Main Menu

13 Responses to The end is near

  1. avatar
    US Citizen January 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    I haven’t read their advertisement, but I bet there’s a statement somewhere saying there’s no refunds if he wins.

  2. avatar
    Majority Will January 14, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    For the truly paranoid, the calendar ends on December 21st.

  3. avatar
    Thrifty January 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    These calendars actually made sense when it was the Bush presidency counting down to 1-20-2009, because they had that whole 100% chance of being correct. Seems kinda premature to make such predictions with such certainty now.

  4. avatar
    JPotter January 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    Thrifty:
    These calendars actually made sense when it was the Bush presidency counting down to 1-20-2009, because they had that whole 100% chance of being correct.Seems kinda premature to make such predictions with such certainty now.

    Oh, but Thrifty, they are oh-so confident! 😉 …. meanwhile, USA Today reports Obama is sitting on $240M … and also that the Reds remain defiantly split, with evangelicals endorsing Santorum (*sigh*). Might want to pick up one of these calendars as a humorous keepsake, put it next to your “Dewey defeats Truman!” edition of the Chicago Tribune.

    Political merch is nothing special, but this piece caught my eye: Obamanopoly … where to begin!? Seems like a version of Anti-Monopoly would be more appropriate to the intended message … perhaps just more confirmation that the “Marxist!” and “Socialist!” grenade-lobbers are completely clueless!

  5. avatar
    Thrifty January 15, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    JPotter: Oh, but Thrifty, they are oh-so confident! 😉 …. meanwhile, USA Today reports Obama is sitting on $240M … and also that the Reds remain defiantly split, with evangelicals endorsing Santorum (*sigh*). Might want to pick up one of these calendars as a humorous keepsake, put it next to your “Dewey defeats Truman!” edition of the Chicago Tribune.

    Well, President Obama’s largesse is impressive, and definitely helpful, but we all know you can’t just buy an election. I don’t really agree with your statement that Republicans will remain split, even after the primary season is over. I’m sure plenty of them don’t like Mitt Romney, but they dislike Barack Obama even more. People vote for the lesser of two evils in elections all the time. I still think it’s anyone’s game so far.

    Oh, and I see Anti-Monopoly is a real game. I bought a copy of Anti-Monopoly II at a yard sale probably like 15 years ago but haven’t played it once. It bills itself as “a completely different game from Anti-Monopoly”. I always assumed this was just part of the jokey nature of the game and there was no Anti-Monopoly.

  6. avatar
    JPotter January 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    Thrifty: I don’t really agree with your statement that Republicans will remain split,

    Thrifty, I didn’t mean to imply that the Reds will remain split, just pointing out that there is still factions heavily opposed to the current favorite. When it’s comes election time, those evangelicals are definitely not voting for Obama. My point was that Obama is quietly accumulating strength while the Reds pick each other apart.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    If Romney gets the nomination, I wouldn’t rule out a 3rd party (Tea Party) candidate.

    Thrifty: Well, President Obama’s largesse is impressive, and definitely helpful, but we all know you can’t just buy an election. I don’t really agree with your statement that Republicans will remain split, even after the primary season is over

  8. avatar
    Sef January 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Thrifty: I don’t really agree with your statement that Republicans will remain split

    I doubt very many of them remember the lesson of Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    That’s not what my high school civics teacher said. Indeed he told us that he (as a political operative) had bought elections and just how much a vote went for.

    Thrifty: but we all know you can’t just buy an election.

  10. avatar
    JPotter January 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If Romney gets the nomination, I wouldn’t rule out a 3rd party (Tea Party) candidate.

    I don’t think the 3rd Party threat is necessarily “Tea Party,” which is/was an unfocused catch-all movement, but made the most noise about fiscal conservative viewpoints. The opposition to Romney is based on social issues.

    Praying* for the formation of a theocratic, ‘God’ party .. the next phase in the fundamentalist backlash. However it’s characterized, the dichotomy in the GOP can’t last forever.

    *No sacrilege intended by sarcastic use of the term 😉

  11. avatar
    G January 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    The problem is that the Tea Party never really was a true “grass roots” creation – so the reality of who they are and what they really want rarely seems to match up to their memes and rhetoric, when you dig deeper.

    Their “fiscal conservative focus” seems more like a sham cover story to provide an excuse to oppose Obama on grounds other than being open about their true intentions and also a fake way for them to pretend not to be part of the same ultra-conservative and religious GOP voting wing that they’ve always been.

    Just a snip from one of many articles out there, which has looked into the movement and realized that yes, this really is mainly a group of very “social conservatives” wearing a beard:

    A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues.2 And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1903/tea-party-movement-religion-social-issues-conservative-christian

    JPotter: I don’t think the 3rd Party threat is necessarily “Tea Party,” which is/was an unfocused catch-all movement, but made the most noise about fiscal conservative viewpoints. The opposition to Romney is based on social issues.Praying* for the formation of a theocratic, God’ party .. the next phase in the fundamentalist backlash. However it’s characterized, the dichotomy in the GOP can’t last forever.*No sacrilege intended by sarcastic use of the term

  12. avatar
    JPotter January 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    G:
    The problem is that the Tea Party never really was a true “grass roots” creation – so the reality of who they are and what they really want rarely seems to match up to their memes and rhetoric, when you dig deeper.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1903/tea-party-movement-religion-social-issues-conservative-christian

    Not much argument there, G, it was passed off as being in response to, fiscal problems, but the footsoldiers were clearly conflicted, the classic being the “No gov’t healthcare / Don’t dare cut my Medicare” bunch.

