Dakota War College's pseudonymous B.S. artist "Bill Clay" hilariously misreads the Mitchell Daily Republic's latest editorial on Rep. Kristi Noem. The editorial says that the Nielson Brothers poll that the state GOP has tried to suppress on Noem's approval ratings is "really, not much." "We don't put much credence" in the poll, says MDR's editorial board. They even go so far as to deem the poll premature and not "entirely fair" to the first-year Congresswoman.
Somehow, Clay/Grüber calls MDR "defensive" and reads that editorial as evidence of a "fixation" and "one more way to diminish Noem."
I suggest that it's the anonymous criers on Dakota War College who sound awfully defensive. It's the guys hiding behind fake names who are fixated on diverting our attention away from the real issue behind Noem's performance in Washington. Performance, as in theater, as in strutting and fretting her hour on the Fox News stage, full of sound and fury, but legislating nothing.
DWC's defensiveness over the MDR editorial suggests that they get the damnation by faint praise offered by the editorial board:
She has not yet made a splash in Congress, but neither has she hurt South Dakota in her year in office [editorial board, "Give Noem the Time to Make Her Own Mark in Congress," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2011.09.29].
No achievements, but no harm done: wow! That's a pretty low standard for reëlection for a United States Congresswoman.
Clay/Grüber meekly retorts that being named freshman liaison to the GOP leadership counts as a splash. Sure, Dwight.
Alas, Noem traps Clay/Grüber in the same rhetorical dead-end that her hangers-on have struggled with from day one: she hasn't made any real splash. She hasn't passed any legislation. She hasn't translated her "leadership" into any substantive accomplishments, just a string of impotent votes and incoherent press releases. Clay/Grüber and the other GOP enablers can't defend anything Noem has done, so they have to keep changing the subject by vilifying the press, rehashing their complaints against Stepahnie Herseth Sandlin, and other diversionary tactics.
so they have to keep changing the subject by vilifying the press, rehashing their complaints against Stepahnie Herseth Sandlin, and other diversionary tactics.
....well, this tactic has worked like a charm so far for the party of no.....
Bill,
Note that Cory used "Hacks" in the title. Why not give him the same grief you gave me for using that word?
Steve: because I'm right.
Sibby, I didn't give you grief, I just asked you which definition you are using, and whether or not you included yourself in the group. i.e. I don't necessarily consider the word "Hack" a pejorative. Do you?
"Steve: because I’m right."
I think I also correctly used the word, and it used it in a bipartisan way. So Bill, you are still on the hook.
"Sibby, I didn’t give you grief"
Bill, you said:
"Steve, your distortion of the language makes it difficult to follow you at times. For example, what do you mean when you say “hack?â€"
Sounds like grief to me. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Whether or not it is a pejorative, Cory proved that Hacks from both parties are common.
Yes, I have done it myself. I am getting sick of it. I would rather discuss the core cause of the problem, and then work together to solve it. Trying to convice you all that crony capitalism is the result of a government that has gotten way too big. Once we can all see that, then we can go to work and fix that problem. My experience so far is that neither party wants to fix the problem. Instead it is a contest on who can make the other look like the creator of the problem. I am just pointing out that both are making the problem worse.
"Steve: because I’m right."
Cory, the correct response is "because you are a Democrat". Being right has nothing to do with it.
I agree with the premise that government has become corrupt on both sides, Sibby. I'm not convinced that it is to big. But too corrupt. Yes.
Bill, cause and effect. Perhaps it was the size of the pot that attracted the corrupt.
The premise is that "power corrupts," Sibby. It's the opposite of what you are saying. That's why we must take great pains to maintain a balance of power. It's not the size of government, but rather the lack of controls necessary to keep any given entity too much power.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html
Above correction... ...necessary to keep any given entity from amassing too much power.
The premise is that “power corrupts,â€
And money is power. Rothschild said that if he controls the money, he contols the government.
I'm not so sure money is power, Sibby. At least not the ultimate power.
Try this idea, Sibby: ...there are three aspects to society, government, culture and economics. They are all powerful. If they get out of balance, things can get ugly until they get back into a more harmonious vibe.
I think they're out of balance right now. The overarching idea should be that the three work together in cooperation to serve the needs of humanity. When any one aspect (or two together) conspire to overcome and dominate the others, society suffers.