PDA

View Full Version : Wingnuts 2010


Pages : [1] 2 3

bjkeefe
01-05-2010, 08:39 AM
A new year, a new thread to document the atrocities and call attention to the comedy.

bjkeefe
01-05-2010, 08:51 AM
A new year, a new thread to document the atrocities and call attention to the comedy.

And what better way to start off than by noticing the latest honor bestowed upon Chuckles Krauthammer?

Entry #5 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/16/the_10_worst_predictions_for_2009?page=0,4) from Foreign Policy's listicle, "The 10 Worst Predictions for 2009."

Chris Wallace: "Best guess: Will the president end up giving McChrystal the troops he wants, or will he change the war strategy?"

Charles Krauthammer: "I think he doesn't and McChrystal resigns."

—Fox News Sunday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMknkkTtP3s), Sept. 27, 2009

On Dec. 1, Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. If you count the 7,000 troops promised by NATO, the new levels are close to the 40,000 requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul. After the announcement, the general issued a statement (http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/news/statement-of-general-stanley-mcchrystal.html) saying that Obama had "provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task." Undeterred, Krauthammer -- who has made FP's worst predictions list for the second straight year (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4569&page=1) -- blasted Obama in a Washington Post op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303605.html) for ignoring McChrystal's advice.

[Added] In the No Surprise There Department, Creepy Mustache Boy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/16/the_10_worst_predictions_for_2009?page=0,7) also made the list:

An Israeli airstrike on Iran always seems to be just around the corner for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, no matter what the circumstances ...

cognitive madisonian
01-05-2010, 11:08 AM
Considering it was widely reported that McChrystal was considering resigning, and that Joe Biden and others were pressuring Obama to not give troops (not to mention the fact that Obama waffled for months upon months on the issue), this was a very logical prediction.

Anyway, Andrew Sullivan warrants significant mentioning in this thread for, amongst other things, his Trig Trutherism.

Whatfur
01-05-2010, 11:54 AM
King of the Wings: Al Gore

Today's weather headlines:

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

popcorn_karate
01-05-2010, 02:52 PM
King of the Wings: Al Gore

Today's weather headlines:

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

TwinSwords
01-05-2010, 06:45 PM
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

LOL, are you really sure of that? I'm guessing he hasn't a clue. If it's good enough for Drudge, it's good enough for Wonder Wingnut.

Whatfur
01-05-2010, 11:43 PM
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

The point is that I find it hilarious the Gore seems to be getting his just rewards for his bullshit, climate-change, wingnuttery. Yes, in small doses it means little but pointing to the facts of a 25 year low, a 30 degree below, and a 70 year snow is actually more tangible than anything in Gore's, Chicken Little, show.

bjkeefe
01-05-2010, 11:55 PM
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change ...

Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.

popcorn_karate
01-06-2010, 05:45 PM
Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.

i guess so. that really does surprise me.

bjkeefe
01-06-2010, 06:46 PM
i guess so. that really does surprise me.

In fairness, it could be that he actually does know better, but chooses to resort to this dumbness because it works with the truly dumb, out of a concern about the steps that might be taken to address the real problems. I wouldn't bet a whole pile of money on that, but it is conceivable.

Whatfur
01-06-2010, 10:38 PM
In fairness, it could be that he actually does know better, but chooses to resort to this dumbness because it works with the truly dumb, out of a concern about the steps that might be taken to address the real problems. I wouldn't bet a whole pile of money on that, but it is conceivable.

Actually resorting to the same dumbness that I have endured from the likes of you the last decade as El Nino created a series of mild winters.

Gore IS the king of the wingnuts. A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie. So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid?? Do you not find it a wee bit funny that everywhere his jet puts down there seems to follow a snowstorm? Who gets more respect from you the Jehovah Witnesses who tell you that the world is going to end so you better run down to Kingdom Hall and get you ticket punched so as you are one of the what...144,000 they say are going to heaven or Gore who also wants to punch your ticket after he sells it to you?

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 12:54 AM
Actually resorting to the same dumbness that I have endured from the likes of you the last decade as El Nino created a series of mild winters.

I will grant that some people have been guilty of the same sort of nonsense from the other side -- pointing to individual weather moments to "prove" the reality of AGW -- but please do not say "the likes of me." I have never done such a thing, except possibly in a heavily sarcastic rejoinder. And I am sure that every time you ever did hear such a claim being made, you flipped out at how it meant nothing.

Gore IS the king of the wingnuts.

Save that weak-ass Rovian tactic for someone born yesterday and the clowns who get their information from RedState and Malkin. Use moonbat to belittle Gore if you must, but wingnut means something specific, he is most definitely not one, and your attempt to defuse a label you hate because you know it's both true and effective is comical at best.

A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie.

Nope. He is a much better then average informed layperson who put together a briefing for the purpose of raising consciousness. When he saw how well it was working, he decided to make it into a movie.

So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid??

(Pardon me, P_K, but I'll take the liberty of addressing this, even though it was directed at you.)

Based on what I've read about it (never have seen it) I'll grant it was a polemic, leaned towards worst-case scenarios, had some minor errors, and may have presented some model-projections with unwarranted certainty. But it was not "a bogus piece of propaganda."

And howl how you will about the LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE!!!1!, but they are not so stupid as to attach their name to something that meets your description.

Do you not find it a wee bit funny that everywhere his jet puts down there seems to follow a snowstorm? Who gets more respect from you the Jehovah Witnesses who tell you that the world is going to end so you better run down to Kingdom Hall and get you ticket punched so as you are one of the what...144,000 they say are going to heaven or Gore who also wants to punch your ticket after he sells it to you?

This illustrates why I demand that we reserve the term wingnut for its current meaning.

Wonderment
01-07-2010, 02:49 AM
It was warm here today. High of 74 degrees F. I had the air conditioner on in the car.

Therefore, global warming is much worse than we thought.

TwinSwords
01-07-2010, 02:49 AM
It was warm here today. High of 74 degrees F. I had the air conditioner on in the car.

Therefore, global warming is much worse than we thought.

Indisputable!!!1!

popcorn_karate
01-07-2010, 12:51 PM
Gore IS the king of the wingnuts. A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie. So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid??

i got convinced about the reality of climate change, and somewhat worried about in 1994/5 while taking climatology classes - back when the evidence was just becoming indisputable.

I've never seen Al Gore's movie, it may well be nearly as stupid as you say, and it certainly does seem to be a bit alarmist from what i've heard about it. but considering there had been a scientific consensus on the question for many years with no action or public debate - i can forgive his alarmist calls for action as a necessary corrective to the Bush policy of suppression of science combined with the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

bottom line: who cares about al gore? he is not the issue. climate change is.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 01:29 PM
i got convinced about the reality of climate change, and somewhat worried about in 1994/5 while taking climatology classes - back when the evidence was just becoming indisputable.

I've never seen Al Gore's movie, it may well be nearly as stupid as you say, and it certainly does seem to be a bit alarmist from what i've heard about it. but considering there had been a scientific consensus on the question for many years with no action or public debate - i can forgive his alarmist calls for action as a necessary corrective to the Bush policy of suppression of science combined with the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

bottom line: who cares about al gore? he is not the issue. climate change is.

Good points, and I should have remembered to say the bottom line, too. Wingnuts and other denialists would like it to be all about Gore, and I fell for 'fur's trap momentarily.

AemJeff
01-07-2010, 01:38 PM
Good points, and I should have remembered to say the bottom line, too. Wingnuts and other denialists would like it to be all about Gore, and I fell for 'fur's trap momentarily.

In fact, for some of them at least, I think Gore is the proximate cause for why they hold any opinion at all on this matter. It's as if some people fall into the denial camp specifically because they don't like Al Gore. If you look at how weak so many of them are on the scientific issues, and how wrapped up (and emotionally involved) they get in the semiotics, it's easy to believe that that's all that's really going on here for a lot of people. The bullshit and distortions generated by the anti-AGW think-tank cohort just give many of these folks a place to hang their hats (and provide a source for some of the incredibly dumb articles to which they link, instead of engaging in any logical arguments of their own.)

Whatfur
01-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Ha ha, why yes you did fall for the trap...didn't you. Although with alGore being the bait I certainly expected you to come sniffing around... seeing as you have had a hard-on for the guy for as long as I have known you. But lets address your (cough cough) rebuttal shall we...
I will grant that some people have been guilty of the same sort of nonsense from the other side -- pointing to individual weather moments to "prove" the reality of AGW -- but please do not say "the likes of me." I have never done such a thing, except possibly in a heavily sarcastic rejoinder.

Thank you for this admittance, thus validating my pointing out the hypocrisy. Also thank you for pointing out your own elitist attitude validating that you feel it quite all right for you to be "heavily sarcastic" but when I do...I deserve the firestorm of insults.

And I am sure that every time you ever did hear such a claim being made, you flipped out at how it meant nothing.


Again your elitism is showing...I am taken to task for the audacity of alluding you might be in a group of which you admit to being in periodically in a joking kind of way...but I am suppose to sit back at let you portray my responses as you do here? Of course the 13 odd responses from you and your buddies that my original post generated is certainly NOT an example of you and yours flipping out. Too funny.

Save that weak-ass Rovian tactic for someone born yesterday and the clowns who get their information from RedState and Malkin. Use moonbat to belittle Gore if you must, but wingnut means something specific, he is most definitely not one, and your attempt to defuse a label you hate because you know it's both true and effective is comical at best.

I apologize I always looked at the term wingnut as someone easily "unscrewed" and find Gore to be a prime example. But sure, moonbat works...I will try to adhere to the world according to Keefe at all times in the future.

Nope. He is a much better then average informed layperson who put together a briefing for the purpose of raising consciousness. When he saw how well it was working, he decided to make it into a movie.

IMHO, Gore saw two things, his legacy going down in flames as an invisible VP, and a horrible candidate known more for whining and stiffness over everything else and he thought he found a way to stay in the public eye (there are parallels with Clinton in this) and he saw a money making opportunity. Oh and have you heard him answer questions ad lib about climate change? He is a box of rocks.

Now let me get to the really funny part....(p.s. P_K thanks you for being his mommy once again)


(Pardon me, P_K, but I'll take the liberty of addressing this, even though it was directed at you.)

Based on what I've read about it (never have seen it) I'll grant it was a polemic, leaned towards worst-case scenarios, had some minor errors, and may have presented some model-projections with unwarranted certainty.
But it was not "a bogus piece of propaganda."


LMFAO! I really don't need to respond to this as you do a great job of validating everything I alluded. I would take issue with your use of the word "minor" but the rest is classic Keefe stepping in his own shit.

And howl how you will about the LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE!!!1!, but they are not so stupid as to attach their name to something that meets your description.
Did I say anything about the "LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE"? No I didn't. I did suggest a level of stupidity and if you want to equate that with liberals...well...no argument here.


This illustrates why I demand that we reserve the term wingnut for its current meaning.
While more distinctly illustrating the term moonbat. Thank you.

p.s. for Wonderment---Is that all you got?

p.s. for Jeff--Ummm...you're right, Gore is yesterdays news but your objections seem to ignore the basis of this thread and simply seems to be a way to include yourself in the Fur pile-on. Nicely done.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 02:34 PM
Also thank you for pointing out your own elitist attitude validating that you feel it quite all right for you to be "heavily sarcastic" but when I do...I deserve the firestorm of insults.

Looks like 'fur is backpedaling away from his earlier insistence that he was serious about what his factoids "proved" about AGW, and now that he has been thoroughly rebutted and mocked, is planting seeds to support future claims that he was "just kidding."

I'll take this as a surrender, albeit typically ungracious.

I apologize I always looked at the term wingnut as someone easily "unscrewed" and find Gore to be a prime example. But sure, moonbat works...I will try to adhere to the world according to Keefe at all times in the future.

Apology accepted, and thanks.

... the rest is classic Keefe stepping in his own shit.

Tell me, 'fur: When your father punished you for tracking something into the house, did he also call you a "little girl" for crying after being spanked?

Whatfur
01-07-2010, 02:42 PM
....

Tell me, 'fur: When your father punished you for tracking something into the house, did he also call you a "little girl" for crying after being spanked?

Ha ha ha! You hate it when you get so thoroughly owned, don't you? You might want to give up on the "C" and go for "C++". You know, less pointing more class.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 02:47 PM
[...]

Turns out da Nile is not just a river in Egypt, I see.

Whatfur
01-07-2010, 08:55 PM
I would put this on my climategate thread but I figured Jeff needed a little pick me up.

Note headline. ;)

Accuweather. (http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=44795589001&title=Worldwide%20Cold%20Not%20Seen%20Since%2070s% 20Ice%20Age%20Scare)

kezboard
01-07-2010, 09:36 PM
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/brit-hume-jesus-can-tame-you-tiger/). I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

TwinSwords
01-07-2010, 10:20 PM
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/brit-hume-jesus-can-tame-you-tiger/). I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

I suspect that Hume may have made his proelytizing remarks in an effort to draw fire from the left, knowing that it would help to prove the longstanding wingnut argument that liberals hate the Baby Jeebus. I imagine a lot of "normal Americans" sitting in front of their teevees in Ohio can't imagine anything wrong with Hume's remarks, and will feel further alienated by "radical leftists" who criticize what Hume said.

Wonderment
01-07-2010, 10:21 PM
I am betting that no one in 2010 will improve on Glenn Beck's "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people."
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA)
That one comment immortalized Beck as a Babe Ruth-level Wing Nut Hall of Famer and simply set the bar too high for other competitors.

TwinSwords
01-07-2010, 10:35 PM
I am betting that no one in 2010 will improve on Glenn Beck's "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people."
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA)
That one comment immortalized Beck as a Babe Ruth-level Wing Nut Hall of Famer and simply set the bar too high for other competitors.

We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state; that's how deranged they are. They don't just object to his policies; they think he has usurped our Constitutional Republic. Just as they could not help but regard Clinton as a criminal to be impeached for the crime of being a Democrat, they will treat Obama as a mortal threat to the nation and our liberty until he retires, or is driven from public life at the ballot box.

AemJeff
01-07-2010, 10:44 PM
We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state; that's how deranged they are. They don't just object to his policies; they think he has usurped our Constitutional Republic. Just as they could not help but regard Clinton as a criminal to be impeached for the crime of being a Democrat, they will treat Obama as a mortal threat to the nation and our liberty until he retires, or is driven from public life at the ballot box.

You're obviously right: they'll definitely achieve new milestones in idiot obnoxiousness, and in what a friend of mine would call "general assholery;" but, I think Wonderment's point is on style points - and by that standard, I think he's right. Glenn Beck is the new gold standard in creative in-yer-face wingnuttery, and he's set a bar that's going to be hard to meet.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 11:07 PM
You're obviously right: they'll definitely achieve new milestones in idiot obnoxiousness, and in what a friend of mine would call "general assholery;" but, I think Wonderment's point is on style points - and by that standard, I think he's right. Glenn Beck is the new gold standard in creative in-yer-face wingnuttery, and he's set a bar that's going to be hard to meet.

In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 11:13 PM
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/brit-hume-jesus-can-tame-you-tiger/). I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

I didn't hear about him following up on this. Looks like Jamison Foser might have lost his bet (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=144920#post144920)! Too bad, it was a good line.

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 11:14 PM
I suspect that Hume may have made his proelytizing remarks in an effort to draw fire from the left, knowing that it would help to prove the longstanding wingnut argument that liberals hate the Baby Jeebus. I imagine a lot of "normal Americans" sitting in front of their teevees in Ohio can't imagine anything wrong with Hume's remarks, and will feel further alienated by "radical leftists" who criticize what Hume said.

Buddhists are the new Kenyans?

bjkeefe
01-07-2010, 11:23 PM
Shorter this thread so far:

'fur: LOOK AT THIS AMAZING WEATHER FACTOID!!!1! CASE CLOSED!!!1!

us: You do understand that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

'fur: THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME WHEN THEY SUPPORT MY CLAIMS!!!1!

us: Sure about that? You're really serious in saying that weather and climate are the same thing?

'fur: I WAS ONLY KIDDING!!!1! YOU HAVE SHIT ON YOUR SHOES!!!1! NOW CLICK THIS LINK!!!1!

Accuweather. (http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=44795589001&title=Worldwide%20Cold%20Not%20Seen%20Since%2070s% 20Ice%20Age%20Scare)

cognitive madisonian
01-07-2010, 11:34 PM
We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state;

Yeah there was noooooooooooooone of that going on when Bush was president :o

Starwatcher162536
01-08-2010, 12:12 AM
First, regarding the claim made that Global Cooling was the battlecry for the people who now have AGW as their battlecry.

As you can see here (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl), there was some cooling from around 1940ish to 1970ish. This lead some to start to question if a ice age could be imminent, which then lead to the Bryson and Dittberner (1976) paper, which in short, claimed that particulate matter released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels would decrease insolation to such an extent that not only would it mitigate any warming from CO2, but it would also cool the Earth. (This is popularly known as Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming))

It was later shown that the paper was critically flawed, as it did not account for CO2's residency time in the atmosphere being much longer then the aerosols residency time (CO2 will build up in the atmosphere much more then the aerosols will). Source (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf) (Page 6)

Throughout the 1970's, around 10% of papers were pro-cooling, with another 10% making not siding with AGC or AGW (See attached PDF), yet for whatever reason, Times and Newsweek ran with Global Cooling. I personally think it was because it is easier to sensationalize AGC then AGW.

Secondly,come on, be serious, he is comparing a week and a half from one solar minimum,nina,etc year with a week and a half from another solar minimum, nina,etc, year. How very shocking similar inputs will produce similar outputs! Shocking I say!

Third, I can't makeout what charts he is showing us. For all I know, the different charts he is showing us are using anomalies calculated from different baselines. Considering him having to put in the global cooling consensus in the 70's canard, I see no reason to trust him.

I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 12:36 AM
[...]

Good reply, and better than what was deserved.

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley

Here are some links as a small token of my appreciation: Abstract (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1&ct=1), full PDF (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf).

[Added] Alt. PDF link (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf).

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 12:40 AM
Shorter this thread so far:

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 12:43 AM
First, regarding the claim made that Global Cooling was the battlecry for the people who now have AGW as their battlecry.