    Also, their determination not to have a central organization, a leader, a platform, was stunning and shortsighted. An attempt at strength through disunity? No surprise it has for now, apparently fizzled(?). Where there is no vision, the people perish. Almost as if whoever encouraged that spectacle wanted to hamstring it, make sure it didn’t rise up to bite its master. A brilliantly cynical ploy. Sure, you can change the system without being part of the system *wink, wink*

    If the Tea Party were to embrace, say, Santorum, it would definitely purge any remaining fiscal conservatives out of their ranks, and they’re probably already in Romney-town anyway. Even the name, Tea Party, implies a fiscal message. It’d be fun to see the music change, the dance continue, and the participants pretend nothing happened. Cognitive dissonance has never slowed them down before.

  13. avatar
    G January 15, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    Yeah, the cognative dissonance in their reasoning was self-evident in not just their self-contratatory statements but also in their actions.

    If, as they claim, this movement originally rose as a reaction to the bailouts, why were they utterly silent for months, when the bailout debacle took place under the end of the Bush adminstration and only appeared on the scene after Obama took over?

    Why were none of their demonstrations ever directed against Wall-Street and the banks for their clear role in the economic disaster that required them to be bailed out in the first place?

    No, they only seemed to focus on Obama and the Democratic Party. It took OWS to come onto the scene to actually put the clear spotlight of shame onto the Tea Party and show a real “grassroots” movement directing its anger and actions in a direction that the Tea Party’s surface rhetoric tried to claim, but only paid lip-service to.

    Of course, OWS suffers from the same lesson you stated – being an angry mob in protest is a start, but you have to turn that energy into an organized purpose and have clear goals and objectives at some point. Otherwise you are just angry pitchfork wielding villagers for the sake of being angry pitchfork wielding villagers…and that accomplishes very little on its own. Merely venting and being loud and sizeable about it only goes so far – you can succeed in bringing attention to an issue; but if you can’t move beyond the anger to come up with ideas for solving the problems and also organize to make those changes happen, then you haven’t changed anything in the long run.

    But then again, the Tea-Party never truly was a “grassroots” movement in any real sense. Sure, the Libertarian-leaning arguments of the “Ron Paul Revolution” were already in place…so those true “grassroots” segments with real “fiscal conservative” concerns were important to bring into the “Tea Party” fold in order to give it an air of legitimacy.

    But they were never really the folks in charge with making the “Tea Party” into an entity. No, it was an intentional manipulation of the same flock of sheep that were always willful and unwitting tools of the GOP elite, spoonfeeding them both the anger and talking points they needed and creating the fiction of the Tea Party mechanism in order to simply give the appearance of it being a separate entity – both to a gullible media and to the gullible sheep themselves. They simply were able to pretend to be acting on their own, even though all the infrastructure necessary to give them a voice and coalesce was a clearly coordinated effort behind the scenes.

    No, this was a coordinated puppet-show, created, funded and pushed by the various “think tanks” and similar organizations under intentional control by the likes of prominent establishment puppet-masters, such as the Koch Brothers, Dick Armey, Eric Odom and Grover Norquist. They used their propaganda outlets and mouth-pieces of Fox News, Glenn Beck and the Drudge Report to pimp, promote and prop the whole thing up.

    Without that, there would have been no mass Tea Party at all; just the same angry cast of ultra-conservative followers as always, griping amongst themselves at a modern world that they cannot accept. Without the moneyed puppet-masters and propaganda machine, the Tea Party would never have had any of its mass rallies and would have remained confined to where it had always been – small deeply conservative groups grousing amongst themselves in churches, lodges and local restaurants.

    So, for the “Tea Party” phenomenon… I even think that the determination and pressure to not have a more centralized organization and platform is also a meme that is intentionally being pushed by the true puppet-masters manipulating these folks and therefore is by design. The puppet-masters want to rile up their angry villagers to do their bidding…but they certainly don’t want them to succeed in getting any real control or power. No, they need to convince their sheep to remain angry but also try to prevent them from becoming a real, viable threat beyond their control to manipulate.

    The election of 2010 in many ways demonstrated that the puppet-masters miscalculated how much control they have over the monsters of their own creation…

    JPotter: Not much argument there, G, it was passed off as being in response to, fiscal problems, but the footsoldiers were clearly conflicted, the classic being the “No gov’t healthcare / Don’t dare cut my Medicare” bunch.

    Also, their determination not to have a central organization, a leader, a platform, was stunning and shortsighted. An attempt at strength through disunity? No surprise it has for now, apparently fizzled(?). Where there is no vision, the people perish. Almost as if whoever encouraged that spectacle wanted to hamstring it, make sure it didn’t rise up to bite its master. A brilliantly cynical ploy. Sure, you can change the system without being part of the system *wink, wink*If the Tea Party were to embrace, say, Santorum, it would definitely purge any remaining fiscal conservatives out of their ranks, and they’re probably already in Romney-town anyway. Even the name, Tea Party, implies a fiscal message. It’d be fun to see the music change, the dance continue, and the participants pretend nothing happened. Cognitive dissonance has never slowed them down before.