First, the photo. Why that photo? Some people think he looks awful — old, squinty, puffy — but I think it's an effort to evoke the old "HOPE" poster. Actually, it looks more like "hope" than the original Shepard Fairey image, which looks a little hunched-up and blank by comparison. The new image shows Obama, burdened and beleaguered, having sacrificed his youth for us, peering into the future... and yes, there is still hope.
Second, the article, by Andrew Sullivan. Based on the cover headline — "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" — I don't even want to read it. It just seems like red meat for Obama fans. And what a cliché! Republicans are stupid. That's what they always say. It's not just red meat, it's the same old red meat they always serve. You know, you have to be kind of dumb to be so easily pulled in by the assurance that you're with the smart people and those other people are stupid.
For the article under that headline to be any good, it would need to offer criticisms of Obama that are ostensibly smarter than the what the supposedly dumb critics are putting forth. A mere defense of Obama — you've got to be dumb not to appreciate him — would be so insipid.
UPDATE: I respond to Sullivan's complaining about my failure to read his article.
January 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
320 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 320 of 320Jay, do you realize that no one's debating with you? You have nothing intelligent to say. No one cares. You are just projecting your tiny, little ball of anger.
Keep imagining it keeping you warm at night.
harrogate said...
Jay the sum total of what you have written in this thread is the equivalent of a child plugging his ears and screaming "lalalalalalalala."
Oh look, another silly little projector.
How cute.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Jay, do you realize that no one's debating with you? You have nothing intelligent to say. No one cares. You are just projecting your tiny, little ball of anger
Retard,
You're not capable of "debating"
You just made a complete idiot of yourself and are now reduced to calling names and pretending it all didn't happen.
Carry on.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
How long until you take issue with another word?
Mind you, from the author of:
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Jay beclowns himself by proving that he doesn't know the difference between citing and sourcing
So why were you hair splitting in the first place, you silly little clown?
Jess you write: "So they have that in common with Newsweek as well."
Ha. haha. I wonder if you think this is me championing Newsweek or any other media outlet? Like, do you think that you have "zinged" in some way?
The truth is however dwindling, Newsweek has a gigantic readership compared to this blog. Probably compared to any blog.
I know that when I see a bunch of back-and-forth bickering between a couple of commenters, interspersed with that jaundiced lizard eye, that it's time to pack up and go home.
It's certainly better than looking at yourself honestly in the mirror and admitting that your inability to call out Jay's idiocy for what it is, is what's causing your preferred party to lose its grip on your precious libertarians, now, isn't it?
That's right. Put your toys away. I mean, I'd prefer to not have anything to do with a party that maintains whiny imbeciles like "Jay", as well. But then again, I didn't invite him into the fold.
Yeah, that must suck.
Awwww.... You mad, Jay?
Like, do you think that you have "zinged" in some way?
No, I have no quarrel with you, I was just being snarky about Newsweek. Carry on.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
It's certainly better than looking at yourself honestly in the mirror and admitting that your inability to call out Jay's idiocy for what it is
Watching you project is comical.
I think it is great you're pretending you didn't make an issue of the difference between citing and sourcing.
Really, you're fantastic.
At being stupid.
Jess, I do love snark as a general rule.
Sounds like you're pretty mad, Lil' Jay.
Do you wanna pacifier?
"I know that when I see a bunch of back-and-forth bickering between a couple of commenters, interspersed with that jaundiced lizard eye, that it's time to pack up and go home."
Sometimes the truth hurts and sometimes it's funny. All depends on the perspective.
This one got lol.
harrogate said...
The truth is however dwindling, Newsweek has a gigantic readership compared to this blog. Probably compared to any blog.
Not really, no.
Powerline gets over 900,000 unique visits a month.
Newsweek's circulation is just over a million a year.
Althouse traffic is about 90K unique visits a month.
Bongs and Obama shrines. Shrines to Obama and bongs. Hope!
For giggles, let's look at Sully's piece.
When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month.
The worst month was January 2009 --- where 598,000 jobs were lost.
Being off by by about 25% of the worst number is not starting off well.
The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent.
6.3%, I guess, is approaching 9%. But, overstating that by, roughly, 50% is not a good sign.
The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9.
Its shrinkage was closer to 4% than 9%. And Obama was running on it being the worst economy ever.
Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms.
Lovely, given than only one budget was passed. No budget has been passed in over 2 years now. And I'd love to see these numbers because it took the Democratic takeover of Congress to kill the deficit. And while, yes, the Democratic Congress increased the deficit almost 1000% more than it was when the Republicans were in total power, I'd still love to see whose ass he pulled the numbers out of.
You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth.
That clowns like Sullivan claimed was a period of NO growth under Bush. Remember the "jobless recovery" crap peddled for years?
The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did.
In a figure nobody takes seriously. Unless we intend to, every 10 years, stop providing benefits for 4 years to boost up tax revenues.
And that we underfund doctors which Democrats have shown zero desire to do thus far.
The Medicare Drug Benefit, bad as it is, was a far more honest piece of legislation than Obamacare.
And the CBO said otherwise. The Republicans had them re-run the numbers in 2011 (two more years after the benefits started). It caused some massive problems.
Medicaid costs TRIPLED under CBO scoring after 2 more years of benefits. Nobody expects tax hikes of "cadillac health plans" to pass since they aren't supposed to occur until 2018. So, bye-bye that piece of funding. It also requires MASSIVE cuts in payments thru Medicare that will simply limit access to doctors who will refuse to accept it.
The CBO wrote in 2011 that repeal would REDUCE the deficit.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12070/hr2RyanLtr.pdf
Note: More evidence was provided here than in Sully's entire piece.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Sounds like you're pretty mad, Lil' Jay.
Why would I be mad that you've revealed yourself to be a silly simpleton yet again?
PS, Sullivan's article cited no facts.
None.
Jay,
Sure, Powerline is a hugely visited blog. And this one's heavily trafficked. Hell, Sullivan's "Dish" is heavily trafficked.
And like I said, Newsweek obviously is dwindling readership. Still, I'm not sure that unique visits are a one-to-one analogue for circulation numbers.
My broader point is, a lot of people who read Newsweek will be coming to Sullivan;s argument who have not heard of Andrew Sullivan, Anne Althouse, or John Hindraker.
And like I said, Newsweek obviously is dwindling readership. Still, I'm not sure that unique visits are a one-to-one analogue for circulation numbers.
Feel free to provide different numbers.
My broader point is, a lot of people who read Newsweek will be coming to Sullivan;s argument who have not heard of Andrew Sullivan, Anne Althouse, or John Hindraker.
That's hilarious.
"A lot of people who read Newsweek".
Hilarious.
Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms.
That is beyond comical.
Funny how more than $1.4 trillion has been added in debt since Obama took office huh?
Oh, that's because Sullivan is pretending that the spending by the Obama Administration (and the Democratic Congress) is "Bush spending"!
Isn't that cute.
By this measure, Social Security is solely a Democratic budgetary cost.
Medicare too.
Geez damikesc! If you keep quoting all those facts @7:17 that Jay wants to pretend out of existence, his tiny brain might explode. See, he says that those ARE NOT FACTS! Disputed or otherwise, they DON'T EXIST!
He's an angry little (fascist) Guy!
Still, I'm not sure that unique visits are a one-to-one analogue for circulation numbers.
Tough to say for sure, but the Drudge Report gets 3.5 million a month so there have to be blogs that out pace Newsweek.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Geez damikesc! If you keep quoting all those facts @7:17 that Jay wants to pretend out of existence
I guess: "When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month" is a "fact" to you.
Go on believing it.
Really, you should.
Drudge is just a regular ole' Tina Brown. So powerful. So influential. So wealthy and remunerative. So respectable, in his own fedora wearing, flashing lights-emblazoned-across-the-homepage way.
"Feel free to provide different numbers."
Gee, damikesc, perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "I am not sure." Or are you just being an officious ass on purpose?
Maybe some sort of process that filtered out one-time hits to a website like Powerline. I have visited a lot of websites the name of which I have long forgotten, because once I was pursuing some knowledge of something, following hyperlinks, whatever. I am not sure how "unique visitors" should be weighed in this context.
And if you think that any combination of Sullivan, Althouse, and Hindraker are household names on par with the name "Newsweek," you got serious cultural awarenes problems.
Oh, that's because Sullivan is pretending that the spending by the Obama Administration (and the Democratic Congress) is "Bush spending"!
