#StandUpForUS from Art Not War on Vimeo.
Via Reason, "Just What the Country Needed: Yet Another Video of Smug Celebrities Whining About Trump/A boot stomping on a human face and muttering 'Dear members of Congress,' forever."
Smug liberalism is a problem: unfortunately, smug liberals will be the last identity group to admit it. In the meantime, Trump will be happy to continue profiting from the resentment said smugness inspires.
पोस्ट्स
२१४ टिप्पण्या:
214 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Great, this will be as successful as trying to draft unfaithful electors. Gad, Trump is right. I am already getting tired of winning. What else will he be right about?
If I wanted to be ruled by California elites, I would move to California.
Abortion Not Life.
Pro-Choicers on parade. Perhaps they don't understand.
... and progressive wars, too. Oh, my.
I certainly agree that smugness and self-righteous posing is weak and will be ineffectual. Quit the nonsense and get to the business of crushing those benighted morons, trumplidites, into the dust.
That opening statement of argument from authority, talking down to the insignificant and ignorant, is the exact opposite of a winning persuasion argument.
But that is the tactic of power hierarchy that expects submissive obedience, or else. It was the Roman Empire/ British Empire's use arrogance of an aristocratic class. And under King Obama they have come very close to getting their NorthAmerican Colonia back. But thank God, another Andrew Jackson showed up and is making us the winner again.
Opportunism abounds.
Hey! They switched from a white background to a dark one! Maybe they were checking their privilege!
SMH. (And that's the first time I've every typed that.)
re: "The Majority" - Trump should take a page from Obama's playbook after the 2014 election shellacking and claim that non-voters are with him.
Dear Smug Liberals,
Keep up with the videos! I'm sure they will sway President Trump and Congress to do the things you want to them to do. As you well know, elected representatives are quick to respond to the pleas of the people who didn't support them, nay, actively opposed them.
At the time Lenin coined the term "bolshevik" (member of the majority), it consisted of him and his wife.
That right there is funny.
The Vox article was repetitive. It also contained a factual error: Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana and building on the groundwork of his predecessor, did approve the Medicaid expansion for Indiana. Indiana was able to get the federal government to allow it to put in some changes before agreeing Indiana agreed to the expansion.
Ideologues of any belief system are almost always smug.
I was able to recognize only a small minority of folks on the video (Sally Field, Rosie Perez). Sally Field was great in Smokey and the Bandit, that was like 40 years ago.
Its good to see so many progressives following Kurt Schlichter's new years advice.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/29/some-new-years-resolutions-for-our-progressive-pals-n2264089
Sydney got it correct right off.
Whine whine whine.
Has anybody parodied that idiotic style of edits of celebrities finishing each others sentences and repeating phrases and words. It seems to me to be really make-fun-able, I can't imagine somebody hasn't satired it by now.
At any rate, it certainly seems odd that more celebrities haven't grasped that this sort of thing actually engenders the exact opposite effect of what (I assume) was intended. Some people don't seem capable of learning.
Actors ! All card-carrying members of the International Brotherhood of Charlatans, Thimbleriggers, and Mountebanks, AFL-CIO.
This video had to be designed in a laboratory by right-wing trolls for the purpose of lampooning sanctimonious contemporary progressivism. It cannot possibly be real.
"Signed, the majority."
Majority of "celebrities"?
Just a bunch of babies.
Hate crimes are on the rise after the election? I'm thinking fake news.
These people are delusional. They believe their own bullshit about racism, sexism and homophobia being on the rise since Trump's election.
There is no point in reasoning with them.
There is no point in even paying attention to them.
If people are not being thrown into ovens by 2020 and if people are feeling better economically than they are now, Trump cruises to another victory - with the popular vote.
And what are they going to do when their demands aren't met, hold their breath and stomp their feet? Who the hell are they to make demands on others, anyway? This endless virtue-signaling is beyond boring.
Who'dya rather have overpaid celebs or BIKERS!!!
Rolling Asunder: Bitterly Divided Pro-Trump Bikers Split 3 Ways Over Inauguration Plans
I wonder how the recruiting phase for this clip went.
We the People (and our [unplanned] Posterity) understand.
"And yet since he's won, Hate Crimes are rising."
With non-Trump voters in the majority, Trump voters are now finding how it feels to be treated as a despised minority.
Why just this morning Drudge reported a fellow in Florida pissing on the leg of a law officer while shouting "Fuck Trump!"
Move to someplace where Hillary can be President and all your dreams can come true. Germany might be available soon. Venezuela is ready now.
If you get raped by "refugees" in Germany, that's the price you have to pay for diversity. Same for being killed.
@bwebster" SMH
Had to look that one up. My first guess was "suck my hemorroides.
Nonapod said...
Has anybody parodied that idiotic style of edits of celebrities finishing each others sentences and repeating phrases and words. It seems to me to be really make-fun-able, I can't imagine somebody hasn't satired it by now.
Yup. It's been done.
Thanks, famous actors.
Before the election, they brought out the "A-list" celebrities to encourage people to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump. They failed.
After the election, they brought out the "B" and "C-list" celebrities to encourage the Electoral College not to vote for Donald Trump. They failed.
Now they brought out the "C" and "D-listers" to try to pressure Congress.
What was the old saying about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?
Hagar said...At the time Lenin coined the term "bolshevik" (member of the majority), it consisted of him and his wife.
I don't think that's true, Hagar.
Wiki: Mensheviks
At the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP in August 1903, Lenin and Martov disagreed, first about which persons should be in the editorial committee of the party newspaper Iskra, and then about the definition of a "party member" in the future party statute.[10] Lenin's formulation required the party member to be a member of one of the party's organizations, whereas Martov's only stated that he should work under the guidance of a party organization. Although the difference in definitions was small, with Lenin's being slightly more exclusive, it was indicative of what became an essential difference between the philosophies of the two emerging factions: Lenin argued for a small party of professional revolutionaries with a large fringe of non-party sympathizers and supporters, whereas Martov believed it was better to have a large party of activists with broad representation.
Martov's proposal was accepted by the majority of the delegates (28 votes to 23).[10] However, after seven delegates stormed out of the Congress – five of them representatives of the Jewish Bund who left in protest about their own federalist proposal being defeated[10] – Lenin's supporters won a slight majority, which was reflected in the composition of the Central Committee and the other central Party organs elected at the Congress. That was also the reason behind the naming of the factions. (It was later hypothesized that Lenin had purposely offended some of the delegates in order to have them leave the meeting in protest, giving him a majority. However, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were united in voting against the Bundist proposal, which lost (41 to 5).[11]) Despite the outcome of the congress, the following years saw the Mensheviks gathering considerable support among regular Social Democrats and effectively building up a parallel party organization.
"We won't remain silent."
What do we have to do to get these pompous gasbags to remain silent - short of voting for Democrats?
Trump hasn't been inaugurated yet. This blather is like consumer reviews of a movie based on previews before the opening showing, only dumber.
Thanks, rehajm.
I was able to recognize only a small minority of folks on the video (Sally Field, Rosie Perez). Sally Field was great in Smokey and the Bandit, that was like 40 years ago.
40 years ago, I was still in diapers. Today the roles are reversed.
