freecounterpoint: Yosemite Sam's questionable christian values

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Yosemite Sam's questionable christian values

22 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...: PepeGay dreams his photoshopped dream.; 9/10/2011 12:04 PM
The Darkroom said...: He's your champ, not mine. Besides none of the skill set displayed in this fine image is photoshopped.
This goes back to Minor White (photograph the space behind your subject or something of the sort).; 9/10/2011 12:08 PM
The Darkroom said...: Ahem, roT, unlike Perry, Obama doesn't walk around with something up an orifice. These are seasoned politicians who know better. You'd think.

Anyways, here's Jon on Perry for kicks.; 9/10/2011 12:19 PM
Tecumseh said...: Talk to your copain, Mr Rot. He's a big Perry fan. Don't know about AA, but I have some reservations about Perry.

I came with an open mind to watch the debate, but he left me somewhat underwhelmed. Though, his answer on capital punishment was forceful, and well delivered
(one of the few good moments he had). Just the thing to make Pepe's head explode. But that's not necessarily what gets a conservative elected, pace Mr Rot.; 9/10/2011 12:22 PM
The Darkroom said...: There's a bat-shit crazy right wing nut that you have reservations about ? I ... am ... speechless ...; 9/10/2011 12:33 PM
Mr roT said...: Cool. FCP is a uniter. Now Tecs and Pepe argue at the same level.; 9/10/2011 12:34 PM
The Darkroom said...: Yeah, I liked the "we kill more people than everybody" too. Made me feel like I was watching Rambo. Evil mean people bad, should die.
Good thing too that the great state of TX is immune to judicial mistakes and cannot execute innocents.; 9/10/2011 12:37 PM
Mr roT said...: The point is, and it is interesting, that it's a bit weird to be cheering just about anyone's death.

Right.

Rabid, batshit Taranto tries an apologia but it comes off weak.

Either way, the discomfort is about the wild audience at the Reagan Library, and not about Perry or even the moral value of capital punishment.; 9/10/2011 12:44 PM
Tecumseh said...: What's that level, Herr Rot? Are you saying one cannot have reasoned reservations about your dream boys, be they Mac in 2008 or Perry now?

At any rate, I think the primaries are still wide open, and the race is far from settled. Matter of fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to see la Palin throwing her hat in the ring at the last minute, after having gauged the reaction to both Bachmann and Perry (her natural competitors).

Having expressed reservations about Palin over the years, I must say now that she's a cut intellectually above Perry. He's smoother (and has much better credentials), but she's had some time to think about the issues (almost exclusively domestic ones, though), and seems better at articulating them than in 2008 on a national stage.

Perry still has the look and feel of a regional candidate. I'm sure he's very adept at Texas politics, but I can see him tripping (and tripping badly) in the big leagues, unless he pulls his act together, fast. Though, the youtube moments will stay on...; 9/10/2011 12:45 PM
Mr roT said...: Tecs, you seem to have got the wrong take from that NYT article.

Palin has been on that same jag since the beginning. That was the whole joke about posting it.

She hasn't changed anything of what she's saying. If "moderate" Indian immigrants writing lefty crap for the NYT can all of a sudden listen to her ideas rather than her voice, then ok, maybe she can play ball. She's certainly more intelligent than Bachmann, though I think Perry is better than either.

Still, her 15 minutes are over, it's not true than moderates will give her a fair listen.; 9/10/2011 12:49 PM
The Darkroom said...: Disagreed - the more deaths=mo'betta guvnor metric is precisely Perry's tack, proud of his don't fuck with us record regardless of what the underlying implications are.; 9/10/2011 1:04 PM
Mr roT said...: The level thing is not interesting to talk about. You know when you argue reasonable and you know when you're just bugging people for the fun of it.

About Perry, this is the deal. I caught a lot of heat here for thinking McCain was about the best that the GOP could do. I also thought that Hillary was the way that the Dems should have gone.

The reason to choose McCain among GOPers, as I have argued a thousand times, is that we needed a RINO after the right wing had allowed itself to be discredited during the war and with the housing crash (which never got laid at the door of Barney Frank, for example).