As you can see here (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl), there was some cooling from around 1940ish to 1970ish. This lead some to start to question if a ice age could be imminent, which then lead to the Bryson and Dittberner (1976) paper, which in short, claimed that particulate matter released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels would decrease insolation to such an extent that not only would it mitigate any warming from CO2, but it would also cool the Earth. (This is popularly known as Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming))

It was later shown that the paper was critically flawed, as it did not account for CO2's residency time in the atmosphere being much longer then the aerosols residency time (CO2 will build up in the atmosphere much more then the aerosols will). Source (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf) (Page 6)

Throughout the 1970's, around 10% of papers were pro-cooling, with another 10% making not siding with AGC or AGW (See attached PDF), yet for whatever reason, Times and Newsweek ran with Global Cooling. I personally think it was because it is easier to sensationalize AGC then AGW.

Secondly,come on, be serious, he is comparing a week and a half from one solar minimum,nina,etc year with a week and a half from another solar minimum, nina,etc, year. How very shocking similar inputs will produce similar outputs! Shocking I say!

Third, I can't makeout what charts he is showing us. For all I know, the different charts he is showing us are using anomalies calculated from different baselines. Considering him having to put in the global cooling consensus in the 70's canard, I see no reason to trust him.

I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley

Great post. You should use that whenever and wherever wingnuts deploy their global cooling idiocy.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 12:51 AM
In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

Yeah, just look at what McCain said today: Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. He says it like it's a deliberate plot, a charge that is actually believed by a considerable portion of the wingnut electorate.

The fact that even McCain is now resorting to this rhetoric is just a sign of where we're heading in the next several months. I can only hope that it creates a backlash. Pray there are enough sane Americans appropriately terrified of what an America governed by teabaggers would be like to avoid giving electoral rewards to Republicans at a time when they are descending ever deeper into madness and extremism.

Wonderment
01-08-2010, 12:51 AM
Yeah there was noooooooooooooone of that going on when Bush was president

Apples and oranges. The difference being that there were solid legal grounds for impeaching President Bush and prosecuting his cronies: torture, illegal wiretaps, go-to-war lies.

Politically, prosecution was a non-starter, but legally there was a shitload of evidence, and a bad precedent was set by not holding the perps responsible.

Ironically, the best justification for impeaching (or not re-electing) Obama is his failure to prosecute the Bushies. That could be construed as obstruction of justice. It's an ugly cover-up in my estimation.

In any case, it's truly a national disgrace when you compare craven Dems. letting Bush skate for war crimes and torture ("Impeachment is off the table") to the rabid lynch mob of Republican Congress members unleashed on Clinton for lying about the blow job(s).

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:01 AM
In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann: "This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass; we will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass."

She added, health care reform has the capacity to "destroy this country forever" because reform proposals are "nothing more than slavery."

Bachman concluded "something is way crazy out there."

She knows her base!

John M
01-08-2010, 01:07 AM
Yeah, just look at what McCain said today: Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. He says it like it's a deliberate plot, a charge that is actually believed by a considerable portion of the wingnut electorate.

Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. It is a deliberate plot, and he is (maybe) a native-born Indonesian commie.

I know I said he was American before and (prolly) not a socialist, but that was then and this is now. We're all Georgians now. I'm canceling the debate and heading straight to Warshington.

Laugh now, Twin Swords. You won't be laughing when President Palin makes me her SecDef and we ba-ba-bomb Iran. And I'll be on the Supreme Court by the time I'm 95! Just in time to validate Bristol Palin's electoral college victory over Obama's little pickaninny. The future is ours!

Whatfur
01-08-2010, 01:07 AM
Great post. You should use that whenever and wherever wingnuts deploy their global cooling idiocy.


Fur loves to get them running in circles. Too funny. Night kids.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:08 AM
You're obviously right: they'll definitely achieve new milestones in idiot obnoxiousness, and in what a friend of mine would call "general assholery;" but, I think Wonderment's point is on style points - and by that standard, I think he's right. Glenn Beck is the new gold standard in creative in-yer-face wingnuttery, and he's set a bar that's going to be hard to meet.

You make a good point. Beck is kind of the Cirque du Soleil of wingnuttery -- the perfect form that inspires a throbbing awe in the Lyles and Whatfurs of America's backwoods, trailer parks, and mental institutions.

But even within the last year, Beck has had a lot of competition. Some other candidates for "Most Wingnutty of 2009" to follow...

Whatfur
01-08-2010, 01:11 AM
Apples and oranges. The difference being that there were solid legal grounds for impeaching President Bush and prosecuting his cronies: torture, illegal wiretaps, go-to-war lies.

Politically, prosecution was a non-starter, but legally there was a shitload of evidence, and a bad precedent was set by not holding the perps responsible.

Ironically, the best justification for impeaching (or not re-electing) Obama is his failure to prosecute the Bushies. That could be construed as obstruction of justice. It's an ugly cover-up in my estimation.

In any case, it's truly a national disgrace when you compare craven Dems. letting Bush skate for war crimes and torture ("Impeachment is off the table") to the rabid lynch mob of Republican Congress members unleashed on Clinton for lying about the blow job(s).

You sound like Michelle Bachman's alter ego.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:22 AM
Rush Limbaugh: "I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment, which term limits the President of the United States. He may not do it that way, he may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his cult-like followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is loved and adored has carte blanc once elected. Just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.

"And I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016 ... when you look at Obama's followers - and we've discussed it here - they are a cult-like bunch and their attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise, it is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities, by the way, who for different reasons, who will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced. ... No one else can lead the nation, they will say. And they won't care a whit about the legalities that might be trampled. Half of the legalities if they don't even know about them because they haven't been properly educated. I think this situation in Honduras is very instructive. Anybody who thinks that he intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts ... These are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule."

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:23 AM
Jon Voight: "We're witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We're becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. Do not let the Obama Administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. The real truth is that the Obama Administration is professional at bullying, as we witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to start fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government health care plan forced upon them. So I ask, is President Obama starting a civil war in our country?"

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:24 AM
Sen. Jim DeMint: "Probably the most heartwrenching experiences I've had over the last several days is when naturalized American citizens who have immigrated here from Germany, Iran, and other countries, they come up to me and they say, 'why we re doing what so many have fled from? Why don't Americans see what we're doing?' And I've realized that these people who have lived under socialized type economies and totalitarianism, they know where we're headed if we don't turn things around."

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:25 AM
Sarah Palin: "As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our our collective jaw is dropping, and we're not just saying no, we're saying hell no. The American I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome have to stand in front of Obama's death panel so his bureaucrats can decide based on a subjective judgement of their level of productivity in society whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is down right evil."

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:25 AM
Glenn Beck: "I hate to get all Jesus on you -- but if you believe in God, if you believe in light and dark, you know that God creates, and Satan perverts. He doesn't create, he perverts. He takes really, really good things and perverts them [...] America is not going to be destroyed by the force of darkness. America will be perverted. If we fed and freed more people, we will starve and imprison more people than any power on Earth. That would be the goal of the adversary. To distort it. To wreck the message that freedom is a good thing, that capitalism is a good thing, that a republic is a good thing. It can't be just be destroyed, it must be perverted and marked on the foreheads of everyone -- 'this is really bad.' That's what we're fighting against -- a perversion of this system. It's much worse than a collapse. It would almost make you hope for a collapse, if that indeed were true. I don't know what is true anymore. But get down on your knees, because you'll find it."

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:26 AM
Esteemed wingnut economist Arthur Laffer: "If you like the post office and the department of motor vehicles, and you think they're run well, just wait until you see Medicare, Medicade, and health care done by the government."

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 01:26 AM
Fur loves to get them running in circles. Too funny. Night kids.

Line 5. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=145564#post145564)

Also gotta love the delusions of grandeur indicated by speaking about oneself in the third person.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 01:27 AM
Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. It is a deliberate plot, and he is (maybe) a native-born Indonesian commie.

I know I said he was American before and (prolly) not a socialist, but that was then and this is now. We're all Georgians now. I'm canceling the debate and heading straight to Warshington.

Laugh now, Twin Swords. You won't be laughing when President Palin makes me her SecDef and we ba-ba-bomb Iran. And I'll be on the Supreme Court by the time I'm 95! Just in time to validate Bristol Palin's electoral college victory over Obama's little pickaninny. The future is ours!

Hey, John M! Long time no see! Welcome back!

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 01:30 AM
You sound like Michelle Bachman's alter ego.

Didn't you already say good night, last post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=145592#post145592)?

Seems like someone is being made to run in circles, hmmm?

graz
01-08-2010, 02:15 AM
Also gotta love the delusions of grandeur indicated by speaking about oneself in the third person.

It's all part of his plan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfE695MFHc&feature=PlayList&p=1EE7069D595BECFF&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL)

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 02:20 AM
It's all part of his plan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfE695MFHc&feature=PlayList&p=1EE7069D595BECFF&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL)

LOL! I had forgotten all about that guy. Man, that seems like so long ago.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 02:26 AM
LOL! I had forgotten all about that guy. Man, that seems like so long ago.

LOL. I saw a comedian back at the time doing Bob Dole at the diner, ordering breakfast:

"Bob Dole would like two eggs, over easy. Bob Dole would like wheat toast, an two strips of bacon." Etc.

Funny stuff.

Whatfur
01-08-2010, 08:47 AM
LOL. I saw a comedian back at the time doing Bob Dole at the diner, ordering breakfast:

"Bob Dole would like two eggs, over easy. Bob Dole would like wheat toast, an two strips of bacon." Etc.

Funny stuff.

Oh yeah...fucking hilarious...in any case...

Fur IS packing more wood that the Yosemite National Forest.

Glad you took a moment to stop running in circles...and started walking. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shlBZZ-IQYY)

Off to run the factory.

Oh and btw it is warmer this morning 0.1F although expections are for -20F tonight. Brrrrrr

Whatfur
01-08-2010, 09:32 AM
Didn't you already say good night, last post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=145592#post145592)?

Seems like someone is being made to run in circles, hmmm?

Originality is not one of your strong suits. Maybe you should have thrown in another quote about D'Nile.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 11:03 AM
Apples and oranges.

More like "Democrats and Republicans" ;)

I simply disagree with you totally on this. I see no 'war crimes' from the Bush administration. Torture? A grand total of about 5 people, if that, were waterboarded, in the process of procuring vital information about future terror attacks.

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 11:57 AM
Originality is not one of your strong suits.

Easy there, old man. Just hoisting you on your own petard.

And as for you criticizing lack of originality ... once again, I am staggered by your pathological lack of self-awareness.

bjkeefe
01-08-2010, 12:01 PM
Oh yeah...fucking hilarious...in any case...

Fur IS packing more wood that the Yosemite National Forest.

As with the backfire produced by your haste to declare "victory" in every exchange, this constant trumpeting of your supposed manliness cannot help but make the rest of us think you have some very deep worries about yourself. I've suggested you seek help before, and I'll suggest it again. You sound like a basket case of insecurities.

popcorn_karate
01-08-2010, 01:54 PM
I simply disagree with you totally on this.
how so?

I see no 'war crimes' from the Bush administration.
oh, that is different

Torture? A grand total of about 5 people,
wait a second, now you are agreeing that he is responsible for at least 5 war crimes.

i'm confused - but not as confused as you ; )

Wonderment
01-08-2010, 03:48 PM
Torture? A grand total of about 5 people, if that, were waterboarded, in the process of procuring vital information about future terror attacks.

Completely false and part of the grotesque cover-up.

We have confessions of a handful of cases of water torture, which was only one of the torture techniques used by the Bushies. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and gang also authorized widespread use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," beginning in extralegal offshore prisons like Gitmo and secret facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they also knowingly outsourced torture to allied dictatorships and pseudo-democracies (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) where anything goes.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 04:07 PM
how so?
[/QUOTE]

Well, the first one is this:
In regards to 'illegal wiretapping', this was begun under Clinton. I don't think the legality of it is as cut and dry as you believe it to be. And I certainly don't see how it is impeachable.
In regards to the 'lies', can you prove that Bush knowingly lied? Presidents sometimes work off bad intel--bad intel led Clinton to commission a bombing that ended up hitting an aspirin factory instead of terrorists in Sudan.
And finally, in regards to torture, the US Marine corps waterboards its members as part of training. It's not a war crime. And I certainly don't see how it's impeachable. Terrorists are not subject to Geneva protection because they do not operate in accordance with Geneva--no different than when Germans infiltrated American lines, were sniffed out, lined up and shot.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 04:09 PM
Completely false and part of the grotesque cover-up.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

'Enhanced techniques' include such horrible things as putting terrorists in stress positions for a few hours, and blasting Pearl Jam in their cells. Boo hoo.

Wonderment
01-08-2010, 04:59 PM
'Enhanced techniques' include such horrible things as putting terrorists in stress positions for a few hours, and blasting Pearl Jam in their cells. Boo hoo.

Terrorists? How do you know they were terrorists?

Also, the point is not how egregious a violation of law may seem to you personally.

Perhaps you have a high tolerance for domestic abuse, cocaine sales, perjury or dumping toxic chemicals into rivers. But your personal preferences are not relevant. A judicial system that says "Boo hoo" to the victims of crimes, especially violent crimes like those committed by the Bushies, is an evil and failed system.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 05:09 PM
.

Terrorists? How do you know they were terrorists?
Because most of them were picked up on the frontlines.


Also, the point is not how egregious a violation of law may seem to you personally.

When you want to make allegations such as 'torture', it really does. What the Japanese did to the Chinese during WWII was torture and war crimes violations. When you attempt to invoke the same language to describe the Bush administration ok'ing waterboarding of a few terrorists, you really degrade the words.



Perhaps you have a high tolerance for domestic abuse, cocaine sales, perjury or dumping toxic chemicals into rivers. But your personal preferences are not relevant. A judicial system that says "Boo hoo" to the victims of crimes, especially violent crimes like those committed by the Bushies, is an evil and failed system.

Those 'victims' are terrorists. Let's stop pretending that they're anything else.

popcorn_karate
01-08-2010, 05:23 PM
When you attempt to invoke the same language to describe the Bush administration ok'ing waterboarding of a few terrorists, you really degrade the words.

the u.s. has had war crimes prosecutions of others for waterboarding. you don't have a leg to stand on, sir.


Those 'victims' are terrorists. Let's stop pretending that they're anything else.

if you define terrorist as anybody we feel like torturing, then you are accurate.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 05:36 PM
the u.s. has had war crimes prosecutions of others for waterboarding. you don't have a leg to stand on, sir.

No one was prosecuted solely for waterboarding. There were litanies of offenses, and waterboarding was tacked on.

You're ignoring my point about degrading the terms. The Japanese were guilty of war crimes and torture. Do you mean to equate waterboarding with the offenses of the Rape of Nanking?


if you define terrorist as anybody we feel like torturing, then you are accurate.

So you are honestly arguing that George Bush arbitrarily picked up innocent people and 'tortured' them because he felt like it?

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 06:04 PM
.A judicial system that says "Boo hoo" to the victims of crimes, especially violent crimes like those committed by the Bushies, is ... evil

As are the people who deny it happened and/or make excuses for it.

TwinSwords
01-08-2010, 06:09 PM
You're ignoring my point about degrading the terms. The Japanese were guilty of war crimes and torture. Do you mean to equate waterboarding with the offenses of the Rape of Nanking?

This is like saying that only Jeffery Dahmer's crimes should be called "murder," and that common murders shouldn't be called "murder" because it degrades what Dahmer did.

War crimes don't have to reach the scale of Nanking to be war crimes. You obviously know this.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 06:19 PM
This is like saying that only Jeffery Dahmer's crimes should be called "murder," and that common murders shouldn't be called "murder" because it degrades what Dahmer did.

Not really because regardless of the means, 'murder' entails reaching at a common end: the unjust ending of a person's life.

Now, the torture done in Nanking resulted in a great many deaths. Those who weren't killed were permanently maimed.

Waterboarding, conversely, does no permanent damage. That's why US Marines undergo it. It's temporary discomfort, very judiciously used in extreme situations.

cognitive madisonian
01-08-2010, 06:20 PM
As are the people who deny it happened and/or make excuses for it.

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me you're evil!" argument.

bjkeefe
01-09-2010, 12:00 PM
Interesting factoid from Charles M. Blow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/opinion/09blow.html):

There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx) as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times (http://documents.nytimes.com/the-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-of-unemployed-adults#p=21), conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

TwinSwords
01-09-2010, 02:16 PM
Waterboarding, conversely, does no permanent damage. That's why US Marines undergo it. It's temporary discomfort, very judiciously used in extreme situations.

I can't believe you're making such disingenous arguments. Surely there's a measure of ignorance, too. For example, you might actually be so poorly informed as to believe there is no lasting damage from repeated episodes of waterboarding. But there is no way you seriously believe that any comparison can be made between the waterboarding of marines for training purposes under controlled conditions when the marines know they are going to survive, and actual, repeated cases of waterboarding of detainees.

You are morally depraved, cogmad. And apparently proud of it.

TwinSwords
01-09-2010, 02:20 PM
Ah, the old "If you disagree with me you're evil!" argument.

Evil's probably too strong of a word, though I'm still tempted to apply it to you, and I think a good argument could be had over whether it's truly applicable. (I guess I am leaning towards believing it is accurate.)

But in any event, you've dishonestly mischaracterized what I said. I didn't say you're evil because you disagreed with me. I said you're evil because you're an enthusiastic proponent of barbaric and inhumane practices.

TwinSwords
01-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Interesting factoid from Charles M. Blow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/opinion/09blow.html):

These polls measure the appeal of certain labels, but do not measure the actual support for the policies that would be enacted if the Repulican Party regained power. A 50 year public relations effort has been successful at establishing in the minds of much of the public that "conservative = good" and "liberal = dirty fucking hippie." But public polling for decades have consistently shown public support for a broad liberal agenda (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1886&highlight=americans+liberal), even among a majority of the Republican rank and file.

The confusion of the meaning of the terms is dangerous, too, because many voters vote for the "conservative" candidate without meaning to support the actual policies that are implemented as a result. (Reagan was famous for having high approval numbers while voters disagreed with him on virtually every issue.)

I once saw Tucker Carlson on a talk show, introduced as a conservative. Carlson said, "I'm as conservative as they come." This is common on the right, the full throated embrace of conservatism, even to include embracing the extremes of conservatism.

You would never see the same thing on the left. No one would ever say "I'm as liberal as they come" like it was a good thing.