Reason has it exactly right.
There are so many of these things now; the celebrity/scold video. They all look so manufactured. The celebrities wearing their best blue jeans and vaguely casual/hip cashmere; dramatic shadowy lighting; black background so that, you know, it's just you and your favorite celebrity, all by yourselves, just sittin' around talkin'. Plain talk. Nothing scripted of course. Because these celebrities are actually so intelligent and everything.
My question is where are the parodies? It would be so easy; anytime there is such a patterned format as the celebrity/scold video, the avenues for parody almost write themselves.
I think the answer to my own question is that the perfect place for such a parody is Saturday Night Live. But then the problem is that SNL alumni, and the stars of NBC Entertainment movies and tv shows are the sorts of people who are making (in seriousness) these celebrity/scold videos in the first place.
I remember when the left worried about a tyranny by the majority.
"We won't remain silent."
-- How's that been working for them?
Good thing I already finished Westworld of that guy would have soured me on it. Why can't actors STFU? We pay them to repeat their lines, not spew political crap.
Holy smokes, that Voxarticle is utterly magnificent.
I'd like to see Sally Field in a sequel to Norma Rae. In this movie, Sally discovers a lump in her breast. She ignores it because her Obamacare plan has a ten thousand dollar deductible, and she's behind in her car payments. The lump turns malignant,and Sally dies a harrowing death.......What are the chances Hollywood would make a movie that dramatizes the mistakes and deficits of Obamacare?
Whine whine whine, drinking whine.
Hat tip to MadisonMan
Examples of people who may have changed voting behavior if the election was determined by popular vote instead of the electoral college:
Republican (Democrat) voters in heavily Democrat (Republican) states who chose to stay home.
Republican (Democrat) voters in heavily Republican (Democrat) states who chose to stay home.
Famous actors fail to even consider the possibility it might be different. When all you have left are hypotheticals and counterfactuals...
Antisemitism?
Have you heard any demands from these asshats? Me neither.
That parody video was good but too long, I quit halfway through. I saw a similar one before the election by (I think) the writers at Reason, not coincidentally. It is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, but that's OK with me because those stupid fish seriously have it coming.
I read the Vox article. It goes on forever, but it's surprisingly good. The writer criticizes the smugness of liberals but doesn't truly question any of their underlying assumptions. I'm just as glad that the hipocracy despise me. If they started showing white working class men the same empathy and compassion they extend to lumpenprole blacks, we'd be truly fucked.
Best. Subhed. Ever.
BTW, has anyone prepared a list of the celebrities who appeared in the video? It would be useful to those of us who don't read "People" as well as serving as a call list for the producers of Dancing With The Stars.
William said...
...
...What are the chances Hollywood would make a movie that dramatizes the mistakes and deficits of Obamacare?
The fall before there is a vote on single-payer national health care. In other words, exactly whenever the Democrat Left thinks it is useful and needed.
If time is short, they will do it as a made-for-tv movie.
If time is extremely short, it will be a PBS documentary, promoted on NPR.
I recognized two of those morons. Sally Field and Keegan-Michael Key. But I actually said to myself "Is that Sally Field?" because I thought she was dead....but I might have been thinking of her character in "Forrest Gump" dying and the fact that she hasn't been seen since. Key, I had to google to get his full name.
C List.
Curious George said...
Antisemitism?
Homophobic also.
Since the left makes the same complaints no matter who the target is the target's actual offenses are irrelevant. This of course delegitimizes all their accusations. Normally you can't be sure whether they're too stupid to realize this or if they think their voters are. But it's so persistent even after it's been debunked it must be them.
"Rob said...
Best. Subhed. Ever.
BTW, has anyone prepared a list of the celebrities who appeared in the video? It would be useful to those of us who don't read "People" as well as serving as a call list for the producers of Dancing With The Stars."
FULL CAST
1. Ai-jen Poo
2. Bishop Gene Robinson
3. Bruce Ratner
4. Chris Burbank
5. Imam Khalid Latif
6. Jeffrey Wright
7. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis
8. Janet Mock
9. Keegan-Michael Key
10. Lea DeLaria
11. Naeem Khan
12. Rabbi David Ingber
13. Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum
14. Rosie Perez
15. Sally Field
16. Steve Buscemi
17. Tavi Gevinson
18. Toure
19. Yasmeen Hassan
20. Zoe Kazan
Steve Buscemi is in it? Wow, he is.
Curious George; I've got you beat, by (I think) three "celebrities."
I recognize the guy who we are supposed to call "Toure'", right? I don't know what sort of name (first-, last-, nick-) that is, but I think that is who it is.
I also recognized the gay Episcopal bishop from New England. His name is (confusingly, in liberal politics) Gene Robinson and he's the guy who retired not too long after the big stink about him being named an openly-gay bishop. Oh, and then he got divorced from his life partner. Who became his life partner after he divorced his first wife (as in woman-wife) and the mother of his two children.
Original Mike said...
Hate crimes are on the rise after the election?
Did't you see the video?
Hate Crime Caught on Video
Thank you, Curious George. The only celebs I know are Key, Perez, Field and Buscemi. I just did a little Wikipediaing and learned that Zoe Kazan is the granddaughter of Gadge. That's pretty cool, though my hope in looking her up was that she was related to Lainie Kazan.
At the time Lenin coined the term "bolshevik" (member of the majority), it consisted of him and his wife.
And his cat. Yes, Lenin was a cat person. Like Dr. Evil.
To me, "smug" isn't the over-riding tone here. "Smug" implies that it's possible that one could take people like this seriously enough to be irritated by them.
"Airhead" pretty much covers it.
I admit it's pretty funny watching airheads recite tripe in those portentous "tragedy of irregularity" laxative-ad voices, but am I supposed to know who these people are?
The majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority, the majority..... how many times did they repeat that at the end? Were any of the attacks real after the election, I know so many were hoax'd, either way sad.
That was emotionally exhausting to watch for some reason.
Meanwhile I'm reading Donald Trump's Facebook posts and they are somehow making sense to me.
Hmmmmm… well I am astounded by this newfound respect for the majority. The majority opinion was ignored when Liberals wanted to upend 1/6 of the economy and redo Healthcare, a course opposed by 60% of the public.
Immigration Reform was also opposed by 60% of the public. As was the insane Iran Deal. Pursuing policies opposed by 60-40 majorities explains why Democrats absolutely hemorrhaged elected seats on all levels in the Obama era.
So let me rephrase for them, to make their point crystal clear: "When we have the majority we will do things our way, pursuing unpopular policies, and ram them down your throat. We will use Reconciliation, the Nuclear Option, recess appointments, IRS Intimidation and any other dubious method to achieve our goals, because we know best what's good for you. And when you have the majority we will whine and use illegal Executive Actions and say the nuclear option is undemocratic. Because we know best what's good for you. Which is why we're entitled to demand you respect an election result when you lose while we riot and trash businesses and break car windows when we lose "
No wonder these morons have lost all influence and all these elections. Just keep it up folks!!
i'm waiting for the 'celebrities' at the inaugural with a video of 'i voted for that'...and then listing all of the things that are pending like:
1. taking insurance away from 20 million poor people.. lines of people in emergency rooms and lines at free health clinics sponsered by hollywood 'elitists'
2. giving away public lands to corporatations
3. getting rid of the inheritance tax
4. defunding women's health
5. forcefully breaking apart familys of undocumented aliens
6. having the president conduct a trade war with china and see millions of american jobs disappear
7. etc...
