Comments | jpmassar: Oh the Tangled Web Republicans Weave

jpmassar

Oh the Tangled Web Republicans Weave

Mar 18, 2010 09:51

Republicans are flaming about a House of Representatives parliamentary process called 'deem and pass', claiming it is unconstitutional (and that the world will end if it is used, but I digress). They say it violates the clause on the Constitution that says that bills because law if and only of they are passed by both Houses of Congress (and signed ( Read more... )

make-this-stuff-up, senate, reconciliation, congress

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

schmengie March 18 2010, 17:06:20 UTC

You may want to talk the Cardinal Chris Matthews, he is off the papal reservation as is Mother Jones and many other usual members of the College of Cardinals

prock March 18 2010, 17:34:43 UTC

I don't even know what this means.

schmengie March 18 2010, 18:03:02 UTC

sigh..i was just being prockpithylike

ok...
Liberalism is a religion, Chris Matthews is a Cardinal in that Church of Liberalism. He is obviously not following JPs view since last night he blasted deem and pass. Mother Jones is another bastion of liberalism and I posted a column from there earlier where they also blast deem and pass

The college of Cardinals is in the Vatican and they advise on all matters of faith

To quote a long gone RGPer, OK?

prock March 18 2010, 18:37:26 UTC

Liberalism is a religion

I got that part of it. But since I know little of religion maybe that's my problem.

Chris Matthews is a Cardinal in that Church of Liberalism.

I don't really get that. IIRC, Cardinals oversee some larger group of clerics. They are like upper level middle managers, or something. I could see Howard Dean being a Cardinal. Mathews is just a blowhard. I'd think he's be more like a pastor or a priest. Drawing religious analogies to politics just confuses me I guess.

WRT Mother Jones, does anybody read that?

kalimac March 18 2010, 19:13:58 UTC

Mother Jones carries Kevin Drum since he left Washington Monthly.

luckylefty March 18 2010, 19:46:53 UTC

No. Not OK ( ... )

schmengie March 18 2010, 20:07:17 UTC

Wow Andy, thats a mouthful. My writings are available for all to see. I also take a lot of time to make my opinions and yet I am constantly accused by some of dogmatism. If people like me believe in what the teaparty may say then we are Tea Baggers and many more obnoxious comments. My first thought is to quote SGT Hulka and tell you to lighten up Francis. I was making a joke and then explaining the joke.

But your last sentence really annoys the shit out of me. I engage in almost daily political discussions here on LJ with people like JP, Prock, Dave Orr, Gunga, Clutch, Jupe etc etc who for the most part disagree with me. Yet I cannot think of a single time in 5 years that any of them have accused me of being uncivil. They think I am wrong, but I am always respectful and for sure I am always civil.

If you cant find a way to have a civil conversation with me, then maybe you need to look inward as opposed to blaming me.

Respectfully submitted

jpmassar March 19 2010, 02:03:01 UTC

I think he was explaining the allegory.

"If you assume Liberalism is like the Catholic religion, then there are Cardinals, blah blah..."

I see what you are saying and while he may or may not believe that Liberalism is akin to religion I think you misunderstood the context.

schmengie March 19 2010, 03:34:43 UTC

JP has it right, unfortunately luckylefty was a bit to wound up to actually understand the author.

luckylefty March 19 2010, 20:01:13 UTC

So ignoring whatever significance you attach to the religious metaphor (and I'll repeat my request to explain what it meant to convey, since you the only meaning I can find to attach to it is an offensive one which you say you don't mean), the content of your comment is "there are liberals who disagree with you". To which the obvious answer is "so what?". I don't think JP ever made any claim that he agrees with Chris Matthews or Mother Jones about everything. I care about the content of an argument, not who makes it. I think that JP's point, that the republicans in the legislature are being inconsistent, seems valid to me, regardless of the opinions of MJ or CM on deem and pass.

schmengie March 19 2010, 20:44:05 UTC

Andy, you are making this too complex. I argue and discuss politics every day here and sometimes I make jokes or comments that have no real deep meaning. JP made a comment about Republicans being disingenuous about process and getting away with it. I was just trying to say that other leading liberal media types were more concerned about the process then JP. My generation and my dads always spoke about Cardinals and Rabbi's in political terms. Chris Mathews because of his bully pulpit is a leader of the left so i referred to him as a cardinal. Its as simple as that, if he was Jewish I may have said Rabbi ( ... )

schmengie March 20 2010, 15:00:52 UTC

fwiw, this is from progressive website fire dog lake just now

The Speaker’s office denied any deal with Bishop Stupak and his monsignors last night, and now this morning, a press conference they were planning for 11am has been put on hold. Lynn Woolsey denied on the record that there was a deal, probably because of what she said later, “all pro-choice female Dems will bolt if Stupak prevails.”

Clearly my comments would have been understood there. I wonder if you could have a civil conversation with FDL?

jpmassar March 20 2010, 16:09:29 UTC

Comment title on DKos:

Don't Cave to Mullah Stupak

luckylefty March 21 2010, 15:54:18 UTC

I note that David Dayen is using this terminology to refer to people whose politics he disapproves of, as did you. Do you use this "people who as religion" metaphor only for people whose political opinions you disagree with, or for people you agree with as well? If the former, that lends support to my feeling that it's intended as a casual insult ( ... )

schmengie March 21 2010, 15:57:14 UTC

i give up...you really need to get over yourself. have a nice day

Back to all threads