Using that logic, Bush ran surpluses. HE didn't pass Medicare. Or Medicaid. Or ANY of the current Cabinet positions.
The mortgage bubble caused by legislation passed by others --- also NOT his fault.
Man, Obama was given a great deal by Bush and screwed it all up.
TML,
We don't smoke any more. The ocassional cigar (only with fine cognac) is lit with a match.
Conservatives are much more careful about their health than the typical Dem voter.
Jay, I would guess there are probably some. I would not imagine there are too many however. That may change in the next few years though.
Print media, everyone seems to sure, is passe. And all that.
Gee, damikesc, perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "I am not sure." Or are you just being an officious ass on purpose?
You theorize that the numbers aren't correct. Feel free to provide any counter-factual evidence or admit you have nothing.
Maybe some sort of process that filtered out one-time hits to a website like Powerline. I have visited a lot of websites the name of which I have long forgotten, because once I was pursuing some knowledge of something, following hyperlinks, whatever. I am not sure how "unique visitors" should be weighed in this context.
How would you filter out people who only read Newsweek at a doctor's office when there is literally nothing else to look at? It's not like they have a robust subscription base.
And if you think that any combination of Sullivan, Althouse, and Hindraker are household names on par with the name "Newsweek," you got serious cultural awarenes problems.
Enron is a bigger name than all of them as well. Not exactly a robust company.
The mortgage bubble caused by legislation passed by others --- also NOT his fault.
Because that's what a "Decider" does! He "decides" not to lead the country out of an impending bubble!
But vote for his cronies and allies, anyway. Obviously it's a great model for political leadership.
Drudge is just a regular ole' Tina Brown. So powerful. So influential. So wealthy and remunerative. So respectable, in his own fedora wearing, flashing lights-emblazoned-across-the-homepage way.
Drudge drives the news.
Tina Brown kills anything she touches.
Ratmo!
They're not making d-Con like they used to.
Because that's what a "Decider" does!
He didn't pass CRA. He didn't demand looser regulations on mortgages. So, using the logic of dolts like you, that is not his fault at all.
He "decides" not to lead the country out of an impending bubble!
Our current empty suit in the WH has increased the deficit nearly $5T in just three years. Gas prices are spiking, largely due to his inaction.
And it's hard to lead the country out of a bubble when Democrats swear there isn't one.
But vote for his cronies and allies, anyway. Obviously it's a great model for political leadership.
You voted for Obama to show you're not a racist.
Vote against him to show you're not a moron.
Hmmmm. Jay, Ritmo, Garage.
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. But who wins when all the men arguing are ignorant?
Drudge drives the news.
What is it, like a car?
Tina Brown kills anything she touches.
Well, as long as she has the good sense not to put putzy little flashing cop car lights across her webpage, I'll still prefer reading her.
Hmm, out of curiosity, where is the concern from the "SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE!!!" crowd about Valerie Jarrett campaigning for Obama at a church?
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Because that's what a "Decider" does! He "decides" not to lead the country out of an impending bubble!
Um, Bush tried to reform Fannie & Freddy in 2003.
The party you vote for stood in his way.
Epic fail.
The article didn't strike me as particularly insightful. Just the usual straw man arguments, name-calling and some wishful thinking and ill-advised recommendations to "honestly look at Obama's record." Honestly, looking at Obama's record is not going to get him reelected and its not going to be what the Obama campaign runs on either. Sullivan is right that Obama will be reelected but just for the wrong reasons. Obama is going to run a pure populist campaign and win because the vast majority of Americans enjoy sucking up the plutocrat Republican storyline and feed on anti-business, soak the rich rhetoric. Hate is the lifeblood of the left and its more addictive than smack. If we catch a break, we will enjoy some economic growth despite Obama and that will mellow enough people to prevent anything truly stupid from happening. If not, look up "Weimar Republic."
Even the most popular bloggers pull in an infinitessimal number of readers, really.
Not really. As of 2005 Instapundit got around a million visitors a week and there were left-wing political blogs in the 1 to 3 million range.
Newsweek's circulation is 1.5 million and dropping; newsstand sales are 40,000 a week.
damikesc, I take your point about doctor's offices, but your use of the word "literally" might be over the top. I mean,I don't recall ever being in a doctor's office where there was one magazine only on the table ;-)
But like I said, you're right in the abstract that there may be slippage on both sides. My own experience with the Internet tells me, however, that the "unique visitors" tally might be more unstable.