Since conservatism in the abstract is considered to be a good thing, it's easy to say "the more conservative the better." But liberalism is widely perceived to be bad and dangerous. By the standards of convention wisdom, liberalism is something you can only defend narrowly in specific situations. A politician who said he was "as liberal as they come" would repulse many voters even if he agreed with them on every issue.

cognitive madisonian
01-09-2010, 07:53 PM
I can't believe you're making such disingenous arguments. Surely there's a measure of ignorance, too. For example, you might actually be so poorly informed as to believe there is no lasting damage from repeated episodes of waterboarding. But there is no way you seriously believe that any comparison can be made between the waterboarding of marines for training purposes under controlled conditions when the marines know they are going to survive, and actual, repeated cases of waterboarding of detainees.

You are morally depraved, cogmad. And apparently proud of it.

Oh so now we're to the point where you're going to talk about lasting psychological damage, since we've established that there is no lasting physical consequences. Well, guess what? Prison does the exact same thing.

We're fighting a war. I don't think you understand this, as you apparently care much more about coddling terrorists than you do preventing terrorist attacks. Worse, you seem to think that George Bush and not Osama Bin Laden is the real threat. This is morally very close to Trutherism.

bjkeefe
01-11-2010, 03:52 PM
Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

So says Media Decoder (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/), and it seems to be true (http://news.google.com/news?q=palin+fox).

[Added] Heh. The latter link now has as its top result a story (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/11/2010-01-11_sarah_palin_joins_fox_news_as_a_contributor_in_ multiyear_deal.html) about the formal announcement, in the NY Daily News. Along with the story is a poll asking the question, "Are you more likely to watch Fox News now that Palin will be contributing? So far, the answer, "Yes, she's great" is running at a mere 100%. (I guess my vote was not counted.)

[Added2] Nice bit of honesty and context provided in the last line of the NYDN's piece:

Palin joins an on-air team that also includes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who hosts a weekend show, and Fox News analysts Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove.

Further comment would be superfluous.

bjkeefe
01-11-2010, 05:01 PM
I think Newell's got it about right (http://wonkette.com/413117/sarah-palin-is-president-of-fox-news):

Either way, everyone — EVERYONE — will watch it, and then we will all whine about how terrible it is that she gets so much attention.

TwinSwords
01-11-2010, 05:11 PM
From Charles Johnson (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35534_The_Fiskie_Award_for_2009_Goes_To-_A_Raving_Freakazoid_Nut_Sandwich):

The Fiskie Award for 2009 Goes To: A Raving Freakazoid Nut Sandwich

Thu, Jan 7, 2010

He spreads End Times craziness and has guests who suggest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the Antichrist. He constantly predicts that the end of America is imminent. He asserts that President Obama is a “racist with a deep-seated hatred of white culture.” He says President Obama is part of a decades long communist plot to destroy the country. He thinks the Rockefeller Center in Manhattan is a hotbed of commie propaganda. He promotes a book by W. Cleon Skousen, a crazed work of conspiracy theories that served as an inspiration for the John Birch Society. He interviewed a spokesman for the Birch Society, and said their ideas are “starting to make more and more sense.” He spread a conspiracy theory that the Cash for Clunkers website was part of a plot to take over your computer and confiscate everything you own. He compares Fox News to Jews during the Holocaust. He rants about the government over a backdrop of Nazi demonstrations.

And that’s just the short list.

He’s a creationist, a climate change denier, a conspiracy theorist, a demagogue — and he weeps frequently on the air, sometimes after hearing the songs of Paul Anka.

So now, without further ado, we present the winner of the coveted Idiotarian Award for 2009 — who else? — Glenn “Raving Freakazoid Nut Sandwich (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35515_Glenn_Beck_is_a_Raving_Freakazoid_Nut_Sandwi ch_(He_Says_So_Himself!))” Beck.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/BeckWinsFiskie2009.jpg

uncle ebeneezer
01-11-2010, 05:19 PM
Wow, four former elected Republicans lending their "expertise". Now that's balance.

Cue the responses of: Yeah but MSNBC is biased because they have, umm...Keith Olberman so their just as bad.

TwinSwords
01-11-2010, 05:36 PM
Wow, four former elected Republicans lending their "expertise". Now that's balance.

Cue the responses of: Yeah but MSNBC is biased because they have, umm...Keith Olberman so their just as bad.

LOL.

And 3 of those 4 (Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich) are leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

The Obama White House was of course precisely correct when they said Fox News is the media arm of the Republican Party.

bjkeefe
01-11-2010, 05:38 PM
[...]

B-b-b-but Charles Johnson is husky!!!1!

</wingnut>

Thanks for that. And don't miss the CJ link to his earlier post: "Glenn Beck: 'Cars for Clunkers' is a Government Plot to Take Over Your Computer (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34337_Glenn_Beck-_Cars_for_Clunkers_is_a_Government_Plot_to_Take_Ov er_Your_Computer)."

TwinSwords
01-11-2010, 09:11 PM
And don't miss the CJ link to his earlier post: "Glenn Beck: 'Cars for Clunkers' is a Government Plot to Take Over Your Computer (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34337_Glenn_Beck-_Cars_for_Clunkers_is_a_Government_Plot_to_Take_Ov er_Your_Computer)."

Wow. I remember when this was an issue several months ago, because the Republican base members who I watch for entertainment on YouTube were wetting their pants and sobbing in hysterics about the Muslim Fascist Hitler in the White House taking over their computers and sending their files to the United Nations. But I don't think I ever saw the actual video of Beck.

It's no surprise that base Republicans, who trust Beck implicitly, are so terrified.

TwinSwords
01-12-2010, 01:27 AM
"Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel."

Chris Matthews just now on Hardball, on hearing the news: "Ha! How could she be a pundit? She doesn't know anything!"

According to that new Halperin book, Sarah Palin thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. She couldn't explain the cause of WW2, or why North Korea and South Korea were different countries.

None of this will stop her fans from loving her, and handing her the reins of the most powerful nation on earth. In fact, her ignorance is her appeal to the Republican base, who are so sick of being sneered at by elites. The Republican base doesn't know any of that stuff, either.

kezboard
01-12-2010, 02:57 AM
Sarah Palin thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. She couldn't explain the cause of WW2, or why North Korea and South Korea were different countries.

In all fairness, there were a lot of things you could have said 'caused' WWII, but...oh what am I saying. I'm depressed now. :(

kezboard
01-12-2010, 03:27 AM
(The best quote from that video, in my opinion.)
You know, it drives me crazy that the wingnuts can get so hysterical about imaginary privacy violations, but when it comes to, you know, revoking habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping, no problem.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 01:07 PM
At Least 16 Tea Party Activists Step Up To Challenge Top Republican Incumbents And Recruits (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/11/steele-tea-challenge/)

In other words, the midterms should be fun, and perhaps quite surprising to those spouting the CW about the Dems being doomed.

(h/t: Juli Weiner (http://wonkette.com/413130/look-at-michael-steeles-dancey-top-hat-which-he-borrowed-from-some-college-drama-department))

claymisher
01-12-2010, 01:12 PM
In other words, the midterms should be fun, and perhaps quite surprising to those spouting the CW about the Dems being doomed.

(h/t: Juli Weiner (http://wonkette.com/413130/look-at-michael-steeles-dancey-top-hat-which-he-borrowed-from-some-college-drama-department))

I don't get it. Why exactly are the teabaggers mad at the Republicans again? For not being conservative enough? Do they really think that's going to help them win elections?

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't get it. Why exactly are the teabaggers mad at the Republicans again? For not being conservative enough?

That is my sense, yes, along with the impression that the incumbent Republicans give of not being for anything. I think that no matter how much you disagree with or dislike Obama and the Dems, you want your people to have some alternate, positive ideas.

Do they really think that's going to help them win elections?

Some of them seem to believe this, I think. Others, I believe, would rather focus on purification in the near term, thinking this is the way to win (and steer the country in the direction they'd like) in the long term.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 02:52 PM
Following up from the last (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=146165#post146165) entry on this page, this bit of comedy from Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021881.php) is worth a look. Apparently. it's not just teabaggers vs. the GOP establishment; it's also teabagger vs. teabagger!

The latest kerfuffle concerns the alleged lack of "authenticity" concerning a big teabagger event featuring none other than St. Sarah of Wasilla. Who will be getting $100,000 to show up. Which means tickets for the event now cost more than $500.

I'm reminded of Taitzers vs. Bergians. (? (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-comes-after-schadenfreude.html))

[Added] Also, unsurprisingly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021878.php), the LIEBRUL media is not invited to attend, most particularly when Palin speaks. B'head Dave Weigel (http://washingtonindependent.com/73731/reporters-mostly-barred-from-tea-party-convention) has posted his rejection email.

claymisher
01-12-2010, 03:47 PM
That is my sense, yes, along with the impression that the incumbent Republicans give of not being for anything. I think that no matter how much you disagree with or dislike Obama and the Dems, you want your people to have some alternate, positive ideas.



Some of them seem to believe this, I think. Others, I believe, would rather focus on purification in the near term, thinking this is the way to win (and steer the country in the direction they'd like) in the long term.

You think they'd be happier since the Rs in Congress have been 100% opposed to Obama. Oh well.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 03:50 PM
You think they'd be happier since the Rs in Congress have been 100% opposed to Obama. Oh well.

I think does make them happy, but is not seen as sufficient.

I am reminded of a frequent complaint I heard from liberal and Democratic friends regarding Kerry in 2004 -- they were all, "I get that he's completely against Bush. Hurrah. But what is he for?"

In other words, the opposition stance is sort of a bare minimum; like, "Of course you're against these things. You'd be crucified if you weren't. But that's not enough."

I also think, given that current economic woes, that there is a lot of the familiar throw-ALL-of-the-bums-out attitude. Someone must be blamed. Even those who insist they want government to stay out of everyone's lives get very pissed when government doesn't do good things for them.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 04:14 PM
Apparently. it's not just teabaggers vs. the GOP establishment; it's also teabagger vs. teabagger!

And in yet another variation, teabagger vs. Republican newcomer, in which the former accuses the latter of having "'Hollywood' values."

Can't make this stuff (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/real-world-wisconsin-perma-candidate-turned-tea-partier-challenges-reality-tv-star-for-obey-seat.php?ref=fpb) up.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 04:30 PM
Further details and overview from TPM's Zachary Roth, interviewed by Rachel Maddow (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=4442072"). A worthwhile six-minute vid. (If you're a political junkie, I mean.)

Wonderment
01-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Former CNN host Lou Dobbs is standing by his questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace.

Dobbs told Esquire in an interview posted on the magazine’s website Monday that questioning whether Obama was born in Hawaii is “common sense.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31370.html#ixzz0cQzR5pXR

Wonderment
01-12-2010, 05:08 PM
“I’m actually pro-immigrant,” said Dobbs, who once falsely accused illegal immigrants of carrying leprosy into the country.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31370.html#ixzz0cR05Eav7

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 05:12 PM
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31370.html#ixzz0cQzR5pXR

Even more comically, he wins today's award for lack of self-awareness:

“It has been used in the extreme left to create a toxicity that is just unbelievable,” he added.

Yeah. The LEFT used Birferism to create an air of "toxicity."

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 05:21 PM
Even more comically, he wins today's award for lack of self-awareness:



Yeah. The LEFT used Birferism to create an air of "toxicity."

I see (via Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/413125/today-marks-the-day-rush-limbaugh-squirmed-out-of-mrs-limbaugh-and-into-our-hearts-and-minds)) we're also at fault (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/11/dobbs-birther-defense/) for something else:

After leaving CNN, he also blamed (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/20/dobbs-telemundo/) the “far left” for characterizing him as an “enemy of Latinos.”

As my daddy always told me: the measure of maturity is the willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of your own decisions. Lou Dobbs is the world's only loose-dentured tween, is the point.

bjkeefe
01-12-2010, 05:44 PM
Uhhhh .... Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Andy McCarthy, Obama, Interpol, <blink>secret vault in New York City</blink> ... all confirmed by investigative reporter Chuck Norris!!!1!

[New sweek (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/12/chuck-norris-hunts-for-obama-s-secret-vault-as-interpol-conspiracy-theories-get-wilder.aspx) via New ell (http://wonkette.com/413144/obama-interpol-locking-white-people-in-secret-new-york-vault)]

==========

(Of course, the Internets' collection of Chuck Norris Facts has allowed us to discover why he has gone off the deep end (http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2008/12/11/chuck-norris-fact/).)

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chucks-hat.jpg

Whatfur
01-12-2010, 11:06 PM
Easy there, old man. Just hoisting you on your own petard.

And as for you criticizing lack of originality ... once again, I am staggered by your pathological lack of self-awareness.

Back to the "old man" comments eh? Nice. Anytime, anywhere, Sonny.

Whatfur
01-12-2010, 11:10 PM
As with the backfire produced by your haste to declare "victory" in every exchange, this constant trumpeting of your supposed manliness cannot help but make the rest of us think you have some very deep worries about yourself. I've suggested you seek help before, and I'll suggest it again. You sound like a basket case of insecurities.

Not sure of the victory you see being declared or any trumpetting of manliness unless the truth is my trumpet... but I do find it funny...the picture one gets of another. I see you as someone whose ass is wider than his shoulders and still lives under his mother's apron. Wonder whose picture is closer.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 12:01 AM
Anytime, anywhere, Sonny.

Still think you have to assert your little-kid idea of what it means to be a man, every time you get zinged, huh?

Same answer as the last time you spurted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=131650&highlight=real+name+address#post131650) this fantasy out.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 12:03 AM
Not sure of the victory you see being declared or any trumpetting of manliness ...

Of course you don't. As I've pointed out before, you're a case study in denial and lack of self-awareness.

Save it for someone who cares, 'furry.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 01:01 AM
I don't get it. Why exactly are the teabaggers mad at the Republicans again? For not being conservative enough?
Yes! Exactly!

The tea baggers aren't monolithic, of course, and now include large numbers of loyal Republicans who jumped on board (and are co-opting) the movement after the initial waves of demonstrations in early 2009. But the heart and soul of the tea party movement are those extremists who are disaffected by both parties; they would never have voted Democratic, and are now completely fed up with the Republicans. Many tea baggers believe Republicans are socialists, too ... just like the Democrats.

There are many issues that animate the tea bag movement, a grab bag of right wing grievances. But as much as any other single idea, the tea baggers are Tenthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenther_movement), essentially opposed to all government action apart from that which is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. They are not so much "for" anything as they are against everything. Many of them are even against our foreign military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them are also deeply opposed to the police state policies of the Bush administration, such as warrantless wiretapping, the PATRIOT ACT, and so on. These differences from mainstream Republicans are going to be a continuing source of tension within conservative ranks, but at the end of the day, these differences will only harm Republicans at the polls when turnout on the right is low, as it was in 2008. But in 2010, turnout on the right will be through the roof, and many libertarian types will hold their noses and vote for the Republican candidates as the lesser of two evils.

Our only real hope to make this work to our advantage is numerous replays of NY23: the conservative vote divided between a Republican candidate and tea bagging extremist candidate. But I would not count on Republicans repeating this mistake in many districts. Instead, very conservative Republicans will be driven out and replaced by even more conservative teabaggers.

It is in this way that the Republican Party continues its 50 year slide towards authoritarian extremism.


Do they really think that's going to help them win elections?
If they don't now, they will after they win a lot of elections in 2010. (Assuming conventional wisdom holds.)

There is no evidence of widespread public support for the extremist ideology of the tea bagging wingnuts, but that's how Republicans will interpret the (probable) results of the 2010 elections. The real reasons Democrats will lose a lot of seats include all of the usual: the nonstop media assault on the Democrats, the continuing recession, low Democratic turnout, high conservative turnout, etc. But Republicans — and the media — will interpret the results as confirmation of their Republicans' decision to move to the right.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 01:13 AM
That is my sense, yes, along with the impression that the incumbent Republicans give of not being for anything. I think that no matter how much you disagree with or dislike Obama and the Dems, you want your people to have some alternate, positive ideas.
What kinds of things do you think they want the Republicans to be for that they aren't already? For example, the teabaggers would say they favor tort reform, but so do almost all Republicans.

I'm not really able to think of anything the tea baggers want the Republicans to be for that they aren't, except if you count things that they are against as things they are for. Example: They are against Social Security, Medicare Part D, and the Department of Education, which you could frame as being "for" the elimination of these things. But I would not normally describe those positions are being "for" something as much as being "against" something, and I'm not sure opposition to these programs is what you meant by "alternate, positive ideas."*

Ultimately I think the prevailing teabag philosophy is libertarianism, or Tentherism. That is, across the board opposition to almost everything government does. They effectively hate the government and deeply distrust it -- to the point of overwhelming paranoia. See, e.g., Limbaugh's claim that Obama will install himself as dictator for life (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=145595#post145595), or Beck's contention that the government will seize everything in your home (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=146085#post146085) if you participate in the Cash for Clunkers program.



*It's worth noting again the two major disconnects between teabaggers and Republicans:

(1) The core tea baggers (not the loyal Republicans who joined the tea bag protests later in 2009, but the first wave that grew out of the Ron Paul movement and other far right movements) differ from Republicans in their opposition to war, police state policies, and even in some cases free trade.

(2) Virtually all tea baggers believe Republicans "didn't go far enough" in cutting taxes and eliminating federal programs, or went too far in the wrong direction, as with NCLB and Medicare Part D.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 01:24 AM
You think they'd be happier since the Rs in Congress have been 100% opposed to Obama. Oh well.

I think they are. I've detected a noticable uptick in wingnut cheer as 2009 progressed. Where ten months ago they were raving with bulging eyes about the coming Obama dictatorship, they are now almost mellow, and declaring victory on front after front. They may be crazy, but they can see which way the wind blows.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 01:28 AM
Someone must be blamed. Even those who insist they want government to stay out of everyone's lives get very pissed when government doesn't do good things for them.
What kind of good things do you think the teabaggers want the government to do for them? (Assuming we're not counting negatives as positives, e.g., counting the elimination of Social Security as the government doing something good for them.) About the only thing I would say I have ever heard more than a few tea baggers say they want the government to do for them would be protect them from free trade. Many of them resent the outsourcing of jobs to "communist China," and so on.

I guess maybe you could count "sealing the border" as something they want the government to do for them, but that's a fairly mainstream Republican position and not really tea bagger-specific, and it falls within a fairly conventional conservative understanding of the law enforcement function of government.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 01:42 AM
What kind of good things do you think the teabaggers want the government to do for them? (Assuming we're not counting negatives as positives, e.g., counting the elimination of Social Security as the government doing something good for them.)

Well, that probably cuts some of the things out that immediately come to mind, since I think "end needless regulation," "eliminate waste," and "cut red tape for small businesses" would all be ideas looked upon with favor by the teabaggers, not to mention "cut taxes."

