Rightwing wackaloon and Minnesota Congresswoman and possible presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has been traveling hither and yon in New Hampshire, which, according to Bachmann, is where the 'shot heard round the world' was fired. For those who don't routinely wallow in the depths of the Republican id, one of Bachmann's signature issues is saving the incandescent light bulb. No, really, I'm not kidding:
She conjured a tea bag from a hidden compartment in her blazer and began waggling it at the crowd.
She waggled it while stumping for her Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, a bill she reintroduced to the House earlier this month that would repeal a government decision to phase out incandescent bulbs.
"I think Thomas Edison did a pretty patriotic thing for this country by inventing the light bulb," she said, "and I think darn well you New Hampshirites, if you want to want to buy Thomas Edison's wonderful invention you should be able to!"
Admittedly, 'Michele Bachmann opens mouth and stupid shit falls out' isn't exactly newsworthy. But this from a Bachmann supporter is, erm, interesting:
On her way out, Dee Hogan of Nashua told me she would gladly vote for Bachmann. "I don't appreciate that your next-door neighbor is going to start yelling at me, telling me to shut my lights off when they have that shut-your-lights-off thingee. I don't want people in my face, telling me what to do."
I really don't understand this. Soundwaves encoding a phrase like energy efficient light bulb contact Hogan's tympanic membrane. Then a neurological process that is kinda like cognition, except that it's really, really fucking stupid, occurs and out pops....a posse of light bulb vigilantes.
This isn't the kind of 'centrist' response one hears in response to a question the respondent is ashamed to answer "I don't know" to--the 'well, we just have to stay on the right track and see how it all plays out' crapola. This is delusional paranoia worthy of the crazy guy on the subway.
When you go down the list of useless distractions that make up the Republican party agenda -- public unions, Sharia law, anchor babies, the mosque at Ground Zero, ACORN, National Public Radio, the war on Christmas, the new Black Panthers, Planned Parenthood, Michelle Obama's war on dessert...you realize that the reason nothing gets done in America is that one of the political parties puts so much [energy] into fantasy problems than real ones.
Governing this country with Republicans is like rooming with a meth addict; you want to address real-life problems, like when the rent is due, and they're saying, "How can you even think of that stuff when there's police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioner unit?"
How do we make progress on something like global warming when the Republican Party is in thrall to wackaloons who fear light bulb vigilantes?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Aside from the utterly bizarre remark regarding Edison's patriotism, what strikes me most about the Tea Party is the sheer audacity of their double standards:
Yeah, you don't get to tell them which kind of light bulb to buy! Of course, they get to tell you whether you carry your fetus to term, whether you can die with dignity and which gender your partner can be. Heck, if your partner is transgender, they get to tell you which gender they are. And all of this with a completely straight face.
Whenever they are against something, there can't be a right to it - "cuz it's nowhere in the Constitution!"
Whenever they are in favor of something, it is a right - "cuz it's nowhere in the Constitution that gubmint can restrict it!" (If the Constitution does allow for restrictions, then the Constitution just doesn't matter at that point. After all, rights derive from God, and God is above the Constitution and always on their side.)
And they'll apply these contradictory standards - literally - two paragraphs away from each other.
If I was cynical, I'd say seize the higher ground and wait and see whether the rising water will respect the Teabaggers' God-given right not to drown.
More optimistically, most of the other Western democracies seem to have something of an unspoken consensus amongst their political classes that the hardest core of clueless morons at the fringes of the political spectrum is just not to be pandered to, no matter how easy the pickings would be. It must be possible to get to such a point in the U.S., as well.
mr. Nonsense on stilts
rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?22149
If incandescent bulbs were good enough for Jesus, they're good enough for me.
I get the feeling that if Obama were in favor of incandescent bulbs, Bachmann would suddenly be waving the fluorescent pigtail as the symbol of american thriftiness and patriotism.
Just so long as it's possible to still buy incandescents for specialist applications, such as heating reptile enclosures. There's really no effective substitute - hot rocks cause massive burns, and many lower-power options are insufficient for large or high-temperature species (some desert monitors need temps of 140F+ at the basking site).
I want to know where I can get one of those "shut-[my neighbors]-lights-off-thingies". That could be hours of fun.
The 2007 decision passed 86-8 in the Senate, 314-100 in the House, and was signed by George W Bush. Of course, this was before the teabaggers invaded the GOP.
Anyway, Edison did *not* invent the light bulb, not by a very long shot.
This is a classic example of american "it hasn't happened until it's happened here" parochialism, the same as how we get the rubbish about the Wright Brothers and so forth.