They say that perception is a mirror... and the smugness overflows here...
Watch your wallets... 'they're here'
Trump is gonna have a field day fucking with those liberals. His Tweets will drive them up a wall and at the same time make the rest of the country disgusted with them.
Like pajama boy, safe spaces, PC talk, etc. they will just turn away (and turn their wallets away) from them.
Have fun liberals... cause we will messing with you.
Breaking News: Trump tweated that his first act as president will be to pardon Dylann Roof, and Charlie Manson.
Okay, I admit that wasn't (very) funny. However, I find nothing wrong with people, famous or not, warning the Rethuglicans not to discriminate against minorities. Trump is going to appoint Don King to become Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Reagan appoint infamous Clarence Thomas to that post, which led to appointment to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush. That was George's revenge act against the common man, who he had no empathy or use for.
It is a fact that Trump and his cronies will give billions in tax breaks to the wealthy. A policy of reverse Robin Hood that we haven't seen since Dubya.
That theft is the real goal of his administration. Mark my words.
I'll bet they could qualify for refugee status, somewhere. I wish they would. Good fucking riddance!
And folks, if you don't like 'em, just refuse to by any products they shill for. And let the nasty corporations (same ones they hate) know you are not buying cause these people are on their ads. Just to remind you of who they are...
FULL CAST
1. Ai-jen Poo
2. Bishop Gene Robinson
3. Bruce Ratner
4. Chris Burbank
5. Imam Khalid Latif
6. Jeffrey Wright
7. Reverend Dr. Jacqui Lewis
8. Janet Mock
9. Keegan-Michael Key
10. Lea DeLaria
11. Naeem Khan
12. Rabbi David Ingber
13. Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum
14. Rosie Perez
15. Sally Field
16. Steve Buscemi
17. Tavi Gevinson
18. Toure
19. Yasmeen Hassan
20. Zoe Kazan
Hey Trumpit ...
You do know what 'Robin Hood' actually did, didn't you?
HE STOLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND GAVE TO THE POOR.
Not the rich. The rich PAID THE TAXES to the government.. remember?
Think about it.
Hahaha!! So funny to watch losers lose!! They sound pathetic. And they claimed the Tea Party was bad??
Curious George said...
Steve Buscemi is in it? Wow, he is.
"Like I say, he was funny lookin'. More n' most people even."
GWash brings an equal level of understanding to the healthcare debate as he/she/xe did to the discussion of what the 3/5ths clause actually meant.
With a likely similar outcome.
Curious George @12:56 PM:
Ah. I know who Big Gay Gene (3) is, though didn't know what he looked like. I guess I should've recognized 15 (Sally Field).
I have no idea who any of the others are. The covers of check-out line tabloids used to keep me better informed about such things.
However, I find nothing wrong with people, famous or not, warning the Rethuglicans not to discriminate against minorities
But what if the majority
THE MAJORITY
The Majority
the. majority.
demands it?
It would be totally cool with these celebrities, right?
Paul: "Think about it."
No Trumpit!
Do not "think about it". Now is not the time for the left to start thinking. Press on and whatever you do don't start altering your plan of attack now! Full speed ahead and good luck!
2016 popular vote
Clinton, 48%
Trump, 46%
Not a majority, a plurality.
lets see paul... 3 million more people with money voted for clinton than his orangemess, so right there if people only made purchases for companies related to their spokesperson the libruls ;) are still ahead... plus i think the general demographic of democrats is a higher income than republicans... so as long as these 'personalities' are not selling guns or ammo or tin foil hats i think they will be alright.. but i support your right to boycot..
The most pathetic part of it is that they genuinely seem to think people give a shit about what they think.
When Lenin came up with the term he was still in Switzerland and writing articles for various socialist newspapers. Lenin understood the ways of propaganda.
plus i think the general demographic of democrats is a higher income than republicans
That's right.
Party of the rich and out of touch.
take drago's advice... don't think...
Normally, demands are backed up by an "or else".
What is their "or else" threat? A Flying Nun movie?
Normally, demands are backed up by an "or else".
Maybe somebody should let Steve Buscemi know that Nucky Thompson was just a character.
if you wanted to boycott the folks on paul's list or most of hollywood, musicians, artists,etc... stop looking at TV, movies and listening to music.... i betcha can't do it...
"My question is where are the parodies? It would be so easy; anytime there is such a patterned format as the celebrity/scold video, the avenues for parody almost write themselves."
**************
What we need is a "When Hitler Finds Out" videos, where Der Fuehrer is told that yet another set of D-list celebrities have issued a laughably counter-productive manifesto that only bolsters the resolve of his enemies, and makes him look foolish.
GWash: "take drago's advice... don't think..."
Your embarrassment due to your demonstrated ignorance is well understood. I don't blame you for lashing out.
I think I'm going to spend some time tonight splicing this video with video of fake hate crimes, rioting, the trump supporters getting their butts kicked, etc.
I wonder if YouTube will allow me to upload a video like that or if it'll be considered copyright protected.
GWash: " plus i think the general demographic of democrats is a higher income than republicans"
Based on your past performance we will need to see a link.
"HE STOLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND GAVE TO THE POOR."
-- I wish I could find the article where the author tried to show that, by robbing/attacking the rich, Robin Hood was making things worse on the poor -- or at least, not helping. It was fun to read and think about (after all, prices have to go up, so the poor who don't DIRECTLY benefit from Robin Hood's thieving are much worse off, and merchants may just stop delivering to areas that cross through Sherwood Forest or pay more to hire more guards, driving their prices even further up.)
Trumpit wrote: Okay, I admit that wasn't (very) funny.
Self-approbation is sooo uncool, Trumpit.
The smugness of "liberals" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators) is not only one of their most annoying characteristics, but the most ludicrous, given that it's based on nothing. The smugness coming from their sense of moral superiority is ludicrous given that their core socioeconomic policies are based, at root, on legalized looting and pocket-picking. The smugness coming from their sense of intellectual superiority is ludicrous given that the gallimaufry of voodoo economics, envy, and State-cultism is a snake-oil even the least educated outback rube would be too smart to swallow.
GWash said...if you wanted to boycott the folks on paul's list or most of hollywood, musicians, artists,etc... stop looking at TV, movies and listening to music.... i betcha can't do it...
--
Yep. Besides..we are accustomed to them portraying fictions like this "piece".
Even when I see the names printed and in list form, it doesn't help me much. It wasn't as though I recognized a face and couldn't quite put a name on it; I just have no knowledge/recognition of who some of these people are.
So, yeah: Sally Field, Steve Buscemi, Toure', Bishop Gene Robinson.
That is it. I suspect that my pop culture experience is lacking in that Keegan-Michael Key didn't register. All the hipsters are supposed to know "Key and Peele," right?
One more thing that I will spend zero time worrying about. Along with "Global Climate Change," the NFL playoffs, and the future of the Clintons. PGA Tour golf starts tomorrow, live from Hawaii.