I think a lot of them would also like the government to "increase security," which could mean more military spending, more cops, harsher jail sentences for crimes that scare them.

About the only thing I would say I have ever heard more than a few tea baggers say they want the government to do for them would be protect them from free trade. Many of them resent the outsourcing of jobs to "communist China," and so on.

I have trouble believing the teabaggers are very coherent in their views, let alone unified, except to the extent that they're practically defined as the most loudly disgruntled people in this country. I don't think it's fair (or worth the effort) to try to separate out "real" teabaggers from those who claim to be part of "the movement," about whom some other teabaggers would variously say, "jumping aboard the bandwagon," "just trying to co-opt," "only looking to make a buck," etc., but who could nonetheless pass a lie-detector test about their sincerity.

I guess maybe you could count "sealing the border" as something they want the government to do for them, but that's a fairly mainstream Republican position and not really tea bagger-specific, and it falls within a fairly conventional conservative understanding of the law enforcement function of government.

Sure. As are most of the things they seem to be more or less for. I don't claim they want something different from what we think of as mainstream GOP positions as currently espoused; I see them much more as annoyed with the GOP for having failed to stick to principles or work hard enough to achieve the goals they talk about.

Again, though, I think it is unwarranted to talk about teabaggers as easily distinguished from the rest of the GOP. There's a large gray area there, and while you could hold up examples from either end of the spectrum, you'd probably have a hard time classifying even a majority to everyone's satisfaction.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 02:29 AM
Well, that probably cuts some of the things out that immediately come to mind, since I think "end needless regulation," "eliminate waste," and "cut red tape for small businesses" would all be ideas looked upon with favor by the teabaggers, not to mention "cut taxes."
Okay, fair enough. Mainly I was wondering if you were using "for something" to mean "against something" as explained above, because as I said, except for their Tenther-like opposition to almost everything government does, I can't think of very much that the teabaggers are actually affirmatively for. But I do see how you could say the are "for" less regulation, "for" fewer gun laws, "for" less waste, etc. But I also think these are all mainstream Republican points of view and can't be used to differentiate between teabaggers and Republicans, except, as you said, in that the teabaggers are upset the Republicans haven't been faithful enough in pursuing them. Or, as Clay initially suggested, "the Republicans aren't conservative enough."


I think a lot of them would also like the government to "increase security," which could mean more military spending, more cops, harsher jail sentences for crimes that scare them.
This is one of those cases where I think it's useful to differentiate between the pure teabagger and the standard Republican. Standard Republicans most definitely want more security, i.e., more police state authority for the federal government, and a greater military presence abroad. But it's not my sense that these views are well represented at tea bagger events. The types at tea bagger events tend to be opposed to military adventures overseas, and against police state powers. This is one of the key fault lines between those I think of as tea baggers and the mainstream of the Republican Party.


I have trouble believing the teabaggers are very coherent in their views
Indeed. That's not to say there aren't coherent figures in their ranks, but largely this is true.


let alone unified
I think there is broad agreement on a wide variety of issues, and less agreement on other issues. WRT, e.g., gun control, immigration, and health care, agreement approaches 100%. However, you and I seem to be defining teabaggers differently (you more broadly, me more narrowly), and that would explain a different perception of the degree of unity among them.


except to the extent that they're practically defined as the most loudly disgruntled people in this country. I don't think it's fair (or worth the effort) to try to separate out "real" teabaggers from those who claim to be part of "the movement," about whom some other teabaggers would variously say, "jumping aboard the bandwagon," "just trying to co-opt," "only looking to make a buck," etc., but who could nonetheless pass a lie-detector test about their sincerity.
Well, okay -- anyone who goes to a tea bag event can call himself a teabagger. Differentiating between "real" teabaggers and standard issue Republicans may not be fair or worth the effort unless you want to talk about the fault line now emerging on the right, which we saw play out in NY23 and is still playing out throughout the country (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/senate-conservatives-challenge-moderates-tea-party-activists-gop/story?id=9490887).


Sure. As are most of the things they seem to be more or less for. I don't claim they want something different from what we think of as mainstream GOP positions as currently espoused; I see them much more as annoyed with the GOP for having failed to stick to principles or work hard enough to achieve the goals they talk about.
Right. Except for the fracture on war and police state powers, I think this is essentially correct -- and once again reaffirms Clay's initial supposition: the teabagger complaint is that Republicans are not conservative enough.


Again, though, I think it is unwarranted to talk about teabaggers as easily distinguished from the rest of the GOP.
While it is clearly true that mainstream Republicans were among those who turned out to tea party events in 2009, there are important trends in US politics that we can't talk about or understand without distinguishing teabaggers from the mainstream GOP. I do not think of Birthers or Tenthers, for example, as part of the GOP mainstream. To my mind these fall into the large, alienated fringe that is currently disaffected from the Republican Party.*

I think the clearest measure of this tendency is the difference between those who self-identify as Republican -- down in the 20%s last time I checked -- and those who self-describe as conservative, which is up around 45%.

We know that Bush's approval was around 25% at the end, and Cheney's even lower, despite the fact that 45% are conservative and about the same percent voted for McCain. Clearly there's some differentiating to be done here between the group calling itself "Republican" and the group calling itself "conservative but not Republican," or "conservative but disaffected with the Republican Party."



*Note: This will become less true over time, as teabaggers force Republican politicians to adopt their extremist positions. We've already seen, for example, several prominent and minor Republican politicians embrace birtherism. The tendency for the GOP mainstream to adapt itself to the wishes of the tea baggers will increase over time, and eventually the mainstream of the Republican party will be subsumed by the extremist movement that is now ascendant. (E.g. (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/01/tea_party_claims_victory_in_ji.php))

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 02:39 AM
[...]

Noted. Not much to add. As you note, we probably have different senses about what defines a (sincere) teabagger.

You do make a good point about the difference between the numbers who self-identify as conservatives and Republicans, but then, I'd be inclined to think not all self-identified conservatives would call themselves teabaggers (or even "part of the Tea Party movement" or whatever).

Wonderment
01-13-2010, 04:38 PM
The pact! (http://www.breitbart.tv/they-have-been-cursed-pat-robertson-says-haiti-swore-a-pact-to-the-devil/)

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 06:18 PM
Watch out everybody! The wingnuts have a new excuse to say THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG!!!1!

Unfortunately for them, it was not a ACORNegro from SEIU what did the shoving (http://wonkette.com/413166/great-hero-shoves-weekly-standard-staffer), but still! THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG THUG!!!1!

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 06:31 PM
What's remarkable about this, if you read the OUTRAGGGGEEDD!!!!!1! comments on the wingnut / lunatic / Republican web sites is how it's all about Obama.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 06:31 PM
What's remarkable about this, if you read the OUTRAGGGGEEDD!!!!!1! comments on the wingnut / lunatic / Republican web sites is how it's all about Obama.

I beg you to nutpick some samples, for our entertainment.

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 06:39 PM
"I think we have an idea of what oboobee's "Civilian Army" will look like. SEIU thugs and other union ruffians- these democrats are a disgrace to a free society."

-----------------

"More thuggery from the Obama democrats. Question us, and we will push you around. The people of this country are waking up to the fact that the powers in charge now will resort to physical violence and intimidation to maintain that power."

-----------------

"Is anyone truly surprised with what happened here? The White House dispatched their brown shirts to disrupt and punch back twice as hard at the town hall events this past summer and fall. We have a Chicago community agitator radical liberal thug in charge, his liberal peeps are following his lead. This is the Obama way, plain and simple. If they do not like what you say, what you do, then attack them every way possible, then cry foul and blame the opposition. Read Saul ALinsky, Rule for Radicals, it is all laid out in his book. Obama and the liberal Democrats are at war with the American people....wake up America!"

-----------------

"the only dirty trick is having ibn baraka al hussein osama islamobama conducting his economic jihad on normal Americans"

-----------------

"As long as Obama is in power, we can expect incidents like this, and worse to occur. Just wait until the elections this fall get into full swing, then you will really see his brown shirts from his civilian national security force in action, he will deploy them into theater all across this country to oversee the elections. This foot soldier was just doing his job for the man. He promised us one that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military. They have join ranks with ACORN and there is no stopping these people."

-----------------

"The new tone in Washington DC, …good old fashion Chicago thuggery. Physically attack a reporter if you do not like their line of questions, and then blame it in the opposition. These bullies have the balls to cry foul and blame this on GOP dirty politics. The GOP had nothing to do with this Democratic staffer, Bostonian, and Obama appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors shoving that reporter to the ground. This is the stuff of Saul Alinsky. These liberal thugs if they cannot whine their way of their dirty deeds, then shift the focus of their dirty deed and blame the opposition. This is truly pathetic. Can you imagine if a GOP staffer had shoved a reporter to the ground? The fact is the liberals are being who they always have been; they have just taken things up a notch since Obama has been elected, because they have been emboldened by this president’s thugocracy that is operating out of the White House."

-----------------

"They like to blame everything on the nearest Republican. Remember, they blamed Katrina on Bush!?. WOW, the audacity is extraordinary, let me be clear, the audacity is extraordinary. I repeat, the alleged incident was a republican-made disaster and must be dealt with. We are forming a group to deal with these extremist terrorists whom are living amongst us. The lunacy continues on every day."

-----------------


Multiply by thousands. All of the above from Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/DSCC_Shoved_reporter_tape_a_GOP_dirty_trick.html).

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 06:40 PM
LOL! While you were typing this, I was picking nuts. :-D

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 06:47 PM
The pact! (http://www.breitbart.tv/they-have-been-cursed-pat-robertson-says-haiti-swore-a-pact-to-the-devil/)

Good Lord.

This is why we call them lunatics. We are not dealing with a rational opposition.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 06:56 PM
LOL! While you were typing this, I was picking nuts. :-D

Heh. And from the relatively civilized field that is the Politico comment section, I see (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=146316#post146316). I imagine the RedState/HotAir/Freeper/Malkkkin servers are on fire.

I do have to wonder what the ratio of conservatives to liberals is who have read Saul Alinsky in the past three years. I bet it's like 10 million to none. I never heard of him before {no names, but rhymes with barkin'} hyperventilated about some (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=121415&highlight=alinsky#post121415) of us (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120914&highlight=alinsky#post120914) liberals following the Alinsky playbook!!!1!

uncle ebeneezer
01-13-2010, 07:03 PM
ibn baraka al hussein osama islamobama

Forget Conan or Jay, give this guy his own tv show. Priceless...er, um, clueless.

Question for the more conservative commenters out there: are you really glad that so many people from "your side" think like these people? (and before you ask, YES, I always found the Bush=Hitler screamers to be an embarassment to my side of the political fence.)

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 07:47 PM
Forget Conan or Jay, give this guy his own tv show. Priceless...er, um, clueless.
Heh! I was thinking that one just might be an imposter. :-D

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 07:48 PM
Albeit not Obama-specific, this time...

These are from Gateway Pundit, RedState, and Legal Insurrection.

-----------------

"the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of MA witnessed an assault. I do believe she will make an excellent witness in the criminal/civil trials to come."

-----------------

"This was a mild example noted not for the level of violence but as Mr. Jacobsen notes, for the blase reaction by Coakley. It suggests that she is comfortable with violence."

-----------------

"We are fighting for the preservation of the country we grew up in."

-----------------

"Let's hope enough Bay state voters see the video to exceed the margin of theft engineered by ACORN, et al."

-----------------

"Is this what Obama's promised. Just a little intimidation at the polling places, just a little assault and battery if you don't like it, just a little voter fraud and finally maybe a suspension of your civil rights because he knows better than you? Can you believe that the Democrats might be some one to fear, that they just might do something irreversible and ruin the freedoms of the United States."

-----------------

"I will tell you, to read of the young Stalin and his progression up thru the Central Committee during the late 20’s and early 30’s one must resist making the obvious parallels between these young idealists and our own left wing politicians. It is absolutely fascinating to watch these people."

-----------------

"Sadly the vast majority of Americans have no clue about how the Soviet Union arose and what it did to the Russian people. How else could our nations current “leaders” have made it into the White House?"


-----------------

"Barack Obama: 'They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun'"


-----------------

"btw, this puts the intelligence failurs with Sgt. Hasan and the Xmas day knickerbomber into perspective doesn’t it? i mean obama apparently can’t vet anyone correctly. not plane passengers, shrinks in the army base, treasury secretaries, ministers, and so on."

-----------------

"This is Obama endorsed procedure."

-----------------

BONUS STUPIDITY: "Isn’t that thug Meehan wearing SIEU purple? What is it with libs wearing purple? Yuck – I hate that color. If I have anything – I’m throwing it out. I think they wear it to make you think they are so centrist – not! We are not fools."

TwinSwords
01-13-2010, 08:00 PM
Heh. And from the relatively civilized field that is the Politico comment section, I see (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=146316#post146316). I imagine the RedState/HotAir/Freeper/Malkkkin servers are on fire.
That's what I expected, but I'm surprised that the 3 wingnut blog posts I just checked only contained normal levels of wingnut lunacy. (I just posted some samples in the other sub-thread.)

I've only looked at a very small sample, but so far what I've seen is mild compared to when the Senate passed health care in December. I read the comments at Legal Insurrection, and there were numerous calls for violence, including the overthrow of the government, endorsed directly by the blog author, William Jacobsen, a law professor at Cornell. He named his blog "legal insurrection" to express the notion that when Democrats get elected, it's okay to murder them and take back control of the government by force. His words:

"Now I remember why, as I saw the Obama wave rising last fall, I named this blog Legal Insurrection. That's what's needed, now more than ever."


His commenters knew what he was saying, and responded (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-is-why-i-named-this-blog-legal.html):


--------------

"It's going to be nasty. It's going to be violent. I hope so! This Congress deserves everything thrown at them. I hope every one of them has to put on a Kevlar vest in the morning. Just wait until November. Democrats are going to be permanently ruined for a generation or longer."

--------------

"Prayer, huh? I think it's time for something with a little more bang than that! This is a rogue congress. No longer accountable to the people. Just as Barry said "the time for talking is over" I can't believe I am saying this, but must we amass thousands like a Tea Party and just bum rush the Capital when they are in session? The images alone of tear gas and such would bring this administration and congress down to earth. God forgive me for this, but I think the only thing that will stop this is the image of the Federal Government firing on it's own people. I do not ever propose violence or anything like that. But what is left? Our voices have been effectively silenced by them not listening. Poll after poll shows the vast majority do not want this. Most politicians wouldn't touch this, now they hail it as a thing of pride. They have a back up plan, all politicians do. I think they plan to grant citizen ship to as many illegals as possible to buffer them in upcoming elections. Hence they can have their cake and eat it too. Watch for this and mark my words."

--------------


"I'm sad to say, but it looks like it will be time for a full-scale revolt soon."


--------------

"I don't want to hear one more person say that the crap these Marxists are shoving down our throats can't be undone. Of course it can!! It IS time for a full scale revolt, and I'm ready, willing and able to fight for this country and her values. We are Americans and we don't bow to anyone. Period. NO ONE destroys us. Many have died to protect this nation, her people and Constitution, and I will not have let them die in vain. It's time people, time to take a stand."


--------------

"i was an 11B once, long ago, when i was young and had a future. i can, and will, be one again, even as broken down as i am, if necessary, since i'm not planning on running. my legs are trashed, but the arms, hands and eyes can still get the j*b done. this is my country, and they can only have it over my dead body.

"Molon Labe."


[Note: Molon Labe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe) is wingnut-speak for "I'm going to kill you," picked up from one of the wingnuts' favorite jackoff films, 300 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film)). -Twin]


--------------

"My Sharps Rifle and my Enfield Rifle are at your service. I am a cancer survivor, what are they gonna do to me? My Powder is dry and my blade is sharp. The Retired Petty Officer is at your disposal, SIR!"



I do have to wonder what the ratio of conservatives to liberals is who have read Saul Alinsky in the past three years. I bet it's like 10 million to none. I never heard of him before {no names, but rhymes with barkin'} hyperventilated about some (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=121415&highlight=alinsky#post121415) of us (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120914&highlight=alinsky#post120914) liberals following the Alinsky playbook!!!1!
LOL! No doubt. It's hilarious how they make shit up and then think they figured us out. Damn morons.

bjkeefe
01-13-2010, 11:41 PM
BONUS STUPIDITY: "Isn’t that thug Meehan wearing SIEU purple? What is it with libs wearing purple? Yuck – I hate that color. If I have anything – I’m throwing it out. I think they wear it to make you think they are so centrist – not! We are not fools."

Wow. Just ... wow. I haven't read anything so stupid since I followed the PUMAs in late spring/early summer 2008, when they were decoding the messages Hillary was sending them by her choice of pantsuit color.

TwinSwords
01-14-2010, 02:23 AM
Wow. Just ... wow. I haven't read anything so stupid since I followed the PUMAs in late spring/early summer 2008, when they were decoding the messages Hillary was sending them by her choice of pantsuit color.

LOL! I will admit to a certain morbid fascination with the absolute train-wreck quality of it. I just can't get over how disconnected they are from anything that could be remotely considered "reality."

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 12:59 PM
Wait, the Lakers wear purple...and so do the Vikings!! It's all coming together now.

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 01:05 PM
One question that I wish Bob in his new-atheists-are-awful mode would answer is: when was the last time that Dawkins, Dennett or anyone else who represents Atheism, has made such callous/ignorant statements about victims of a tragedy? More often the response is one of empathy (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/haiti_needs_help.php). Whereas, with major religious organizations, you can countdown after a tragedy to the moment when some blowhard wil spout the latest version of "they deserved it." This is one of the glaring flaws in Bob's view of the moral superiority of faith, IMO.

bjkeefe
01-14-2010, 01:12 PM
One question that I wish Bob in his new-atheists-are-awful mode would answer is: when was the last time that Dawkins, Dennett or anyone else who represents Atheism, has made such callous/ignorant statements about victims of a tragedy? More often the response is one of empathy (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/haiti_needs_help.php). Whereas, with major religious organizations, you can countdown after a tragedy to the moment when some blowhard wil spout the latest version of "they deserved it." This is one of the glaring flaws in Bob's view of the moral superiority of faith, IMO.

Yes. My immediate reaction to this latest pronouncement from Robertson was: "See? No matter what you think about him, this is why Hitch is valuable."