What an open-minded article! No wonder the majority of Americans find that science is losing its credibility. Oh yes those crazy tea party people with their constitution, and those pesky rights. They are so much worse than the protesters in Wisconsin who vandalize government property, vehicles, and make death threats to those who oppose them. Unfortunately the fascism of the left will be hard to defeat due to the complete and utter brainwashing of simple-minded people like you. Hopefully you have enough common sense to get your information from a variety of sources rather than the cult leaders of your cause.
"Oh yes those crazy tea party people with their constitution, and those pesky rights."
So long as those rights include the right to check the vag of women to see if they've had an abortion.
"Unfortunately the fascism of the left "
Thanks for the laugh. Really funny.
"get your information from a variety of sources rather than the cult leaders of your cause."
You just keep giving, don't you.
Uh those reptilian lights give out a significant amount of very bright light, you know. What happens when you sit in a highly-over-lit room for days and days on end?
Not good for the eyeball, you know.
So instead you can get, say, a radiant heater. More heat, less light. Then you can use a variable light system to make the light appropriate for your pets as opposed to blinding them to keep them warm.
person,
The last two sentences of your post describe the insular,self-absorbed, myopic, whining, arrogant conservative mindset very well.
Conservatives constantly whine about their rights, but I rarely hear them talk about their responsibilities. Personal responsibility extends beyond "the it's all about me, I've got mine" infantilism.
The Tea Party is another symptom of pathological individualism...immature,selfish and shortsighted thinking that has becomes sickness. Expressing our individiality is wonderful,but the outdated concept of the rugged individualist who has no connection to the good of the community is a convenient,self-comforting myth.
The libertarians/conservatives(aka Tea Party)refuse to see the context of the situation and how their lives and actions affect the health of the whole system and act as a spolied child who believes the universe revolves around them.
Grow up.
@person wrote: "Unfortunately the fascism of the left will be hard to defeat due to the complete and utter brainwashing of simple-minded people like you. Hopefully you have enough common sense to get your information from a variety of sources rather than the cult leaders of your cause."
This is absolutely hilarious coming from a right-wing nutjob! What an awesomely clueless comment. Gosh, I don't know where to begin.
1. Fascism is a far-right-wing phenomenon (defined as the merging of the corporations and the state, as our republicans are trying to do right now), not a liberal ideal, no matter what the Doughy Pantload (also known as Jonah Goldberg) may scribble.
2. Conservatives have brains that are wired differently than other people. In right-wing brains, emotions dominate, primarily hate and fear. Normal brains are driven primarily by logic and reason. Alas, it is you wingnuts who are "simple-minded". (Check the IQ scores of red states if you doubt this.)
3. I literally laughed out loud when you mentioned the need for a "variety of sources". Conservatives watch Fox "news" and ONLY Fox "News". Conservatives listen to right-wing hate radio and ONLY right-wing hate radio. Everything else is considered heresy and "liberal lies".
4. Your post is just such a perfect example of a right-winger projecting all of the faults of conservatives onto their ideological enemies. You clearly don't even know you are doing this.
5. To sum up, you are revealed here as a simple-minded "person" who has been brainwashed into supporting fascism because you will only listen to the cult leaders of your cause and you lack common sense.
"Unfortunately the fascism of the left "
Thanks for the laugh. Really funny. posted by Wow
Go ahead and do what liberals do to often forget the facts in the face of reality. The former Soviet Union and Communist China alone account for at least 80 million murdered. Would you not consider this an valid example? You my friend have been brainwashed fully and the prognosis for you is grim as for your liberal friends who are so blindly gullible.
Yes JULES thanks for backing up your argument with facts I was highly convinced. Individualism is what made America the dominant force in the world not endless red tape by rich Washington fat cats who intend on eliminating our constitutional rights. I guess if i believe that rights are important i am somehow archaic in my beliefs? If this is the case so be it you can have your communist society just not on these shores.
Ok Bernard since some conservatives watch Fox news this must be the source of my information? All your argument is is a series of stereotypes that have been indoctrinated into you through your personalized media. Fascism is a far-right phenomenon? Well do I really need to answer this considering that most people have taken a history class once in their lives. Who is Jonah Goldberg? So is there any evidence to support the claim that right-wing regimes are more responsible for mass murder than left-wing regimes? I highly doubt this but will expect another response complete with your imaginary straw man, dialectical garbage, and utter disregard for the truth.
It is all good and true but if progress is to be made at any reasonable speed, having the "other side" understand the environmental issues we face and getting their cooperation in solving them is primordial. Contrary to what has been said, people (consevative or otherwise) are seldom pure-logics machines - if ever. Emotions influence our reasoning all the time. Patronizing and ridiculing those who desagree with us is a sure way of never getting our message across.