Here's another parody of the whole "completing each other's sentences" schtick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LJbngiWwk
I love Portlandia. I know the town well, and everyone I know whose actually from there doesn't know why it's funny. They don't get the joke.
if you wanted to boycott the folks on paul's list or most of hollywood, musicians, artists,etc... stop looking at TV, movies and listening to music.... i betcha can't do it...
Betcha I can. It's easy to ignore the coarsened, debased culture this particular bunch represent.
"I was able to recognize only a small minority of folks on the video (Sally Field, Rosie Perez)"
I added Steve Buscimi (sp?).
And the printed list wasn't much help for me.
=========================
"lets see paul... 3 million more people with money voted for clinton than his orangemess, so right there if people only made purchases for companies related to their spokesperson the libruls ;) are still ahead..."
T'ain't the way it works, GW.
The sponsors of these "celebrities" might well hurt at losing some percentage of nearly half their market.
Companies that use other means of advertising (non-political) will suffer not at all.
It is almost like you have no sense of commerce at all.
I had to stop at the appearance of one Lea DeLaria: the world's most obnoxious woman.
JAORE: "T'ain't the way it works, GW.
The sponsors of these "celebrities" might well hurt at losing some percentage of nearly half their market.
Companies that use other means of advertising (non-political) will suffer not at all.
It is almost like you have no sense of commerce at all."
GWash is our very own Kramer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU6m5UqLx9M
"one Lea DeLaria"
I thought that was "Pat"
Heh..wondering if Buscemi has any endorsement contracts...
Only recognized 2 names but found the name Zoe Kazan intriguing and in looking it up found her grandfather to be famous director Elia Kazan whose 1952 House Committee on Un-American Activities testimony earned the anger and distain of liberal elites.
Residual guilt?
" All the hipsters are supposed to know "Key and Peele," right?"
Ah...., thanks for the hint. My 26 year old son showed me some K&P to see it I'd find it worthwhile.
Apparently not.
On the set of a Hollywood SJW Ad…
"Hello, America. I'm Robert Downey, Jr, and since the election of Trump I have been scared for my vagina…"
"Robert, stop, stop. I think you have Lena Dunham's script by mistake."
"Really? Because I can imagine having a vagina. I'm an actor: I can do that."
"No, sorry, Robert: Lena REALLY wanted to be the one to say 'vagina' in this spot. America knowing about her vagina fears is very important to her."
"I can have vagina fears, too. I'm a very sensitive guy. A very sensitive guy, sensitive to women's vagina fears: they have fears about their vaginas, and I can talk about sharing that."
"I think you talking about vaginas might not make the best of your time in this ad, Robert…"
"I think I know where this is going: I'm going to get the script about drug addictions increasing, aren't I?"
"Well, actually…"
"Yeah, I know, I know: I had drug problems. Big ones. But I'm REALLY tired of being 'that drug guy', you know?"
"I understand, Robert: I do. Say: how do you feel about transvestites, Robert? Travolta dropped out."
"Of course he did. Travolta talks a Big Game about transvestites in private, but when it comes to going public…"
"He's just not ready yet, Robert…"
"What is Trump doing to the transvestites? I know a few transvestite hookers, but they haven't said much…"
"That's because Trump is forcing them into silence."
"That's it? Silence? Are you SURE I can't talk about vaginas?"
"I really don't want to lose Lena, Robert: the hipsters like her."
"Maybe she could do something about body-shaming, instead? Because she's no Jennifer Lawrence, that's for sure."
"Body-Shaming is already being taken by some chunky black actress. I don't remember her name, but she was all we could get for the 'fat' part…"
"Maybe I could team up with Samuel L. Jackson on something, then: that could be cool."
"Samuel has already told us that when he films his part he wants no white people on the set."
"So it's drugs or transvestites, that's what you're saying?"
"I'm afraid so, Robert…"
"Fuck it: I'll stick with drugs, then…"
"Good, good! And now I can call Jared Leto and tell him the 'transvestite part' is his…"
I am Laslo.
The problem I see is that a bare majority (the left) wants to totally ram stuff down everyone's throat (oh, yeah, and dismantle the electoral college). Never mind if what you want is horrifying to the other half of the population.
unknown,,, kind of what the MINORITY is now poised to do...
GWash: "unknown,,, kind of what the MINORITY is now poised to do..."
Look, this is actually a valid point to raise, but after Obama and dems set out to "fundamentally transform America!" with just 53% of the vote, what real conversational leg do you have to stand on here in demanding that the party in complete control of the government not enact their vision?
I couldn't find a transcript for that abomination of a video, which is too bad because the back beat, the frenetic editing, and the maddening REPETITION made it impossible to watch to the end, and it made me want to visit Nacht und Nebel on anyone connect with it. I don't care if the message is "vaccinate your dog", anything so relentlessly, brain-rottingly vile is bound to provoke anger in the viewer against the creators of the video.
Celebrities aren't noted for intellectual adroitness, particularly minor leaguers like that crew, but surely they must have known how putrid the majority would find that frankly unhinged production to be. I mean idiots got to commit idiocy, but all the fucking time? Don't they ever take a vacation from their delusional selves?
That vid is so repellant that if I were of the conspiratorial mindset I would suspect that Sally Field and the whole Art Not War treehouse are in the pay of Donald Trump in a bid to ensure that he not only gets a second term, but that his whole crop of offspring succeed him in office right up to 2040 and President Barron. I know that's not true because Sally Field is too fucking stupid to pull off something like that. There, I said it. Yes, Sally, you're fucking stupid. You're so fucking stupid that right now at this moment you still don't appreciate how counterproductive your crap video is to whatever political mirage you've spent your adult life stumbling toward. Well, Sally, you ain't been cute since you floated in the skies of Peurto Rico as the (Oh Jesus H. Christ, it's embarrassing to even type the title!) The Flying Nun, which is now only the second biggest insult to the public intelligence in history, first place being tied with the Obama Administration and your fucked up video. What a way to bookend a career.
my conversational leg would be that both parties in congress must be involved in crafting any changes to the 'fundamental transformation of america'... if not we are going to continue to swing madly back and forth fundamentally 'retransforming' every 4, 8 or 12 years... and we need to do what is right for the 'commonweal' of the country as a whole not just the folks that pull the strings... there is a role for government, for the fans of the founding fathers, they understood that.. we can argue about the details but it needs a consensus...
I watched the video without sound. There were two "celebrities" I recognized for sure and a couple of others who looked familiar but I couldn't put a name to them. Celebrity isn't what it used to be, I suppose. On the other hand, my grasp of popular culture most certainly isn't what it used to be.
I should bring myself to watch this piece of dreck, in only to memorize which of these morons I will no longer watch or listen to. Who is on my sh*t list? All of these idiots.
@ Quaestor
Could you please wish them all into the cornfield? Thanks.
I should have said "control" vs "complete control" since the reps have fewer than 60 senators (apparently the reps are less likely to "find" ballots in the trunk of cars days after an election).
and who would be the most popular celebrity of the moment?... non other that the president elect !!!... wonder what he's selling?
So, just so I have this straight, GWash thinks I cannot boycott people I have never seen before? Technically this may be true. But I will at least continue not to give any of these people any money.