It's useless to expect that Bob is ever going to grasp what the so-called new atheists are really all about, but I do wish he would at least acknowledge the minimal point that counterweights are necessary.

P.S. Thanks for the link. As usual, PZ nails it.

bjkeefe
01-14-2010, 01:13 PM
Wait, the Lakers wear purple...and so do the Vikings!! It's all coming together now.

And the Lakers were originally the Minneapolis Lakers!!!1!

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 02:34 PM
Fortunately, the science-faith divide finally has a solution (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31006)for those of us who have been caught in the middle.

popcorn_karate
01-14-2010, 03:27 PM
One question that I wish Bob in his new-atheists-are-awful mode would answer is: when was the last time that Dawkins, Dennett or anyone else who represents Atheism, has made such callous/ignorant statements about victims of a tragedy?

a stupid, bizarre statement to be sure.


This is one of the glaring flaws in Bob's view of the moral superiority of faith, IMO.

not so fast. aside from his stupidity, Pat Robertson is actually using his organizations $ to help people in haiti. so - stupid words combined with some good deeds.

how does that compare to nice words and no deeds on the morality scale?

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 05:17 PM
not so fast. aside from his stupidity, Pat Robertson is actually using his organizations $ to help people in haiti. so - stupid words combined with some good deeds.

how does that compare to nice words and no deeds on the morality scale?

Not so fast, yourself.

I applaud anyone who lends a helping hand to those in need in times of a tragedy. HOWEVER, remember that this guy is not only a fund-raiser but he purports to be an authority on morality and even a spokesperson of God. When he makes a statement like he did, (who believe that he speaks the Truth) he is making a moral pronouncement. This can A.) lead to some of his sheep inevitably thinking "wait, deal with the Devil? Well, I'm not gonna help them." and B.) continues to propogate memes of intolerance, hindering the advance of any real universal morality by continuing the Us/Them outlook that is so unfortunately attractive to most humans. We saw the same thing with preachers after 9-11, the onslaught of AIDS etc. The problem I have with people like PR is that rather than make ridiculous moral condemnations and supernatural claims, they could just lend a helping hand and shut the fuck up. Speaking ill of the suffering and suggesting that they somehow deserved it, is not the kind of behavior that I would point to as exemplary of good morality. The point of my post is that for all the "foul" cried about atheists, they generally don't make a practice of demonizing the victims of Earth's tragedies. This practice is far more acceptable in the areas of religion. And I think this point is something that doesn't fit well into Bob's rosy view of religion.

If I donated to AIDS research because I claimed "those fags deserve it, but we need to use science to help protect the rest of us from getting it by sitting on toilet seats" would my charitable donation counteract my hideous and ignorant statements? What if I had millions of followers who thought I was a moral beacon? Not to mention a huge amount of tax-free $$$.

bjkeefe
01-14-2010, 05:37 PM
Not so fast, yourself.

I applaud anyone who lends a helping hand to those in need in times of a tragedy. HOWEVER, remember that this guy is not only a fund-raiser but he purports to be an authority on morality and even a spokesperson of God. When he makes a statement like he did, (who believe that he speaks the Truth) he is making a moral pronouncement. This can A.) lead to some of his sheep inevitably thinking "wait, deal with the Devil? Well, I'm not gonna help them." and B.) continues to propogate memes of intolerance, hindering the advance of any real universal morality by continuing the Us/Them outlook that is so unfortunately attractive to most humans. We saw the same thing with preachers after 9-11, the onslaught of AIDS etc. The problem I have with people like PR is that rather than make ridiculous moral condemnations and supernatural claims, they could just lend a helping hand and shut the fuck up. Speaking ill of the suffering and suggesting that they somehow deserved it, is not the kind of behavior that I would point to as exemplary of good morality. The point of my post is that for all the "foul" cried about atheists, they generally don't make a practice of demonizing the victims of Earth's tragedies. This practice is far more acceptable in the areas of religion. And I think this point is something that doesn't fit well into Bob's rosy view of religion.

If I donated to AIDS research because I claimed "those fags deserve it, but we need to use science to help protect the rest of us from getting it by sitting on toilet seats" would my charitable donation counteract my hideous and ignorant statements? What if I had millions of followers who thought I was a moral beacon? Not to mention a huge amount of tax-free $$$.

Good points. And thanks for your use of initials, since when I think of Pat Robertson making ostensibly charitable donations, those are the only two letters that come to mind.

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 05:48 PM
NIce!! <-- which is not the first word that comes to mind when I think of him.

bjkeefe
01-14-2010, 05:55 PM
NIce!! <-- which is not the first word that comes to mind when I think of him.

You are not alone.

ALL HAIL ROBERT GIBBS! (http://wonkette.com/413186/robert-gibbs-insults-pat-robertson-the-world)

popcorn_karate
01-14-2010, 07:57 PM
Not so fast, yourself.

I applaud anyone who lends a helping hand to those in need in times of a tragedy. HOWEVER, remember that this guy is not only a fund-raiser but he purports to be an authority on morality and even a spokesperson of God. When he makes a statement like he did, (who believe that he speaks the Truth) he is making a moral pronouncement. This can A.) lead to some of his sheep inevitably thinking "wait, deal with the Devil? Well, I'm not gonna help them."

sounds reasonable - although he clearly wants his own sheep to keep coughing up $ for things including Haiti.


and B.) continues to propogate memes of intolerance,

Bj - shouldn't you be jumping in here claiming that "intolerant" is an inappropriate way to describe thoughts and words (memes) because it only rises to the level of intolerance if you are enacting laws and what not? Or is that quibble only for people on "the other side"?

I have no problem calling PR and PZ intolerant in their speech.


hindering the advance of any real universal morality by continuing the Us/Them outlook that is so unfortunately attractive to most humans.
We saw the same thing with preachers after 9-11, the onslaught of AIDS etc. The problem I have with people like PR is that rather than make ridiculous moral condemnations and supernatural claims, they could just lend a helping hand and shut the fuck up.

i agree. same with pz - he should shut the fuck up and do good deeds instead of insulting people.

Speaking ill of the suffering and suggesting that they somehow deserved it, is not the kind of behavior that I would point to as exemplary of good morality. The point of my post is that for all the "foul" cried about atheists, they generally don't make a practice of demonizing the victims of Earth's tragedies.

true they demonize people that believe in god and/or religion, for example, the meme they perpetuate that raising your children in a religious environment is a form of child abuse.

alternatively, Isn't it a tragedy that we evolved to have this religious instinct that leads so many people astray? Wouldn't it be nice if atheists showed compassion to these poor sufferers of this tragedy rather than demonizing and mocking them?



If I donated to AIDS research because I claimed "those fags deserve it, but we need to use science to help protect the rest of us from getting it by sitting on toilet seats" would my charitable donation counteract my hideous and ignorant statements?

i think a utilitarian might say the answer is yes.

What if I had millions of followers who thought I was a moral beacon? Not to mention a huge amount of tax-free $$$.

if you got them all to cough up money for aids research - maybe. If your money, provided because you're an ignorant anti-gay fuckwad, ends up saving peoples lives (including gays), it is not clear to me what moral calculus is.

**********end stupidity here*************

sorry - my tendency towards devil's advocacy seems to have gotten the better of me today ( i hope it didn't cause another earthquake). no need to respond to anything above. PR's statement is incredibly stupid. I have no respect for that douchebag. but i do think the whole words vs. deeds thing can make it harder to pass moral judgments on religion considering the amount of charity work done in the name of religion.

peace,

PK

uncle ebeneezer
01-14-2010, 08:36 PM
Sounds like square one all over again: PR and people like him are jerks when they say stupid stuff like that, but PZ and the new atheists are jerks for bringing attention to it. We'll just have to disagree on that.

Wonderment
01-14-2010, 09:04 PM
The Wapo reports: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011402487.html?nav=hcmodule)

On the eve of the massive quake in Haiti, the Rapture Index (http://raptureready.com/rap2.html) rose to its highest point since Sept. 11, 2001, on the Web site Rapture Ready, which describes itself as the largest prophecy site on the Internet, with 240,000 unique visitors a month.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 12:19 AM
Bj - shouldn't you be jumping in here claiming that "intolerant" is an inappropriate way to describe thoughts and words (memes) because it only rises to the level of intolerance if you are enacting laws and what not? Or is that quibble only for people on "the other side"?

As far as I can tell, Pat Robertson and his ilk would like nothing finer than to see passed a bunch of laws making same-sex, premarital, and extramarital sexual relations crimes, not to mention outlawing all abortions, requiring the teaching of creationism in public school science classes, passing a Constitutional amendment declaring the US to be a Christian nation, and launching a global war against Islam. Even a cursory glance at their materials shows how they agitate for these things, constantly.

So, since you asked, I will state that intolerant is a perfectly appropriate word for these people.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 12:22 AM
The Wapo reports: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011402487.html?nav=hcmodule)On the eve of the massive quake in Haiti, the Rapture Index (http://raptureready.com/rap2.html) rose to its highest point since Sept. 11, 2001, on the Web site Rapture Ready, which describes itself as the largest prophecy site on the Internet, with 240,000 unique visitors a month.

Oh, man. Fund-raising gold.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 12:15 PM
[Added] Also, unsurprisingly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021878.php), the LIEBRUL media is not invited to attend, most particularly when Palin speaks. B'head Dave Weigel (http://washingtonindependent.com/73731/reporters-mostly-barred-from-tea-party-convention) has posted his rejection email.

Here's a bit of follow-up on the big Teabagger convention and the expected lack of access, from Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021936.php):

Yesterday, Tea Party Nation announced the lucky few (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tea-party-nation-would-like-to-announce-the-following-efforts-and-status-of-the-nationwide-tea-party-convention-81413572.html) who'll be able to cover the festivities. It's quite a collection: Fox News, Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, the Wall Street Journal, and WorldNetDaily.

Steve notes in an update that it looks like none of the WSJ news people will be attending.

LIBTARD INFILTRATORS ARE GO.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 12:30 PM
Is it possible to be more offensive than Pat Robertson?

Why, just ask the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021928.php)!

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 02:29 PM
... Guess The Fox News Personality!

Who said this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582924,00.html)?

Of course they're sinking. It was just a matter of time before more of that reflection of the people's uncomfortableness that they feel towards this administration is manifesting in these poll numbers. There is an obvious disconnect between President Obama and the White House, what they are doing to our economy and what they are doing in terms of not allowing Americans to feel as safe as we had felt and people finally saying, "You know, this is not the representative form of government that we thought that we had voted in." After a year of time, people are saying, "No, we want the White House, we want President Obama to hear from us. We want these common sense solutions with health care, with jobs, with the economy, with the war on terror to be implemented so we can get back on the right track."

Too bad we can't use word salad as a colon cleanser. The entire planet would be 100% regular after that serving.

(via (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/01/14/sarah-palin-will-unbroke-all-the-shit-that-barack-obama-brokeded/), via (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32585))

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 02:52 PM
B'head David Frum (http://www.frumforum.com/the-beck-palin-conversation) (via (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-palin-and-beck-show.html)), after sitting through the Beck/Palin "interview" (ellipsis orig.):

I tweeted (http://twitter.com/davidfrum) my passing thoughts as I watched the interview (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3967553/sarah-palin-on-glenn-beck), but here’s the bottom line observation:

Republicans used to be the daddy party – the party of responsibility, of rules, of the hard truths of life. Yet these two pre-eminently visible spokespersons for conservatism and Republicanism talked for a full hour about their … feelings. They talked about trust and betrayal, they talked about wounds and hurt, they talked about spirituality and even relationships. But they pronounced scarcely a word about any external reality: war, recession, the long-term prospects for the country. It was like a scene from a Marin County fern bar in 1977.

One of DF's tweets (http://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/7761787858):

Sullivan calls Beck-Palin a proto-fascist party. I call it a pity party.

claymisher
01-15-2010, 03:50 PM
FDL isn't helping.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32628

From the comments (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32628#comment-1531887):

Jesus fucking christ in a sidecar, the only political theory the firebaggers seem to have is the Overton window, which is exactly the kind of weak-ass useless tool that poli sci majors are made fun of regularly for.

The problem is that there are some people who talk about this (and about framing in general) who have a completely backwards understanding of what they mean. The Overton Window is not something you “push” by forcing politicians to do your will. The Overton Window is the range of acceptable opinion as perceived by the general populous ...

You move the window by advocating for your position in a way that persuades voters, not the politicians. Get the voters to shift and the politicians will follow.

Jane and crew have this completely backwards. They are trying to push the cart (the Democrats) when the should be pulling the reigns of the horse (the voters).

TwinSwords
01-15-2010, 04:44 PM
Nate Silver:

A Statistical Ray of Hope for Coakley

As Chuck Todd said the other day: "If this were any other state we'd say this one was over, [Scott] Brown is going to win". But, Massachusetts isn't any other state; it's one of the bluest in the country and one where Republicans rarely prevail.

The polls, however, suggest that the Republican might win this time, with Scott Brown ahead in both the Suffolk and ARG polls -- as well as, reportedly, his opponent's internals. Should the fact that Massachusetts is usually so blue, however, provide any comfort to Democrats? Or is this just wishful thinking -- that is, Massachusetts' blue-ness has already been efficiently "priced in" to the polling?

Continue reading... (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/statistical-ray-of-hope-for-coakley.html)

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 06:13 PM
Heh. I don't exactly want to start in with the pillory, the demonizing, and the ostracizing, but that is a great word.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 06:23 PM
At the same time, the extremist / obstructionist approach taken by Glenn Beck and the Republican Party for the past year will be validated. This will move the right margin of the Overton Window to the right.

Hmmm. Maybe not. I haven't been paying any attention to this race, but, fwiw, Frum (http://www.frumforum.com/miracle-in-massachusetts) (via (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-lesson-of-brown.html)) says:

... Brown voted in favor of Mitt Romney’s health plan in Massachusetts. He describes himself as pro-choice (subject to reasonable limitations), accepts gay marriage in Massachusetts as a settled fact, and told (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1223754) the Boston Herald editorial board he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.

He calls himself “fiscally conservative and socially conscious.” He’s got an environmental record too: In the state senate he voted in favor of a regional initiative to curb greenhouse gas initiatives.

So, it could be that the first time he doesn't do exactly what the far right wants, all of the above will bubble up and we'll get to hear the sweet, sweet sounds of wingnuts howling RINO!!!1! and NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!1!

claymisher
01-15-2010, 08:38 PM
Hmmm. Maybe not. I haven't been paying any attention to this race, but, fwiw, Frum (http://www.frumforum.com/miracle-in-massachusetts) (via (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-lesson-of-brown.html)) says:



So, it could be that the first time he doesn't do exactly what the far right wants, all of the above will bubble up and we'll get to hear the sweet, sweet sounds of wingnuts howling RINO!!!1! and NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!1!

It's likely that he'd vote for HCR, assuming he wants to get reelected. This is another example of why winning the argument with the people is more important than all the short-term tactics. I'd still rather have a D in that seat though.

Wonderment
01-15-2010, 09:45 PM
In a very real sense, the liberal purists like Wonderment who have been constantly attacking Obama and the Democrats and weakening our side and enabling the victories of the right bear as much responsibility for the resurgence of conservative extremism as anyone on the right does.

Et tu, Twinswords? :)

I am not attacking Obama. I am simply stating my views when I disagree with him.

I appreciate the argument that criticism of Obama policies inadvertently strengthens the Republicans. It's a argument that centrist Democrats always make, and sometimes they are right. Usually, however, it's a means of making progressives shut up and march in lock-step with leaders they disagree with.

Each one of us has to decide where his/her comfort zone is in terms of criticizing the administration. We know the risks of enabling Repubs. and we know the risks of blindly following the talking points of the party bosses.


... the stategy of destroying your allies and burning the bridge you're standing on is, I fear, shortsighted, even if it is personally satisfying to those who are doing it.

Or is it shortsighted to support centrist policies because it's politically expedient to do so? What Would MLK do?

Here is a photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._and_Lyndon_Johnson_2. jpg)to contemplate.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 10:21 PM
It's likely that he'd vote for HCR, assuming he wants to get reelected. This is another example of why winning the argument with the people is more important than all the short-term tactics.

Agreed, although some attention must be paid to short term tactics, from time to time, at least. You can't govern if you don't win, after all.

Also, you can spend your entire life educating the public, as it were, and still not get what you want. A very good example, in fact, is the whole HCR thing -- polls have for years showed strong support for it as a concept and in many specifics, including a willingness to pay higher taxes to get everyone covered, but when it came time to hash together a bill, the right-wing FUD machine was very good at playing on fears, so that people were much more susceptible to "reasonable" arguments like "We should reform health care, but just not now while we're in a tough economy" and "Why rush into this, when it's so important, instead of taking the time to get it right?"

I'd still rather have a D in that seat though.

I'd take Lincoln Chafee (or Abraham Lincoln) over Bart Stupak, but I take your point.

;^)

kezboard
01-15-2010, 11:00 PM
"You know, this is not the representative form of government that we thought that we had voted in."

Excuse me, what the hell does this mean.
ETA: Ooooo! I was right. Of course I was. Who else says things like "that reflection of the people's uncomfortableness that they feel towards this administration is manifesting". By the way, I'm becoming convinced that 'common sense' is short for 'things that I believe that I can't really justify'.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 11:07 PM
Excuse me, what the hell does this mean.

And what the hell does this mean?

There is an obvious disconnect between President Obama and the White House, ...

ETA: Ooooo! I was right. Of course I was. Who else says things like "that reflection of the people's uncomfortableness that they feel towards this administration is manifesting". By the way, I'm becoming convinced that 'common sense' is short for 'things that I believe that I can't really justify'.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that you can imagine there's even that much logic working between those two ears.

kezboard
01-15-2010, 11:29 PM
I'll give Sarah a pass on the 'between President Obama and the White House' thing, even though maybe I shouldn't -- I think what she meant to say is 'there is an obvious disconnect between President Obama/the White House and the American People', except she was expending more verbiage (to use a Palinism). Here's another thing I won't give her a pass on, though: "what they are doing in terms of not allowing Americans to feel safe as they had felt".