None of which means I am defending, or regularly read Newsweek, btw. I just think that sometimes online commenters and bloggers get a little over the top with the "nobody reads print media! everyone reads us!" type of bellowing.
Sounds like you're getting mad, Dami. Too bad, because I figured you weren't going to sink to "Jay's" level.
Well, I'd be mad too if my best argument was "hey, it wasn't me! It was the other guys. I was only preznit for eight years. Did you actually expect me to DO SOMETHING!!!???"
And nice to know that Dudvocate has nothing more than the ad homs.
Sounds like winning an election is something you guys are really not cut out for.
George Bush's Preznidential Legacy Theme Song
Revenant, point taken. Appreciated. This is not my area of expertise. It is a subject that fascinates me though. Including the process of measuring audience.
Hmm, out of curiosity, where is the concern from the "SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE!!!" crowd about Valerie Jarrett campaigning for Obama at a church?
No. Why should there be?
You're arguing on behalf of a party that can't support a Mormon (or someone they'd falsely accuse of being a Muslim, for that matter). You seriously don't understand the difference between politicking and enacting sectarian policies and choosing sectarian favorites among your candidates?
Very sad.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Because that's what a "Decider" does! He "decides" not to lead the country out of an impending bubble!
OOPS!
“We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines,”
-Maxine Waters.
Remember, you're like so smart and informed on these issues.
damikesc, I take your point about doctor's offices, but your use of the word "literally" might be over the top. I mean,I don't recall ever being in a doctor's office where there was one magazine only on the table ;-)
I've been to several. Including one today.
Well, I'd be mad too if my best argument was "hey, it wasn't me! It was the other guys. I was only preznit for eight years. Did you actually expect me to DO SOMETHING!!!???"
...which is the central tenet to the whole "Obama increased the deficit less than Bush" mantra that Sully is peddling.
Just to give you a heads up.
Maxine Waters was sooooo powerful! Almost like a preznit! I mean, she was soooooo powerful that she just decided something, and it got done. Like that! Poof!
OTOH, the silence of any Republican ever contested anything Bush asked of him was deafening.
Why don't Republicans realize why they have no credibility? They are choosing a candidate who, like Jay, will say anything (in a rapid-fire response mode) and mean nothing.
The country is tired of them and their schizophrenic, attention-deficit disordered, say anything ways.
Well, I'd be mad too if my best argument was "hey, it wasn't me! It was the other guys. I was only preznit for eight years. Did you actually expect me to DO SOMETHING!!!???"
Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
You're just flinging poo at this point.
No. Why should there be?
Why should it be OK for political activities to be done at a church?
You're actually asking that question?
You're arguing on behalf of a party that can't support a Mormon (or someone they'd falsely accuse of being a Muslim, for that matter).
...yet he's winning primaries. Odd.
The only people obsessed over his faith are the quite tolerant Progressive left. The same ones who got pissy that Cheney had a gay daughter.
You seriously don't understand the difference between politicking and enacting sectarian policies and choosing sectarian favorites among your candidates?
You don't understand that attacking one political party in the Church is a violation of that Church's tax-free status, apparently.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Maxine Waters was sooooo powerful! Almost like a preznit! I mean, she was soooooo powerful that she just decided something, and it got done. Like that! Poof!
Nice Strawman.
Really, when you're a proud supporter of the party that defended Fannie & Freddie to the very end, that is all you have.
Maxine Waters was sooooo powerful! Almost like a preznit!
Well, Bush could've just followed Obama's example and ignore Congress completely.
Why don't Republicans realize why they have no credibility? They are choosing a candidate who, like Jay, will say anything (in a rapid-fire response mode) and mean nothing.
As opposed to Obama, who is either criminally inept or evil. I'll let you choose.
...which is the central tenet to the whole "Obama increased the deficit less than Bush" mantra that Sully is peddling.
No. You miss the point there. He's saying that Obama is better at preserving conservative principles (while keeping the country out of a depression) than Bush was.
It's why you're losing your party.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Why don't Republicans realize why they have no credibility?
Why don't you realize you have no credibility?
PS:
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
You support that party, clown.
