Jon – doing a quick driveby – will have to read more carefully later. First reaction to the photo – is inability to spell a requirement for being a Tea Party or Rethug protester?

2nd – just so no one mistakes your fine writing for one of the above (joke! really), you might want to double check the first sentence in your next-to-last graf. Pretty sure you mean “conservatives just don’t believe government is capable of …” No?
And prophecies is the noun, prophesies the verb.

Sorry, my pedantic hat is on this morning. Will read for serious context later. Hope you aren’t offended.

If you saw a semi truck heading for someone’s house, you would want to stop it. Wouldn’t you? You might even try to destroy the engine to get it to stop.

Would that make you destructive?

Yes, it is true that, if the people in the house are desiring the truck to smash into them, you would causing them anxiety if you stopped the truck. Perhaps even great anxiety.

Do you agree it is a good thing to understand the viewpoint of those around you? Or, do you think it is better that you make up whatever they are thinking in your own mind?

The truck scenario is how the conservative you denigrate view the situation.

Now, is your intention to educate them or just destroy them?

If you hope to educate them and make them see your viewpoint, it seems very important for you to begin with a clear understanding of their way of looking that things.

Now, they don’t care how you look at things, but don’t you want to be better than them?

Good post. I have had some “blog conversations” with professed conservatives who seemed totally joyous at how horribly Bush handled Katrina (or, at least, that’s what they said). In their opinion, this was just proof positive that government could never “work.” I tried to engage these people in some kind of discussion, but mostly what I got was a lot of “red meat” conservative talking points that didn’t say much other than: nanny nanny boo boo the government is poo poo.

There’s a whole surge right now to disband the US Postal Service bc “privatizing” it will be “better.” When I ask conservatives if they’ve tried mailing their Xmas cards via the private services to see how much it costs, all I get is: crickets… and then a bunch of red meat conservative talking points. The USPO argument basically boils down to vetching that the USPO raised mail rates something like 10 times over the past decade. When I say: but that’s what a private sector company would do & does do to stay solvent, I get: crickets.

The corporate owned media, in the guise of RushGlenn, has done a great job at brainwashing conservatives into agreeing that the gov’t should be prevented from operating well – by hiring such know-nothings as “Heckuva Job Brownie” to run things when they have no skills or qualifications for the job – in order to prove what a failure the gov’t is.

Clearly the corporations are pushing this meme in order that, when things are privatized, the corporations will make loads of money off of it.

Sad. Democratic voters are pretty much asleep at the wheel in terms of this, and as we’ve all seen, the elites are bankrolling the Tea Party in order to get them out on the streets and make it seem like the “majority” of the population feels the same way.

Keep highlighting this bc it’s yet another taxpayer rip-off in the making.

You have a point about trying to understand the “other side” and what/how they think. I agree. But read my prior post. I’ve had numerous face to face and blog conversations with self-professed conservatives. I’ve always been respectful, but it’s usually tedious bc the ones that I’ve engaged with have just said a lot of “talking points.”

When I bring up facts based on statistics or other documented info, I’m told that, bc I’m a dreadful liberal, my sources are beyond being suspect and are de facto lies.

So, our corporate overlords have been very successful in making it difficult to have anything approaching a reasonable discussion about these issues. Still, I do my best and try to engage in meaningful conversations with conservatives whenever I can. I doubt that it’s had much of any impact either for better or worse.

How is any of that relevant? And, on whether it is possible to “educate” the folks Jon is talking about, see onitoges at #3.

They don’t want to be educated.

They don’t bother trying to educate us, their opposition, when they want to do something, or prevent something from being done.
They organize, exert discipline and pressure from all sides, and make sure they win.

We’ve been trying to educate for decades. That effort has failed, because they refuse to be educated.
We need to win, in order to prevent the destruction of the country.
That is your truck aiming to destroy the U.S. And I don’t care how we stop it, I just want to beat them. For once and all.