Obama isn't allowing Americans to feel safe? Not allowing you to feel safe is the Republicans' bread and butter. I'm currently preparing to move abroad, for reasons having nothing to do with my lack of patriotism and everything to do with a job, and I was thinking, while listening to one of the recent diavlogs (I think the Dayo/Michelle one) what a relief it's going to be to live in a country where the politicians and the media aren't constantly shouting at you "WE'RE IN A WAR! WE'RE IN A WAR! DID YOU FORGET WE'RE AT WAR? WHY DOESN'T OBAMA TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE AT WAR!" The right keeps going on about how Bush kept us safe and how safe we were during his term, but does anybody actually feel less safe now than they did in, say, 2003, when Ashcroft was urging us all to buy duct tape? I remember kids at my high school saying stuff like "Listen, my stepfather's brother works for the FBI and he says that he's hearing things and next weekend you really ought to get out of Chicago because something's going to happen".

I'm starting to get the sense that some folks are actually nostalgic for the bad old terror alert days, and somehow think that the fact that people aren't freaking out about guacamole anthrax (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/worlddispatch.anthrax) means that we've somehow retreated into a 'post-9/11 mentality', which means that we're weak. Also, Sarah: WHAT common sense solutions? Has she ever offered any? Am I missing something?

bjkeefe
01-16-2010, 12:01 AM
I'll give Sarah a pass on the 'between President Obama and the White House' thing, even though maybe I shouldn't -- I think what she meant to say is 'there is an obvious disconnect between President Obama/the White House and the American People', except she was expending more verbiage (to use a Palinism). Here's another thing I won't give her a pass on, though: "what they are doing in terms of not allowing Americans to feel safe as they had felt".

Yep. Good points, especially the latter.

Obama isn't allowing Americans to feel safe? Not allowing you to feel safe is the Republicans' bread and butter. I'm currently preparing to move abroad, for reasons having nothing to do with my lack of patriotism and everything to do with a job, and I was thinking, while listening to one of the recent diavlogs (I think the Dayo/Michelle one) what a relief it's going to be to live in a country where the politicians and the media aren't constantly shouting at you "WE'RE IN A WAR! WE'RE IN A WAR! DID YOU FORGET WE'RE AT WAR? WHY DOESN'T OBAMA TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE AT WAR!"

As soon as you start that job, we will invade that country, kill the leaders, and convert the rest of you into war-porn fetishists ...

... oh, wait, that's someone else (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Islam)'s plan.

The right keeps going on about how Bush kept us safe and how safe we were during his term, but does anybody actually feel less safe now than they did in, say, 2003, when Ashcroft was urging us all to buy duct tape? I remember kids at my high school saying stuff like "Listen, my stepfather's brother works for the FBI and he says that he's hearing things and next weekend you really ought to get out of Chicago because something's going to happen".

Yep. Again, though, it's a mistake to treat the noisiest elements of the right as though there's anything reasonable or consistent over time to their thinking. It really is nothing more than starting from the axiom that Democrats can never hold power legitimately, or they will ruin the country, and so therefore, one must ceaselessly look to exploit every last thing for ammunition for the next election. And fear always sells.

I'm starting to get the sense that some folks are actually nostalgic for the bad old terror alert days, ...

Yes. With a strong, palin-speaking (oops) plain-speaking person of faith (certain restrictions apply) in charge. Good guys versus bad guys. Keep it simple.

... and somehow think that the fact that people aren't freaking out about guacamole anthrax (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/worlddispatch.anthrax) ...

I would never in a million years have believed that had I not just read it. The confetti was horrible enough.

... means that we've somehow retreated into a 'post-9/11 mentality', which means that we're weak.

Naw. We're weak because the Dems are in charge, and Everyone Knows they're soft on defense and want to give therapy to terrorists. Really. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/23/BL2005062300945.html) The rest is just repackaging that core message. The label "'post-9/11 mentality" is merely a buzz phrase to throw around, to make wingnut pundits sound deep-thinking on the teevee.

Also, Sarah: WHAT common sense solutions? Has she ever offered any? Am I missing something?

What do you expect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wppyf4xVMOQ)? "How long have I been at this? (*WINK*)"

Cue starbursts (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/rich_lowrys_little_starbursts/).

Fade to black.

cragger
01-16-2010, 12:13 AM
It's likely that he'd vote for HCR, assuming he wants to get reelected.

Opposition to HCR is the cornerstone of his campaign, along with the promise to be the 41st vote blocking Obama administration initiatives in the Senate.

bjkeefe
01-16-2010, 01:41 AM
Naw. We're weak because the Dems are in charge, and Everyone Knows they're soft on defense and want to give therapy to terrorists. Really. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/23/BL2005062300945.html) The rest is just repackaging that core message. The label "'post-9/11 mentality" is merely a buzz phrase to throw around, to make wingnut pundits sound deep-thinking on the teevee.

See also (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2010/01/helene-cooper-shill-or-succubus.html), too.

claymisher
01-16-2010, 02:07 AM
Or is it shortsighted to support centrist policies because it's politically expedient to do so? What Would MLK do?


Are you kidding?! MLK was the guy the purists called a sellout. Malcolm X was the uncompromising one.

Bitching about Obama only helps the Republicans. If you want to help, go attack the Republicans or make the case for the change you want. I don't know why it's so hard to say, "Obama should ..." and leave off the "... or he's as bad as Bush!!!111!" part.

claymisher
01-16-2010, 02:08 AM
Opposition to HCR is the cornerstone of his campaign, along with the promise to be the 41st vote blocking Obama administration initiatives in the Senate.

Then I don't what the fuck is wrong with Massachusetts then.

bjkeefe
01-16-2010, 02:31 AM
Then I don't what the fuck is wrong with Massachusetts then.

I am not exactly sure, either, although I do think reflecting on how Willard "Mitt" Romney got elected governor, after living there for a shorter time than Harold Ford has been a New Yorker, might help.

Contributing factors: the Dems take the Mass people for granted; they're rusty after having Ted hold that seat for three decades; they produced an atrocious candidate to run against Willard and apparently, another one (at least in the campaigning skills department) to run to replace Ted; add the first three to produce and/or aggravate Democratic voter apathy; there are a fair amount of Massholes who think the idea of checks and balances is one of the Commandments, and the large liberal population means the circular firing squad is always ready to form.

Also, FUD-mongering about Mass's HCR probably hasn't helped the average (clueless) voter think very skeptically about a guy pledging to stop it on the national level.

Finally, while the left too long thought the election was a gimme, the right has seen this one as a maybe, just maybe win and redoubled their efforts every time they sensed a bit of gain in momentum, and the national right has therefore dumped tons of money into it. Gotta tip my hat to them for that.

cragger
01-16-2010, 11:29 AM
A view that Massachusetts is heavily liberal is probably false, possibly reflecting party affiliations a generation ago and the fact that the state has had two Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic congressmen for a long time. The latter says as much about the power of incumbancy as anything else. Republicans have dominated the governorship for a generation. It is to the "left" of places where one could run with lots of racist dog whistles, explicit homophobia, and "keep the little woman in her place" rhetoric, but keep that sort of thing down and it is pretty competitive.

I suspect that most people see "Massachusetts HCR" as little more than a stick that the state hits them with. A mandate to go out and buy insurance, or get what is essentially a fine levied at tax time. "Reform" seems somewhat a stretch, and likely triggers the reaction that life experience teaches that when a politician says "reform" you'd better hide your wallet.

The campaign situation is a valid point. Brown has run a very aggressive and extremely well funded campaign, representing himself as an outsider and tapping into people's general dissatisfaction with the economy, government, and the general sense that things are getting worse. Coakley has run without presenting any clear impression beyond that she is a generic Democrat. When things are bad, there is usually a "throw the bums out" feeling, which favors Brown.

There may be somewhat of a referendum on the Obama presidency here too. On his watch things have gotten worse and in my view he and the Democrats have failed miserably in making any clear case that we have serious systemic problems resulting from several decades of policies and developments and making any plan to fix them.

HCR is a case in point. Yes, there is a vast and well funded FUD machine running. But, whatever is in a final bill that does or doesn't pass, I have yet to see or hear anything that addresses the fundamental problem: why we pay considerably more to get health care results no better than other developed countries. Had he/they done that, they would have a proposition that they could present to voters saying "here are the problems, this is how we can fix them so that you save money and more people will be able to afford and get health care. Better for you and better for the US." Instead it sounds like a hodgepodge of payoffs to various groups and industries that will leave a lot of people with the unhappy feeling that they will wind up paying for an inefficient and expensive government program, even absent the death panel nonsense and "gubamint takin' over your health care" crap.

The Democrats consistently fail to get out a clear and cohesive message of any sort. A generation back, working class people in Mass likely felt that Democrats represented them as working people while Republicans represented the rich and powerful. The latter may still be true in fact, but Democrats' joining Republicans at the corruption trough and the decline in manufacturing and attendant union membership and general decline in the fortunes of the lower half of the middle class have erased much of the feeling that the Democrats are doing much for them. A lot of these people listen to talk radio blowhards in Massachusetts just like everywhere else and get a consistent message about where the sources of their problems lie. However stupid and dishonest that message may be, it is loud and clear and the Democratic party has no particularly clear and consistent counter message.

TwinSwords
01-16-2010, 12:22 PM
Steve M. from No More Mr. Nice Blog:


AN EVEN SHORTER PROGRESSIVE SURGE -- AND EVEN LONGER BACKLASH? (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/01/even-shorter-progressive-surge-and-even.html)

Steve Kornacki, a New York Observer political writer and Massachusetts native, explains why we shouldn't be surprised that this is is happening in Massachusetts: (http://stevekornacki.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-massachusetts.html)

...the election of a Democratic president and robust Democratic congressional majorities in 2008 essentially ruined a playbook that had worked brilliantly for the party in blue states for the last decade-and-a-half....

...the rise of southern/religious-based conservatism in 1994 -- when Newt Gingrich and the GOP won control of Congress -- triggered an immediate and enduring cultural backlash among swing voters in places like Massachusetts. Before '94, they still saw the GOP (generally) as a big tent party with room for moderate/social libertarian-types. But '94 disabused them of that notion and they stopped even listening to Republican candidates.

... Had John McCain been elected last year, then all of [the criticisms of Martha Coakley's skills as a candidate] could still be true -- and Coakley would be winning by 30 points. But with Republicans locked out power in Washington, swing voters in Massachusetts -- and every other blue state -- are, for the first time since 1994, ready to blame their problems on Democrats and use the GOP as a protest vehicle. And with 10 percent unemployment, voters have a lot of anger to vent.

Makes some sense, as does this -- up to a point:

Here's a pre-emptive plea, though: Let's not overreact to a Brown win -- or to a series of Brown-like wins by Republicans this fall. This will probably be a very good year for the GOP. But their "revival" will only last as long as the economy is in the tank.

Only last as long as the economy is in the tank? Oh, great -- it's going to be a lost political decade, too.

Actually, if Kornacki is right and recent history is any indication, this brief moment of Democratic leadership is probably going to lead to decades and decades of pro-GOP backlash. LBJ lamented that the Civil Rights Act would lose Democrats the South for a generation; so far it's been two generations and counting. Hippies and the New Left roamed the land in large numbers for something less than a decade; the backlash against them lasted about thirty-five years -- and I'd say, despite what the conventional wisdom told us after the '06 and '08 elections, that the anti-hippie backlash is still a critical factor in our politics.

So backlashes -- against Democrats, at least -- last much, much longer than the moments to which they're reacting.

(Backlashes against Republicans, by contrast, are actually shorter than Republican moments: the anti-GOP backlash against Nixon's six years in office ended four years later, with the Proposition 13 election cycle of 1978; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29) the backlash against eight years of Bush dissipated this year in an eyeblink. Incidentally, a Prop 13-style initiative passed in Massachusetts -- there it was called Proposition 2 1/2 -- in 1980, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2%C2%BD) a mere six years after Nixon resigned. Reagan won Massachusetts (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1980&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0) that year, too, albeit barely, in a three-way race, and he won the state in '84, too. (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1984&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0))

*****

I should point out that there were hints of an anti-Democrat backlash in Massachusetts even before Obama was elected. In the fall of 2007, Nikki Tsongas, Paul Tsongas's widow, ran for his House seat in the state's 5th district -- and barely eked out a win (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts%27s_5th_congressional_district_speci al_election,_2007#General_Election_2) against Republican Jim Ogonowski, the brother of a 9/11 pilot. That race was also the focus of right-wing attention; wingnut writing (http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/09/22/stunning_upset_brewing_in_massachusetts) on the race (http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/eabo_clipper/2007/sep/19/ma_05_tsongas_running_tscared_calls_in_bill_clinto n_to_shore_up_support) reads just like (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzhhNmFjYmM5MmEyMjE5MjNmNDJmMDAyOWQzNjMxY2E=) what's being written about Coakley-Brown.

What was that a backlash against? Democrats weren't even running anything. Oh, yeah -- they'd controlled Congress for, oh, about ten months.

Well, that's enough for the right to gin up a backlash. That's because the right is always promulgating and nurturing its ongoing narrative of the evil nature of liberals and Democrats. That's a 24/7/365 operation. And so, as soon as there's a contest, right-wingers and swing voters have already heard plenty about the evils of, say, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Our side has a narrative in place against (in Kornacki's words) "southern/religious-based conservatism" -- but that's been rendered (somewhat) less relevant as teabaggers rail against "socialism" and bailouts. We built a narrative against Bush -- but Bush is gone.

We beat the Republicans in '06 and '08 -- but we should have kept beating them, every day, every minute. Our side (bloggers and MSNBC prime-timers excepted) have never recognized the need to sustain outrage against the GOP all the time.

And so we can't consolidate our gains. And Republicans take advantage of that, then consolidate theirs.

(And yes, I know: it wouldn't hurt if Democrats actually accomplished something once in a while. Coakley's running as Democrats fail to revive the economy and enact the Obama agenda. Tsongas ran as Democrats failed to end the war. To mobilize your own base, you have to succeed at something once in a while.)


(Source (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/01/even-shorter-progressive-surge-and-even.html))

bjkeefe
01-16-2010, 01:42 PM
[...]

I agree with most of that, and the places where I'd disagree seem too small to bother.

cragger
01-16-2010, 03:08 PM
As a FYI on Brown as a moderate Republican - the folks out holding "Don't tread on me" flags and "Socialism, Communism, or Democracy!" signs indicate that the teabagger types are enthusiastic enough about him to be out on the streets campaigning for him.

bjkeefe
01-16-2010, 03:34 PM
As a FYI on Brown as a moderate Republican - the folks out holding "Don't tread on me" flags and "Socialism, Communism, or Democracy!" signs indicate that the teabagger types are enthusiastic enough about him to be out on the streets campaigning for him.

Sure. But without knowing about him in detail, I'll still remind you that hardcore lefties were at least as gaga about Obama a year ago, too. And now look at 'em -- pissing and moaning, hurling accusations at those of us who urge the support of half a loaf, playing the JLB (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22just+like+bush%22) card early and often ...

As a first cut, I'd say teabagger support for Brown is driven mostly by a dissatisfaction with the economic status quo, and almost all the rest is dislike for Obama/Dems/libs. Few people (besides nerds like us Bh.tv commenters) actually care that much about specific issues and exact candidate stances on them, and to the extent that any of the teabaggers do, Brown saying he is against Obama's HitlerStalinSocialistAmericaDestroying health care agenda is more than good enough for now.

Wonderment
01-17-2010, 03:25 AM
There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10. We're all supposed to politely respect each other's cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.

Quoted and discussed here. (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/16-1)

bjkeefe
01-17-2010, 10:41 AM
Quoted and discussed here. (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/16-1)

And here (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2010/01/its-de-voodoos-ah-tells-ya.html), by Mr. Riley.

My favorite bit:

Here's the thing, Dave. I'm guessing that if you brought together the great theologians of the age (I'm joking, but just play along) and asked them to contribute to an anthology entitled "What Works in Spirituality?" that you'd learn the continuing existence of Evil in the world, despite our having discovered the One True Religion any number of times over, is the fault of practically everyone except theologians.

And don't miss D. Sidhe's first paragraph in the comments at the bottom.

bjkeefe
01-17-2010, 12:59 PM
Uh, oh. Scott Brown's got the taste of shoe leather on his tongue now!

Nothing like Birther-speak (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/does-scott-brown-think-barack-obama-was-born-to-out-of-wedlock-mother.php) to endear yourself to the swing voters.

kezboard
01-17-2010, 02:41 PM
I made a thinko -- I meant 'pre-9/11 mentality', of course, not 'post-9/11 mentality'.

As soon as you start that job, we will invade that country, kill the leaders, and convert the rest of you into war-porn fetishists ...

Not likely, since there's no oil in Slovakia. There is a different kind of energy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6rkZzBuZo) though. But it's New Europe! Doesn't that count for anything? :(

I would never in a million years have believed that had I not just read it. The confetti was horrible enough.

Yeah, this is my favorite fear story of all time. What makes this even worse is that it wasn't found outside the Sears Tower or anywhere particularly sensitive, but in a random neighborhood on the West Side which happens to have quite a few Mexican restaurants. And then Daley came out like "Guacamole isn't dangerous. Guacamole is good for you!"

bjkeefe
01-17-2010, 03:42 PM
I made a thinko -- I meant 'pre-9/11 mentality', of course, not 'post-9/11 mentality'.

Heh. It says something that it sounded so plausible to my ears as a wingnut buzz phrase, though, doesn't it?


Not likely, since there's no oil in Slovakia. There is a different kind of energy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6rkZzBuZo) though.

Huh. Who knew the Slovak dialect sounded so much like English? Hurrah for White People grammar and syntax!!!1! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=146543#post146543)

But it's New Europe! Doesn't that count for anything? :(

We will come to realize the wisdom of St. Donald of Rumsfeld only too late, I fear.

Yeah, this is my favorite fear story of all time. What makes this even worse is that it wasn't found outside the Sears Tower or anywhere particularly sensitive, but in a random neighborhood on the West Side which happens to have quite a few Mexican restaurants. And then Daley came out like "Guacamole isn't dangerous. Guacamole is good for you!"

And then some fat-gram-Nazi wrote a furious op-ed to contradict him, I'll bet.

claymisher
01-17-2010, 07:43 PM
Obama at Vermont Ave. Baptist Church today

our predecessors were never so consumed with theoretical debates that they couldn't see progress when it came. Sometimes I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something. (Applause.) King understood that the desegregation of the Armed Forces didn't end the civil rights movement, because black and white soldiers still couldn't sit together at the same lunch counter when they came home. But he still insisted on the rightness of desegregating the Armed Forces. That was a good first step -- even as he called for more. He didn't suggest that somehow by the signing of the Civil Rights that somehow all discrimination would end. But he also didn't think that we shouldn't sign the Civil Rights Act because it hasn't solved every problem. Let's take a victory, he said, and then keep on marching. Forward steps, large and small, were recognized for what they were -- which was progress.