He's saying that Obama is better at preserving conservative principles (while keeping the country out of a depression) than Bush was.
Which is idiotic and is not supported by any evidence.
So of course you believe it.
while keeping the country out of a depression)
Obama did not "keep the country out of a depression"
Do you really enjoy making yourself look so uninformed and stupid?
The idea that churches have to cordon off politicians and prevent them from speaking there is novel and ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers gave political speeches at churches.
To hear someone from the party of "The Religious Right" taking issue with this is either strange or suspicious.
Jay,
I don't argue with idiots.
Insult away. You're stupid and you're losing. Big time.
Heh. Heh.
"Obama increased the deficit less than Bush" mantra that Sully is peddling
Sully's just parroting a left-wing talking point; he didn't put any original thought into it.
The amusing thing about that claim is that even if you accept it as true, it would mean that Obama is... the second most financially irresponsible President in American history.
And the #1 guy ain't running in 2012.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Jay,
I don't argue with idiots.
Insult away. You're stupid and you're losing. Big time.
Hysterical.
Of course you're too dumb to see the irony.
I wonder if Jay sees his compulsive defenses as a sign of strength.
How strong does the Republican field of candidates look to you, Jay?
You make this about me for a reason. You are embarrassed at what Obama's made of your party, and what your party has made of itself. It is as politically weak as you are weak-minded.
And that's not up for debate. Although I'm sure you'll feverishly try to debate it!
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Jay,
I don't argue with idiots.
You're not capable of "arguing" as evidenced by your idiotic assertions.
Carry on.
"The country is tired of them and their schizophrenic, attention-deficit disordered, say anything ways."
Ritmo, leave Nancy Pelosi out of this. Are you going to deny the democrat congress' role in any of the governmental failures of say, the past 20 years or so?
Projection is so, 'revealing'.
Being dishonest about the true rogue element, i.e. congress, is the hallmark of the liberal mind.
Sully's just parroting a left-wing talking point; he didn't put any original thought into it.
So what? Call it what you will. He's got more than enough original thought of his own.
The amusing thing about that claim is that even if you accept it as true, it would mean that Obama is... the second most financially irresponsible President in American history.
No, you're mixing metaphors.
And the #1 guy ain't running in 2012.
Stop being desperate and try to stay on point. You're better at it than that ignorant and compulsive clown, and better informed than damikesc - although not by much. But you're still smart enough to offer the party you'd defend a decent thought or two.
Tina.
A woman a plan a canal: Panamowa.
You are embarrassed at what Obama's made of your party,
I think we should as Scott Brown and Governor McDonnell that.
PS, the GOP control's 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers (gained more than 650 seats) is its highest number since 1952.
Ritmo, leave Nancy Pelosi out of this. Are you going to deny the democrat congress' role in any of the governmental failures of say, the past 20 years or so?
Projection is so, 'revealing'.
I'm going to deny that the minority party in Congress for 6 of 8 years had a claim to leadership that der Preznit claimed to be so much in command of.
Being dishonest about the true rogue element, i.e. congress, is the hallmark of the liberal mind.
Blah blah blah rank unoriginal boring partisan rhetoric.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
I wonder if Jay sees his compulsive defenses as a sign of strength.
You clearly see your "facts" (Bush didn't do anything about the subprime mortgages!) as a sign of intelligence.
But of course some of us know the difference between a cite and a source.
You clearly do not.
Blah blah blah rank unoriginal boring partisan rhetoric.
Two minutes after:
So what? Call it what you will. He's got more than enough original thought of his own.
Why, it is almost as if you're an idiot or something.
Don't worry retard, you can't grasp this thing called "coherence"
So, Jay, are you trying to say that Bush was a "leader"?
I keep hearing Republicans talk about "leadership". Obsessively.
And then I hear their defenders chime in with this song. Over and over again. Every day.
It's desperate.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
So, Jay, are you trying to say that Bush was a "leader"?
I'm saying you're an imbecile.
Yes. We've heard your unresponsive, defensive opinion. No one cares.
But it's all you're capable of, so thanks for revealing that.
"Blah blah blah rank unoriginal boring partisan rhetoric."
Translated: 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'
Toto blew your cover long ago Ritmo.
You are embarrassed at what Obama's made of your party, and what your party has made of itself.
Yes!