I do like Steve Buscemi and would not tune elsewhere just because he appears. But the other 19 can be sure I will continue not to know who or what they are.
---
As for the relative wealth of Democrats versus Republicans: Democrats get the majority of votes from the very rich and the very poor. Republicans get the majority of votes from the broad middle. If we are to discuss averages, we must first decide if we intend to use mean or median. Those two numbers might give very different views of relative wealth.
"We demand" became such a spoiled liberal cliche in starting with the University of Missouri protests, and then followed by every SJW campus movement putting out a list of demands to the administration.
Now these Hollywood assholes. Who are their hostages, and what do they think is their leverage to make demands? Public shaming of others?
How about "we demand" you all STFU!
You know there's a little bit of Norma Desmond in every Hollywood Star. That what makes Sunset Blvd. so great.
GWash: "my conversational leg would be that both parties in congress must be involved in crafting any changes to the 'fundamental transformation of america'... if not we are going to continue to swing madly back and forth fundamentally 'retransforming' every 4, 8 or 12 years... and we need to do what is right for the 'commonweal' of the country as a whole not just the folks that pull the strings... there is a role for government, for the fans of the founding fathers, they understood that.. we can argue about the details but it needs a consensus..."
2 Thoughts immediately come to mind:
1) The "fundamental changes" the dems enacted (solely) must be undone first before we can begin a new "both parties involved" conversation about next steps
2) "Consensus" moving forward within this current political configuration will necessarily lead to a more "republican" or conservative solution framework and it sounds like the dems won't have that. The dems have already publicly rejected this in fact and they are demanding (yes, demanding) only simple tweaks to their fundamental transformation in order to lock in permanently their position. That will not fly.
Sounds like GWash has quite a bit of work ahead of him convincing his side to abide by his stated rules.
Of course, we already know from experience that the left has no intention of living by the rules (statutory or otherwise) they establish for everyone else.
GWash: "and who would be the most popular celebrity of the moment?... non other that the president elect !!!... wonder what he's selling?"
Hope and Change?
We are the ones we've been waiting for?
We must pass the bill to see what is in it?
We will make the seas stop rising!!
Also, used Greek columns and fireworks (never used)!
"Art Not War is a full service creative agency and production studio based in Brooklyn, NY"
So..who funded this?
In the circles these folks travel, doing crap like this is a resume enhancement.
So is the Native American-y drum beat a war pulse?
GWash: "my conversational leg would be that both parties in congress must be involved in crafting any changes to the 'fundamental transformation of america'... if not we are going to continue to swing madly back and forth fundamentally 'retransforming' every 4, 8 or 12 years... and we need to do what is right for the 'commonweal' of the country as a whole not just the folks that pull the strings... there is a role for government, for the fans of the founding fathers, they understood that.. we can argue about the details but it needs a consensus..."
Analysis:
This is GWash proposing that Republicans and conservatives accept the ratchet only turn in one direction.
Answer:
No. Your big government policies have been rejected and your big government programs should be discarded because they are destructive. Leviathan must be utterly destroyed.
They think they stand for the majority?
I will not watch any form of entertainment they are in.
Not with my dollars.
Whatever Trump is paying these guys,it's not nearly enough.
bleeech (old mad magazine word)... the country is much more centrist than the folks on this blog... much more liberal and socialist to coin a phrase.. people like their SS and medicare and socialized medicine, interstate highways, libraries, schools... so i guess i disagree with your basic premise about the country being more conservative/libertarian... and as far as undoing what has gone before, i have no problem 'fixing or changing' what we can agree doesn't work.... what is the trumpmeister selling?... something a little more tangible than hope and change... watch your wallets!
"Our clients include the world’s leading progressive nonprofit organizations, socially conscious businesses, and innovative media outlets. We create edgy, honest, thought-provoking, and–most importantly–attention-getting content.."
Maybe the next celebrity harangue video should have a dancing interlude.
A little Rockette action would liven it up a bit.
Sorry GWash, it's going to take something a little more coherent to lead the country down the road to your utopian Venezuelan experience.
Perhaps if you studied more.......perhaps not.
I just can't take it seriously unless there are some topless women.
Buscemi doesn't do it for me.
walter: "I just can't take it seriously unless there are some topless women.
Buscemi doesn't do it for me."
Indeed.
It's time for the dems to "up their game". Perhaps a more intellectual approach and/or substantive?
Nah.
Just take another pic of Lena on the potty and gin up a couple more commercials of Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff. Maybe resurrect the ads where Romney personally and purposely gave a female employee cancer.
You know, the usual leftist schtick.
thanks for the vote of confidence drago, i have no idea why you think i'm proposing a utopian venezuelan experience (what ever that buzz phrase means)..you can keep going on with the personal insults, doesnt phase me but it does give me a little insight into why it's so hard to work with that mindset... i thought we were on the verge of having an adult conversation and we backslide into the personal attacks... in the future please just ignore me, your mental health will thank you :)
>>What are the chances Hollywood would make a movie that dramatizes the mistakes and deficits of Obamacare?
What are the odds that Hollywood would make a TV show about a female president as Hillary was running in 2008?
What are the odds that Hollywood would make a TV show about a female Secretary of State as Hillary was running in 2016?
She might do..c'mon..go for it!
dan, i'm pretty sure you can id the mistakes and deficits of the ACA... and i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan... but can you name some benefits and good things that came out of the ACA?
They can go smug themselves.
i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan
"essentially"
So much weasel in that one little word.
but can you name some benefits and good things that came out of the ACA?
I know that question wasn't for me, but can I take it?
Some benefits and good things that came out of the ACA:
- 1100+ lost Democratic seast from the local through federal levels
- Total discrediting of the progressive project
- Rejection of Hillary Clinton...
rocketeer, ok, i'll own the word weasel, but i was trying to point out it was not 'essentially a dem plan..i'll give the heritage foundation credit for the good parts if anyone is up to the task of naming the benefits of the ACA and we can blame the dems for the dastardly, socialist parts.. so lets name some of the good! come on you can do it !
That video is stupider than the usual stupid celebrity commercial.
GWash, you mighth want to hold off on stating "1. taking insurance away from 20 million poor people.." until you see what transpires.
Does that seem like an "adult" approach?
yes walter, i can wait, and that's a good start... but it doesnt look like that is going to happen based on what i'm reading about having something for pres. trump to sign by 2/10... and wouldn't that violate a lot of pledges to get rid of the ACA ?... i'm all for changing or fixing but make it better either fix it or replace it, peoples lives depend on it and there are economies of scale at work...
"walter said...
Heh..wondering if Buscemi has any endorsement contracts..."
He did a Snickers commercial a while back. Those are "one-offs though.
Could you please wish them all into the cornfield? Thanks.
Sorry. Some other omnipotent being already wished them far, far beyond the cornfield.
Some hip-hop bro accused Trump supporters of attacking blacks in the name of Trump. Do you suppose he has an answer This? Or this? Or this?
GWash: "and i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan"
#FakeNews
One writer at the Heritage Foundation wrote a 2 page article (which was never endorsed by the Heritage Foundation) which mentioned a couple of principles that were never endorsed by any Republicans.
