PDA

View Full Version : Glad we have a navy


JonIrenicus
04-12-2009, 09:53 PM
/title

Yes, for all the times aid may be useful, as well as cooperation between powers and the like, there are times when the point of a gun dwarfs all the rest.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/997049.html

Lyle
04-12-2009, 09:55 PM
Hussah President Obama!!! Way to go!!!

You shoot good sir.

bjkeefe
04-12-2009, 10:20 PM
/title

Yes, for all the times aid may be useful, as well as cooperation between powers and the like, there are times when the point of a gun dwarfs all the rest.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/997049.html

The wingnut take. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19856)

Lyle
04-12-2009, 10:27 PM
The wingnut take. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19856)

Yeah, some people on the right have egg on their face after this. They should just be happy that President Obama is a cowboy just like G.W. Bush... he shoots to kill too... in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Pakistan.

A good day for America and a good day for our President.

Barack "Buffalo Soldier" or "Cowboy" Obama... Hussah sir! Hussah!

edit: although the New York Times is reporting that they do not know if the Captain jumped in to the sea first or jumped in after shots were fired

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirates.html?_r=1&hp

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 12:29 AM
The wingnut take. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19856)

Obama did good on this one, he stayed silent and did not go off babbling and making the situation worse. He gave the commander on scene autonomy to act without being tied to phone calls should he need to. And he did. Obama will get a boost, as well as the Navy.


That some petty creatures cannot call a spade a spade however, does not argue against all the ideas they may hold.

All factions when large enough have members who froth at the mouth, dismissing them is trivial, but taking out the lowest hanging, most diseased ridden fruit is no cause for celebration, its when you take out the SMART ones that you do something impressive. Not the downs syndrome members that Happen to agree on some issues.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 12:41 AM
Obama did good on this one, he stayed silent and did not go off babbling and making the situation worse. He gave the commander on scene autonomy to act without being tied to phone calls should he need to. And he did. Obama will get a boost, as well as the Navy.


That some petty creatures cannot call a spade a spade however, does not argue against all the ideas they may hold.

All factions when large enough have members who froth at the mouth, dismissing them is trivial, but taking out the lowest hanging, most diseased ridden fruit is no cause for celebration, its when you take out the SMART ones that you do something impressive. Not the downs syndrome members that Happen to agree on some issues.

I'd have more sympathy for your point of view if the views [expressed in that RedState post] truly were out on the fringe.* However, though people like the RedState bloggers represent a minority, it is still a non-trivial fraction of the population, their voices drive coverage in the MSM to some degree, and they also get the ear of Republicans in Congress, perhaps to a disturbingly large degree. This RedState view of this pirate thing is very close to the way Fox and Rush try to spin matters, too.

Thus, it's not really such low-hanging fruit.

It is also not "taking out," unless by "taking out" you mean "exposing what these wingnuts tell each other by quoting one of them directly."

==========
* [Added] I held off passing along a link to what the Freepers were saying about this situation (not to mention the Obamas' new puppy), if you really want to talk about the diseased.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 03:09 AM
This RedState view of this pirate thing is very close to the way Fox and Rush try to spin matters, too.

On a related note, see Joel Achenbach (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2009/04/the_news_from_planet_hannity.html) on Hannity, Gingrich, and Ralph Peters of the NY Post, and how they spun Obama's trip to Europe.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 10:08 AM
... and they also get the ear of Republicans in Congress, perhaps to a disturbingly large degree.

And, I should have pointed out, the crazy on the right also flows from the top down. Here's something from the I-wish-I'd-said-that department:

Tea Parties Forever

This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.

Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.

Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.

But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties.

One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.

But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.

The rest. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html)

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 10:20 AM
And, I should have pointed out, the crazy on the right also flows from the top down. Here's something from the I-wish-I'd-said-that department:

Well, I guess I have, in some senses, from time to time (e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=shelby), e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=bachmann), e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=demint)).

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 02:39 PM
The wingnut take. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19856)

More coverage of the wingnut POV from Roy Edroso: intro/referral post (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-voice-column-up-about-somali-pirate.html) | full column (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/04/if_rightblogger.php).

AemJeff
04-13-2009, 02:48 PM
More coverage of the wingnut POV from Roy Edroso: intro/referral post (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-voice-column-up-about-somali-pirate.html) | full column (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/04/if_rightblogger.php).