@8: I share your views mate: Have these guys never heard of Alberto Santos-Dumont?
person @ 16:
FIFY
person,
Your anti-intellectual screeds do nothing but show how your thinking is simplistic,two-dimensional and blindly ideological.
Life is complex and not reducable to convenient, dogmatic formulas and platitudes. Your type conservatism is a recipe for the destruction of freedom, the perversion of power and suppression of knowledge.
As a political philosophy, fascism is, and always has been, right-wing. Period. And while it (like other forms of extremism) has led its adherents to some rather despicable things, fascism does not equal mass murder. i.e. whether or not Stalin killed more people than Hitler makes him neither more nor less fascist.
How about this, "person"... please define what fascism means to you. I suspect it means whatever you need it to mean at any given moment -- but I'm willing to let you give us your working definition before making the call.
How about this, "person"... please define what fascism means to you. I suspect it means whatever you need it to mean at any given moment -- but I'm willing to let you give us your working definition before making the call.-Danny Boy
Now we get to the good stuff. Yes fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. Let us define this according to wikipedia-
Fascism (play /ËfæÊɪzÉm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[3] They advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation and the creation of an ideal "new man" to form a governing elite through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics.[4] Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[5] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.[6]
Fascism was founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.
Ok so the definition was first applied to both the left and right wing lunatic-fringe. However scholars chose to use the designation to be solely applied to right-wing extremists. However if you carefully read the definition you can see that the idea of a single-party state, new man, and forced indoctrination through education apply much more closely to the current liberal agenda. Besides doesn't the terms Right, right-wing and rightist describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies? If so it is the liberal left who are the true right-wingers of our current society. The left controls the media, senate, presidency, education system, much of corporate America, and until recently the house of reprehensible. Since the traditionalists are into preserving their power status than it would make since to me that my definition of fascism does apply indeed and applies much more accurately to the modern brainwashed left lunatic-fringe. Please don't respond with a series of stereotypes and talking points but rather consider citing evidence to the contrary.
Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true.
The very first lines of the definition you cite ("Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology [seeking] to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems") clearly apply to one of the two major parties in our country, and it ain't the Democrats.
I would be happy to cite evidence to the contrary if your own "evidence" didn't make my point so nicely.
Nice evidence! You disproved my point that the leftist are now the one's preserving their traditionalism. I mean I guess you left that part out as well as countering any argument I have made. All you have is your personal opinions and these seem to me based on political predispositions rather than on any evidence. Proceed and debunk my claim that the left has been more violent in modern history and that the American extreme left are fascist.
person, you need to make an argument, not just argue.
Your trite bile filled ideological screed is not an argument, just a means to argue.
Yes I agree that left wing radicalism is the new fascism. That was my argument and I take it as validated unless someone can refute it. Resorting to verbal attacks without countering my evidence shows that you my friend are the one who is arguing.
Exactly. Because the Democrats are the ones screeching to anyone who will listen that allowing gays to marry will result in the destruction of Western Civilization.
Dude, your only semi-coherent "argument" is that Left is now Right, something flatly disproved by your own definition of "fascism".
Even if I disagreed with your claim (which I do) what would be the point? "Who's more violent" has nothing to do with "Who's a fascist".
*sigh*
Yep you got me. My definition of fascism as given by Wikipedia. I never stated that the more violent you are equals your level of fascism. Why are you talking about this? Unfortunately you still are changing the definition of fascism to suit your political belief system. Yea my semi-coherent argument that those who hold the power structure and try to preserve it are rightists? Umm can't quite follow you here you are leaving reasoning again and heading toward religious gullibility.
And this started with a discussion over light bulbs? Seriously?
I asked for your definition of fascism. You responded with the Wikipedia entry. It's not my fault if you feel saddled with it now.
You do realize you were the one who introduced the topic of mass-murder, right? Specifically, within the context of arguing that Lefties are fascists, because they are responsible for more killings than Righties. Reference posts #15 and #16.
Those who hold the power and try to preserve it are those who are in power. No more and no less. Or are you now suggesting Stalin and Mao were right-wingers?
Oh, right... you are. (Post #15)
You are flinging the term "fascist" about as a pejorative, with no clear understanding of what it means within an historical context.
You want to call the "radical Left" dangerous? Fine. (Although they are nowhere near as dangerous as your run-of-the-mill Tea Partier.)
Call them un-American? Cool. (But who made you the arbiter of American-ness?)
You want to label anyone who disagrees with the GOP a Commie Pinko? I can get behind that. (At least Communism is a left-wing philosophy.)