In Massachusetts, a democrat super-majority in the Massachusetts House and Senate wrote a health care plan where they offered Mitt a chance to add a couple of his thoughts to this completely democrat plan (which was going to be enacted whether or not Mitt agreed or not) and Mitt stupidly lobbed in a couple of small items to claim that he did something.
And thus we have another of GWash's #FakeNews/Ignorance of Facts assertion just like the 3/5th's clause discussion.
Something tells me this won't be last time this happens.
It's all turtles and Dem Talking Points all the way down.
GWash said...
i have no idea why you think i'm proposing a utopian venezuelan experience (what ever that buzz phrase means).
It's probably related to your assertion that the ACA was a conservative plan. Apparently the plan of one person at an identifiably conservative institution is enough to mark the plan conservative and claim all conservatives must support it or admit hypocrisy. Since Venezuela's plan certainly has left wing supporters (or did before the results became so obvious) your own standard supports this characterization.
What's interesting is not the standard itself or even the double standard of rejecting it when applied to yourself. These are typical and obvious for left wing ideologues. It's interesting the standard is so obviously idiotic you cannot even understand it outside the context of the talking points you're parroting.
Gwash, most of what I hear has to do with transitioning to a different arrangement...not just an axe.
States can play a role here too...especially if burdens/siphoning from Feds is reduced.
I do wish people would stop conflating things like interstate highways, libraries and schools with things like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
If the ACA is basically a republican/heritage plan and the heritage article is 2 pages long and the MA bill was about 300+ pages, what's on the other 35,000 pages of ACA rules/enactment requirements?
LOL
GWash never disappoints.
Not to mention if it was a Republican/conservative plan, the need to shut Republicans out of the process.
i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan.
Nobody but leftists who realize they pissed off the country "know" that. Heritage, long ago, flirted with the idea of a mandate for catastrophic coverage, They gave it up when they realized that lefties like you would lard it up with all sorts of crap.
Usually, the lefties who make these silly comments know nothing about healthcare.
A Heritage staffer wrote a paper discussing it as an intellectual exercise. The notion was ultimately rejected by Heritage, conservatives, and Republicans becuase it was foolish.
Which of course enticed Democrats to pick it up and run with it, damn the torpedos and the clear will of
the majority
THE MAJORITY
The Majority
the. majority.
If anyone can save the individual mandate, it's Paul Ryan.
And folks, if you don't like 'em, just refuse to by any products they shill for.
The problem is if I boycott their products I would have to stop watching movies and other forms of entertainment – which I am not going to do. The only one I boycott is Jane Fonda. I refuse to watch anything with her in it. I have no idea of what she even looks like these days. During the Vietnam War when I was a young veteran she went to North Vietnam and made propaganda with the enemy; that made her more than just your typical Hollywood airhead. These were people who were killing my friends. I wouldn’t piss on her if she was on fire.
Joe McCarthy was right.
"i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan."
It was an idea discussed and dropped.
This is the problem with partisans. You can't discuss ideas, because they'll grab onto anything you consider and throw it in your face if it advances their interests.
What the video needs is the late Don LaFontaine to open with "In a world where Donald Trump is elected President....'
What a despicable... no, deplorable bunch of yahoos.
Another 20,000 votes for Trump if he runs for re-election.
signed the MAJORITY!!! who said they spoke for me. they can bite my shorts
We can always take a page from Fidel Castro -- round them up and put them to work in sugar cane fields. I rather imagine all of them admired the late president-for-life, so think of this as an educational opportunity.
Wait until he drains the swamp by killing off the defense industrial complex and with it the value and money of gaining seniority in congress, no pork to dish. Seniority being a polite fiction in the old boys club that need not exist. And only has government in session one year out of 4, aligned with presidential and senate elections perhaps. "But he can't do that, it’s against the law, even constitution, he just can't say "this is the way it's going to be" because he absolutely does control the printing press until congress balances the budget and pays off the debt, and he even controls the power, heating and light switches. And even better he'll do something like this every time the stupid party, worse the party of stupid bullies stop shouting themselves hoarse, and try to give a little time to someone that’s not the worst of the party of stupid bullies. Soon it will be the most watched reality show on TV, broadcast by anyone that will carry, internet, RT, AJ, The Trump home-shopping pay-per-view network, all proceeds to charity. Where’s my popcorn? It’s so unfair to watch the bullies get theirs, just like it used to be in the grammar school playground. Oops. We got rid of all those since they were bastions of male and cleverness privilege. Let’s go pull some wings off of flies.
tcrosse said...What the video needs is the late Don LaFontaine to open with "In a world where Donald Trump is elected President....'
--
Maybe Pablo...
But more likely this guy (scroll down)
(Methinks he "appropriates" much)
This NeverTrumper will vote for his re-election if he doesn't f**k things up too badly and this sh*t from the smug left keeps up.
Give it a rest!
These folks should stick to acting or whatever the fuck it is they do.
Beyond that, they should pretty much just shut their cock holsters.
"GWash said...
dan, i'm pretty sure you can id the mistakes and deficits of the ACA... and i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan..."
Jebus, GWash, where do you come up with these talking points? The ACA was designed by Pelosi, Reid, and Democratic staff to pass constitutional muster under the commerce clause. Obama had nothing to do with it other than to act as its salesman. Because it has some superficial resemblance to a hypothetical plan proposed in a white paper decades earlier by a Heritage Foundation staffer does not make it "essentially a 'Republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan." If it was, it would have been supported by Republicans, conservatives, and the heritage foundation. It was not.
The most difficult part of arguing with liberals is getting them to use their powers of reason instead of making appeals to authority, or using ad hominem arguments and other logical fallacies.
"We Demand"
You are in a position to demand nothing sir
GWash said: if you wanted to boycott the folks on list or most of hollywood, musicians, artists,etc... stop looking at TV, movies and listening to music.... i betcha can't do it...
Betcha I already have, and it had nothing to do with anything political, nor did it happen recently. None of those things were entertaining to me once I hit 45.
The only smug thing here is the minions of the Althouse Disinformation Campaign denying that the views expressed are mainstream and more popular than the Greedy Old Pawns' agenda.
There's something really mediocre about the faction assembled here. They really do resent the celebrity they do not have. That's obvious.
Trump won on economic appeal. It had nothing to do with your stupid culture wars. Yes, we get that you're culturally impoverished and resent those who liked and rewarded for their ability to relate to the human condition - (something that the right wing in this country apparently cannot do). No, no one cares about that. It was his appeal to trade protectionism, the working class, their entitlements, and raw nationalism that got him there.
So wallow in your cultural impoverishment all you want. But concern troll elsewhere.
I should bring myself to watch this piece of dreck, in only to memorize which of these morons I will no longer watch or listen to. Who is on my sh*t list?
Apparently not toilet paper.
Would you like a diaper? It would contain your, er, "anger" more effectively.
"GWash said...
dan, i'm pretty sure you can id the mistakes and deficits of the ACA... and i'm sure your are aware that it was essentially a republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan..."
This is one of THE dumbest Prog/DNC/Soros talking points they've floated ever.
Yea, you can tell it was a "republican, conservative, heritage foundation plan" by the amount of GOP votes it received. Idiot.