Since Obama's election the Republicans have:
Taken the "Liberal Lion of the Senate's" seat.
Booted proud liberal Russ Feingold out of the Senate.
Taken control of the US House
Won the NJ, WI, and VA Governor's races.
Gained 650 state legislative seats.
All going to plan ritty!
Idiot.
Don't Tread:
I think Congress (that "rogue element") should use The Bush Defense.
After all, it works so well for him, wouldn't you say? And how could Preznit Bush be so decisive and commanding and dignified and authoritative, if he couldn't blame everything on a spineless congress who went along with everything else he wanted?!
"I keep hearing Republicans talk about "leadership"."
They are not the only ones talking about leadership Ritmo, even the deranged left does. Deny?
When your party is all about party and could give a rip about anything that doesn't directly benefit the party, clearly that's a problem.
Explain to all of us how critical it is for republicans to give up and capitulate to the whims of democrats. Try not to go all Ted Baxter will you?
"And how could Preznit Bush be so decisive and commanding and dignified..."
Ritmo. Really? We've had a different president since January of '09. A democrat congress sworn in in early '07. Trying to inoculate with Bush derangement syndrome is weak sauce. Even beneath YOU...
Almost like there were NO dems that signed off on anything since 2000.
Are you asking us to suspend disbelief???
I don't care about what they do about their party. I care about the fact that they get all their marching orders from clubs that tell them how to think and from a pipsqueak with a name like "Grover", who makes them sign little boy secret pledges to carry out bad ideas regardless of the fact that they don't do shit for the well-being of the country.
But that's their problem. As I said, we're seeing its limits with Candidate Smiley McSayAnything, the fakest of phony snake oil salesmen that ever drove umpteem companies into the ground. And all while raiding their pensions and getting the govt to front the bail-out!
Awesome guy there.
Trying to inoculate...
Trying to pretend that history has no bearing on current events is "weaksauce. Even beneath YOU..."
Keep trying to convince us that you're not anti-science and facts, now. History matters, even to those who would abuse it and do enough cocaine and alcohol to think that only the present moment matters.
"...they get all their marching orders from clubs that tell them how to think and from a pipsqueak with a name like "Grover", who makes them sign little boy secret pledges to carry out bad ideas regardless of the fact that they don't do shit for the well-being of the country. "
Norquist and his aim is no secret.
Is it your view that unbridled spending by politicians is a key to solving problems???
No, but I'm sure that you think that if that loss of revenue is put toward a tax cut for the wealthy then it's a much more awesome form of revenue loss, somehow.
"...the fakest of phony snake oil salesmen that ever drove umpteem companies into the ground. And all while raiding their pensions and getting the govt to front the bail-out!"
Oh, the drama. You unwittingly describe most of DC. Yawn.
And yet somehow with Phoney "I'm running for president, for Pete's sake!" Romney, it's that much more transparent.
He brings phoniness to new levels. New worlds and new universes, even.
But go ahead and run the guy, for Pete's sake.
"...that loss of revenue is put toward a tax cut for the wealthy..."
You are a sucker for class warfare...
We are all wealthy. Disagree?
If so, provide your threshold. While you are at it, explain while people in 'poverty' in this country have TV's, cell phones, cars, etc.
Take all the time you need.
And most of D.C. didn't find running companies into the ground and raiding pensions nearly as profitable as Romney did, much as you're willing to defend that.
"And most of D.C. didn't find running companies into the ground and raiding pensions nearly as profitable as Romney did, much as you're willing to defend that."
There's really no use trying to de-program your flawed thinking, as long as you try to put words in my mouth and make assumptions.
Let me know if/when you are finished, then maybe we can proceed.
Much like dealing with a teenager, aren't you???
If so, provide your threshold. While you are at it, explain while people in 'poverty' in this country have TV's, cell phones, cars, etc.
Um, I think it's called "technology". But that doesn't impress you nearly as much as does the fact that there are people who get rich off it. So what? I make money too. Doesn't mean I'd prefer to use slave labor in a Communist third world country to make more of it or that even more of it should come at the expense of services, infrastructure and debt financing.
But you do and I see that this creates a conundrum for you. Hmmmm.... how to say you're opposed to debt when what you're really for is having a non-government actor powerful and rich enough to bootlick? But most of the 1% aren't willing to run the country into the ground in order to enrich themselves. They know that wealth is relative, even if you don't. Silly bootlicker.