Nihilism is exactly the correct description for the current Republican creed and the behaviour that follows from it. Nothing matters but power, and the power is less to help the people who have it (i.e. the corporate masters), but simply the power to hurt. These people are badly wounded individuals, but politics isn`t and shouldn`t be used as therapy.

Yet Senate Democrats still refuse to take away the Republican minority’s filibuster power, even as the GOP uses it to cripple the government.

Funny you should ask.

Just today I was reading this over at the Great Orange Place.

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

snip

except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting

Afaics, it’s that “…amend the senate rules” bit that’s the fly in the ointment.

The most amazing thing is that Congressional Democrats are now publicly acknowledging that politically beneficial nihilism is at the heart of the Republican Party’s actions. Yet Senate Democrats still refuse to take away the Republican minority’s filibuster power

When Obama and the Democrats want to make a push, they do. When they don’t, it it either that they don’t care or mostly agree with the Republicans. I think you still have the idea that there is a substantial difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. There isn’t. They are both corporatist to the core. The only difference between them is in the atmospherics. At that level, I simply could care less about what the differences are.

Good point, too. The left continues to try to take the “high road” and to be good communicators and to “educate,” and where has gotten us??

I don’t want to see liberals turn into nasty bullies, either, but there’s gotta be a better way for progressives to have some real power and “say” at the table.

Rightwingers mostly bully their way to power and use coersion and force to get what they want.

Trying to be the “nice guy” really ends being “last.” Again, don’t want to be a nasty bully, but attempting to “understand” conservatives and singing kumbayah ain’t working. We have to find a different way.

Now, they don’t care how you look at things, but don’t you want to be better than them?

The conservative mind in a nutshell; different rules for conservatives and liberals, and only conservative viewpoints and expressions of those viewpoints are legitimate.

The Aristocrat’s chess game. Where we are all the pawns…

The truck scenario is how the conservative you denigrate view the situation.

That may well be true. However, that does not make it rational or reasonable.

That’s been pretty much my experience. My prior posts highlight conversations I’ve had with conservatives. They basically all end up at the same dead end, which is: I try to honestly “get” their point of view, which is usually just talking points that heard from RushGlenn that day.

When I offer facts and documented stats that I actually researched (not just heard from someone on the radio), I’m told that they are lies.

It’s a convenient excuse. If something contravenes the conservative “group think,” then it is, de facto, a lie.

And that’s the end of it.

Where does one go from there??? And don’t tell me that liberals do “the same thing” bc that’s not factual.

Your opening metaphor is an inadequate comparison, IMO – a potentially lethal, yet non-ideological state of affairs (the truck) vs. an ideologically-based negative reading of an objective state existing under myriad influences (the government).

One may seek to develop empathy with differing viewpoints in order to broaden and facilitate success in a given endeavor, but to factor in those opposing views that are based solely on reactionary fantasies and give them equal weight to reality-based thinking is counterproductive, to say the least.

If these people do not ‘educate’ themselves, they will facilitate their own ruin whether they are aware of or care about the consequences, or not – and by doing so, may well bring to harm many others who do not share their viewpoint.

Thus, your out-of-control vehicle metaphor may be better applied to those ‘conservative’ zealots who persist in counter-establishment ideas and activities against their own best interests, goaded by propagandists in search of power and profit. Destroy that engine, and perhaps…

;>)

This obstructionism and the endless time-consuming gymnastics over getting someone confirmed will only continue until the GOP takes over again and no matter how many times Maddow dismisses that as impossible it’s going to happen sooner than any of us wants it to. Then a united, disciplined group of radicals who are hell-bent on destroying this country and killing any programs aimed at helping regular working people will get whatever they want accomplished with no time taken for niceties, just like when Sensenbrenner turned off the microphones or when Dems had to meet in a fucking broom closet.

Republican radicals get their agenda advanced at our expense and the Democrats do absolutely nothing to hinder them except whine and fucking complain about civility and the traditions in the congress. It’s well past time for civility and respecting the traditions of the congress while the minority party in that congress seeks to destroy the institution in order to enslave the rest of us.