If you're weak, move to the middle.

Now, Obama has discredited the left like no one in the US has ever succeeded in doing. To put up a RINO like Romney now is very much a failure to seize the day.

Also, there will be no motion among the top two, I predict, whether Palin or Christie or any others move in.; 9/10/2011 1:06 PM
Mr roT said...: Disagreed... Then we read different articles and watched different debates. What happened is

"Rick Perry, who received tremendous applause from the in-house debate crowd at the mention by Brian Williams of the 234 people executed on his watch in Texas,..."

Perry didn't say anything to provoke the audience's response, which is the subject of the article. Perry's view is that the governor's job is to uphold the law. This was also W's. There's no unseemly cheering coming from them.; 9/10/2011 1:11 PM
Tecumseh said...: (1) You've got no argument from me re Perry's response to death penalty question. In fact, you can go to my contemporaneous blogging about it (before all the spin came in): that applause before he even started answering the question made me uneasy, too, even though I agree 100% on substance. No need to gloat about executing anyone (including, say, Saddam or Ceausescu). It's just unseemly, and plain stupid.

(2) How quickly Mr Rot is switching his allegiance. For years we heard his paeans to Palin. Once the pretty boy from Texas jumped into the ring, he turned on a dime, and threw her under the bus. Not very seemly, is it?

I, on the other hand, have been a pretty consistent critic of Palin, but never for mean reasons. And I still listen to what she has to say, even when I don't fully agree with her style, which is quite often.

(3) As usual, you're setting up a strawman re Mac in 2008. There basically was no strong conservative in the 2008 race (or in the 2000 race, for that matter, but that's water under the bridge), and everyone understood that, not just Mr Rot. Eg, neither Giuliani, nor McCain, nor Romney, not even Huckabee were what later evolved to be the Tea Party movement. The choice then was almost inconsequential from an ideological point of view, revolving almost exclusively on competence and character issues.

I thought (and still think) Romney was the most competent of the candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. All that stuff about Mac having been a war hero that Mr Rot kept pushing as being extraordinarily important proved to be of no importance whatsoever when the chips came down in the Fall of 2008--exactly as I had predicted. Far more decisive (again as I had predicted, despite all the Rotter pooh-pooh-ing) was the ability to understand and react to an economic/financial crisis.

Evidently, Mac had no such ability, and that's what sunk him -- well, given all the other circumstances, which he still could have overcome in principle, were it not for his totally inept reaction to the Lehman crash. Of course, Obama was more adept at playing the game in the Fall of 2008. But then he did zilch to fix the economy, and in fact, made it much worse.
Still, it's Mac's fault he screwed up so badly then--and Rot's fault he never saw it coming (how could he? it requires thinking).

(4) Now, for the 2012 election: yes, I agree with your premise that one needs to be bolder than in 2008, though that doesn't mean one should be stupider. Romney is being challenged on the right, and if someone can make both a strong ideological case, and a strong electability case, he'll almost surely (and deservedly) defeat Romney in the primaries. But that case has not been made (yet), and, at the Reagan Library debate, Romney still looked more like the even-keeled and statesman-like guy, even though of course ideologically he's more mushy, and he has the RomnetCare albatross hanging around his neck like a ton of bricks.; 9/10/2011 1:43 PM
Mr roT said...: Why is it a seemliness problem with allegiance to change opinion when circumstances change? It's not even allegiance.

Also, I have now been on Coulter's POV that Palin really do the most good by hectoring the guys that can actually win, and not by running herself.

Sure, if you lie, then you can come up with an interesting argument, Tecs.

Of the '08ers, only Palin stepped into that role. Or actually, she gave voice accurately to what the TP types were feeling, vaguely.

Your view of Romney's "competence" is a real mystery to me. Fine, he was able to get Massachusetts bureaucracy and Democrats to go along with a catastrophic error on his part.

By that measure, Hitler was a fantastic military leader. Except for that USSR and USA thingy.