They also know that gutting the middle class means less economic opportunity for those who didn't inherit it.
"But most of the 1% aren't willing to run the country into the ground in order to enrich themselves."
OWS - support?
Oh I see. It's an "us against them" game. With us or with them. Degrade the unwashed poor.
Whatever.
"Oh I see. It's an "us against them" game. With us or with them. Degrade the unwashed poor.
Whatever."
OWS - support?
If you keep deflecting, well, thats quite telling. I'm not putting all kinds of bullshit in your mouth like you do to others, but asking you questions.
Answer or give up your games Ritmo.
They chose the photo because it make him look "worked to death" and... well... he sacrificed for us!
Don't you people understand?????
He did this for YOU!!!!!
You know, you have to be kind of dumb to be so easily pulled in by the assurance that you're with the smart people and those other people are stupid.
It's partly because brilliant sentences like these I read your blog. You have a gift for cutting through the noise and distilling the ridiculousness of an issue succinctly.
"You seriously don't understand the difference between politicking and enacting sectarian policies and choosing sectarian favorites among your candidates?"
It's easy to understand Ritmo.
"Politicking" is what Democrats do.
"Enacting sectarian policies and chosing sectarian favorites" is what Republicans do.
Since both activities look exactly the same in every detail, it's important to look at which party is using religion as a political prop. That's how you tell the difference.
Same as telling when colorful rhetoric is "uncivil" or not.
sonicfrog said...
Don't you people understand?????
He did this for YOU!!!!!
Obama aged for somebody's win but not mine.
What is this? An interrogation? Do you waterboard? Cool!
Thanks but no thanks. Either have an objective conversation that isn't obsessively personal or keep playing your loyalty/identity/with-us-or-against-us games all the way to bottom of the ballot box. I couldn't care less.
You obviously have a vested stake in a losing idea and in a losing set of ideological and rhetorical propositions. I won't stand in your way.
Say what you want about Ritmo, but the man has got some mad typing skillz. Is he getting paid to post here by the word?
"Politicking" is what Democrats do.
"Enacting sectarian policies and chosing sectarian favorites" is what Republicans do.
Since both activities look exactly the same in every detail, it's important to look at which party is using religion as a political prop. That's how you tell the difference.
Same as telling when colorful rhetoric is "uncivil" or not.
So Synova, do you really not perceive a difference between enacting a policy and speaking to your constituents?
As for the last part, I'd like to think the difference is plain and objective, but I'm not sure.
Say what you want about Ritmo, but the man has got some mad typing skillz. Is he getting paid to post here by the word?
Naahhh. Just using my brain and amused by the desperation and amateurishness of the opposition. It's kind of fun, at this point.
"What is this? An interrogation? Do you waterboard? Cool!"
Just some questions that you were either unable or unwilling to answer.
"You obviously have a vested stake in a losing idea and in a losing set of ideological and rhetorical propositions. I won't stand in your way."
Translation: Because I am unable to sufficiently engage in a thoughtful conversation which includes questions I'd rather not answer because they would affirm my intellectual dishonesty, I will pick up my ball and go home.
Just some questions that you were either unable or unwilling to answer.
Er, unwilling. But unable in that I'm unable to see what your point was. Or maybe you didn't have one?
"You obviously have a vested stake in a losing idea and in a losing set of ideological and rhetorical propositions. I won't stand in your way."
Translation: Because I am unable to sufficiently engage in a thoughtful conversation which includes questions I'd rather not answer because they would affirm my intellectual dishonesty, I will pick up my ball and go home.
Dude, "playing" with me won't stop the fortunes of the Republicans continue to sink like a lead balloon. Distracting you is a waste of your time as much as mine. I know you don't realize it. I've already engaged whatever issues seemed substantive and that you were honest about. I'm sorry if you didn't realize that you seemed to run out of them, though.
"It just seems like red meat for Obama fans."
Just like this blog is red meat for Althouse conservative lemmings as Norma Desmond er AA passed the political irony stage a couple years ago.
Over 300 posts lol ~ shocking! :-P ie another self-fulfilling prophecy as Althouse continues to feed her flock ...
F said...
Read a Newsweek article? Outside the dentist's office? What a novel idea!
