who debated, I watched much of the debate.

I was hoping to see Trump implode - didn't quite get my wish but close.

As someone who has two sets of relatives that Chris Christie wants to punch in the nose (and even more relatives who contribute both to his 60 percent disapproval rating and his 32 percent approval rating - we are talking three different sets of relatives there), I wanted to see how big a bully he would be. I wasn't aware that US Attorneys-designate hugged 9/11 victims' families in their job capacity. You learn something new every day.

I did want to hear Rubio. I did want to hear Kasich. Because, when it comes down to it, I think that's your 2016 Republican ticket.

As Beebs and I have discussed elsewhere, I think Ben Carson has a tremendously compelling story. Doesn't mean I agree with his views, doesn't mean I would vote for him. But I was interested to see how he held up on the stage with those guys.

I laughed at Christie -- not at the debate, which I didn't watch, but at this antics in the press last week on that subject -- for his ignorance. If the article I read was correct, he stated that he would like to punch the leader of the national teacher's union in the nose.

It seems unlikely that he knows, then, that there are two national teachers' unions, the NEA and the AFT. They are not equal in size, but roughly equal in influence. They are far apart in terms of political issues a lot of the time. And both of the leaders of these two unions are women.

I guess that's Chris Christie feminism for you.

I like a lot of the things Christie says, but it seems clear that his battles with the New Jersey teachers' unions have left him unable to make rational decisions where teachers are concerned.

I'm thinking the Donald has jumped the shark with some teeth in his heels.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Any party whose primary media spokesman is Rush Limbaugh can't accuse its opponents of using ridicule as a weapon.

And as for Alinsky's tactics, the Tea Party has been doing a lot of studying of them as well.

1. The Tea Party is not a political party.
2. There is no primary spokesperson.
3. Travis might think you have a crush on him (Limbaugh).

I guess they didn't get your guidebook, Flock:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... t-gingrich

Money quote:

In fact, quite a number of conservative-thought leaders hate Alinsky but love his books. His advice shows how to get results, regardless of whether you're a lefty or righty.

"The best way to describe Alinsky is a 'pragmatic populist,'" Sanford D. Horwitt, author of "Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and Legacy" told me in a telephone interview. "Alinsky had no patience for rigid ideologues."

As a result, the "father of community organizing," as he is widely known, may be more passionately popular on the right these days than he is on the left.

For example, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organization that assists tea-party groups, has distributed Alinsky's books in training sessions.William F. Buckley Jr., the late conservative icon, described Alinsky as "very close to being an organizational genius."

The sincerest form of flattery may come from conservative adaptations of Alinsky's model like David Kahane's "Rules for Radical Conservatives" and the very similarly titled Michael Patrick Leahy's "Rules for Conservative Radicals."

A 2012 obscure Clarence Page article ripping Newt Gingrich? OK, that must be the definitive answer, SSS. I must admit I am wrong.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: A 2012 obscure Clarence Page article ripping Newt Gingrich? OK, that must be the definitive answer, SSS. I must admit I am wrong.

There's a lot more than one article. I just included one citation.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: A 2012 obscure Clarence Page article ripping Newt Gingrich? OK, that must be the definitive answer, SSS. I must admit I am wrong.

There's a lot more than one article. I just included one citation.

You know what, for every article you can cite, I can cite 2. There is no end to the crap that's on the internet. Just because it's posted on the internet or published in a newspaper doesn't make it fact. The issue here is the kneejerk use of the term "Faux" News. If any of the knee jerks that use it have any credible, concrete evidence that Fox News fabricates events and reporting any more than the so called 'mainstream' media, then make the case. But they don't. They just don't like what Fox News reports, that the mainstream media doesn't. So they just call names and the uninformed keep going along with it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: A 2012 obscure Clarence Page article ripping Newt Gingrich? OK, that must be the definitive answer, SSS. I must admit I am wrong.

There's a lot more than one article. I just included one citation.