Mac neither had nor lacked any "ability." Americans went crazy for Obama about like Brits started mourning a dim blonde like Diana and that was it. No competence, no ability, no character, no class, no nothing. Just shiny object. How you miss that aspect after seeing slack-jawed, glazed-eyed, bong-hit pinkos singing and chanting worship and allegiance to Obama, I don't know.

There's no one stupider than Romney, Tecs. If he is nominated, Heaven help us, because he'll be an Obama equivalent unless Palin and Perry keep him in line somehow.; 9/10/2011 2:05 PM
Tecumseh said...: The Palin jibe got under your skin, I see. Good.

Mac: excuses, excuses, as usual. If he wanted so bad to be President, why didn't he campaign hard? So what if there were a bunch of kids with bongs singing hymns in a trance, like Pepe on a bad hair day? This is still a right-of-center country, and Obama was (and still is) way to the left - more so than anyone since George McGovern, who carried only 1 state (MA) in 1972. Any GOPer with half-a-brain should be able to win, even with all the press stacked against him. Mac did not have it in him, and I told you so from day one. You'll never concede that point, I know, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Romney is an idiot meme: well, OK, then, but how come he got an MBA from Harvard (I know, I know, snicker), and then made a pile of money buying and selling companies? As a politico, he's not too good, I agree. His only chance is to be there as the default value. If others implode (like Trump or Pawlenty, now, or Giuliani in 2008), he seeks to be the last man standing. A useful role for the GOP, methinks.; 9/10/2011 2:29 PM
Mr roT said...: Right, but for the wrong reason. He's not an idiot like I said, but he's a success guy, not an achievement guy.

He's in it so that he gets the cool house and the title or something. He's got no convictions and no ideals and no ideas other than what he thinks will get him in, wherever he's looking to get in at the moment.

He would be better than Obama because it's hard to imagine hitting the goddamned \inf twice in a row, but he's just another MacCain, politically.

This is why I think Perry/Romney could work; Romney's job would be economy guy, Perry on writing the Lagrangean. Or, if things start looking better for Obama in a while, then Romney/Perry, but Perry's job is to keep Romney on the wagon.

I don't think Palin can recoup the numbers at this point, but if those two go wobbly, then she should call bullshit loud and clear.; 9/10/2011 2:38 PM
Tecumseh said...: ..but he's just another MacCain, politically. I disagree. You've got to look at the first couple of derivatives, too, not just sampling at a point, like you always do. (Too hard for a \lesssim guy?)

Mac started very strong when he got to Congress on Reagan's coattails, fresh back from the Hanoi Hilton. But he's been drifting down ever since he got ensnared in the Keating 5 banking scandal way back (with a few bounces now and then, to be sure -- such as the surge in Iraq -- but too little, too late).

Romney on the other hand started from the left-of-center (at least by national GOP standards), following in his daddy's footsteps. (Incidentally, the elder Romney was born in Chihuahua State, in a Mormon colony there, while Mac was born in the Panama Canal zone --food for thought for the WND crowd!) But Romney has been tacking right for a while -- not immensely so, always cautious and mushy about it (you're right on that), but still, f'>0, although f''<0, probably.

As for Perry, we all know he started as AlGore's poodle, and then he moved right from there. Clearly, f'>0, and maybe even f''>0? But he's gotta inflect at some point--you wanna bet on that?; 9/10/2011 3:05 PM
Mr roT said...: Romney is now to the left of Gore back then.; 9/10/2011 3:35 PM
Tecumseh said...: That's an exaggeration, but it does contain a grain of truth: the whole political spectrum has been trending left for the past two decades, despite periodic heaves back to the right. Who else is a better testimony to that than Al Gore? To a lesser extent, McCain. But I still think Romney has bucked the trend, ever so slightly -- not for any discernible inner conviction (I'll grant you that), but because of (1) how he perceives the politics of it, and (2) the fact that he moved from the Mass scene to the national scene, which is to the right of Mass (duh).; 9/10/2011 4:58 PM
Mr roT said...: Holy crap, nearly spit up my brau, man....; 9/10/2011 5:25 PM
Tecumseh said...: The Taiwan view. Less funny than previous clips, but hey, what do they know.; 9/10/2011 7:25 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)