Now, is your intention to educate them or just destroy them?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but after years upon decades of trying to “educate,” I now find it a better idea to just “destroy,” and I do this on a routine basis with a little thing I like to call “fact checking.” Further, I do understand very well where these extremists are coming from. although I’m certain the same cannot be said about their understanding of anyone who holds a view that differs from their own.

I trust this clarifies things for you. Now can you please just go away? I’m sure there’s a hole somewhere that will fit you very nicely.

Well, there’s the “nuclear option”– the majority voting to change the parliamentarian interpretation of the Senate rules (which seems fairly mild to be “nuclear”)

there’s using existing precedent, specifically, in 1980, Majority Leader Robert Byrd had a majority of the Senate vote to change a rule interpretation — Byrd was able called up an ambassadorial nomination for a vote without a filibuster (he did the same thing later that year to put Stephen Breyer on the Circuit bench).

Finally, in the immortal words Chief Justice Roberts, “And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?”. Once the cabinet members are confirmed by the Senate (usually done if not on inauguration day, then soon after), all subcabinet or “inferior officer” nominees with a clean FBI background check should just be recess appointed. The President and the confirmed cabinet members have line responsibility for their actions anyway and its ridiculous it takes so long to staff up the government.

If a recess appointee really screws the pooch, the Senate can take up their nomination and essentially fire them by majority vote. If the president wants a subcabinet official to stay longer when the 2 year clock is running down, he can ask the Senate to confirm the nomination… sort of like the retention elections some States require for judges.

“the ideological belief that most government programs inherently can’t work well”

My belief…if anyone is interested.
The last successful federal government project was World War II.

“Democrats are still playing directly into conservative hands, ruining their brand, our economy and their hopes of re-election.”

Do we really want them re-elected?

I see two realistic actions we, or most of us, can take to help break through the mental blocks many conservatives have.

A constant and unwavering flow of cold logic will eventually break through the emotional appeals being thrown around by the right. However, this method will only work with people who are relatively intelligent, and could take a long time.

For those who have refudiated (Refudiate: To place a thing or idea into a state of refudiativeness) intelligence, the faster, easier, and more satisfying method is to expose dastardly behavior as often as possible. This method could arguably be called anger-mongering, but can be used to steer existing right-wing anger towards something more constructive.

a different way – what if, for EVERY legislative & executive branch decision, we all knew exactly how much it would cost us?

++++

Aside – in WA. we have a tea bagger nut job running for Senator (Didier) – he’s a farmer in the eastern part of the state, and he’s dependent upon Columbia River water for his farm. What if we could show these jackasses how much the roads that deliver his crops & delivers the fuel and the electricity that powers some of his machinery … exactly how much his government welfare stuff costs all of us?

frankly, I don’t mind my seattle butt subsidizing farmers, I don’t want to be a farmer.

I promise you it costs each of less to subsidize farmers – even right wing idiot jackasses like didier – than it would cost EACH of us to grow his / her own shirt, chicken, avocado, asparagus, tire, road …

++++

so, IF we knew what the costs were (and I think this is very possible), THEN it is easier to make black and white policy decisions –

then we could have hard ball progressives, instead of diaper pissing goody goodies who lose all the time – and if our hard ball progressives got corrupted, you’d be able to see EXACTLY what they’re stealing and where the stealing is going – something we can’t do now very well, AND, it is the boyz of halliburton, exxon & goldman cleaning our pockets.

rmm.

Well, yea…

To continue with the chessy thing,,,
the need for 2/3 (67 of 100) of the voting senators to say aye to kill the filibuster rule would seem to me like Checkmate in One against anyone who moves on the filibuster rule.

So talented people maybe should go for a better move and stop dreaming (wasting blogbits) about a loser like filibuster reform.

I guess that’s what I may have been getting at.