You know what, for every article you can cite, I can cite 2. There is no end to the crap that's on the internet. Just because it's posted on the internet or published in a newspaper doesn't make it fact. The issue here is the kneejerk use of the term "Faux" News. If any of the knee jerks that use it have any credible, concrete evidence that Fox News fabricates events and reporting any more than the so called 'mainstream' media, then make the case. But they don't. They just don't like what Fox News reports, that the mainstream media doesn't. So they just call names and the uninformed keep going along with it.

And what does anything that Fox News does or doesn't report have anything to do with the tactics the Tea Party uses which was the thrust of the article I cited?

silverscreenselect wrote:
And what does anything that Fox News does or doesn't report have anything to do with the tactics the Tea Party uses which was the thrust of the article I cited?

I did not reference the Tea Party, you brought it up to change the subject. Another Alinsky tactic.

SSS, try and understand this. There is no Tea Party organization. It is a grass roots movement. That is both the strength and the weakness of the Tea Party movement. You could declare you are the leader of the Tea Party and have as much credibility as anyone else who proclaims themselves as such. You are buying into another of the Alinskyite narratives that have been established against people who are against big government, a bankrupt Federal budget and the shredding of the Constitution.

SSS, Do you want the United States to be ruled by an all powerful Federal Government that makes the rules for the people and regulates every activity and takes over the economy?
Do you think we can continue spending trillions of dollars more than we take in every year forever?
Do you think we should just do away with the Constitution and just make laws or refuse to enforce laws based on the political views of the current chief executive and/or Congress?

If you answered no to those questions, welcome to the Tea Party.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
And what does anything that Fox News does or doesn't report have anything to do with the tactics the Tea Party uses which was the thrust of the article I cited?

I did not reference the Tea Party, you brought it up to change the subject. Another Alinsky tactic.

SSS, try and understand this. There is no Tea Party organization. It is a grass roots movement. That is both the strength and the weakness of the Tea Party movement.

Flock, try and understand this. You started throwing around the party line about Saul Alinsky, the one that your buddies like Hannity have drilled into your head, and I mentioned that his tactics have been adopted by right wingers such as the tea party (and my cite also referenced William F. Buckley who most assuredly was not a tea partier).

Then you get on your high horse about "no tea party organization" Well, if that's the case, then hundreds of people just spontaneously decide to all meet at some rallying spot. There is no national tea party, but there are lots of local tea party groups and that's ironically the exact type of organizational structure that Alinsky was most familiar with and worked with his entire life. Not the Democratic Party or labor unions or the NAACP.

And you seem more than willing to accept the benefits of the tea party when they are successful at backing some candidate you believe in, but then conveniently disown them any time they say something you don't like.

And while you are disdainful of the government, unless they try to stop abortion or gay marriage, you seem quite willing to put your faith in people like the Koch Brothers on the theory that a country that will de facto be governed by those like them with the most economic power will somehow be better for you than one in which you actually have a vote as to its leadership.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
And what does anything that Fox News does or doesn't report have anything to do with the tactics the Tea Party uses which was the thrust of the article I cited?

I did not reference the Tea Party, you brought it up to change the subject. Another Alinsky tactic.

SSS, try and understand this. There is no Tea Party organization. It is a grass roots movement. That is both the strength and the weakness of the Tea Party movement.

Flock, try and understand this. You started throwing around the party line about Saul Alinsky, the one that your buddies like Hannity have drilled into your head, and I mentioned that his tactics have been adopted by right wingers such as the tea party (and my cite also referenced William F. Buckley who most assuredly was not a tea partier).

Then you get on your high horse about "no tea party organization" Well, if that's the case, then hundreds of people just spontaneously decide to all meet at some rallying spot. There is no national tea party, but there are lots of local tea party groups and that's ironically the exact type of organizational structure that Alinsky was most familiar with and worked with his entire life. Not the Democratic Party or labor unions or the NAACP.

And you seem more than willing to accept the benefits of the tea party when they are successful at backing some candidate you believe in, but then conveniently disown them any time they say something you don't like.

And while you are disdainful of the government, unless they try to stop abortion or gay marriage, you seem quite willing to put your faith in people like the Koch Brothers on the theory that a country that will de facto be governed by those like them with the most economic power will somehow be better for you than one in which you actually have a vote as to its leadership.

You are just so full of cliches. Maybe someday you will come out and experience the real world.