It's a deep game and may convince dozens.

Priceless.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 02:49 PM
Well, I guess I have, in some senses, from time to time (e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=shelby), e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=bachmann), e.g. (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/search?q=demint)).

There is not a big problem with your evidence, the main issue is that you are not a neutral observer. As such, you are far more bent out of shape over the excesses of your ideological opponents, and far more likely to downplay the excesses of your own crazies.

And if you think that to the extent that what I have said is true, it is lopsided, that is because you are exactly as I described you, the opposite of a neutral observer.


I do not claim to be neutral either, but there is a reason I cannot stand people like Hannity, he is far too simple for me. He likes to make debaters points, points made just to score points, not to illuminate.

It's what I liken to a throwing dart syndrome, when making a case for X candidate or Y issue, you throw EVERY conceivable dart (argument) in the sun, reasonable or not, to blanket the scene with so many that hopefully something sticks, even if you yourself think that X dart (argument) is questionable or has no real merit. I do not enjoy listening to people who litter their arguments with such low quality drivel, so I do not like Hanity, or Keith Olberman or etc

I do like people like Michael Medved, who tries to do his best with being plain and clear with where he is coming from, and not using arguments he does not think have merit.

Now some people genuinely think poor arguments have merit, but those people are genuinely stupid. Not sure what is to be done about them, can't really blame them for that. Blaming the stupid for being stupid is like blaming a person for being ugly.

AemJeff
04-13-2009, 02:53 PM
There is not a big problem with your evidence, the main issue is that you are not a neutral observer. As such, you are far more bent out of shape over the excesses of your ideological opponents, and far more likely to downplay the excesses of your own crazies.
...

I think of myself in opposition to the crazies on all sides, despite a tilt to one side; and I think of Brendan as a pretty explicit ally in that regard. I'd like to see an example of him downplaying the excesses of crazies on the left.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 03:05 PM
I think of myself in opposition to the crazies on all sides, despite a tilt to one side; and I think of Brendan as a pretty explicit ally in that regard. I'd like to see an example of him downplaying the excesses of crazies on the left.

Not everything is acknowledging a spade as a spade. If I brought out some obvious example of a left leaning group, I am sure many of the people here are honest enough to call it out for what it is. But there is also such a thing as a sin of omission, a highlighting of the faults of one side, leaving your own free and clear by implication, or close to it.

The faults of those you disagree with will always shine brighter than the faults of those closer to your own ideology. And we saw an example of that above, so many examples of wingnuts and going over the top. This is a natural thing to do, but self deluding.

AemJeff
04-13-2009, 03:12 PM
Not everything is acknowledging a spade as a spade. If I brought out some obvious example of a left leaning group, I am sure many of the people here are honest enough to call it out for what it is. But there is also such a thing as a sin of omission, a highlighting of the faults of one side, leaving your own free and clear by implication, or close to it.

The faults of those you disagree with will always shine brighter than the faults of those closer to your own ideology. And we saw an example of that above, so many examples of wingnuts and going over the top. This is a natural thing to do, but self deluding.

That's a statement of principle and may or may not apply. You made a specific allegation.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 03:36 PM
There is not a big problem with your evidence, the main issue is that you are not a neutral observer.

Never claimed to be.

As such, you are far more bent out of shape over the excesses of your ideological opponents, and far more likely to downplay the excesses of your own crazies.

I don't think my side's crazies are anywhere near as numerous as the right's, nor do I think the few who do exist have remotely near the same clout. In particular, those with power in the Democratic Party do their level best to ignore not only out-and-out crazy lefties, but often even distance themselves from anything more liberal than Beltway center-leftist stances. By contrast, prominent Republicans and conservative leaders, in Congress and the punditocracy, are often on the same page as the wingnutosphere.*

And if you think that to the extent that what I have said is true, it is lopsided, that is because you are exactly as I described you, the opposite of a neutral observer.

Again, you're accusing me of not acting in accordance with something I have never claimed to be.

I do not claim to be neutral either, but there is a reason I cannot stand people like Hannity, he is far too simple for me. He likes to make debaters points, points made just to score points, not to illuminate.