But the one thing the Left is not -- cannot be by definition -- is "fascist".
I asked for your definition of fascism. You responded with the Wikipedia entry. It's not my fault if you feel saddled with it now.
And the problem is what? I guess you missed the definition. Should I re-post it?
You do realize you were the one who introduced the topic of mass-murder, right? Specifically, within the context of arguing that Lefties are fascists, because they are responsible for more killings than Righties. Reference posts #15 and #16.
Yes
You are flinging the term "fascist" about as a pejorative, with no clear understanding of what it means within an historical context.
No just going by the given Wikipedia definition. Once again those who hold to the current power-structure are rightist. The problem is the modern left applying labels to the right that they feel they are immune to.
You want to call the "radical Left" dangerous? Fine. (Although they are nowhere near as dangerous as your run-of-the-mill Tea Partier.)
Oh yes those violent tea party protesters. Once again the left protesting in Wisconsin with their destruction of government property, vehicles, and death threats should be ignored.
But the one thing the Left is not -- cannot be by definition -- is "fascist".
Your label of left or mine has no bearing on what party is currently truly the conservative or liberal party. Since modern democrats are in control of the establishment for the most part they are now conserving their power structure which makes them the true conservatives. The right are really the present day liberals because they are fighting the orthodoxy of the left.
For the record I am not a Republican or a Demoncrat but believe in a very small central government. Neither Repubicklans or Dems are looking out for the best interest of the people. The best interest of the people is for the government to get out of their business or else we will have fascism from the left and or right. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely.
"And this started with a discussion over light bulbs? Seriously?"
No, it started with a bigot exploding at the mouth.
The problem is, see, "person" isn't in charge any more. There are black people and people to the left of him in power now. And it frightens him.
Why?
Because when "his side" was in power, he handed them the keys to his life and now fears that power he gave up willingly is being used against him, as opposed to people not him (as was his intent).
Just simple panic and the day-after-blues. Waking up, looking at the double-bagger next to him and going "oh shit".
But, as opposed to taking on blame for his actions, he blames instead those who have the powers he gave them.
The problem is, see, "person" isn't in charge any more. There are black people and people to the left of him in power now. And it frightens him.
Why?
Because when "his side" was in power, he handed them the keys to his life and now fears that power he gave up willingly is being used against him, as opposed to people not him (as was his intent).
Yes this is why the democratic party is responsible for the murder of millions of blacks and minorities. This is why planned parenthood has adopted the creed of the NAZI Margaret Sanger to eliminate minority races. Yep you got me on that one.
Yes the democrats looking out for the rights of the minorities. Martin Luther King was a democrat? Umm how about Lincoln? Why is it that Planned Parenthood has adopted the creed of Margaret Sanger who can be quoted with a desire to destroy minorities and preserve the white race? Good points those racist MLK lovers and lovers of equal rights.
Where, exactly, does the definition say this? I've read it several times and can't find anything about the "current power structure".
I would agree with the premise that most politicians drift the center once elected (see Barack Obama) which by definition means someone on the Left moves towards the Right (and vice versa). But for you, the take-home from the Wikipedia definition of "fascist" is a redefinition of "right-wing" as "whoever is currently in power".
Either you're making this up as you go, or you're a heckuva lot smarter than I am.
Again... *sigh*
person, why are you equating liberals with Stalin and Mao? Are you seriously claiming that increased tolerance for gays and ethnic minorities - one political goal of US liberals - is characteristic of totalitarian communists?
The only right wing accusation that makes sense if you don't look at it too closely is that liberals acknowledge the necessity for taxes, which is sort of socialistic, if you contrast it to folks who never admit that taxes can be lowered too much. But to that extent, it also resembles monarchies, oligarchies, and most other governments. Tea Partiers share their distaste for taxes with anarchists - does that make you an anarchist?
If any concept is central to the definition of fascism, it is the state working hand-in-hand with corporations. It's the GOP that is turning the US economy, the military, state prisons, schools, and even voting rights (one dollar, one vote) to corporations.
Look at Governor Walker and his attack on unions - this is not a socialist act - nor a liberal one!
"Fascist" doesn't mean simply "bad" (or should I say "ungood"?). It is a particular sort of government.
Mike, this lightbulb nonsense is not new. Over a year ago I met a fella who confided in m that he was hoarding incandescent light bulbs, and fully intended to get rich selling them on the black market after the light bulb mafia forced all the liberal dupes into buying the new CFLs.
After he "explained" it several times, I still hadn't a clue how this was supposed to work.
[Citation needed]
Margaret Sanger was undoubtedly a proponent of eugenics, and may have been racist, but she was most definitely NOT a Nazi. For one thing, she felt the regulation of birth control (and thus "racial regeneration") should be left to individuals, not the state, a belief clearly at odds with Nazi ideology.