... King overcame in other ways as well. He remained strategically focused on gaining ground -- his eyes on the prize constantly -- understanding that change would not be easy, understand that change wouldn't come overnight, understanding that there would be setbacks and false starts along the way, but understanding, as he said in 1956, that "we can walk and never get weary, because we know there is a great camp meeting in the promised land of freedom and justice."

I know it's been a hard road that we've traveled to reach this point on health reform. I promise you I know. (Laughter.) But under the legislation I will sign into law, insurance companies won't be able to drop you when you get sick, and more than 30 million people -- (applause) -- our fellow Americans will finally have insurance. More than 30 million men and women and children, mothers and fathers, won't be worried about what might happen to them if they get sick. This will be a victory not for Democrats; this will be a victory for dignity and decency, for our common humanity. This will be a victory for the United States of America. ...

Let's work to change the political system, as imperfect as it is. I know people can feel down about the way things are going sometimes here in Washington. I know it's tempting to give up on the political process. But we've put in place tougher rules on lobbying and ethics and transparency -- tougher rules than any administration in history. It's not enough, but it's progress. Progress is possible. Don't give up on voting. Don't give up on advocacy. Don't give up on activism. There are too many needs to be met, too much work to be done. Like Dr. King said, "We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/01/obamas_dr_martin_luther_king_t.html

TwinSwords
01-17-2010, 08:40 PM
Obama at Vermont Ave. Baptist Church today
Video of the speech, here:

President Obama on Dr. King's Legacy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMEf4wZcEM)
The President speaks about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the importance of persistence in achieving broader goals in remarks at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. January 17, 2010.

Lyle
01-17-2010, 09:05 PM
You know what he means... that Barack's daddy left him and his mother shortly thereafter. Obama's parents' marriage was a disaster.

Desperate times for Democrats though.

Lyle
01-17-2010, 09:28 PM
It may not be voodoo, but Haitians are to blame. They're poor and built shoddy structures. That's all on them. This is just what happens in dysfunctional, poor countries. And they, Haitians, made Haiti what it is today.

bjkeefe
01-17-2010, 09:33 PM
Uh, oh. Scott Brown's got the taste of shoe leather on his tongue now!

Nothing like Birther-speak (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/does-scott-brown-think-barack-obama-was-born-to-out-of-wedlock-mother.php) to endear yourself to the swing voters.

Seems like the Brown campaign might be panicking a bit (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/brown-campaign-now-says-he-doesnt-believe-obama-born-out-of-wedlock-but-no-apology/) (via (http://wonkette.com/413220/scott-brown-getting-smeared-over-recent-terrible-scott-brown-comment)) over this one. They're trying the ol' spokesman-clarified-what-the-candidate-meant approach now, without an apology. We'll see what the morning brings.

[Added] Should have said this earlier: Credit to the Blue Mass. Group (http://bluemassgroup.com/diary/18410/bmg-exclusive-scott-brown-thought-maybe-obama-was-born-out-of-wedlock) for the original reporting.

Ocean
01-17-2010, 09:34 PM
It may not be voodoo, but Haitians are to blame. They're poor and built shoddy structures. That's all on them. This is just what happens in dysfunctional, poor countries. And they, Haitians, made Haiti what it is today.

Are they to blame for not having resources to build structures that could withstand an unlikely (for that area) 7.0 earthquake?

Lyle, be reasonable please...

Lyle
01-17-2010, 09:46 PM
Yes, just like we're to blame for the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Ocean, think.

Tyler Cowen's brief post on construction in Haiti (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/construction-in-haiti.html#comments).

bjkeefe
01-17-2010, 10:05 PM
Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

(source (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/81595442.html) | via (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/01/satan-to-pat-robertson.html))

Wonderment
01-17-2010, 11:17 PM
They're poor and built shoddy structures. That's all on them. This is just what happens in dysfunctional, poor countries. And they, Haitians, made Haiti what it is today.

All the more reason for not giving them any money, Lyle. They will only squander it on voodoo and dumb stuff like that.

Didn't they learn anything from the story of the Three Little Pigs?

I think you should instead make a donation to rich people who live in well-constructed houses made of bricks. Donald Trump, for example. You may argue that he doesn't need the donation, but just think how it the money will trickle down through the economy and make even poor black people happy (eventually). It will also teach them a good moral lessons in the meantime.

Lyle
01-17-2010, 11:24 PM
Haha... what does being honest about why this earthquake was so devastating have anything to do with helping them out in their moment of dire straits? Nothing!!!

I've given money. Hopefully it does some immediate good. The future of Haiti is up to Haitians though, and they're going to have to totally change or horrors like the earthquake will just happen again.

Lyle
01-18-2010, 12:01 AM
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/us-policy-helped-keep-haiti-chaos

How Bush-Cheney Policy Screwed Haiti

Lyle
01-18-2010, 03:47 AM
Hahaha... oh my god (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/15/haitians-donations-radio-rush-limbaugh).

Crass remarks were not restricted to rightwing Americans. A senior Haitian diplomat was caught on camera claiming the earthquake would be good for his country and appearing to blame the catastrophe on "witchcraft".

Speaking before an interview on Brazilian TV, Haiti's consul in São Paulo, George Samuel Antoine, said: "This catastrophe is good for us here, it will make us known."

TwinSwords
01-18-2010, 10:01 PM
Et tu, Twinswords? :)
You know I understand where you're coming from. I just think the result is you're empowering your enemies. I think you thought we had four or eight years to govern the country, so you might as well turn up the heat. The conventional wisdom among the Democrats -- you can find examples of it all up and down this very forum -- was that the Democrats could not lose; the conservatives had been vanquished for a generation, that voters had decisively turned away from the Republicans and the conservative movement, and that as currently constituted, the far right poltical movement could not appeal to swing voters or win elections. Maybe now the proponents of this delusional nonsense will come to grips with reality.

As I said initially, Democrats who attack their own side bear as much responsibility for conservative dominance of our political process as does the right.

The consequence of a Brown defeat will be to move the Democratic Party substantially further to the right. Liberal attacks on Obama have backfired miserably. Time to get a bandage for that foot, because there's a smoking hole in it, now.

Kevin Drum (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/obamas-discontents):

The frustration on the left with Obama — and with healthcare reform specifically — was almost inevitable. During the campaign, a lot of people chose to see in him what they wanted to see, pushing to the back of their minds not just the obvious signs that Obama has always been a cautious, practical politician, but also the obvious compromises and pressures that are forced onto any president. It was a recipe for disappointment. The striking thing to me, though, is how fast the left has turned on him. Conservatives gave Bush five or six years before they really turned on him, and even then they revolted more against the Republican establishment than against Bush himself. But the left? It took about ten months. And the depth of the revolt against Obama has been striking too. As near as I can tell, there’s a small but significant minority who are so enraged that they’d be perfectly happy to see his presidency destroyed as a kind of warning to future Democrats. It’s extraordinarily self-destructive behavior — and typically liberal, unfortunately. Just ask LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. And then ask them whether liberal revolt, in the end, strengthened liberalism or conservatism.

We had a single, brief window of opportunity to roll back the disasterous effects of 40 years of conservative government. Success always required the kind of slow, cautious approach Obama was trying to take. But that wasn't good enough for the Very Pure Left -- so now we all go down together.

Wonderment
01-18-2010, 10:52 PM
The consequence of a Brown defeat will be to move the Democratic Party substantially further to the right. Liberal attacks on Obama have backfired miserably. Time to get a bandage for that foot, because there's a smoking hole in it, now.

I agree that the Brown victory (which I'm sure you meant to say) will move the Dems to the right, although the White House operators are claiming the exact opposite. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31629.html)

But it's quite a stretch to blame the loss on the left. I'd be more inclined to blame everyone BUT the left: Republicans, Independents and centrist (turncoat?) Dems. are the ones actually supplying the votes to Brown.

No one with my views would vote for him. Ever.

As for the success or failure of the Obama presidency in general, we could argue from now till the end of time whether left-wing pressure is beneficial or detrimental to the progressive agenda. That kind of controversy plays out repeatedly all over the world, no matter who is in power.

bjkeefe
01-20-2010, 02:48 AM
Fair and Balanced™ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/19/fox-carlson-brown/), once again!

It'd be one thing if they just admitted it. It's the whining denialism (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/new_white_house_comms_director_takes_same_view_of_ fox_we_dont_feel_an_obligation_to_treat_them_like_ we_would_treat_a_cnn_or_an_abc_or_an_nbc_fox_news_ responds_149247.asp), even at this point, that makes them oh so extra special.

(h/t: Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/022000.php))

bjkeefe
01-20-2010, 02:59 AM
Fair and Balanced™ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/19/fox-carlson-brown/), once again!

It'd be one thing if they just admitted it.

Like, say, MSNBC!!!1!

Oh, wait (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021995.php) ...

TwinSwords
01-20-2010, 04:22 AM
Speaking of this ... I have a friend whose boss sent out an email to every employee in the company last Friday informing them of several cuts to pay and benefits. In the email, he informed his 1200 employees that it was because of Obama that he had to make the cuts.

Now Fox News tells its viewers that if they want their 401(k)'s to perform, they should vote Republican.

bjkeefe
01-20-2010, 03:47 PM
In Touch Weekly's gamble on Sarah Palin didn't pay off. The magazine paid $100,000 for a cover story on the former Alaska governor and her daughter, Bristol, for the current issue. But, despite Palin's huge book sales and TV ratings, sources said In Touch sold about 500,000 copies on newsstands, about half the number it sold a few weeks ago with the late Brittany Murphy on the cover.

(source (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/pallid_palin_v0Xgn2Qzt3C5m7K4cWdcSJ#ixzz0dBRKPjt9) , via (http://wonkette.com/413285/413285))

Add the NY Post to the Enemies List of Liberal Media!!!1! (People Who Report Facts).

kezboard
01-20-2010, 04:38 PM
In honor of the American soldier, would you just quit makin' things up?

bjkeefe
01-20-2010, 04:42 PM
In honor of the American soldier, would you just quit makin' things up?

What I want to know is why In Touch readers can't contain their hate for Trig.

kezboard
01-20-2010, 11:06 PM
Because they want him in front of a panel of government bureaucrats.

bjkeefe
01-20-2010, 11:55 PM
Because they want him in front of a panel of government bureaucrats.

Aha! You're right! In Touch is thus proven to be part of the liberal media pushing us towards Socialist Nazism. I mean, if this cover (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/sarah-palins-in-touch-cov_n_429446.html) doesn't prove it ...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/134336/original.jpg

... what does? I mean, "heartwarming family photos?" Like Hitler's ovens, obviously. Do the math.

bjkeefe
01-21-2010, 01:01 PM
Seen the new flag (http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/new-flag-of-the-second)?

https://www.usrevolution2.com/DesktopModules/BuyNow/Images/Flags/USR2/shop_1000a.gif

Links to pictures of this flag in the wild here (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35616_Tea_Partiers_Where_Oh_You_Mean_The_Ones_in_t he_Front_Row).

popcorn_karate
01-26-2010, 05:34 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-25-2010/thank-you--south-carolina---andre-bauer

Seriously, i'd rather invite the horse fucker to dinner than Andre Bauer. Scum is the only word to describe him.

bjkeefe
01-26-2010, 08:06 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-25-2010/thank-you--south-carolina---andre-bauer

Seriously, i'd rather invite the horse fucker to dinner than Andre Bauer.

Especially when you consider who he'd likely bring as his date (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2010/01/ill-take-awkward-closeted-gay-men.html).

bjkeefe
01-26-2010, 08:11 PM
Fake pimp arrested for being a fake telephone repairman. Watergate 2.0! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html) (What did President Breitbart and Attorney General Flanagan know and when did they know it???)

You know your Wonkette is all (http://wonkette.com/413374/best-news-of-2010-acorn-douche-pimp-arrested-for-wiretapping-conspiracy) over (http://wonkette.com/413376/413376) this one.

bjkeefe
01-26-2010, 11:21 PM
Fake pimp arrested for being a fake telephone repairman. Watergate 2.0! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html) (What did President Breitbart and Attorney General Flanagan know and when did they know it???)

The plot thickens (http://twitter.com/pourmecoffee/status/8259578682):

pourmecoffee At the bottom of this interview, of course, but O'Keefe was being paid by Breitbart. http://bit.ly/axtqB3

(The link points to a transcript in which Breitbart admits this to Hugh Hewitt.)

==========

[Added] How (http://twitter.com/KagroX/statuses/8259501500) (via (http://twitter.com/TavernWench/status/8260118449)) this would be spun on Fox, Rush, etc., if the shoe were on the other foot:

We have just seen a ring of ultra-conservative anti-government activists infiltrate a federal building in the middle of a major urban center

bjkeefe
01-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Fake pimp arrested for being a fake telephone repairman. Watergate 2.0! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html) [...]

B'head Dave Weigel's take. (http://washingtonindependent.com/74851/anti-acorn-filmmaker-caught-in-failed-wiretap-scandal)

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 01:27 AM
Fake pimp arrested for being a fake telephone repairman. Watergate 2.0! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html)

The trailing end of this post (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33405) is too funny:

Update. Presumably, there will be some kind of “Free the Flanagan Four” movement at some point ...

[...]

Update.At least the Freepers are keeping it real (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437829/posts#18):

I agree frame up.


FREE THE NEW ORLEANS 4

More hilarious Freeper paranoia at the latter link, if you're into that sort of thing. "I think this is what Obama was talking about when he said they will be 'fighting back.'", "The FBI has apparently been overtaken by the left.", "I smell cheesy charges by ACORN aka Holder.", etc.

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 12:02 PM
More fallout. Who knew the fake pimp was such a playa (http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2010/01/necessarily-slc-gop-punked-salt-lake.html) in the Republican Party?

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 12:13 PM
The plot thickens (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/teabuggergate-part-one/) (via (http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2010/01/just-wondering_27.html)):

Oh, and speaking of corrupt Republicans, you might be interested in knowing that Obama’s nominee to be US Attorney for LA’s Western District, Stephanie Finley, the woman who will replace Flanagan, Sr., is being blocked (http://vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=51ad4aab-de67-ebe7-89be-2be22dbf61ff&Region_id=&Issue_id=) by LA’s other Senator, David “Diapers” Vitter. Why? Because he wants to make sure LA’s US Attorney for the Eastern District–the one who will be prosecuting Messrs. O’Keefe and Flanagan, now–stays in office for a while longer.

You see, Flanagan is the son (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/26/acting-u-s-attorneys-son-tried-to-bug-senators-office/) of the acting US Attorney for Western LA, William Flanagan. Flanagan, Sr., had only been in charge for a week–since January 18, when Bush’s US Attorney for the district, Donald Washington, stepped down (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/07/western-louisiana-u-s-attorney-to-step-down/)–when his son got busted on federal property elsewhere in the state.

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 12:49 PM
[...]

Believe it or not, there's a PZ Myers connection. Or not. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/joe_basels_behavior_is_not_my.php)

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 01:34 PM
"Liberal elitism" watch. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/i_detest_these_people.php)

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 01:57 PM
[...]

Dave Weigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/8286499674) tweets:

Unsurprisingly, James O'Keefe's Facebook wall has become hilarious. http://bit.ly/9HmdTp

TwinSwords
01-27-2010, 02:38 PM
Dave Weigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/8286499674) tweets:

Jesus. Weigel needs to learn how to embed a legible image into his posts. At least you can access the screenshot directly (http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Picture-87.png) and see it more clearly.

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Picture-87.png

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 04:09 PM
[...]

Connections to Scott Brown (http://wonkette.com/413389/is-one-of-the-watergate-jr-four-boning-scott-browns-daughter)???

It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate™.

TwinSwords
01-27-2010, 08:46 PM
Jonathan Turley on the Wingnut Four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXOOaiADc0): "An embarrassment to hard working criminals around the world."

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 08:51 PM
Jonathan Turley on the Wingnut Four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXOOaiADc0): "An embarrassment to hard working criminals around the world."

Yeah, but let's not forget: these guys did enter a federal building under false pretenses, with intent to compromise a US Senator's communications equipment. Who knows what they might have done if they weren't stopped, by heroes?

More importantly, why aren't Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman bravely crossing the aisle to join their Republican colleagues in calling for these four to be tried before a military commission?

kezboard
01-27-2010, 08:59 PM
I like the Tianenmen Square comparison, and the "You have the youth to back you up...I'd go down with you if I could brother" clownishness. I'm amused by the idea of the tea party as a youth movement. Also, O'Keefe happens to be a grown-ass man.

TwinSwords
01-27-2010, 09:08 PM
Yeah, but let's not forget: these guys did enter a federal building under false pretenses.
Oh, absolutely. Turley wasn't diminishing the significance of the crimes, by any means.

Olbermann: "They each face 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But this is just the start, conceivably, of what they may be facing?"

Turley: "Oh, it's very likely just the start."

Turley goes on to say that the key question is what felonies they are ultimately charged with. If they are charged with possession of electronic surveillance equipment, "they are looking at probably 20 years or more, depending on whether they would run consecutively or concurrently." After considering two other possible charges, Turley says "either one would be a very serious felony. These people are looking at a very serious charge that is likely to grow in the coming days."

Turley also speculates that that prosecutor will try to flip the 3 less infamous wingnuts to testify against O'Keefe, who Turley expects will be the primary target.


Who knows what they might have done if they weren't stopped, by heroes? More importantly, why aren't Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman bravely crossing the aisle to join their Republican colleagues in calling for these four to be tried before a military commission?
LOL! For sure.

But seriously, if these had been ACORN employees or SEUI members trying to bug a Republican congressional office, the wingnuts and lunatics of the Republican Party would be burning down the internets. Malkin would be on life support from the re-re-re-bursting of all the major arteries in her neck and head.

bjkeefe
01-27-2010, 09:23 PM
[...]

Sleeper cell??? (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/01/27/accused-louisiana-co-conspirator-helped-run-academic-program-funded-by-u-s-intelligence.aspx) And what about that name, Stanley Dai? Sounds like a foreign to me. Where is his birf cirtifikit?

TwinSwords
01-28-2010, 01:38 AM
Republican Senate Candidate lays out his plans (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/tea-party-activist-and-senate-candidate-if-we-dont-see-new-faces-im-cleaning-my-guns-and-getting-rea.php):

Plan A: Get a lot of Republicans elected.

Plan B: If Plan A fails, murder Democrats en masse.