The most difficult part of arguing with liberals is getting them to use their powers of reason instead of making appeals to authority, or using ad hominem arguments and other logical fallacies.
It is really useless to try to engage the left in any sort of debate. I tried it at Washington Monthly when Kevin Drum was there, mainly because I respect him even though we disagree on almost everything. The debate quickly got ad hominem and nasty, sort of like the way Ritmo rants and insults.
What was kind of amusing was that they really got angry because I would not support single payer. This was back in 2007 when Obama wasn't even on the horizon. I had done a study of health plans andI have a Masters in Health Policy from Dartmouth after I retired. I decided the best fit for real reform was the French system which works in a large country and has high approval from users, unlike the NHS.
If anyone is interested, I have a series of blog posts from years ago here.
The Wash Monthly lefties hated it and I was banned soon after that episode.
You cannot reason with the left, as we see so often here.
*Our* culture wars? Every Hillary ad here in PA for 3 months was a never ending primal scream about abortion and Planned Parenthood. Not one word about ANYTHING else. To say it's our side obsessed with the culture wars takes an utter and complete lack of self awareness or shame.
165 indignant comments from a bunch of hateful concern trolls who can't cite a single conventional Republican policy or agenda priority that has majority support in this country.
Yep, that just about sums up the commentariat in this thread.
Trump will either implement the semi-progressive agenda he ran on or he will not. If he doesn't, it will be the death of your hateful party.
You are so full of anger that you can't even think clearly enough to understand that the agenda he ran on collides directly against your party's actual goals. You cannot think past an election.
*Our* culture wars? Every Hillary ad here in PA for 3 months was a never ending primal scream about abortion and Planned Parenthood. Not one word about ANYTHING else. To say it's our side obsessed with the culture wars takes an utter and complete lack of self awareness or shame.
You can have Hillary. I don't want her. But the thing about abortion and PP is that they appeal on actual policy grounds. Whether one is not assaulted by troll-like restrictions designed to criminalize by other means and whether the other one - the one responsible for cancer screenings, reproductive health care, etc., continues to stay funded.
So yet again you fail to distinguish what the hell you're talking about.
Name a policy. Go ahead. I fucking dare you.
And, oh yeah. Trump is not as opposed to women's health care as you would have liked. That was just Hillary's desperate and stupid plan to beat him by out-"womaning" him. It didn't matter. As I said, PA went to Trump based on unemployed manufacturers, etc.
Don't let your rage throw your focus off.
Sure R&B..that's why Republicans are winning at so many levels of governance.
Reread your own post and see how it conflicts with itself.
But if you want to point to "concern trolls" and that celeb video clip is it.
It is really useless to try to engage the left in any sort of debate. I tried it at Washington Monthly when Kevin Drum was there, mainly because I respect him even though we disagree on almost everything. The debate quickly got ad hominem and nasty, sort of like the way Ritmo rants and insults.
Overprivileged, wet-nursed bourgeoisie Michael Kennedy apparently fails to understand that it's impossible for people who care about their fellow man to respect a self-centered narcissistic douchebag like himself, who clearly does not.
Hearing him respond to appeals to reason is like saying that the reason Ted Kaczynski or Charles Manson committed acts deserving of prison was because they weren't reasoned with. They were very reasonable folks, if only you could have talked to them more.
Policies that receive majority support: Gimme free shit.
Policies that cause bankruptcy: Gimme free shit.
Democrat policies are so popular the people who support either lie or clam up.
Anybody remember Obama's spirited defense of not supporting the Born Alive Act?
Neither does anybody else.
Sure R&B..that's why Republicans are winning at so many levels of governance.
Reread your own post and see how it conflicts with itself.
But if you want to point to "concern trolls" and that celeb video clip is it.
Check out the stellar example of Republican, right-wing illiteracy above.
I pointed out that Republican policies are overwhelmingly unpopular in America.
Notice how I didn't say "the policies Trump ran on" were overwhelmingly unpopular in America.
But walter, being an illiterate right-winger, needs to fantasize what others say so that it can make better sense to someone who hates Americans as much as he does.
Everyone knows that a winning candidate has something called "coattails" for down-ballot races.
Hillary was a very bad candidate.
But you sir are very illiterate. Address the substance. Show me these Republican policies that the country supposedly wants.
Oh, that's right. You don't care what the country wants. You sound like a typical RINO who couldn't understand Trump and probably initially supported one of his primary opponents until your desperation got the better of itself.
Cite those popular Republican policies any time you like.
Birkel's coming around to admitting how unpopular Republican policies are.
But of course he has to throw in some lurid oversimplifications to purge himself of the wretched feeling it leaves him with to admit it.
Policies that cause bankruptcy: --
Are you saying that Trump knows how to cause bankruptcy?
Rhythm and Balls: "165 indignant comments from a bunch of hateful concern trolls who can't cite a single conventional Republican policy or agenda priority that has majority support in this country."
Your use of "conventional" as a qualifier is interesting.
In the interest of clarity, would you explain what you mean by that?
Rhythm and Balls: "Are you saying that Trump knows how to cause bankruptcy?"
Knows how to cause bankruptcy?
I think it's rather clear most people in the business/legal world knows what causes bankruptcy.
Was your question really about knowing how to use existing bankruptcy laws to ones economic advantage in situations with sufficient business risk?
Protesting the word "conventional?" You know what I'm saying. A nit-picky reductio ad absurdum won't clarify anything.
You know Trump is headed on a collision course with the party. Do you really dispute that?
I think it's possible they can work together. But I think that if they do, it will be them yielding to him and not the other way around.
Have you given thought to what that would mean? Or are you too anxious about the political impact of it?
We already know that Hillary knows how to drive businesses into bankruptcy.
Here's a smallish blast from the past:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/21/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html
"The contempt for small business was aptly summarized by Hillary Clinton back in 1993, when she was pushing her plan to nationalize health care. Told that her proposals would devastate small companies, she replied: “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.”"
private business decisions and governmental policy decisions that place business entities in financial distress leading to Bankruptcy are not really a mystery.
"Rhythm and Balls":
We both know you have been drinking tonight. So I won't hold it against you if you are uncommonly thick.
Was your question really about knowing how to use existing bankruptcy laws to ones economic advantage in situations with sufficient business risk?
One time or four times?
Or is it all the same?
I realize the GOP wants a savior. But if Trump is it, do you really think it stays conservative?
I think it goes nationalist. And that means co-opting some progressivism.
Trooper York gets this. Still loves the guy. But is under no illusions about the guy vis-a-vis conservatism.
We already know that Hillary knows how to...
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of Hillary etc. being driven as far from the world of politics as Gollum was from the shire. And I'm not very right-wing.
So it begs the question, have you prepared for the aftermath of winning? Where now? Is there any direction?
Or in 2024 will you still be backslapping each other about having beaten a very poor and ideologically unmoored Hillary from the same world of politics that she never once in her life excelled at?
If so, I guess we can't really expect much from the GOP now, can we?
"I wouldn’t piss on [Jane Fonda] if she was on fire. "
Not even if you drank a bunch of kerosene first?
Can someone detail to me Trump's Road to Damascus moment when the lifelong Democrat suddenly saw whatever light I'm supposed to believe he saw?