If you think either Lincoln or MLK would embrace (or be embraced by) today's GOP, well... I'm gonna refrain from the ad hominem attack and just say, "You're wrong."
person:
Me:
person:
*facepalm*
If the new light bulbs save energy why is she against them? Too close to shared sacrifice for her and her followers?
@Schmice: No idea. If she'd complained about the environmental hazards of CFLs, I would have at least understood it. Assuming that the information at the EPA website is correct, the amount of mercury released from a broken CFL is considerably less than the amount of mercury that would be released by a coal burning plant to power the equivalent light output incandescent bulbs needed to provide light for the lifetime of a single CFL.
"Yes this is why the democratic party is responsible for the murder of millions of blacks and minorities."
By not stopping Republicans killing blacks, hispaics and other minorities.
Somewhere in the depths of Hell, Stalin and his ilk are pointing and laughing at how the United States, decades after the Berlin Wall came down, continues this wild-eyed shadow boxing with the Communist Menace. The commies couldn't defeat the Western powers head-on, but they triggered this crazy auto-immune response that's slowly killing American's ability to respond to problems rationally.
Person: your mindset is Uncle Joe Stalin's revenge on this once great country.
Margaret Sanger was undoubtedly a proponent of eugenics, and may have been racist, but she was most definitely NOT a Nazi. For one thing, she felt the regulation of birth control (and thus "racial regeneration") should be left to individuals, not the state, a belief clearly at odds with Nazi ideology.
Global warming is a nonexistant problem. The whole global warming scam was made up in order for wealth redistribution and marxism to thrive.
As for real light bulbs, stockpile them now by the thousands. They will be worth a fortune on the balck market when the econazis finally force people againt their will to purchase their mercury laden household threat lightbulbs.
You need to read "The Global Warming Deception" by Grant Jeffrey. Of course I realized this whole econazi crap was a scam long before this book came out. Someone should be prosecuted for this evil fascist shit.
A simple definition of fascism is CONTROL FREAK.
The left are control freaks of the highest order. They want to control what we eat, how much water is flushed in toilets, what kind of light bulbs people must buy, etc. They want total control over every aspect of every life on the planet except their own.
"socialism is for the people, not the socialists". Ever notice how the control freak socialists NEVER practice what they preach? Example - Al Gore. He wants everyone to cut down on their use of fuel and electricity while he uses more than most of some small states. What a freakish hypocrit fascist. All of the left wing radical socialist dictators are like this. They tell everyone else what to do, but never do it themsleves. To hell with them all. Let freedom ring. Destroy marxist fascism.
I never stated that the more violent you are equals your level of fascism.
Well, I hope it was a teabag she was holding up there, and not something else (yeccch!). But she sure needs a tune-up in US History.
"On her way out, Dee Hogan of Nashua told me she would gladly vote for Bachmann. `I don't appreciate that your next-door neighbor is going to start yelling at me, telling me to shut my lights off when they have that shut-your-lights-off thingee. I don't want people in my face, telling me what to do.`"
I think Ms Hogan is one of those `baggers who _seriously_ believes that Obama is going to send some Gubmint storm troopers in black helicopters to land in her back yard, and confiscate all the guns from her house.
"Just so long as it's possible to still buy incandescents for specialist applications, such as heating reptile enclosures."
The short answer is "Yes", they`re not covered under the bill. But you would never know that, if you listen to the likes of the Northern Ice Princess from Minnesota.
"Just so long as it's possible to still buy incandescents for specialist applications, such as heating reptile enclosures."
The short answer is "Yes", they`re not covered under the bill. But you would never know that, if you listen to the likes of the Northern Ice Princess from Minnesota.
"If you think either Lincoln or MLK would embrace (or be embraced by) today's GOP, well... I'm gonna refrain from the ad hominem attack and just say, `You're wrong.`"
All anyone has to do is ask whether today`s GOP would accept Dwight Eisenhower as their nominee. That answers both questions.
"Global warming is a nonexistant problem. The whole global warming scam was made up in order for wealth redistribution and marxism to thrive. "
Average annual temparatures have risen steadily for over 100 years now, but not consistently everywhere. Which is why I think "Global Warming" is a misnomer. Temperature patterns have clearly been disturbed.
Still, there is no denying that the earth`s icecaps have been melting. There is no "wealth redistribution and marxism" in pointing this out. But there is plenty of resistance from big business, and their stooges (could you be one of them?).
They tell everyone else what to do, but never do it themsleves. To hell with them all. Let freedom ring. D