It's to make you look forward to the root canal.
A reverse Pied Piper thread jack.
Ratmo leads.
a revrse
Cedarford writes: "Yeah, I was serious on Obama's foreign policy. I give him a respectable "B" grade for reversing much of the damage Dubya did to our image abroad and getting us out of the two Neocon nation-building adventures in a measured way."
And quite the incompetent grading it is. As Obama has not "reversed" any fantasy damage. Rather, Obama has himself reduced the credibility of his own administration in foreign policy. He's considered a joke and unreliable in Europe. And Obama has caused real damage to our relationship with India - one of George W. Bush's huge successes.
Further, Obama has not got us "out" of two of Bush's "nation building exercises" at all. We are still involved in Iraq even though Obama failed to competently negotiate an agreement with Iraq in the closing months of our deployment there. Not only not in a "measured way" but in full bozo headlong panic. And we are no closer to leaving Afghanistan than when Obama took office.
Quite the incompetent job there, Cedarford.
What's more harrowing? I give you:
A. The epic battle of meaninglessness that Ritmo has so sadly sucked Jay into.
B. The fact that Mick can't even generate interest in his useless, arcane impeachment theories any more.
C. The reality -- for Newsweek -- that virtually none of the people who produced over 300 comments about a Newsweek article are actually buying or reading Newsweek.
Multiple answers are not allowed.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
Naahhh. Just using my brain and amused by the desperation and amateurishness of the opposition. It's kind of fun, at this point.
Which is of course why you're busy typing false statements, incoherent drivel, and outright lies.
Dude, "playing" with me won't stop the fortunes of the Republicans continue to sink like a lead balloon.
I think you should keep repeating this while more & more House Democrats retire.
Really. You should.
"So Synova, do you really not perceive a difference between enacting a policy and speaking to your constituents?"
What enacted policies related to religion can you point to on the Republican side, Ritmo?
It's all in the head of the left. Left politicians can say the exact same things but you all insist that they are lying or something. A Republican says something, "talks to their constituents", and we're supposed to fear the impending Theocracy.
Take Palin's actual, for real, record on both gays and birth control as an example. There's no *actions* to object to in either case, just her expressed personal opinions.
Obama's expressed opinions on social issues are the same as Republicans, but the letter behind his name is different. Nothing else.
Democrats speak from pulpits, inside actual churches. Republicans know they face a double standard and *don't do that*. The location would be the message if they did. Proof they intended to *enact* a church-state.
The only difference is the letter behind a name and what you *believe* about intentions based solely on the letter behind the name.
So, Ritmo, it is not HARD to tell the difference between one set of politicians, the ones who have to take care not to speak from pulpits, and the ones who are allowed to speak from pulpits.
Not that I think Republicans should be giving political speeches in Houses of Worship. They are right not to. The hypocrisy and double standard ought to end.
But won't.
It says a lot about our society when a man like Sullivan still has a job.
It doesn't say good things, mind you, but it does say a lot.
do you really not perceive a difference between enacting a policy and speaking to your constituents?"
Yes, because when Obama used the occasion in speaking to a room full of pastors invoking to push his health care bill, he wasn't trying to enact a policy or anything.
Idiot.
You're proving the cliché that Republicans are stupid by stating that you didn't read it before criticizing it.
You're proving the cliché that Republicans are stupid by stating that you didn't read it before criticizing it.
You're proving your stupidity by not reading more carefully. Ann is criticizing the cover as being alienating from the start. Just imagine if instead of Obama it were Bush and the magazine was "The Daily Standard" - would you read the article?
"Worst month was January 2009 @ 598,000 jobs lost." Interesting "FACTS"
Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000
Interesting chart:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-02-05/wall_street/30088805_1
Obama's Failures:
1) Guantanamo still open
2) Indefinite detentions continue
3) Torture papered over with the war criminals behind it still running free
4) America still Officially In Denial over 9.11 (http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com)
5) Wars continue
6) Tax cuts for the rich continue
7) No nuclear arms reductions
8) Pimping for nuclear power
Your assumption is a false one.
I encourage you to read the Newsweek article -- unless you're closed to credible info.
And BTW: the article is written Not by an Obama advocate.
Myanmar Housing , The Biggest Real Estate Web Portal in Myanmar !
Myanmar Housing
Post a Comment