Tea Party Activist And Senate Candidate: 'If We Don't See New Faces, I'm Cleaning My Guns And Getting Ready For The Big Show' (VIDEO)

Richard Behney, an Indiana Tea Party activist and candidate for the Republican nomination for Senate against Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, made a striking pronouncement at a meeting late last year of the "Evansville 2nd Amendment Patriots": That if new people don't get elected to Congress in 2010, he'll be getting out his guns to face down the American government.

"That's the beauty of this, folks. We can do it before it gets to guns," said Behney, in praise of the electoral process. "All right, our founders brought out the guns. When they showed up at Lexington and Concord, regular folks, farm boys, doctors, merchant men, and they said you ain't taking our stuff. They stood up to the most powerful army in the world, and they bought our freedom, literally with their blood. And we don't have to do that yet.

"I believe personally, we're at a crossroads. We have one last opportunity. And I believe 2010 is it. All right? And we can do it with our vote. And we can get new faces in, whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote."

bjkeefe
01-28-2010, 02:06 AM
Republican Senate Candidate lays out his plans (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/tea-party-activist-and-senate-candidate-if-we-dont-see-new-faces-im-cleaning-my-guns-and-getting-rea.php):

Plan A: Get a lot of Republicans elected.

Plan B: If Plan A fails, murder Democrats en masse.

Jeez. And I thought this other thing I saw a little while ago was bad: McCain's getting primaried by an unapologetic Birther (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/mccain-primary-challenger-hayworth-obama-should-come-forward-with-his-birth-certificate.php).

Looks like he's all growed up from his days as an extra for Mississippi Burning, don't he?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/01/mccain-hayworth-split-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

bjkeefe
01-28-2010, 02:24 AM
Will Queen Sarah pull out of the big shindig?

Betty Cracker has some deliciousness: "I hear that train-wreck a’comin’ (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/i_hear_that_train-wreck_acomin/)."

TwinSwords
01-28-2010, 02:38 AM
Jeez. And I thought this other thing I saw a little while ago was bad: McCain's getting primaried by an unapologetic Birther (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/mccain-primary-challenger-hayworth-obama-should-come-forward-with-his-birth-certificate.php).

Looks like he's all growed up from his days as an extra for Mississippi Burning, don't he?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/01/mccain-hayworth-split-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

ROFL.

I hope McCain gets beat by that fat tub of lard. McCain is just an intolerbly pompous prick. Plus, JD Hayworth is a better representative for the conservative movement, with his IQ in the 60's and, as you say, his impressive character portrayals in films such as Mississippi Burning and Deliverance.

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 01:32 AM
... in a foreign country (http://wonkette.com/413433/413433), hmmm?

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 01:51 AM
Will Queen Sarah pull out of the big shindig?

Betty Cracker has some deliciousness: "I hear that train-wreck a’comin’ (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/i_hear_that_train-wreck_acomin/)."

The Queen has yet to withdraw, but the Crown Princess of Crazy dropped out, it looks like (http://wonkette.com/413427/bachmann-drops-out-of-crumbling-tea-party-convention).

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 03:03 AM
By which we mean "shameless lying about stuff that is available with a click of a mouse."

Joseph Farah, who runs the site WingNutDaily, featuring star "reporter" Jerome Corsi, has denied (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28009.html) that he or anyone who ever worked for him ever had anything to with pushing the Birther nonsense.

(Apparently, it was in response to this LAT profile (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-worldnetdaily27-2010jan27,0,1247660,print.story) of him.)

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 03:49 AM
The Queen has yet to withdraw, but the Crown Princess of Crazy dropped out, it looks like (http://wonkette.com/413427/bachmann-drops-out-of-crumbling-tea-party-convention).

More (via (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/bachmann_blackburn_may_back_out_of_controversial_t .php)): "Sarah Palin's Tea Party Dinner Disaster (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/sarah-palins-tea-party-dinner-disaster)."

And: "Another Tea Party Convention Sponsor Pulls Out (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/another_tea_party_convention_sponsor_pulls_out.php )."

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 06:26 PM
Lesser Orange Satan John "It's Not Pronounced That Way" Boehner: lying hypocrite or worst lying hypocrite ever? You make the call. (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/29/boehner-lies-lobbyists/) (via (http://wonkette.com/413458/top-pundit-declares-obama-therapy-session-a-victory-for-america#comment-504478))

bjkeefe
01-29-2010, 06:40 PM
The new hashtag all the cool kids are using: #othervirginiafoxxautographs (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23othervirginiafoxxautographs)

(context (http://wonkette.com/413461/virginia-foxx-wont-let-partisanship-get-in-way-of-her-autograph-collection))

Yeah, that Virginia Foxx (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/remember-this-face.html). Her. (http://www.themiddleclass.org/legislator/virginia-foxx-525)

bjkeefe
01-30-2010, 11:25 PM
I do have to wonder what the ratio of conservatives to liberals is who have read Saul Alinsky in the past three years. I bet it's like 10 million to none. I never heard of him before {no names, but rhymes with barkin'} hyperventilated about some (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=121415&highlight=alinsky#post121415) of us (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120914&highlight=alinsky#post120914) liberals following the Alinsky playbook!!!1!

I rest my case (http://wonkette.com/413466/413466).

bjkeefe
01-31-2010, 12:59 AM
Don't call them The Party of No. They're The Party of Ideas (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/gregg-msnbc-hissy-fit/)!

(h/t: Matt Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-at-the-house-gop-retreat.php), via John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33734))

bjkeefe
02-01-2010, 04:48 PM
Fake pimp arrested for being a fake telephone repairman. Watergate 2.0! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html) (What did President Breitbart and Attorney General Flanagan know and when did they know it???)

Roy Edroso's latest column:

James O'Keefe is Arrested, and Rightbloggers Tell You What the Real Crime is -- The Liberal Media Coverage!

Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-voice-column-up-about-rightwing.html), full piece here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/02/james_okeefe_is.php).

Also, Breitbart/Bachmann 2012!!!1! (http://wonkette.com/413474/andrew-breitbart-will-kill-all-of-you-decadent-bastards)

bjkeefe
02-01-2010, 05:08 PM
Also, Breitbart/Bachmann 2012!!!1! (http://wonkette.com/413474/andrew-breitbart-will-kill-all-of-you-decadent-bastards)

TBogg proposes a different ticket (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/01/31/palinjoe-the-plumbersantellijindahlpawlentypetraeusromneybeckth unepalin-againhoffmanbrown-2012/).

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 03:29 AM
I do have to wonder what the ratio of conservatives to liberals is who have read Saul Alinsky in the past three years. I bet it's like 10 million to none. I never heard of him before {no names, but rhymes with barkin'} hyperventilated about some (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=121415&highlight=alinsky#post121415) of us (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=120914&highlight=alinsky#post120914) liberals following the Alinsky playbook!!!1!

Okay, another (http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/2009/02/17/why-ridicule-is-obamas-kryptonite/):

The more you understand Obama’s sociopathy, the better prepared you will be when he uses the Alinsky tactic of telling you what you want to hear in order to gain your support and cooperation. You are being conned and cheated. I hope that understanding Obama will help you know not to fall for his cons.

Bonus: the part that tickled Tintin (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28045.html) was the paragraph immediately following:

If you enjoy my blog, please buy me a cafe latte for $2.95, or cafe latte and a sandwich for $7.95, or add a salad for $11.95!

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 03:59 PM
A wingnut named John ChickenHawkins (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/02/02/seven_huge_flaws_in_the_way_liberals_think) or some shit makes a bunch of sweeping statements about Teh Left (no one could have predicted!) but inadvertently manages to get one right:

The average liberal thinks that if we're nice enough, we can reach an understanding with Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can't be reasoned with.

Sadly for him, he doesn't realize who he's really insulting.

(h/t: Thers (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/02/titbits.html))

nikkibong
02-02-2010, 04:02 PM
A wingnut named John ChickenHawkins (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/02/02/seven_huge_flaws_in_the_way_liberals_think) or some shit makes a bunch of sweeping statements about Teh Left (no one could have predicted!) but inadvertently manages to get one right:



Sadly for him, he doesn't realize who he's really insulting.

(h/t: Thers (http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2010/02/titbits.html))

Witty!

But why?

Fish in a barrel much?

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 06:28 PM
Here is "The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans)," for your horrified rubber-necking pleasure.

You may want to start with DougJ's introductory observations: "Is the Taliban this crazy? (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33922)"

AemJeff
02-02-2010, 06:42 PM
Here is "The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans)," for your horrified rubber-necking pleasure.

You may want to start with DougJ's introductory observations: "Is the Taliban this crazy? (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33922)"

I wouldn't want to wantonly apply the following to rank and file Republicans (or even southern Republicans), but speaking strictly about those who participated in the poll (and throat suitably cleared...) - I liked this bit a lot:


Note, secession sentiment is MUCH stronger in the South than elsewhere -- 33 percent want out, compared to just 52 percent who want to stay. In the Northeast, "just" 10 percent want out, in the Midwest, its 18 percent, and in the West, it's 16 percent. Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbfuckistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?

AemJeff
02-02-2010, 07:02 PM
Since it seems to come about once every two days, here's a perfect example of the real thing (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTA3MWRmMjU1ZTllOGI1ZWYwOWNhYjQzOTU3MGRkNzc=):

That Kos Poll [Stephen Spruiell]
Greg Pollowitz nails it exactly. Has anyone else noticed that this poll was commissioned by a guy who is writing a book called American Taliban about how American conservatives are just like jihadist killers? The dissonance is baffling. It would be like if someone had written, "I was talking to the little man who lives in my sugar bowl and he told me that Republicans believe in some crazy things!" and everyone seized on the last part as the news hook.

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 07:03 PM
I wouldn't want to wantonly apply the following to rank and file Republicans (or even southern Republicans), but speaking strictly about those who participated in the poll (and throat suitably cleared...) - I liked this bit a lot:

Heh. But just for the record (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437):

Methodology

DKOS REPUBLICAN POLL 2010

The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed nationally by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers, nationally.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.

Now, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt, because I'm not convinced Research 2000's sampling methods are perfect, because of their record as I remember it from 2008. I think of them as about as good as Rasmussen*(-1), which means a slight house effect, as Nate Silver calls it, should probably be assumed.

Still, having said that, and even hypothesizing that some of those sampled told the pollsters whatever they thought would "most annoy liberals" rather than what they actually believed, the numbers are still pretty shocking; i.e., subtract 10 or 20 points from the crazy answer to just about any of the questions, and you've still got bad craziness.

AemJeff
02-02-2010, 07:07 PM
Heh. But just for the record (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437):



Now, I'm going to take that with a grain of salt, because I'm not convinced Research 2000's sampling methods are perfect, because of their record as I remember it from 2008. I think of them as about as good as Rasmussen, which means a slight house effect, as Nate Silver calls it, should probably be assumed.

Still, having said that, and even hypothesizing that some of those sampled told the pollsters whatever they thought would "most annoy liberals," the numbers are still pretty shocking; i.e., subtract 10 or 20 points from the crazy answer to just about any of the questions, and you've still got bad craziness.

Yeah. I can't argue with that at all.

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 07:28 PM
Yeah. I can't argue with that at all.

I see you added a follow-up (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=149472#post149472) while I was in the middle of replying. I'd bet tall dollars that Cornerite never looked for the methodology, let alone at it, before firing from the hip. Basically, the truth hurts, so people at that level are going to go into full denydenydeny mode. And yep, Ad Hominem!!!1!

kezboard
02-02-2010, 09:20 PM
even hypothesizing that some of those sampled told the pollsters whatever they thought would "most annoy liberals" rather than what they actually believed, the numbers are still pretty shocking; i.e., subtract 10 or 20 points from the crazy answer to just about any of the questions, and you've still got bad craziness.

If the respondents answered the questions the way they did "just to annoy liberals", as I'm sure is true for many of them, and they don't actually sincerely believe that Obama isn't a citizen/evolution is wrong/whatever, this is actually a manifestation of bad craziness, because that's no way for a grownup to form opinions.

As to the question "what are they thinking", that reminds me of an episode of Strangers with Candy where someone asks the main character, rhetorically, "Jerri, what could possibly have been going through your mind?!" and then it cuts to a computer-generated sort of crazy psychedelic scene with oddly-colored bubbles floating around and Jerri's voice in the background screaming deliriously.

AemJeff
02-02-2010, 09:29 PM
If the respondents answered the questions the way they did "just to annoy liberals", as I'm sure is true for many of them, and they don't actually sincerely believe that Obama isn't a citizen/evolution is wrong/whatever, this is actually a manifestation of bad craziness, because that's no way for a grownup to form opinions.

As to the question "what are they thinking", that reminds me of an episode of Strangers with Candy where someone asks the main character, rhetorically, "Jerri, what could possibly have been going through your mind?!" and then it cuts to a computer-generated sort of crazy psychedelic scene with oddly-colored bubbles floating around and Jerri's voice in the background screaming deliriously.

That's a great image. It should be said, though, that if somebody answers a pollster's question with something engineered to annoy some other demographic, that it's definitely peurile and essentially dopey. But it's probably not true that it's an example of how they form their opinions - just an expression of contempt for the pollsters and the targets of their attempt to annoy.

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 10:54 PM
<squish>I agree with both of you on the motivations to "annoy the LIEbrul pollsters."</squish>

@kez: Glad you caught the loaded meaning in the subj. line.

bjkeefe
02-02-2010, 11:14 PM
Here is "The 2010 Comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of Self-Identified Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans)," for your horrified rubber-necking pleasure.

You may want to start with DougJ's introductory observations: "Is the Taliban this crazy? (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33922)"

A pointed observation (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35694_Poll-_Bad_Craziness_in_the_GOP_Base):

73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools. This position puts the GOP base well to the right of none other than Ronald Reagan, who helped defeat the Briggs Initiative, a 1978 referendum in California that would have forbidden gays or people who advocated gay rights from teaching in public schools.

bjkeefe
02-03-2010, 02:29 PM
All together now, following Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/413505/413505): James O'Keefe is NOT A RAAAACIST!!!1! (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/02/03/james_okeefe_white_nationalists/index.html)

bjkeefe
02-03-2010, 02:59 PM
Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/02/positively-worst-salinger-tribute-yet.html):

When these guys bring up the specter of censorship, they usually mean not that they are denied First Amendment rights, but that many people don't approve what they're saying.

kezboard
02-03-2010, 10:17 PM
But it's probably not true that it's an example of how they form their opinions - just an expression of contempt for the pollsters and the targets of their attempt to annoy.

Well, I don't have any problem with people expressing their contempt for pollsters by answering in as crazy a way as possible, because I think polls -- particularly polls like this -- are silly. But I really don't think that you can interpret an affirmative answer to the question "Does Obama want the terrorists to win?" as anything other than an attempt to annoy the liberals and express how much you really, really, really don't like Obama.

AemJeff
02-03-2010, 10:24 PM
Well, I don't have any problem with people expressing their contempt for pollsters by answering in as crazy a way as possible, because I think polls -- particularly polls like this -- are silly. But I really don't think that you can interpret an affirmative answer to the question "Does Obama want the terrorists to win?" as anything other than an attempt to annoy the liberals and express how much you really, really, really don't like Obama.

I buy that completely.

bjkeefe
02-04-2010, 12:04 AM
All together now, following Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/413505/413505): James O'Keefe is NOT A RAAAACIST!!!1! (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/02/03/james_okeefe_white_nationalists/index.html)

Looks like this story has more depth than I thought. Andrew Breitbart is frothing about it -- looks like he's outright lying on Twitter -- and he's been totally busted by Dave Weigel, who was at the same event reported on in the quoted link.

Teh Sadlys have gathered up a bunch of links (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/28129.html), including two Weigel posts, on this developing story.

JO'K is starting to look like quite the little Stormfronter.

bjkeefe
02-04-2010, 03:17 AM
Rush Limbaugh? Still reporting facts, and! Still not a racist! (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=33994)

bjkeefe
02-04-2010, 12:50 PM
... this Timothy Egan piece, "Grifters' Tale," drawing parallels between John Edwards and the Queen of the Teabaggers (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/grifters-tale/) is pretty funny.

kezboard
02-04-2010, 08:37 PM
I knew it! My professor wouldn't change the grade from my math requirement from a C to an A because I'm white, not because I screwed up the final exam! :( :( :(

In other wingnut news, you can tell by his name that he's radical (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002040022). Also, you can tell by Glenn Beck's signature that he's humble.

He chose to use his name Barack for a reason -- to identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Is -- really?

Well, or maybe he chose to use it because it's his name and it isn't exactly unheard of for people to stop using childish nicknames when they become grown-ass men. Or maybe Glensy disagrees?

bjkeefe
02-05-2010, 01:34 AM
[...]

In other wingnut news, you can tell by his name that he's radical (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002040022). Also, you can tell by Glenn Beck's signature that he's humble.

[...]

Oh, lord. The complete lack of self-awareness of these people (or, perhaps in this case, the shameless lying to appeal to the base) is not to believed.

I'm not sure why his audience has yet to figure this out, but, clue: someone bragging about how humble he is?

bjkeefe
02-05-2010, 02:27 AM
Will Sarah Palin call on Rush Limbaugh to apologize for saying liberal activists are ‘retards’? (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/03/limbaugh-palin-apologize/)

(h/t: Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/413520/america-asks-for-thousands-of-cyber-warriors-thousands-of-basement-dwellers-heed-the-call) | title: vide (http://werewaiting.ytmnd.com/))

AemJeff
02-05-2010, 10:07 AM
Oh, lord. The complete lack of self-awareness of these people (or, perhaps in this case, the shameless lying to appeal to the base) is not to believed.

I'm not sure why his audience has yet to figure this out, but, clue: someone bragging about how humble he is?

I tuned into the local pop country radio station a couple of days ago. I should say that I love a lot of country music; someday I plan on making a pilgrimage to Nashville. Now, I'm not dumb enough to expect to hear Johnny Cash and Patsy Cline on a contemporary country music station. But, shit! All there was to those songs besides seriously shiny commercial production values was somebody just blankly asserting something like "This is what it's like to be Country!" over and over again. (You could hear the capitalization.) There's a large enough group of people sufficient to support that kind of shit on a massive scale - just make a slick product, and artlessly assert your message in context, and they apparently eat it up. These folks are tailored for the sort of messages somebody like Beck has to offer.

bjkeefe
02-05-2010, 12:45 PM
[...]

Yes, good observation. Now that you mention it, it rings a very clear bell.