I just always thought they were fucking meanspirited and hateful.

Agreed. We should dismantle the entire military industrial complex which brought us Vietnam and Iraq. I’m sure you would agree we would save 800 billion a year.

My belief…if anyone is interested.

Sorry, tinman, having read enough of your posts…..nope, not interested.

See my first post, above.

Tried both methods you espouse and will continue to do so, but effort so far (on the micro level of one-to-one conversations) have netted little change.

One other argument I use when conservatives start their nearly inevitable whining about how us dastardly liberals are horrid socialistcommies hell-bent on giving away the “hard earned” money of conservatives to “poor people” (believe me, I’ve heard this so often that I could chant it in my sleep), I immediately say: OK. Fine. NO money ever for poor people, but ONLY IF we get out of those 2 useless and expensive wars right now. WHY do you conservatives ENJOY giving your tax dollars to the billionaires who are raking in pallets (sometimes literally) of cash?????

Most of the time, the conversation again devolves into meaningless drivel. If the conservative happens to be smart, they sometimes try to “browbeat” by going off on the tangent that the USA “has to” go to war with Iraq to “get the oil because you enviro-nazi’s won’t let us drill here in the USA”… said with smug self-satisfaction at their “smartieness.” To which I immediately respond: “Ok, so you do ADMIT that the war in Iraq is ONLY about grabbing the oil????” Conservative is temporarily speechless but then goes on to more chest beating about how imperialism is all caused by us liberals (don’t ask; it doesn’t make any sense). At which point I say: “Ok fine. Us liberals made you do it. So where’s MY Iraq oil??? Where is it??? Why isn’t the price at the pump, like 25 cents????”

And so on from there. I have yet to have anything that equates to a “meaningful” conversation with a conservative bc, one and all, they listen to RushGlenn and enjoy their little “group think,” where they do NOT ever question what’s said or do any kind of homework themselves.

But I will continue to try to “communicate.”

The “constitutional” or “nuclear” option wording applies to any attempt to change Senate Rules – not just a ruling of the Chair that filibuster is no longer permitted on a given topic. As explained by Harvard.edu:

One example of revolves on the argument that, on the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well. A Senator would
move the adoption of a new rule or set of rules. The new rule or rules would be subject to a majority vote, supporters argue, because the mechanics of cloture as set out in Rule XXII, which requires a supermajority to invoke cloture and end debate,would not yet apply and the Senate would be operating under general parliamentary
law. One variation would be a claim that on the opening day of a Congress a simple majority could invoke cloture on the motion to take up a resolution that proposed a rules change, or on the resolution itself. Again, this scenario would rest on the proposition that Rule XXII was not yet in force and did not control action.

Senators also could seek to have the 60-vote threshold declared unconstitutional, either for cloture in general, or only as it applies to Senate consideration of presidential nominations, or perhaps a subset of such nominations, such as of federal judges. This scenario might take place in at least two different ways. The presiding officer might make a ruling from the chair, or a Senator could make a point of order from
the floor that the supermajority requirement for cloture is unconstitutional.

So true! Remember when Eisenhower tried to waste taxpayer money on his so-called “interstate highway system”, what a mess that was. Why doesn’t the federal government start with something even more impossible like building a nuclear powered ship or sending a man to the moon (or letting black people vote, ha ha). Nice try Ike, Americans don’t want a stupid polio vaccine, they want a tax cut!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salk_Ike_55.jpg

/moron off

PLEASE stop writing about Republicans! The Dems have the Presidency and HUGE majorities (in historical terms) in the House and the Senate. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Congress has done (& not done) this term is the Republicans fault, NOTHING!

When will Democrats say enough is enough, we will NOT vote for incumbents who renig on their promises to voters who elected them?

“When will Democrats say enough is enough, we will NOT vote for incumbents who renig on their promises to voters who elected them?”

Right now. I am voting out any incumbent that has pissed me off. If that elects a repug, so be it.

At least it’s wearing its official dog tag.