It's what I liken to a throwing dart syndrome, when making a case for X candidate or Y issue, you throw EVERY conceivable dart (argument) in the sun, reasonable or not, to blanket the scene with so many that hopefully something sticks, even if you yourself think that X dart (argument) is questionable or has no real merit. I do not enjoy listening to people who litter their arguments with such low quality drivel, so I do not like Hanity, or Keith Olberman or etc

Glad to hear you say so. Not that I thought differently beforehand.

Just for the record, I view your attempt to portray KO as the lefty equivalent of Hannity as incorrect. While KO has clear ideological leanings and will spin things to some degree (and may have a personality equally grating to some), he does not traffic in rumors and outright lies. By contrast, these are Hannity's stock in trade. (See 372 or so examples documented here (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/sean_hannity).)

I do like people like Michael Medved, who tries to do his best with being plain and clear with where he is coming from, and not using arguments he does not think have merit.

I only know of Medved when some watchdog group or blogger calls attention to him. From that, I'd say my impression is that he says ridiculous and hateful things, but less frequently than other radio ranters. However, that he is in bed with the Discovery Institute, plus his raging homophobia and AGW denialism, pretty much guarantee that I'll never pay any attention to him.

Now some people genuinely think poor arguments have merit, but those people are genuinely stupid. Not sure what is to be done about them, can't really blame them for that. Blaming the stupid for being stupid is like blaming a person for being ugly.

I disagree. You can do something about being stupid, for one thing, and it is not just stupidity as some sort of inherited handicap that characterizes many prominent members of the wingnutosphere, for another. Many of them are willfully and proudly ignorant; many others use their brains in a single-minded manner: to find reasons to hate Obama or the left or Democrats or whatever.

Also, to repeat, these people are a non-trivial part of the population and help drive the discourse. It is not so much that I am attempting to win any sort of argument by using them as examples; it is more the case that I am simply exposing what it is they're saying. Partly for laughs, admittedly, but mostly because I am genuinely concerned about the damage they do.

==========
* [Added] And note carefully that by "the wingnutosphere" I do not mean all conservative bloggers. Problem is, of course, that when I favorably or respectfully mention someone whom I call a conservative blogger, it tends to provoke howls of "not a real conservative!"

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 03:52 PM
Not everything is acknowledging a spade as a spade. If I brought out some obvious example of a left leaning group, I am sure many of the people here are honest enough to call it out for what it is.

Thanks for that, at least.

But there is also such a thing as a sin of omission, a highlighting of the faults of one side, leaving your own free and clear by implication, or close to it.

In addition to what Jeff said, I'll add this: It is not my job to act as an impartial observer or as a watchdog on my own side. There are plenty of conservatives who wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today to hammer the message that the left is evil and Obama is the anti-Christ?"

For the record, my choice not to spend time ridiculing moonbats does not at all mean I deny they exist. I don't generally bring them up for two reasons. First, as I said in my previous reply, I view them as practically insignificant. Second, if you or anyone else wants to discuss something specific, fine, let's do so, but I'm not here to do your research for you and hand you the ammunition.

The faults of those you disagree with will always shine brighter than the faults of those closer to your own ideology. And we saw an example of that above, so many examples of wingnuts and going over the top. This is a natural thing to do, but self deluding.

Disagree. I am not deluded. I am partisan.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 06:37 PM
Thanks for that, at least.



In addition to what Jeff said, I'll add this: It is not my job to act as an impartial observer or as a watchdog on my own side. There are plenty of conservatives who wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today to hammer the message that the left is evil and Obama is the anti-Christ?"

For the record, my choice not to spend time ridiculing moonbats does not at all mean I deny they exist. I don't generally bring them up for two reasons. First, as I said in my previous reply, I view them as practically insignificant. Second, if you or anyone else wants to discuss something specific, fine, let's do so, but I'm not here to do your research for you and hand you the ammunition.

Fine, no need to do any research for the other side, but my posting a similar response would serve no purpose other than to start a pissing match for who is the worst at X or Y or Z.

Disagree. I am not deluded. I am partisan.

Partisan is a very broad title as I see it. Know who else is a partisan? Sean Hannity, and he likes to trot out minutia about liberals and why they are bad and so much worse than conservatives all the time. Attacks of air, no meat, no substance.

Medved is a partisan as well, and while I am in discord with several of his positions and ideas he is different from Hannity in two basic ways. He is not petty, for the most part he goes straight for more Core disagreements and argues sharply for or against something, he is NOT a mass attack dart thrower.

The other basic difference is that he is susceptible to a good argument. Much more so than Hannity either because he is less of a pure ideologue or perhaps because he is just smarter. I remember he had David Frum on awhile ago, right around the time the Harriet Meyers debacle was in full force, and at first he was resigned to Harriet, even though she was not his favorite, but David made such persuasive arguments against her I think he swayed him that ideally Bush should choose another. He did not think Bush WOULD back down, but he was not locked into being resigned to her (first time I heard Frum, when I started following him because he knows how to make his cases well).

So to that other comment about some random blog post about how horrible Medved is, take it with a grain of salt, everyone will say something off color from time to time when in the public eye, but on balance, Medved is one of the better conservative talk show hosts.



PS - I Despise Keith Olberman. Not as a human being, but as a commenter, he is so over the top, his analysis so broken and butchered, I actually see those who think he is a good voice in a negative light.

Lyle
04-13-2009, 06:50 PM
I agree with you on Hannity and Medved. I'm non-partisaned... but Hannity is intolerable because he is so hyper partisan. I'm not sure he's open to any kind of argument that differs from whatever he's saying, although I recall listening to him in my car once and a black woman called him to chastise him about saying something about Obama, and he did have the strength to acknowledge America's past wrongs and concede as much to the caller.

Medved, like you said, is a partisan but willing to bend more if reasoned with. I'm not a supporter of his, but he's easier to listen to than Hannity. Hannity is just about the Keith Olbermann of the right, although not as smug, I think. Medved also has a few crackpot ideas, like belief in Bigfoot (although maybe that's a Pacific Northwest thing of his and more tongue-in-cheek), and he does harp on Obama's Muslim heritage which if you don't listen closely enough you'd think Obama is a Muslim.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 06:56 PM
I agree with you on Hannity and Medved. I'm non-partisaned... but Hannity is intolerable because he is so hyper partisan. I'm not sure he's open to any kind of argument that differs from whatever he's saying, although I recall listening to him in my car once and a black woman called him to chastise him about saying something about Obama, and he did have the strength to acknowledge America's past wrongs and concede as much to the caller.

Medved, like you said, is a partisan but willing to bend more if reasoned with. I'm not a supporter of his, but he's easier to listen to than Hannity. Hannity is just about the Keith Olbermann of the right, although not as smug, I think. Medved also has a few crackpot ideas, like belief in Bigfoot (although maybe that's a Pacific Northwest thing of his and more tongue-in-cheek), and he does harp on Obama's Muslim heritage which if you don't listen closely enough you'd think Obama is a Muslim.


To the last part, he goes out of his way to disabuse nutters on the right that Obama is Muslim, or not a US citizen, it's nonsense and he says so repeatedly and argues with such people on conspiracy day shows. And yes, Michael IS crazy on the bogfoot thing, but its forgivable.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 07:03 PM
I don't think my side's crazies are anywhere near as numerous as the right's, nor do I think the few who do exist have remotely near the same clout. In particular, those with power in the Democratic Party do their level best to ignore not only out-and-out crazy lefties, but often even distance themselves from anything more liberal than Beltway center-leftist stances. By contrast, prominent Republicans and conservative leaders, in Congress and the punditocracy, are often on the same page as the wingnutosphere.*



I thought this deserved its own response. Of course you do not think your sides crazies are as numerous. People on the right think the same thing. Know why? because they AGREE more with their sides sphere of ideas than the oppositions. The sensibilities of one on the left leaning side is NOT going to be AS grated and put off by crazy lefty ideas as a person who leans to the right. And of course, they will tend to be MORE annoyed and see as insane the idea cloud on the right side.

This tells us nothing about an ideas merits or craziness. So lets not use the "number of crazies" as an argument, it has all the objective value of which flavor ice cream a person likes best.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 07:13 PM
Fine, no need to do any research for the other side, but my posting a similar response would serve no purpose other than to start a pissing match for who is the worst at X or Y or Z.

Depends. If you're just going to speak in generalities about how much you hate Keith Olbermann, I agree. If, on the other hand, you were to offer several blog posts from lefty bloggers, all commenting on a very specific event, there might be something more of substance to debate.*

The thing is, though, unless you do some real mining in the bowels of, say, Daily Kos or Democratic Underground, I don't think you'll find much lefty derangement to match what you can find in a few seconds by popping a few key words into Wingnuttia Search (http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Azj_ist-lct4).

Also, whatever you do find is not going to be at all representative of the leftosphere. By contrast, the links I gave on this piracy thing pointed to a lot of the top dogs of the rightosphere, and the best you can say (or all you've cared to say) in response to them is "I don't think like those morons."

Partisan is a very broad title as I see it.

Broad or narrow, my only point in using it was to make clear that I do not claim to be a neutral observer, to reject whatever onuses you were trying to place on me starting from that assumption.

Medved ...

You're never going to convince me. He's on record, and happy to be so, with too many fundamentally distasteful positions for me. There are already many more people out there whose views I'd like to hear that I'll probably never have time for, so, absent several road to Damascus moments on his part, I'm never going to give him the time of day.

==========
* [Added] Or, at least, you might be able to illustrate to others that I truly do not see my side's crazies as crazy.

Lyle
04-13-2009, 07:16 PM
True, true... I should have stated that as well. He just brings it up often when dicussing Obama and the facts of his life. He sources it all to Obama's two books, but if you're just channel surfing and tune in, you'll hear him mention Obama and Muslim in the same breadth. It can come across as buttressing the "Obama is a Muslim" argument. I have a neighbor who still refers to Obama as a Muslim, and he gets it from talk radio I'm pretty sure.

I think Medved has questioned or does question how religous Obama is. I have my doubts about whether Obama is in fact a true believer myself. So I'm with Medved on this point.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 07:19 PM
I thought this deserved its own response. Of course you do not think your sides crazies are as numerous. People on the right think the same thing. Know why? because they AGREE more with their sides sphere of ideas than the oppositions. The sensibilities of one on the left leaning side is NOT going to be AS grated and put off by crazy lefty ideas as a person who leans to the right. And of course, they will tend to be MORE annoyed and see as insane the idea cloud on the right side.

This tells us nothing about an ideas merits or craziness. So lets not use the "number of crazies" as an argument, it has all the objective value of which flavor ice cream a person likes best.

The thing is, Jon, to touch again upon what I said in my other reply (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=110144#post110144), you appear to be unable to give any lefty examples of what might be considered equivalently loony to the plethora of examples from prominent righties I have given, here and elsewhere, and could continue to give without any stopping point that I can see.

All you're doing is asserting, in general, and without any evidence, that the two sides are the same. I don't buy it, and just saying, "Well of course you wouldn't -- you're on one side" doesn't persuade me at all. This is relativism gone as bad as it can get. You're about two steps away from Krugman's satire of the MSM's fetish for balance when covering a convention of Flatearthers -- "Shape of Our Planet: Views Differ."

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 09:19 PM
You're never going to convince me. He's on record, and happy to be so, with too many fundamentally distasteful positions for me. There are already many more people out there whose views I'd like to hear that I'll probably never have time for, so, absent several road to Damascus moments on his part, I'm never going to give him the time of day.

==========
* [Added] Or, at least, you might be able to illustrate to others that I truly do not see my side's crazies as crazy.


My last minor defense on Medved is the following, having different views on gays does not make me dislike the guy.

I disagree with him on gay marriage and gays in the military, but for me to truly dislike someone as a host, they have to be petty and or genuinely stupid. I find him neither, he comes from a more socially conservative Jewish background and as such he has socially conservative tendencies.

But I guess different people just have different issues that turn them against someone.

I remember people getting pissed at Bill Maher for comparing retarded kids to dogs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPxq3Ia2GbI


I actually thought it was amusing, but some people are just very sensitive.


my deal breakers are:

people incapable of being swayed by a good argument
petty
nit picky


My deal breaker will never deal with the person having a belief or take that is against my own UNLESS that position is one I consider malevolent and destructive and evil (i.e. ok to hang gays, beat your daughter for showing her face)

whether they have said something deemed "offensive" by others just does not phase me. But I guess my will is less brittle.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 10:10 PM
My deal breaker will never deal with the person having a belief or take that is against my own UNLESS that position is one I consider malevolent and destructive and evil ...

The three specific positions I cited earlier ("that he is in bed with the Discovery Institute, plus his raging homophobia and AGW denialism") all pretty much qualify for this description, in my mind.

Also, it's not purely holding ideas that I find personally objectionable that make me call someone not worth listening to. There is also an indication of stupidity or pigheadedness or whatever you want to call it, where I say if such a person honestly believes that thing or those things, it's a strong predictor that he's also going to believe lots of other nonsense. Again, it's just not worth my time when I live on a planet filled with smart and interesting people.

whether they have said something deemed "offensive" by others just does not phase me. But I guess my will is less brittle.

Hope you didn't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back there.

You already said that you have deal breakers, so the only way you're possibly different from "others" is that you pick different things to object to.

JonIrenicus
04-13-2009, 10:42 PM
Hope you didn't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back there.

You already said that you have deal breakers, so the only way you're possibly different from "others" is that you pick different things to object to.

We all have our standards of acceptability. The best thing we can do when we encounter those who have standards wildly different from our own is to try to point out why we think theirs are unreasonable.


All I can say is that I think if you were ever locked in a car with a more conservative person who happened to be listening to talk radio all day, he would probably rank the highest out of the conservatives for most liberally minded people.

I think you would actually like him. He does not come across as an ideologue, he goes out of his way to take calls that disagree with him, all day long, hour after hour. After listening to him, it actually turned me off to most conservative shows. Listening to Hannity is by comparison, chinese water torture.

bjkeefe
04-13-2009, 10:49 PM
All I can say is that I think if you were ever locked in a car with a more conservative person who happened to be listening to talk radio all day, he would probably rank the highest out of the conservatives for most liberally minded people.

I think you have defined the lowest bar possible.

uncle ebeneezer
04-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Nice. I'll have to check out Achenblog more often.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 12:08 AM
Nice. I'll have to check out Achenblog more often.

Glad you liked it. And yeah, JA is worth subscribing to. You might not want to read every last post, because he does cover an amazing range of topics, but he's generally excellent.

Nothing to do with Achenbach, but since I came to this thread to torment JonI with yet another example of a Republican Congressman talking like a full-fledged wingnut (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19894) but then changed my mind about blockquoting it when I couldn't find a transcript to confirm, I will now offer to you (and everybody else) one of my favorite blog posts of all time (which I came across again on another of John Cole's posts (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=19892)).

It's Bush-focused, since it's from 2005 (and it's important to note 2005 means mentions of Obama refer only to the new Senator), but the parts about Bush's base apply as much today as they did back then:

Lunch Discussions #145: The Crazification Factor (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html)

Never forget: 27%. To be said immediately, and with some authority.

Lyle
04-14-2009, 01:40 AM
I'm in the same canoe as you Joe... I've got two choices for talk radio (excluding NPR and Pacifica Radio, which I listen to as well), one is the Fox News radio with Hannity and O'Reilly on it, and some local people, and the other is a radio station that has all the Townhall guys on it, like Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. Always, always tune it to the Townhall guys before ever changing to Fox News, especially if Hannity is on. O'Reilly I can listen to actually, but Hannity is a sergeant major in the Army or Ronald Reagan. He's the Jane Hamsher or Olbermann of conservatives; just nails across the chalk board.

bjkeefe
04-14-2009, 09:06 AM
Always, always tune it to the Townhall guys before ever changing to Fox News, especially if Hannity is on. O'Reilly I can listen to actually, but Hannity is a sergeant major in the Army or Ronald Reagan.

What does that mean? That you find (found) Reagan unpleasant to listen to? Or that Hannity is past his sell-by date? Or what?

Just curious.

TwinSwords
04-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Never forget: 27%. To be said immediately, and with some authority.

Seconding Eb: Thanks for the links. The 27% piece, especially, was hilarious. And yet frightening. If the wingnut/loon base is 27% in Illinois, you have to wonder what it is in other places. 27% seems frighteningly high for any state, but I would think it's a lot higher in places like Mississippi and Alabama.

(Oh, the Achenbach piece was also delightful.)

Lyle
04-14-2009, 05:53 PM
I disagree with you on Mississippi and Alabama. It just depends what you define "crazy" as. Scientologists and space cultists tend to live in cities you know.