Hey, some late-life conversions are like that, I suppose.
Grandma Moses didn't start painting until her nineties.
It could happen.
Now paint some very vaginal floral scenes for me, W.
Rhythm and Balls: "Protesting the word "conventional?" You know what I'm saying. A nit-picky reductio ad absurdum won't clarify anything."
It was a simple request.
But here is one which was pretty obvious right off the bat: get rid of the individual mandate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383735/Obamacare-poll-shock-77-cent-want-individual-mandate-repealed-delayed-House-passes-block-IRS-enforcement.html
R&B: "You know Trump is headed on a collision course with the party. Do you really dispute that?"
Where have you been? Trump (and Sanders) was on a collision course with his party from the beginning of the Primaries. This can't be considered revelatory.
R&B: "I think it's possible they can work together. But I think that if they do, it will be them yielding to him and not the other way around.
Have you given thought to what that would mean? Or are you too anxious about the political impact of it?"
I know exactly what it would mean but lets face it: it was the "price of admission" to get a candidate out of the republican field that could actually be disruptive enough to beat Hillary. I do not believe any other republican would have defeated her (flipped PA/MI/WI).
Am I anxious about it? Of course.
Again, it bears repeating: If I get just 3 or 4 major items I wanted out of this whole deal (and assuming they are important enough items (SC, Taxes, decrease regulations on businesses, Obamacare gutting) then I will be satisfied.
If the other side won I wouldn't get anything I wanted.
Remember when all those progressives were elected after the fall of the Soviet Union?
25 years later, does anybody note a pattern in worldwide politics?
R&B's (related to bankruptcies): "One time or four times?"
Depending on the business (construction/development, Hollywood production companies, oil and gas, tech startups, etc) the number of bankruptcies is heavily dependent on tolerance levels for risk for each venture, the ability to acquire additional capital for further ventures post-bankruptcy, the relevant laws, etc.
The relevant question would be where did you start, where did you finish and what was your success "hit" rate?
Venture capitalists understand this quite well. Depending on the outlays and risk/reward profiles, many VC types only require a 20% success rate to meet their profit targets.
Thank you. I know you can be reasonable when you want to be, Drago.
I won't protest further. But just be aware that the entire hospital industry I believe is now structured around the stable, more ample supply of customers and changed incentives in keeping them healthy as opposed to just billing fee for service.
The ACA needs change - whatever verb you apply to it. Just be aware that "gutting" things could be economically disruptive to the stability of a growing industry that employs a lot and that keeps 10% of insured Americans from going bankrupt as punishment for illness or fearing job changes - along with a bunch of other good things. Things that Trump would probably keep, when he can be bothered to comment on/think about it.
R&B, I don't think we disagree about the disruptive dangers with squeezing the life slowly out of the ACA. I say "squeezing" because I know there aren't enough votes (60) to kill off the ACA completely.
Even if there were the political dangers are far too great to proceed precipitously. That's why Ryan and company are sending some "Whoa there Nelly" signals which is okay with me. I'm okay with taking a couple years with some executive and reconciliation steps along the way.
The relevant question would be where did you start, where did you finish and what was your success "hit" rate?
That's a good point.
To answer your question, it's been widely acknowledged that the capital Donald inherited from dad would have grown faster and larger if it had just all been invested than it did under his leadership of the same company. I'm not sure that qualifies as success.
Venture capitalists understand this quite well. Depending on the outlays and risk/reward profiles, many VC types only require a 20% success rate to meet their profit targets.
Are you really comparing VC to real estate?
To visualize a real estate business that's as risky as VC, I guess that have to be one hell of a less conventional business than the companies Trump was running.
R&B, the danger, from a conservative point of view, of not significantly killing off the ACA while the opportunity presents itself is when the dems regain power in 4 or 8 or 12 years they could just turn all the old aspects right back on.
It has to be a more complete and thorough cleansing action to, in my conservative opinion, keep my health care decisions as far as possible away from governmental control which I believe represents a danger to my individual freedom.
Yes, there are lots of caveats to that but in general and at a high level that's what I'm looking for.
Do I know where the Trump train is going?
In some areas I have confidence. In many others I have no idea where we will end up.
Insurance should cover unexpected expenses that occur at irregular times. If it does more than that, the insurance itself distorts the market as the distance between who benefits from spending and who initially pays increases.
See, also, university tuition.
The people who distorted the market and spent the country into a $20 trillion dollar corner will now complain that conservatives are going to upset the trough from which too many people feed.
Irony abounds.
R&B: "To answer your question, it's been widely acknowledged that the capital Donald inherited from dad would have grown faster and larger if it had just all been invested than it did under his leadership of the same company. I'm not sure that qualifies as success."
You have the benefit of hindsight, which is perfectly 20-20. Everyone is an expert after the fact.
R&B: "Are you really comparing VC to real estate?"
The fundamentals are the same. In fact, it is easily argued that many acquisition targets involved appropriate future valuation of the targets real estate assets. Think of it as "collateral" just in case the business venture the VC firm is taking a swing at fails after intervention, investment and reorganization.
I was personally involved in one very large venture that involved real estate assets in over 140 countries and was a key driver for the acquisition price paid even though the business was in dire straits.
It has to be a more complete and thorough cleansing action to, in my conservative opinion, keep my health care decisions as far as possible away from governmental control which I believe represents a danger to my individual freedom.
I think this is not an accurate picture of how the industry works, though. Generally Medicare sets the standard for coverage. Anyone can always pay what they want for whatever - and always will since medical practice itself is governed by the states. A wealthy Arabian king can come here and pay out of pocket for whatever treatment experimental or otherwise they want. But the question is and always has been about coverage.
So getting back to it, Medicare is popular - won't go away. The seniors like the fact that they aren't paying what a market could squeeze old, poorly insurable prospects to the grave with. But Medicare has another important function, and that's setting the standard for what this supposedly very de-regulatable industry might choose to cover on their own.
Of course, there is still a lot of variation. Even today. Even with the ACA, you get insurers I'm sure breaking out and covering this or that. Being ahead of the game on fanciful coverage experiments.
But the decisions have never been in the hands of the ACA or any other funding mechanism. The closest the federal government ever gets to that is through the FDA, which involves regulating a commercially available drug or device. Not a practice. Practitioners have always had as much autonomy as they want with what they choose to do or to offer their patients - and thus, what those patients could decide to do.
As before, though. The states would be the ones to restrict that.
"Already we've seen a rise in hate crimes."
Really? I doubt it, except perhaps under the expanded definition that assumes the wearer of a MAGA hat is engaging in a hate crime. From what I can tell all the celebrated "hate crimes" since the election have been hoaxes.
Is R&B arguing that most people in the US are bigoted idiots, or that progressives represent the hopes and dreams of most people in the US? Both is my guess.
The tip of the spear is never the biggest part of the spear, the avante garde is never bigger than the army.
Since progressives are advocates of pure democracy and the will of the people, I suggest that they get behind putting immigration, affirmative action, and civil rights laws to public votes. Gay marriage was made the law of the land based on the authority of one man: Justice Anthony Kennedy. I imagine progressives will want to overturn that decision and put the matter to a vote.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा