PDA

View Full Version : Democrats talk!


chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 05:19 PM
This may be overly tendentious, but since Brendan was kind enough to start a thread chronicling the Republican Party, I feel obliged to keep tabs on the Democrats.

And boy do I have a leadoff hitter! Here's Sheila Jackson pontificating about how Vietnam is still divided into North and South:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/303677.php

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 05:27 PM
This may be overly tendentious, but since Brendan was kind enough to start a thread chronicling the Republican Party, I feel obliged to keep tabs on the Democrats.

And boy do I have a leadoff hitter! Here's Sheila Jackson pontificating about how Vietnam is still divided into North and South:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/303677.php

Jeeze chiwi - you could have started this with a post of higher quality than a link to a Burning-Skull nut-picker from the munuvians. You can do better, man!

Added: And cripes - all the munuvians were about there was linking to a typically clueless Moe Lane(!) spew lacking a point. Though not lacking a little passive/aggressive white-guy triumphalism:

To begin with, may I be blunt? I shall be blunt: Rep. Jackson-Lee is what happens when you mandate gerrymandering as a tool of social policy for forty years. Note that I did not say ‘racial gerrymandering,’ although that’s essentially what majority-minority districting is: if we were drawing up election maps to concentrate as many green-eyed voters in a particular district as possible and waited half a century we’d end up with stunningly idiotic green-eyed Members of Congress, too. Or redheads, or people with freckles; or anything else based on physical, cosmetic differences. All that you need is a tacit if never stated limitation on who gets to be elected, and an one-party monopoly on the district, and you’re good to go.

Whatfur
07-16-2010, 07:02 PM
Jeeze chiwi - you could have started this with a post of higher quality than a link to a Burning-Skull nut-picker from the munuvians. You can do better, man!

Added: And cripes - all the munuvians were about there was linking to a typically clueless Moe Lane(!) spew lacking a point. Though not lacking a little passive/aggressive white-guy triumphalism:


Yeah...I can see that. Anything to say about the actual story here though?

nikkibong
07-16-2010, 07:13 PM
Yeah, chiwisoxx, next time make sure you only link to Jeff-Approved™ sites.

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 07:17 PM
Yeah...I can see that. Anything to say about the actual point here though?

Yeah. I called it "nutpicking." Jackson Lee gaffe-ing isn't news, and making a poster out this labeled "Democrats" is over the top.

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 07:19 PM
Yeah, chiwisoxx, next time make sure you only link to Jeff-Approved™ sites.

Thanks, nb. That was my only point - don't link to AOS.

Whatfur
07-16-2010, 07:23 PM
Yeah. I called it "nutpicking." Jackson Lee gaffe-ing isn't news, and making a poster out this labeled "Democrats" is over the top.

Little more than a gaffe.

So I can go to the Wingnut Republican thread and on anything I see your name expect to find a post talking about non-stories and how using the title to label all Republicans (or tea partiers for that matter) as just plain wrong??

The Title is generic. Dude. You are all wet.

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 07:29 PM
Little more than a gaffe.

So I can go to the Wingnut Republican thread and on anything I see your name expect to find a post talking about non-stories and how using the Tiltle to label all Republicans (or tea partiers for that matter) as just plain wrong??

The Title is generic. Dude. You are all wet.

Do what you like. But if you want to make point here, make a direct comparison to something specific. You'll try in vain to find me making assertions about "all Republicans." And of course, the problem here is that the title is generic. Dude.

chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 07:31 PM
Well I wasn't being particularly choosy with the link, as there were like 12 different options. I'd defend AoS, especially Ace himself. I'm not a huge Moe Lane fan either; I don't even really read RedState anymore, but that's a whole different kettle of beans.

The title was just supposed to be a generic alternative to the Republican thread.

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 07:38 PM
Well I wasn't being particularly choosy with the link, as there were like 12 different options. I'd defend AoS, especially Ace himself. I'm not a huge Moe Lane fan either; I don't even really read RedState anymore, but that's a whole different kettle of beans.

The title was just supposed to be a generic alternative to the Republican thread.

I applaud the goal, and I'm sure there's plenty of red meat available as fodder. I'd be interested in your defense of Ace - I probably have some counterarguments.

Whatfur
07-16-2010, 07:47 PM
Do what you like. But if you want to make point here, make a direct comparison to something specific. You'll try in vain to find me making assertions about "all Republicans." And of course, the problem here is that the title is generic. Dude.

Generic meaning that it was not tied specifically to the post, but tied to threaded concept. Not that difficult.

chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 08:04 PM
I applaud the goal, and I'm sure there's plenty of red meat available as fodder. I'd be interested in your defense of Ace - I probably have some counterarguments.

You mind laying out what your problems are with him first? Makes more sense that way, I think.

bjkeefe
07-16-2010, 08:19 PM
Added: And cripes - all the munuvians were about there was linking to a typically clueless Moe Lane(!) spew lacking a point. Though not lacking a little passive/aggressive white-guy triumphalism:

As Roy observes (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_11_archive.html#686686502968633012) (in a post linked to earlier (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170160#post170160)):

Right on time: Moe Lane of RedState says Sheila Jackson-Lee is the real racist; also, that she's stupid, and that having a majority-black district will reliably produce a stupid Representative. In Lane's defense he tried to disguise his point with lots of extra words, so he does have some sense of shame, or at least awareness of what others find shameful.

It'll be interesting to see if this thread produces anything in the way of actual news. Or even serious commentary. Or even good snark.

Or will it just be all links to angry wingnuts yelling their opinions?

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 08:34 PM
You mind laying out what your problems are with him first? Makes more sense that way, I think.

Chicken! :)

The short answer is they're impossible to take seriously. Here's an example post title:

Specter: I'd Like To Keep Sucking At The Public Teat Please

(I should point out that Specter has been my Senator for my entire adult life, and I have no love for the bastard.) The simple premise of the post under that title is that a Senator on his way out is leveraging his position to angle for a new job. I'm shocked, shocked... This sort of thing is hardly particular to Specter and isn't particularly noteworthy. But this is what passes for analysis far too often there. There was a time when I thought there were a fair number of sharp posts on the site. In my opinion, that ratio has been changing for the worse for a long time.

chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 09:16 PM
Well, considering your wingnut thread Brendan, the bar is set pretty low, so I'm not that concerned about it. How's that for snark?

bjkeefe
07-16-2010, 09:17 PM
Well, considering your wingnut thread Brendan, the bar is set pretty low, so I'm not that concerned about it. How's that for snark?

If you have to ask ...

chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 09:20 PM
Chicken! :)

The short answer is they're impossible to take seriously. Here's an example post title:



(I should point out that Specter has been my Senator for my entire adult life, and I have no love for the bastard.) The simple premise of the post under that title is that a Senator on his way out is leveraging his position to angle for a new job. I'm shocked, shocked... This sort of thing is hardly particular to Specter and isn't particularly noteworthy. But this is what passes for analysis far too often there. There was a time when I thought there were a fair number of sharp posts on the site. In my opinion, that ratio has been changing for the worse for a long time.

Well, a couple things. You aren't supposed to take AoS entirely seriously; at least, not in the sense that every post is a deadly serious treatise on a grave public policy concern. To me, they're essentially aggregators of aggregator sites. A funny and more irreverent hotair. I would warn against post titles meaning that a site suddenly can't be taken seriously. Just because they do goofy stuff mixed in with the serious doesn't mean the serious stuff isn't relevant. Maybe you think it's too far between jokey stuff, and that's fine. But not everyone wants a Matt Yglesias type site where every issue, down to things like pine nuts and walkable urban neighborhoods is discussed with such dourness that it borders on laughable. Well actually it doesn't border on laughable, it is laughable, but I guess that isn't the point, now is it.

Whatfur
07-16-2010, 09:53 PM
This may be overly tendentious, but since Brendan was kind enough to start a thread chronicling the Republican Party, I feel obliged to keep tabs on the Democrats.

And boy do I have a leadoff hitter! Here's Sheila Jackson pontificating about how Vietnam is still divided into North and South:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/303677.php

Interesting link within the link below by Ramesh but with a little correlation to your post here by Jonah.

"Kudos, Yale, kudos" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFlODc4NTkzOWJmYWYyOWQ1YmY2NTM2ZDdmZDk2YTg=)

bjkeefe
07-16-2010, 10:36 PM
"Kudos, Yale, kudos" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFlODc4NTkzOWJmYWYyOWQ1YmY2NTM2ZDdmZDk2YTg=)

You wanna talk Yale grads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/bushdadart_072699.jpg) saying stupid things? Really (http://www.google.com/search?q=bushisms)?

Lyle
07-16-2010, 11:06 PM
Have you ever asked bjkeefe to stop linking to Balloon Juice? Cause if you haven't, you probably shouldn't be telling people to not link to Ace of Spades.

Whatfur
07-16-2010, 11:13 PM
Have you ever asked bjkeefe to stop linking to Balloon Juice? Cause if you haven't, you probably shouldn't be telling people to not link to Ace of Spades.

Actually he doesn't seem to link to them much any more since his failed diplomacy tour.

Starwatcher162536
07-17-2010, 03:15 AM
Funny how not one commenter is demanding the release of the raw data.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 06:26 AM
Funny how not one commenter is demanding the release of the raw data.

Nice.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 10:17 AM
Here's a long article (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/07/16/~/link.aspx?_id=FDBA6C158DDD466CAD023CCE6FFA595D&_z=z) and interview (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/07/16/David-Obey-I-Leave-More-Discontented-Than-I-Started.aspx) from a few days ago with the outgoing ("after more than 40 momentous years in Congress") chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wisc.).

Coupla excerpts (all emph. and bracketed material orig.):

On the TARP bailout of Wall Street, the economic stimulus package and the need for more action on the economy:

The public hates it, but it happens to have been a pretty damn good deal for the taxpayers. When all is said and done, that will not have cost the American people nearly as much as we feared. The cost will be less than $100 billion. And if you can save your economy by spending $100 billion, I’d say that’s worth it. Even if to do that you had to give some help to the dumb bastards who got us in trouble in the first place, and you can quote me.

The problem for Obama, he wasn’t as lucky as Roosevelt, because when Obama took over we were still in the middle of a free fall. So his Treasury people came in and his other economic people came in and said "Hey, we need a package of $1.4 trillion." We started sending suggestions down to OMB waiting for a call back. After two and a half weeks, we started getting feedback. We put together a package that by then the target had been trimmed to $1.2 trillion. And then [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel said to me, "Geez, do you really think we can afford to come in with a package that big, isn’t it going to scare people?" I said, "Rahm, you will need that shock value so that people understand just how serious this problem is." They wanted to hold it to less than $1 trillion. Then [Pennsylvania Senator Arlen] Specter and the two crown princesses from Maine [Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins] took it down to less than $800 billion. Spread over two and a half years, that’s a hell of a lot of money, but spread over two and a half years in an economy this large, it doesn’t have a lot of fiscal power.

We’re in danger of [throttling back on government spending too soon, as Franklin Roosevelt did during the Depression]. Any idiot understands that we've got to get our long term fiscal house in order. I take a back seat to nobody about my concern about fiscal responsibility. I was one of the leaders who helped pass Bill Clinton’s budget which helped to end deficit spending and brought us three straight years of budget surpluses. And I've opposed all of Bush’s giveaways.

On his legacy:

I don’t know what my biggest contribution has been. I think it has been simply showing up for work every day, trying to fight the good fight for average people. My models have always been at state level old Bob LaFollette and at the national level [former Reps.] John Moss and Dick Boland. They never lost their sense of purpose and never lost their sense of rage at injustice.

But I leave more discontented when I came here because of the terrible things that have been done to this economy by political leaders who allowed Wall Street to turn Wall Street banks into gambling casinos which damned near destroyed the economy.

I think the more important thing was what was my biggest failure. I think our biggest failure collectively has been our failure to stop the ripoff of the middle class by the economic elite of this country, and this is not just something that happened because of the forces of the market.


Hat tip: @jim_newell (http://twitter.com/jim_newell), who tweeted (http://twitter.com/jim_newell/status/18742181113):

This entire David Obey interview is high literature; best thing I've read all week.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 05:51 PM
And when they do, they sometimes sound like robots (http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6803615/)! (In three-minute chunks, at least.)

(Background here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_11_archive.html#175936134197541838) and here (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/32404.html).)

bjkeefe
07-19-2010, 12:36 PM
"The real question is why the Democrats refuse to point this out (http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/07/real-question-is-why-democrats-refuse.html)."

(Because it's more fun to grouse about Obama not being perfect, that's why.)

(h/t: @siouxeeq (http://twitter.com/siouxeeq/status/18923630361))

Whatfur
07-19-2010, 11:18 PM
Stay classy Dems. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/18/du-to-dick-cheney-drop-dead/)

bjkeefe
07-19-2010, 11:56 PM
Stay classy Dems. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/18/du-to-dick-cheney-drop-dead/)

It's hard to think of anything more sad. Some B-list blogger at Hot Air nut-picks some comments -- from Democratic Underground, about Dick "Dick" Cheney of all people -- and starts off his post with ...

Despite Barack Obama’s promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship ...

... and that's something TSOF thinks is worth passing along.

Is there a word more pathetic than pathetic?

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 12:08 AM
...
Is there a word more pathetic than pathetic?

Queef.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 12:16 AM
Sweep this under the rug but as a comparison...someone here was bad mouthing Ace Of Spades not too long ago and I peruse things there often and although a bit rough around the edges I have never heard anything close to that there and if it were I have full confidence that Ace himself would nix it and tear the perpetrator a new one.

listener
07-20-2010, 01:51 AM
Queef.

Ha ha (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/queef).

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 10:35 AM
Er, more Ruh-Roh from Journolist. Looks like the Daily Caller has a good chunk of the archives, and is going to milk it and release stories one at a time. The first one..doesn't reflect well on a few BHTV'ers. The Daily Caller story is a little long winded, I'll link hotair because I assume most people don't want to sift through 3 pages of this story:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/20/daily-caller-discovers-journolist-plot-to-spike-wright-story-smear-conservatives-as-racists/

Richard Kim was on with Reihan a few weeks ago, and he seemed like a nice guy...little suprirsed to see him talk like that. The Ackerman portion is the money shot, obviously. I don't agree with Spencer on much, but I respect that he actually went to the Middle East to do reporting, and from what I can tell, a lot of the work he does is serious. But he always had what seemed like a streak of hotheadedness and immaturity. I'm really glad to see Mark Schmitt push back on this, my Mark Schmitt mancrush grows.

Even if you agree with Spencer and the others about the media coverage, which is an entirely different debate, it's hard to see how these remarks aren't damaging. It's things like this that make it hard for conservatives to take liberals seriously 100% of the time when being accused of racism.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 10:52 AM
Er, more Ruh-Roh from Journolist. Looks like the Daily Caller has a good chunk of the archives, and is going to milk it and release stories one at a time. The first one..doesn't reflect well on a few BHTV'ers. The Daily Caller story is a little long winded, I'll link hotair because I assume most people don't want to sift through 3 pages of this story:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/20/daily-caller-discovers-journolist-plot-to-spike-wright-story-smear-conservatives-as-racists/

Richard Kim was on with Reihan a few weeks ago, and he seemed like a nice guy...little suprirsed to see him talk like that. The Ackerman portion is the money shot, obviously. I don't agree with Spencer on much, but I respect that he actually went to the Middle East to do reporting, and from what I can tell, a lot of the work he does is serious. But he always had what seemed like a streak of hotheadedness and immaturity. I'm really glad to see Mark Schmitt push back on this, my Mark Schmitt mancrush grows.

Even if you agree with Spencer and the others about the media coverage, which is an entirely different debate, it's hard to see how these remarks aren't damaging. It's things like this that make it hard for conservatives to take liberals seriously 100% of the time when being accused of racism.

We'll see how things go. I doubt this gets much play apart from the usual suspects - so far there's nothing surprising there. Grafs like that below are more than a little tendentious:

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

Compared to what comes out of the talk radio - daily, in the open - that's pretty tame shit. Spackerman getting pissed off and venting is like the sun rising n the morning. Also note how the first bolded section makes a promise which the second section seems to indicate there was no intention of delivering on. "Plotted?" Seriously?

This is just not very potent stuff.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 11:11 AM
Sweep this under the rug but as a comparison...someone here was bad mouthing Ace Of Spades not too long ago and I peruse things there often and although a bit rough around the edges I have never heard anything close to that there and if it were I have full confidence that Ace himself would nix it and tear the perpetrator a new one.

I am not sweeping it under the rug. I am saying it's not enough dirt to make it worth getting out the broom. Big deal, some anonymous or pseudonymous commenters on a forum somewhere said some things some other people could object to. By that standard, your posts alone should make this site eligible for the gulag.

It also makes no sense to compare a forum to a blog. I don't know the exact guidelines for DU, so let's compare it to this one, instead. There are plenty of comments made on this site that are allowed to stand -- in the spirit of encouraging a wide range of perspectives -- that an individual blogger might feel are outside his or her guidelines. Especially if said blogger is more interested in nurturing a pleasant space for the like-minded.

Or, to consider it in a different light: Ace's site, his rules; Bob's site, his rules. There's no reason in the world that everyone who runs a website should feel obliged to enforce an identical set of standards.

In any case, I'm still mystified why even someone as warped as you thinks there is any fauxtrage to be ginned up on this one. I mean, bad-mouthing Dick Cheney? Please.

Especially in light of frequent ill-wishes made about the health and well-being of prominent Dems, an endless list of examples I'm sure I could dig up for you if I spent half an hour on Free Republic, and if not at Ace's place, then in the comments section of many other big-name right-wing blogs.

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Oh, I don't so much care about the "media colloboration" angle Jeff, at least not from this section. I was more wondering what people thought of what Spencer said. As you pointed out, and I think I did too, it's hardly surprising that he "went off", but I think his comments went well beyond just venting. This was intentionally creating spurious charges of racism. Do you not think that something like that is serious? Or do you not take Spencer seriously? Or somewhere in between?

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 11:18 AM
... By that standard, your posts alone should make this site eligible for the gulag.

I could dig up ...

Suuuurre you could, and you finger pointing is laughable in its hypocrisy.

Bad mouthing and wishing someone dead are on two different levels. Are they not? I see you have avoided saying it out loud hear as you tip toe around it so I can only assume that I already have my answer.

Saying you can dig up similar and actually doing it are quite different things.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 11:18 AM
... t's hardly surprising that he "went off", but I think his comments went well beyond just venting. This was intentionally creating spurious charges of racism.

I don't think "spurious" is a word on whose usage here we'd all agree. Hyping the shit out of the Jeremiah Wright story was plainly, in large part, a way to play on white fears of The Angry Black Man. Maybe it's not completely accurate to call, say, Karl Rove a racist for doing this, but it is fair to say that this was yet another case where he and people like him sought to use the machinery of racism (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170346&highlight=machinery+racism#post170346).

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 11:29 AM
Bad mouthing and wishing someone dead are on two different levels.

By your standards, perhaps. To me, saying something like these things (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/18/du-to-dick-cheney-drop-dead/) ...

* I hope Dick is in pain and drowning in his own fluids.
* don’t worry, he’ll shoot someone in the face and then steal their heart while they are writhing in pain from the buck shot.
* I hope he dies a slow death. The amount of pain due that man would be no where close to what he deserves.
* I’m not going to feel anything but intense gratitude that this miserable bastard has stepped off this earthly coil! Really! And I’m sure on a much lesser scale when I die, there will probably be some of you right-wing flip tops who will feel the same way—I frankly don’t give a damn!
* Cheney is a murderer. He’s a killer. He’s a torturer. He is evil personified! He is a walking mass of horror and when he’s gone, this planet will be cleaner!


... produces a considered meh. To my mind, the taboo against wishing someone ill is a superstition from an earlier, more primitive age, where we actually believed in things like spells and curses.

You're free to have a different reaction to this, and I am unsurprised to hear that you are more ensnared in Bronze Age nonsense than I am, but your huffing and puffing would be a bit more credible if had you any history of linking to posts documenting similar things said about people whose ideology you do not as closely share.

Saying you can dig up similar and actually doing it are quite different things also.

To you they might be, due to your guilty conscience over habitually making assertions you can't back up, and then when getting called on them, resorting to homophobic slurs and other juvenile responses, if not just slinking away.

To anyone else, my disinclination to go nut-picking in the damp basements of the wingnutosphere is easily seen as good judgment about how to spend one's time. There isn't an honest person here who doesn't know what I'm talking about, and who hasn't seen such things for him- or herself.

Besides, if I did do it, you and chi would then start whimpering, again, about how I spend too much time posting examples of wingnuts being wingnuts and saying wingnut shit. (This is another thing you're not honest enough to admit, I know.)

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 11:31 AM
I don't think "spurious" is a word on whose usage here we'd all agree. Hyping the shit out of the Jeremiah Wright story was plainly, in large part, a way to play on white fears of The Angry Black Man. Maybe it's not completely accurate to call, say, Karl Rove a racist for doing this, but it is fair to say that this was yet another case where he and people like him sought to use the machinery of racism (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170346&highlight=machinery+racism#post170346).

I think the Jeremiah Wright story was hyped because it was a big story, period. It had sizzle, and the media knew people would read/watch/listen to stories about Rev. Wright. People seem to lose track of the fact that a lot of media outlets are simply trying to make money.

The Journolist thing is frustrating, because it's one of those situations where you feel like if the roles were reversed, liberals would be pretty wee weed up about it. I don't know what the equivalent of a right winger saying what Spencer said would be. Maybe a prominent blogger making a homophobic remark? I think you'd do more to condemn that than mealy mouthed "Well, I guess maybe Spencer kinda sorta shouldn't have exactly said that..."

Look, I'm not entirely comforotable with the whole Journolist leak story either. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, there are plenty of things everyone says that they wouldn't want heard. Such is the nature of assumed privacy. But some things are beyond the pale, private or not, and I think Spencer crossed that line here.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 11:41 AM
Oh, I don't so much care about the "media colloboration" angle Jeff, at least not from this section. I was more wondering what people thought of what Spencer said. As you pointed out, and I think I did too, it's hardly surprising that he "went off", but I think his comments went well beyond just venting. This was intentionally creating spurious charges of racism. Do you not think that something like that is serious? Or do you not take Spencer seriously? Or somewhere in between?

I just don't see reason to believe that it was more than hotheadedness expressed in an apparently friendly environment. Everything else seems to go beyond the evidence.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 11:41 AM
I think the Jeremiah Wright story was hyped because it was a big story, period. It had sizzle, and the media knew people would read/watch/listen to stories about Rev. Wright. People seem to lose track of the fact that a lot of media outlets are simply trying to make money.

I don't lose track of that reality, ever, but I'll grant others might. I also don't disagree that the JW thing was exactly the sort of thing the horserace, game-changer-obsessed political reporters and chat shows love to obsess over.

That does not change the additional hyping of the story from the right-wing noise machine, who pretty much talked about it non-stop for the next six months, and who still resort to it at the drop of a hat. I will remind you also that not a few commercials were made by Republicans and Republican-supporting "independent" groups in which Wright's image was used with obvious intent.

The Journolist thing is frustrating, because it's one of those situations where you feel like if the roles were reversed, liberals would be pretty wee weed up about it.

Sure. We have been saying things about "faxes from Roger Ailes" or whatever for years now. And therefore, I am not going to get drawn into an obsession over a context-free phrase lifted from someone's email. So, to whatever Spencer or whomever said: whatever.

I also don't care that your fee-fees were hurt by what someone said in communication not intended for your eyes or ears. End of discussion.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 11:57 AM
Oh, I don't so much care about the "media colloboration" angle Jeff, at least not from this section. I was more wondering what people thought of what Spencer said. As you pointed out, and I think I did too, it's hardly surprising that he "went off", but I think his comments went well beyond just venting. This was intentionally creating spurious charges of racism. Do you not think that something like that is serious? Or do you not take Spencer seriously? Or somewhere in between?

I think it IS quite serious. Spencer's statement is not only spurious but egregious and he should be fired immediately and anyone thinking of hiring him should think twice. I also DO care about the media colloboration. Freedom of the press is given with the assumption that the truth is what is going to be reported...not the collaborative hiding of it.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 12:18 PM
Er, more Ruh-Roh from Journolist. Looks like the Daily Caller has a good chunk of the archives, ...

Adam Serwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/18986044065) tweets:

Shorter Daily Caller: Liberal journalists' plan to sign public letter denouncing gotcha journalism proof of secret conspiracy

At about the same time, Pandagon (http://twitter.com/pandagon/status/18987029086):

SHOCKER: People coordinated on a publicly released letter that they all co-signed.

PROOF THAT JOURNOLIST IS STILL COORDINATING!!!1!3lev3n!

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 12:21 PM
I think it IS quite serious. Spencer's statement is not only spurious but egregious and he should be fired immediately and anyone thinking of hiring him should think twice. I also DO care about the media colloboration. Freedom of the press is given with the assumption that the truth is what is going to be reported...not the collaborative hiding of it.

Same answer (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170657#post170657).

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 12:27 PM
Adam Serwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/18986044065) tweets:



At about the same time, Pandagon (http://twitter.com/pandagon/status/18987029086):



PROOF THAT JOURNOLIST IS STILL COORDINATING!!!1!3lev3n!

It doesn't get much better than a BJ post with a "shorter" meme, AND his mock leetspeak thing he does at the end of every sentence pretending to be a right winger. Both are obviously hilarious, but the fake leetspeak thing is especially gut busting; keep doing, it only gets funnier. You're at around 5,000 of these, and the high water mark is about 8,000. So don't stop the comedy train now.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 12:31 PM
...
I also don't care that your fee-fees were hurt by what someone said in communication not intended for your eyes or ears. End of discussion.

It doesn't get much better than a BJ post with a "shorter" meme, AND his mock leetspeak thing he does at the end of every sentence pretending to be a right winger. Both are obviously hilarious, but the fake leetspeak thing is especially gut busting; keep doing, it only gets funnier. You're at around 5,000 of these, and the high water mark is about 8,000. So don't stop the comedy train now.

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

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 12:32 PM
[...]

Simon Maloy (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200016):

The worst conspiracy ever, and right-wing self-affirmation

Just to expand on Julie Millican's breakdown (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200006) of the Daily Caller/Breitbart "Journolist" freak-out: If there was a mainstream media conspiracy to kill the Jeremiah Wright story, then it was the absolute worst conspiracy in human history.

Here's the headline of the Daily Caller story (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2010%2F07%2F2 0%2Fdocuments-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright%2F): "Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright." And here's Breitbart's characteristically hysterical reaction (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbigjournalism.com%2Fabreitbart% 2F2010%2F07%2F20%2Fjournolist-yes-but-the-reporters-at-pravda-werent-such-insufferable-assholes%2F) to the report: "[M]ost media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy." The story itself revolves around liberal journalists (writers from The Nation, The American Prospect, Salon, the Washington Independent, etc.) consulting with one another over the now-defunct Journolist listserv on how to word an open letter to ABC News objecting to George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson's widely panned performances as moderators of the April 16, 2008, Democratic presidential debate, which featured several questions to Barack Obama about Wright.

Let's look at this from a practical point of view: Did the alleged plot work? The short answer is "no," and the long answer is "Oh my god, are you kidding me? No." [...]

[...]

All the hyperventilating over the "Journolist" emails is predictable, though, as it feeds into the pervasive right-wing sense of victimization and their continuing frustrations at Obama's election. The clandestine nature of the emails lets them believe that there really, really is a secret liberal media conspiracy that's been keeping them down all these years and artificially buoying the liberal politicians they don't like. There's a reason people like Hannity and Breitbart still talk about (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912160007) Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers -- because they were absolutely convinced in 2008 that Wright and Ayers would be the undoing of Obama. The problem was that nobody cared about Wright and Ayers as much as they did, and people care even less now. When their incessant carping on the two was proved to be an utter waste of time, they lashed out -- who can forget the chorus of bitter complaining following the election that McCain just didn't spend enough time talking about Obama's "radical" associations?

Stories like this "Journolist" offering from the Daily Caller are therapeutic, in a way, because they allow right-wing hucksters to say "Ha! We knew Jeremiah Wright should have been a bigger deal, but that evil media conspired to keep it a secret! We were right! Liberal media!" They think they're exposing the men behind the curtain, but all they're doing is just wrapping themselves tighter in their own pernicious cynicism.

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 12:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlopjHepEw

Fair enough. I realized once I hit reply that I shouldn't have posted it. I lack self control when it comes to responding with force, but if I'm going to complain about the tone of this forum, then I shouldn't contribute this much to the negativity.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 12:39 PM
Compared to what comes out of the talk radio - daily, in the open - that's pretty tame shit.
The rules are different for them. We're the ones who are supposed to be non-partisan, and "fair," always bending over backwards to present wingnut lunacy in the best possible light.

They, on the other hand, are free to be as opinionated and tendentious as they want to be -- and why shouldn't they? They're only defending Truth, Justice and The American Way, after all. You'd have to be some kind of traitor to have a problem with that. Criticism of Fox News or wingnut talking points is clearly Liberal Fascism.

They have no trouble rationalizing whatever they have do in service of The Movement.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 12:44 PM
...the best possible light.



TS BS.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 12:44 PM
It doesn't get much better than a BJ post ...

Always nice to know when I struck a nerve. Thanks for confirming.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 12:45 PM
Always nice to know when I struck a nerve. Thanks for confirming.

I think it is called a funny bone.

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 12:45 PM
Simon Maloy (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007200016):

I'm shocked, shocked to see that this is Media Matters take on the issue! But seriously folks, he's actually right, it didn't really work. The extent to which Journolist could actually influence media coverage wasn't really the central point, or at least it wasn't the only one. Questions about epistemic closure (and irony regarding epistemic closure, for whatever that's worth) are more interesting here. There's a bit of a disconnect here in describing these 400 people. In a lot of ways, they're very influential in the circles people who visit sites like BHTV travel in. It seems to be mostly comprised of people who work in opinion magazines. So while very influential in the blogosphere, these magazines aren't read on the scale that say, the NY Times is. So it's not surprisng that 400 of these people wouldnt' be able to change the course of mass media coverage of an event during a presidential election.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 12:45 PM
I think the Jeremiah Wright story was hyped because it was a big story, period. It had sizzle, and the media knew people would read/watch/listen to stories about Rev. Wright. People seem to lose track of the fact that a lot of media outlets are simply trying to make money.
Yes, this analysis is exactly correct -- and it destroys utterly the suggestion that the media is somehow in Obama's pocket or liberal in any meaningful way. The media spent about eight straight weeks on the Wright story in the March-May timeframe in 2008 -- absolute saturation coverage of a kind not seen since the media collectively went after Clinton, especially during the Lewinski saga, when there was an uninterupted media feeding frenzy that went from January, 1998, to February or March of the following year.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 12:51 PM
I don't think "spurious" is a word on whose usage here we'd all agree. Hyping the shit out of the Jeremiah Wright story was plainly, in large part, a way to play on white fears of The Angry Black Man. Maybe it's not completely accurate to call, say, Karl Rove a racist for doing this, but it is fair to say that this was yet another case where he and people like him sought to use the machinery of racism (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170346&highlight=machinery+racism#post170346).
I think the Jeremiah Wright story was hyped because it was a big story, period. It had sizzle, and the media knew people would read/watch/listen to stories about Rev. Wright. People seem to lose track of the fact that a lot of media outlets are simply trying to make money.

Again, you're right about the corporate media's motivation: making money. But that's non responsive to what Brendan said: That Republicans' motives were different; the Republicans didn't obsess over the story because they wanted CNN to make money. They obsessed over the story because it was the 2008 version of the longstanding Southern Strategy -- using racially divisive politics to rally white voters. There are two types of Republicans in this scenario: (1) The evil manipulators who know that the wingnut herd can be set to stampede by mentioning scary black people, and (2) the herd itself.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 01:01 PM
I think it is called a funny bone.

I am even happier to learn that I have been able to provide others with some laughs. Especially people such as yourself and chi, who come across as living lives nearly devoid of humor and good feeling.

So, thanks again.

Yeah, yeah. I know. You're itching to type how you're not laughing with me, but at me.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 01:04 PM
Freedom of the press is given with the assumption that the truth is what is going to be reported...not the collaborative hiding of it.
LOL, what? Freedom is given? In this case by the federal government? That completely flies in the face of the idea (embraced even by teabaggers and republicans) that we are born with rights, and that these rights are natural and inalienable. We don't come to the government begging to be "given" our rights, on the terms and conditions the government finds acceptable. Rather, we ask that government protect our rights, and do nothing to abridge them. Sorry you are so unfamiliar with American values.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 01:16 PM
LOL, what? Freedom is given? In this case by the federal government? That completely flies in the face of the idea (embraced even by teabaggers and republicans) that we are born with rights, and that these rights are natural and inalienable. We don't come to the government begging to be "given" our rights, on the terms and conditions the government finds acceptable. Rather, we ask that government protect our rights, and do nothing to abridge them. Sorry you are so unfamiliar with American values.

Chubby Checker would be proud.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 01:25 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/20/daily-caller-discovers-journolist-plot-to-spike-wright-story-smear-conservatives-as-racists/

Wow. Thin gruel. They got nothin'. It's amazing how a couple of intemperate remarks can be conflated by the wingnuts into a mass conspiracy to rig the election.

Don't you ever get sick of being played like an accordian by Breitbart, Carlson, et al.? Doesn't the constant posture of moral OUTRAGE!!1! get exhausting? I feel tired just watching y'all jumping up and down trying to fan these little embers into a major conflagration.

Well, with the usual help you'll get from your friends in the media, you should be able to keep this alive in the mainstream press for a day or two, in the wingnut media for a month or two, and you'll always have it as a permanent talking point in your arsenal of "evidence" that the entire planet is organized in a conspiracy to make life hell for ultraconservative extremists.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 02:15 PM
[Republicans] are free to be as opinionated and tendentious as they want to be... They have no trouble rationalizing whatever they have do in service of The Movement.
[Republicans] obsessed over the [Wright] story because it was the 2008 version of the longstanding Southern Strategy -- using racially divisive politics to rally white voters.
Don't you ever get sick of being played like an accordian by Breitbart, Carlson, et al.?

So I left those comments, and then I found this (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/breitbarts-editing.html).

Are you really proud to be associated with these people, chiwhisoxx? You seem like an eminently reasonable person, despite the obvious partisan passion. Do you really feel good about being associated with people who lie and cheat and ruin people's lives for partisan advantage? Instead of going after Brendan's post count, why don't you speak out against what Breitbart has done here? Where's your moral sense?

— Farmer's wife says fired USDA official helped save their land (http://www.ajc.com/news/farmers-wife-says-fired-574027.html)

chiwhisoxx
07-20-2010, 02:29 PM
So I left those comments, and then I found this (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/breitbarts-editing.html).

Are you really proud to be associated with these people, chiwhisoxx? You seem like an eminently reasonable person, despite the obvious partisan passion. Do you really feel good about being associated with people who lie and cheat and ruin people's lives for partisan advantage? Instead of going after Brendan's post count, why don't you speak out against what Breitbart has done here? Where's your moral sense?

— Farmer's wife says fired USDA official helped save their land (http://www.ajc.com/news/farmers-wife-says-fired-574027.html)

Why does everyone insist on constant Sistah Souljah moments? Why, in order to cement my status as a "serious" person, do I have to denounce every right winger who says something stupid? Especially when you guys can't even denounce something like what Ackerman said. It's especially ironic, Swords, that you're complaining about allying with people who destroy people for partisan gain. Ackerman was proposing calling Fred Barnes a racist just to destroy him. How is that not the same? Calling out every partisan hack who says something stupid isn't a productive use of anyones time. I don't ask you to do it, you shouldn't ask me to do it. Trying to convince that I should because "my side is worse" is something that you should realize isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

There are dirty tricks on both sides. Both sides play the game. People don't pick these sides based upon how morally pure the political machinery of their side is. People should be devoted to bigger, ideological ideas of grander purpose than the day to day goings on of Andrew Breitbart.

And for the record, I entirely reject the idea that the entire Reverend Wright controversey was some form of horrific racism issuing forth from the collective minds of the American right. And oh, I don't agree with your analysis of the media bias thing either. I'm glad you agree that it's the industry is a business, and simply interested in making money (for the most part). But two things: trying to make money isn't always and necessarily mutually exclusive with an ideological bias. And secondly, why don't liberals extend the logic of "simply trying to make money, no bias here" when talking about corporations? Corporations have been a boogeyman to demagogue for long time on the left. So what's the difference?

graz
07-20-2010, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Whatfur:
Freedom of the press is given with the assumption that the truth is what is going to be reported...not the collaborative hiding of it.LOL, what? Freedom is given? In this case by the federal government? That completely flies in the face of the idea (embraced even by teabaggers and republicans) that we are born with rights, and that these rights are natural and inalienable. We don't come to the government begging to be "given" our rights, on the terms and conditions the government finds acceptable. Rather, we ask that government protect our rights, and do nothing to abridge them. Sorry you are so unfamiliar with American values.



Originally Posted by Whatfur: Chubby Checker would be proud.
Talk about twisting... after being schooled on your misrepresentation of our rights. Oh yeah... you only champion the violent fantasies affixed to said rights: Whatfur's favorite quotes:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 03:41 PM
Talk about twisting... after being schooled on your misrepresentation of our rights. Oh yeah... you only champion the violent fantasies affixed to said rights: Whatfur's favorite quotes:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I have become an obsession for my Troll. What a puny, creepy, thing you are. Your sons must be embarrassed to have such a snivelling little puke for a father.

graz
07-20-2010, 03:43 PM
I have become an obsession for my Troll. What a puny, creepy, thing you are. Your sons must be embarrassed to have such a snivelling little puke for a father.

Stand up and be proud pukefur!

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 03:47 PM
Stand up and be proud pukefur!

Why because I have a worthless piece of shit like yourself who due to constant embarrassment at my hand has decided to stalk me around the internet? Does that make you proud? You're nothing but a bully who has been taken to task and now takes pot shots from a safe distance.

graz
07-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Why because I have a worthless piece of shit like yourself who due to constant embarrassment at my hand has decided to stalk me around the internet? Does that make you proud? Your nothing but a bully who has been taken to task and now takes pot shots from a safe distance.

I'm just a mirror. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNMBMZx6kG4&feature=related)

Your own words are the only buckshot needed to take you down.



Reminder (again): This is a public forum. Post and be prepared. Karma is a bitch.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 04:26 PM
[....Reminder (again): This is a public forum. Post and be prepared. Karma is a bitch.

Oooooo scary threats.

Kind of sounds like you are trying to validate your stalking in your own shallow mind, more than mine. Such a sad case you are.

Post what you will oh creepy one.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 06:31 PM
Oooooo scary threats.

You do sound kind of scared.

graz
07-20-2010, 06:32 PM
Kind of sounds like you are trying to validate your stalking in your own shallow mind, more than mine. Post what you will oh creepy one.

stalker

It seems to be that the term 'stalker' no longer means what it used to mean--the pathological ANONYMOUS follower and tab-keeper of another person or persons (A detective who has not been hired and has no real reason to follow someone). The old definition also would say that a 'stalker' often has an imaginary connection with the stalkee. HOWEVER, common usage of the term, along with the term 'creepy', has come to be used as a defense mechanism for anyone seeking justification for not being attracted socially or physically to someone else. This term is nearly as overdiagnosed as ADHD is in children. Note: Far too many idiots think they're more important than they really are. Real stalkers seek out beautiful, interesting, and often famous members of the attractive gender. 90 percent of the people who use the term couldn't get a real stalker to save their lives.

Too funny.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 06:42 PM
Too funny.

Let me add then that it is obvious that you continue to throw out little explanations such as the above and the "public forum" comment to try and make it look like your creepy little obsession of searching the internet for me is not really creepy.

Nice try.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 06:46 PM
Let me add then that it is obvious that you continue to throw out little explanations such as the above and the "public forum" comment to try and make it look like your creepy little obsession of searching the internet for me is not really creepy.

Nice try.

Do you think if you say "creepy" a certain number of times, it will suddenly become applicable?

You should expect people to look into what you've had to say for yourself elsewhere when you conduct yourself as you do in this forum. Being curious is not "creepy," nor is mining for lulz.

Nor is contemplating the flop-sweat soaking your shirt right about now. (That would be schadenfreude.)

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 06:49 PM
Do you think if you say "creepy" a certain number of times, it will suddenly become applicable?

You should expect people to look into what you've had to say for yourself elsewhere when you conduct yourself as you do in this forum. Being curious is not "creepy," nor is mining for lulz.

Nor is contemplating the flop-sweat soaking your shirt right about now. (That would be schadenfreude.)

Oh how nice, the creeps little knob polisher comes to offer his unbiased opinion.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 06:51 PM
Oh how nice, the creeps little knob polisher comes to offer his unbiased opinion.

Doesn't need to be unbiased to be true.

I have to laugh that all you've got left is more homophobic slurs, though.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 06:54 PM
Doesn't need to be unbiased to be true.

I have to laugh that all you've got left is more homophobic slurs, though.

I have to laugh that all graz the creepy stalker has left is phobohomic you.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 06:56 PM
Oh how nice, the creeps little knob polisher comes to offer his unbiased opinion.

Complaining about "creepiness" while dishing puerile homophobia? You lose on a technicality.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 07:00 PM
Complaining about "creepiness" while dishing puerile homophobia? You lose on a technicality.

Again someone dies and makes Jeff king of something.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 07:01 PM
Again someone dies and makes Jeff king of something.

I'll take it. King of noticing the bleeding obvious.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 07:08 PM
I'll take it. King of noticing the bleeding obvious.

Actually King of doubling down on a quote that does not have to be taken as a homophobic anything unless their happens to be a faggot involved in the discussion (and that has been denied)...so I guess it just means someone who bends over to please his creepy friend.

AemJeff
07-20-2010, 07:09 PM
Actually King of doubling down on a quote that does not have to be taken as a homophobic anything unless their happens to be a faggot involved in the discussion (and that has been denied)...so I guess it just means someone who bends over to please his creepy friend.

Speaking of doubling down. (On what?)

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 07:12 PM
Actually King of doubling down on a quote that does not have to be taken as a homophobic anything unless their happens to be a faggot involved in the discussion (and that has been denied)...so I guess it just means someone who bends over to please his creepy friend.

So full of comedy it deserves to be blockquoted twice.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 07:15 PM
Speaking of doubling down. (On what?)

On whether knob polisher was a homophobic slur you fucking doorknob.

bjkeefe
07-20-2010, 07:16 PM
On whether knob polisher was a homophobic slur you fucking doorknob.

Reverse gear on the Trike of Doom is on fire!

graz
07-20-2010, 07:28 PM
Reverse gear on the Trike of Doom is on fire!

After hitting submit... I left for a spell... wowfur!

Fursweat is a flyin'. Too bad that this distraction will, once again, fail to provoke any introspection from Mr. fur. It's become like a traffic collision that demands attention. His Palinesque poutrage is real, if unwarranted. He's really not a victim. Just unable to meet the demands of contentious political discourse (as if... from either me or him). Too funny... ha ha.

graz
07-20-2010, 07:44 PM
Let me add then that it is obvious that you continue to throw out little explanations such as the above and the "public forum" comment to try and make it look like your creepy little obsession of searching the internet for me is not really creepy.


Now that the myth of 'fur has been deflated, are you ready to embrace your truth? All you need do is accept that your words have consequences. It's really simple. You've always had the power to post freely and have done so in public -- which is where I've drawn my references from. Thankfully, you and yours haven't the power to censor others (well, except on your favorite websites and link sources). Freedom, it's a bedrock American principle... celebrate it.

Whatfur
07-20-2010, 08:07 PM
Now that the myth of 'fur has been deflated, are you ready to embrace your truth? All you need do is accept that your words have consequences. It's really simple. You've always had the power to post freely and have done so in public. Thankfully, you and yours haven't the power to censor others (well, except on your favorite websites and link sources). Freedom, it's a bedrock American principle... celebrate it.


LOL! Ok graz, whatever you say. Want to borrow my trike?

graz
07-20-2010, 08:37 PM
Now that the myth of 'fur has been deflated, are you ready to embrace your truth?... Ok graz...

If the quote below shows your True Colors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbZDjnWtK1A), Ain't that a shame? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OG3uPULQRs)

Actually King of doubling down on a quote that does not have to be taken as a homophobic anything unless their happens to be a faggot involved in the discussion (and that has been denied)...so I guess it just means someone who bends over to please his creepy friend.

TwinSwords
07-20-2010, 10:25 PM
Why does everyone insist on constant Sistah Souljah moments?
Well, I'm not "everyone," and I don't regularly "insist on constant Sistah Souljah moments," but I think I can still answer your question: It's a measure of your character.

Frankly, there are a lot of deeply dishonest, or deeply disturbed, people on your side of the political spectrum. It's one thing to be the reasonable, polite conservative. It's another to look the other way while you ally yourself with the very disreputable people who dominate and lead your political movement.


Why, in order to cement my status as a "serious" person, do I have to denounce every right winger who says something stupid?
Hmm... this is interesting.

Of course I didn't say you had to denounce every right winger who says something stupid, but I understand that that's how my comment (maybe along with the comments of others?) made you feel. But honestly, why should it be so hard in this case? This is the lowest of low-hanging fruit.

Furthermore, Breitbart is not just any old right winger. He's one of the most powerful figures in conservative media.

Finally, he didn't say something stupid. Rather, he did something evil, targeting an ordinary American citizen with a dishonestly-edited videotape that turned her remarks around 180 degrees to make it appear she was saying the opposite of what she actually was. And why?

— To destroy Shirley Sherrod.
— To damage the NAACP.
— To hurt the Democrats.
— To inoculate conservatives against charges of racism.
— To convince the conservative herd that blacks and liberals are the real racists.


Especially when you guys can't even denounce something like what Ackerman said. It's especially ironic, Swords, that you're complaining about allying with people who destroy people for partisan gain. Ackerman was proposing calling Fred Barnes a racist just to destroy him.
No one in the Republican Party or the conservative movement is going to be "destroyed" by Spencer Ackerman's accusations of racism -- or any other accusations of racism that are made without a substantial basis. It just doesn't work that way. Conservatives rarely have to pay any price for expressions of racism.

Second of all, you have to understand: Those of us on my side of the political spectrum are a bit reluctant to go off after Spencer Ackerman or anyone else on the say-so of known liars like Brietbart and Tucker Carlson. If the only extant evidence of Spencer's perfidy is what was reported in The Daily Caller, I'll withhold judgement until independent verification is made available. As we know from countless examples -- ACORN, Climategate, the NAACP story, etc. ad nauseam -- conservative media lie as a matter of course, and when the facts come out, they paint a very different picture. Who in their right mind would trust anything they say? I'm curious: You're obviously intelligent and obviously discerning enough to know the truth about these and other matters. Do you trust rightwing media? Or do you know they are organs of misinformation and just roll with it?


How is that not the same?
Gosh, that's easy. Ackerman's remarks were made in private, to a group of people sworn to keep his remarks secret.

Further: Ackerman's accusation of racism would have no impact on anyone or anything; accusations of racism against major Republican figures are made routinely, and 99.9% of the time they just bounce off, leaving no mark.

Further: Ackerman's accusation was apparently not even published. Do you think the Daily Caller forgot to check for accusations of racism from Ackerman (or others on Journolist) against Barnes, Gingrich, or others, during the period in question? Of course they didn't. I'd be willing to bet they scrubbed every publication they could get their hands on looking for ANYTHING they could point to as evidence that Journolist had acted on Ackerman's recommendation.

Further: Ackerman was expressing an opinion -- a legitimate opinion, and one I'm sure he truly holds (that Gingrich, Barnes, et al., are racist), while Breitbart was telling lies, deliberately distorting the truth to destroy an innocent woman in furtherance of the rightwing agenda.

Further: While Ackerman was suggesting retaliation against leading public figures in the conservative movement, Breitbart picked out a powerless private citizen for personal destruction.

I could probably think of another half dozen important differences.


Calling out every partisan hack who says something stupid isn't a productive use of anyones time.
If the problem with Brietbart and the other leading figures in the conservative movement was that they were "partisan hacks," we wouldn't be having this conversation. This goes way beyond partisan hackery.


I don't ask you to do it, you shouldn't ask me to do it. Trying to convince that I should because "my side is worse" is something that you should realize isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Understood. I'll respond by saying that this is a key reason that Brendan (many thanks to him) goes to all the trouble he does of documenting the character of the conservative movement. We know that a lot of people are in denial. We know a lot of people don't follow the news closely. We know that a lot of people are in an ideological bubble, and never hear about the transgressions committed on their own side. (Most on your side continue to believe, for example, that there is substance to the charges Breitbart made against ACORN, or that there was substance to the Fox News version of Climategate.) Documenting the atrocities routinely committed by your side helps to defeat the suggestion that each incident is an isolated example. It's a pattern. Dishonesty and extremism are what define the conservative movement.

Note: It doesn't have to be this way. Conservatism is not inherently perverse. It's just that right now, in this place and time, the conservative movement is dominated by a host of disreputable people.


There are dirty tricks on both sides. Both sides play the game.
True. But at this point in time, there is no equivalence in degree. There's just nothing on my side that even approaches the systematic distortions and lies and hate mongering that characterize conservative media. Nothing.


People don't pick these sides based upon how morally pure the political machinery of their side is.
That's wrong. Why do blacks vote 95% for Democrats? Why do we see similar voting patterns with other minorities? There's no reason on earth why gay people or blacks or non-Christians should be predisposed to favor liberal policies. The fact is that a great many of these minorities would vote Republican if the party was not infested with racism and hatred for anyone who isn't white. (Note: I didn't say all Republicans hate non-whites; I said the Republican Party is infested with racism and hatred for non-whites.)

IF you guys could go a couple of years without the overt expressions of hatred for everyone besides the Sarah Palin demographic, you'd be an electoral juggernaut.

And that's why you should condemn the Breitbarts in your ranks; they are seriously limiting the potential of your movement. You're stuck, though, because at this point in time, hate is what defines the conservative movement more than anything else.

bjkeefe
07-21-2010, 03:08 PM
As does money.

Forget about Journolist. Wait'll the Bow-Tied Twerp and NotSoBreitbart find out about this conspiracy (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/techies-choose-obama-by-a-landslide/362)!!!1!

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/mccain-obama.jpg

More recent data here (http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/high-tech-industry-gives-more-money-to-democrats.html).

(Both links via Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/07/annals-of-libertarianism-part-636888.html).)

chiwhisoxx
07-21-2010, 03:15 PM
As does money.

Forget about Journolist. Wait'll the Bow-Tied Twerp and NotSoBreitbart find out about this conspiracy (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/techies-choose-obama-by-a-landslide/362)!!!1!

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/mccain-obama.jpg

More recent data here (http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/high-tech-industry-gives-more-money-to-democrats.html).

(Both links via Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/07/annals-of-libertarianism-part-636888.html).)

Omg teh corporationz r so rite wing!!1111eleventy

Oh wait.

*Pauses*

DOESNTMATTER CORPROATIONZ STILL RITE WINGZ!!!

By the way, while we're still vaguely on the subject of JournoList, Jeff Goldberg had an item today mentioning that there's a new, improved, and trimmed down JournoList. This time, it's called Cabalist! (What do liberals do better than name things?) I guess this is supposed to be a funny name pun (Just like NotsoBreitbart is supposed to be funny I guess? Sometimes we need clarifications when the puns are this painful) Regardless of the merits of these lists, these guys can't actually be stupid enough to try another round of this. Or could they be? I mean really, this thing exploded like a month ago. The new list still has nearly 200 people on it. Do they really expect anonymity, and thing that starting a new list is a good idea?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/meet-the-new-journolist-smaller-than-the-old-journolist/60159/

bjkeefe
07-21-2010, 07:56 PM
The next time you hear yelling along the lines of this post's title, let's remember this moment (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/science/space/21nasa.html):

House Panel’s NASA Spending Bill Cuts Back Obama Plan

An authorization bill put together by a House committee for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would greatly scale back President Obama’s plans to spur a commercial market for the launching of people into space and would direct the agency to continue developing its own rocket.

The bill from the House Committee on Science and Technology would provide $750 million over five years for the so-called commercial crew initiative — investing in companies to develop a space taxi service for taking astronauts into orbit; that is far less than the $6 billion the Obama administration requested and less than the $1.3 billion over three years that a Senate committee approved in its version of the authorization bill last week. In addition, $500 million of the money in the House bill would be in the form of loans and loan guarantees rather than direct financing.

It remains to be seen what gets worked out between the House and the Senate, and Congress and the White House, of course. But I have the sad feeling this will turn out to have been something worth noting for the record.

Whatfur
07-24-2010, 11:25 PM
So sad. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385221258338304.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion)

Whatfur
07-24-2010, 11:31 PM
Must me a race thing. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-23/charlie-rangel-will-resign-next-week-predicts-tunku-varadarajan/?cid=tag:all1)

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 11:34 PM
Must me a race thing. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-23/charlie-rangel-will-resign-next-week-predicts-tunku-varadarajan/?cid=tag:all1)

Must me.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 01:06 AM
Moar like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/23/145315/890?new=true) plz:

Call them out.
Make them squirm.
Don't let them bully us.
Don't back down.

That's how we do it.

kthx4RT (http://twitter.com/siouxeeq)bai

bjkeefe
08-08-2010, 04:37 AM
And sing (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-sings-i-know-whose-ass-to-kick.html)!

;)

Whatfur
08-10-2010, 03:44 PM
And sing (http://queef.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-sings-i-know-whose-ass-to-kick.html)!

;)


Maybe Rangel will soon be singing in the prison shower...where he belongs. (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/08/shocker-corrupt-rangel-hit-with-news.html)

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 03:19 AM
And maybe do more!

This could provoke some screaming (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-11-shadow-a-senator-climate-push-draws-inspiration-from-tea-party):

Remember those chaotic town hall meetings last summer with irate Tea Partiers confronting Congress members about death panels and socialized medicine?

A coalition of activist-oriented green groups are drawing inspiration from those town-hall scenes in a new push to force senators to answer for their failure to pass clean-energy legislation. 350.org, 1Sky, Clean Energy Works, the Blue Green Alliance, and other groups are urging volunteers to track down swing-vote senators during the August congressional recess. 350.org says it's already signed up more than 2,500 volunteers to track down senators (both Republican and Democrat) at recess events.

"[L]et senators know it's not okay to quit working to stop climate change," says 350.org (http://www.350.org/SHADOW). "The basic idea is to attend an event where your senator is speaking. Have a few friends stand outside with signs, and then have one or two people inside the event and ask the senator when they plan to actually pass a climate bill."

The "Shadow a Senator" organizers suggest a polite-but-firm style rather than the screaming summer '09 approach. In fact, 350.org has a fun video on how not to shadow a senator (below), featuring some of the gun-toters and xenophobic-sign wavers from last summer.

[...]

Sara Robinson (http://www.grist.org/member/103502) of Campaign for America's Future offered another perspective on the value of noisy, visual Tea-Party-style action:

"It got them massive media attention," she wrote in an email about year's town hall activism. "It put them on the map politically. It didn't win the healthcare fight, and I'm inclined to view this November's election as a real referendum on whether or not the Tea Party has a future -- that's still up for grabs. But people sure as heck know who they are and what they stand for."

"As usual, the progressives are left politely not-yelling and handing out leaflets on the sideliines while the right-wing circus passes by in all its noisy glory."

Maybe that's starting to change.

The rest (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-11-shadow-a-senator-climate-push-draws-inspiration-from-tea-party).

(h/t: @drgrist (http://twitter.com/drgrist/status/20926368040)) <-- B'head Dave Roberts to you!

Whatfur
08-12-2010, 11:20 PM
Just a bunch of sweethearts. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/you_stay_classy_dems.html)

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 11:43 PM
Just a bunch of sweethearts. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/you_stay_classy_dems.html)

Can't believe 'fur of all people is saying "stay classy" again!

I guess there is no hope for someone who keeps reading "American Thinker," though.

Congratulations. You found the only two Democrats on the planet who said something this week that hurt your fee-fees.

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 12:28 AM
Can't believe 'fur of all people is saying "stay classy" again!

I guess there is no hope for someone who keeps reading "American Thinker," though.

Congratulations. You found the only two Democrats on the planet who said something this week that hurt your fee-fees.

How many of your posts in the various GOP talk threads fall much shorter than this?

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 06:45 AM
How many of your posts in the various GOP talk threads fall much shorter than this?

None. In all cases, my posts are about something more serious than some individual saying something tasteless, or they are about someone much more important than the low-level officials in your post, or they are about larger groups of people, or they are continuing examples of a larger trend.

Or, they are funnier.

Or some combination of the above.

I am sorry you are unable to see the difference.

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 02:59 PM
You guessed it...

Stay classy Dems. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Dem_group_launches_Fck_Tea_campaign.html)

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 07:09 PM
You guessed it...

Stay classy Dems. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Dem_group_launches_Fck_Tea_campaign.html)

Try to remember one thing: despite your fantasies and fears, "Dems" are not of one mind. Not even close. Can't even fit them all in the same ideological solar system. Ditto "the Left," "liberals," and every other sweeping term you and a few other conservative commenters here use. That is why I recommend you all come up with a mirror image term for wingnuts, if for some reason moonbats won't already do the job.

Meanwhile, open your mind for two minutes and read this (via @ronaldjackson (http://twitter.com/ronaldjackson/status/21098533452)): "‘‘F*ck tea’ campaign forgets ‘bigger a**hole rule’ (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0812/progressive-group-launches-fck-tea-project)."

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 07:10 PM
http://a.imageshack.us/img594/750/joblossesbeforeandafter.png

See Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/who_can_we_blame_for_job_losse.html) for details.

Hat tip to Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/08/13/job-losses-obama-vs-bush/) (RTed by @sonjablair (http://twitter.com/sonjablair)), who predicts:

Conservatives will no doubt dismiss this reality with the well-worn “math is for nerds” defense…

Also, math is gay. Plus it was invented by Muslins.

uncle ebeneezer
08-13-2010, 09:01 PM
And don't forget the differences in tax cuts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html).

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 11:07 PM
What is really being said is that the economy and employment figures started crashing about 6 months after the Democrats took over the running of the government. The article wants to try to paint it as "Republican watch" but that is a farce.

Reality is hard.

AemJeff
08-13-2010, 11:19 PM
What is really being said is that the economy and employment figures started crashing about 6 months after the Democrats took over the running of the government. The article wants to try to paint it as "Republican watch" but that is a farce.

Reality is hard.

Well, yeah it is. Which is why nobody takes you seriously when all you do is make blank assertions. Prove your thesis. And good luck with that!


From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

(source (http://www.sonecon.com/blog/?p=451))

Reality really is pretty hard, isn't it?

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 11:35 PM
And don't forget the differences in tax cuts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html).

To save everyone a click, here is a copy of the chart Ezra presented (http://a.imageshack.us/img405/112/taxplansbushvobama.gif).

http://a.imageshack.us/img405/112/taxplansbushvobama.gif

Let us all praise Paul Ryan!!!1! USA! Gray goo! USA! Gray goo! USA! Gray goo!

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 11:52 PM
What is really being said is that the economy and employment figures started crashing about 6 months after the Democrats ...

Hope no small children were standing in front of 'fur's knees when he saw that chart (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=175302#post175302).

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 12:10 AM
Hope no small children were standing in front of 'fur's knees when he saw that chart (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=175302#post175302).

Chart? Ezra playing to his peeps, it actually looked like something created for "small children". Where was the unemployment rate when the Obama administration promised us it would not go beyond 8% with his stimulus program? Do you remember Bush being harped on when it was below 6%?

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 12:25 AM
Chart? Ezra playing to his peeps, it actually looked like something created for "small children". Where was the unemployment rate when the Obama administration promised us it would not go beyond 8% with his stimulus program? Do you remember Bush being harped on when it was below 6%?

It's called "data." And if it has "peeps," they're generally referred to simply as "rational" and "well informed." You can find lots of it here: http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 12:36 AM
It's called "data." And if it has "peeps," they're generally referred to simply as "rational" and "well informed." You can find lots of it here: http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment

And here's a helpful chart! Note the slope in 2007 through 2009. It only took the Socialist a few months to stop the bleeding.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGYO4CVCFdI/AAAAAAAAASo/LmfGn51ytMk/LNS13000000_293156_1281756735563.gif

bjkeefe
08-14-2010, 12:44 AM
[...]

Where'd you get those talking points? Hateway? Instawhatever? McMegan? "American Thinker?"

Even given the knee-jerk responses you issue here on an hourly basis, the pathological state of your epistemic closure still never fails to amaze me.

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 12:44 AM
And here's a helpful chart! Note the slope in 2007 through 2009. It only took the Socialist a few months to stop the bleeding.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGYO4CVCFdI/AAAAAAAAASo/LmfGn51ytMk/LNS13000000_293156_1281756735563.gif

Or maybe you'd prefer the rate to the raw numbers.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGYQ0mkq2oI/AAAAAAAAASw/3qUok44jqZE/LNS14000000_413575_1281757364555.gif

That really doesn't look much different.

bjkeefe
08-14-2010, 01:38 AM
And here is the HMFIC himself (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304357.html):

President Obama on Friday forcefully joined the national debate over construction of an Islamic complex near New York's Ground Zero, telling guests at a White House dinner marking the holy month of Ramadan that opposing the project is at odds with American values.

"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at a White House iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he continued. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

Guts and leadership:

The president's statement puts him once again at the center of a cultural clash just as his party enters the final stretch of a difficult congressional campaign. Polls suggest that most Americans disagree with his position; a recent CNN poll found 68 percent opposed to building a mosque near the Sept. 11 site.

Full video of the President's remark at the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304357.html). Transcript here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html). [Added: alt. video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gDLvzr5fCo). It's about 10 min long, and worth watching.]

Hat tip: Eric Boehlert (http://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/21123081787):

Now that Obama has weighed in on GZ mosque, how about W.?

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 01:41 AM
It's called "data." And if it has "peeps," they're generally referred to simply as "rational" and "well informed." You can find lots of it here: http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment

Well Jeff your rational and informed peeps are swallowing a rather large head fake with the numbers. You do realize that the bls uses flawed information, right? You have heard of U3 and U6 as well as then the real unemployment numbers, right? You realize that the difference between these values has increased substantially especially since Ezra's bookmark of Obama's responsibility, right? That's called data also. You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool...

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 09:54 AM
Well Jeff your rational and informed peeps are swallowing a rather large head fake with the numbers. You do realize that the bls uses flawed information, right? You have heard of U3 and U6 as well as then the real unemployment numbers, right? You realize that the difference between these values has increased substantially especially since Ezra's bookmark of Obama's responsibility, right? That's called data also. You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool...

Heh, that's cute, you Googled something which you don't apparently understand well enough to express in any form except the above. Would you like to explain what "U3" and "U6" unemployment mean, or how that relates to the thesis of this subthread? (How about U1, U2, U4, and U5 while we're at it?) Or do you prefer just to invoke their names like an incantation and try to get a free ride on an idea you don't apparently grasp?

I couldn't not fix all the mistakes and typos I left behind here. The original is still here, quoted below:


Heh, that's cute, you Googled something which you don't apparently understand read well enough to express in any form except the above. Would you like to explain what "U3" and "U6" unemployment mean how that relates to the thesis of this subthread? (How about U1, U2, U4, and U5 while we're at it?) Or do you prefer just to invoke their names like an incantation and try to get a free ride on an idea you don't apparently grasp?

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 10:25 AM
Heh, that's cute, you Googled something which you don't apparently understand read well enough to express in any form except the above. Would you like to explain what "U3" and "U6" unemployment mean how that relates to the thesis of this subthread? (How about U1, U2, U4, and U5 while we're at it?) Or do you prefer just to invoke their names like an incantation and try to get a free ride on an idea you don't apparently grasp?

You were destined here to attack me and not the truth of the concept. Regardless, I willl find something for others, but in simple terms the numbers you are waving about are content to ignore people who have given up looking which has continued to grow at an alarming rate. Even your addled self has had to swallow the logical salt when you have seen the % edge downward while unemployment numbers went up. Was it May or June that we went from 9.7 to 9.5 but lost over 100,000 jobs? How can that be...How can that be?

But let us not get away from my original point of the Democrat controlling the purse strings since 2006 and even if you wanted to give them the same number of months Ezra scraped out of the Obama administration's watch handing it back to the previous...having the watch and manning the guns are two distinct things and you and yours have controlled both houses and along with it the spending and policy making in this country long before Ezra's little attempt at redrawing the equator. Nice try though.

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 11:39 AM
You were destined here to attack me and not the truth of the concept. Regardless, I willl find something for others, but in simple terms the numbers you are waving about are content to ignore people who have given up looking which has continued to grow at an alarming rate. Even your addled self has had to swallow the logical salt when you have seen the % edge downward while unemployment numbers went up. Was it May or June that we went from 9.7 to 9.5 but lost over 100,000 jobs? How can that be...How can that be?

But let us not get away from my original point of the Democrat controlling the purse strings since 2006 and even if you wanted to give them the same number of months Ezra scraped out of the Obama administration's watch handing it back to the previous...having the watch and manning the guns are two distinct things and you and yours have controlled both houses and along with it the spending and policy making in this country long before Ezra's little attempt at redrawing the equator. Nice try though.

I'm not here to attack you, 'fur. But as long as you mount crappy arguments that depend on insult, misdirection, and the implicit hope that the people reading you are ignorant I'll attack those arguments - with some glee.

We all understand that people have dropped out of the labor force. Nobody has mounted an argument otherwise, mostly because it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. (Bringing up something orthogonal to the matter at hand - that's what we refer to as hand-waving!) The point here is that the job losses began at a time inconvenient to the claim that they were caused by the current President. And further, the losses clearly stopped during the early part of his term. It's also true that there are deep structural problems undergirding the issue, but that's not relevant to the current argument.

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 04:01 PM
I'm not here to attack you, 'fur. But as long as you mount crappy arguments that depend on insult, misdirection, and the implicit hope that the people reading you are ignorant I'll attack those arguments - with some glee.

We all understand that people have dropped out of the labor force. Nobody has mounted an argument otherwise, mostly because it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. (Bringing up something orthogonal to the matter at hand - that's what we refer to as hand-waving!) The point here is that the job losses began at a time inconvenient to the claim that they were caused by the current President. And further, the losses clearly stopped during the early part of his term. It's also true that there are deep structural problems undergirding the issue, but that's not relevant to the current argument.

Far be it from me to put a stopper to your glee.

Maybe you need to explain to me the "current argument". The labeling on the chart and your comments subsequent seem to be trumpeting the success of Obama's stimulus and his policies while trying to blame the job losses on the previous administration. This being done by virtue of drawing a line that benefitted the argument and labeling it "pre-stimulus" even though the stimulus was signed 5 months previous. If anything, lets get the label right...something like "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect".

Next, you will have to point me to any claim I made of causation of job losses by the "current President". Au Contraire. Is it not you and yours who have put forth the simplistic bar chart equating the success of the stimulus and the separation of blame? Victory-declaring of and for "Obama". I merely pointed out that the Democrats have held control over fiscal policy since 2006. So where you may be justified in separating Obama from those things that transpired before the "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect", in "reality" you certainly cannot separate it from Democrats.

I then took aim at touting the success. You ignored my questions. The Obama team promised us that by getting behind his stimulus we keep the unemployment rate (u3) below 8%. "Reality" not only showed the ignorance of the promise but even after... and in spite of... the magical "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect", unemployment continued to rise to the end of the year. A huge influx of census workers created a perception of a reduction in unemployment numbers at the beginning of the year, but now with the census conclusion, reality brings us back to losing jobs. Sorry, nobody (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html) except those with enormous reach are proclaiming the stimulus a success.

You're right, It may not be clear where u6-based or reality-based unemployment numbers apply to Shapiro's chart except what I said... that if the difference between them and the u3 is increasing it certainly is a reflection on the success or failure of the policies being glorified here.

Finally because our mutual friend Brendan expects a link to something he can piss on I will leave you with a "McMegan" quote:

"If presidents really did have the kind of power over the economy that their friends or enemies try to claim, the world would be a much more terrifying place"

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 08:04 PM
Far be it from me to put a stopper to your glee.

Maybe you need to explain to me the "current argument". The labeling on the chart and your comments subsequent seem to be trumpeting the success of Obama's stimulus and his policies while trying to blame the job losses on the previous administration. This being done by virtue of drawing a line that benefitted the argument and labeling it "pre-stimulus" even though the stimulus was signed 5 months previous. If anything, lets get the label right...something like "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect".

Next, you will have to point me to any claim I made of causation of job losses by the "current President". Au Contraire. Is it not you and yours who have put forth the simplistic bar chart equating the success of the stimulus and the separation of blame. Victory-declaring of and for "Obama"? Here I merely pointed out that the Democrats have held control over fiscal policy since 2006. So where you may be justified in separating Obama from those things that transpired before the "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect", in "reality" you certainly cannot separate it from Democrats.

I then took aim at touting the success. You ignored my questions. The Obama team promised us that by getting behind his stimulus we keep the unemployment rate (u3) below 8%. "Reality" not only showed the ignorance of the promise but even after... and in spite of... the magical "Estimate When Stimulus Took Affect", unemployment continued to rise to the end of the year. A huge influx of census workers created a perception of a reduction in unemployment numbers at the beginning of the year, but now with the census conclusion, reality brings us back to losing jobs. Sorry, nobody (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html) except those with enormous reach are proclaiming the stimulus a success.

You're right, It may not be clear where u6-based or reality-based unemployment numbers apply to Shapiro's chart except what I said... that if the difference between them and the u3 is increasing it certainly is a reflection on the success or failure of the policies being glorified here.

Finally because our mutual friend Brendan expects a link to something he can piss on I will leave you with a "McMegan" quote:

"If presidents really did have the kind of power over the economy that their friends or enemies try to claim, the world would be a much more terrifying place"

Megan has it exactly right, by the way. Oddly, considering the source.

The "current argument" is debunking a Republican claim that the job losses underlying the current employment crisis occurred on Obama's watch. Clearly they didn't, in large measure. The "simplistic bar chart" pretty clearly shows that to be the case. The graphs I put up made the point in a slightly more fine-grained way. Nobody here has seriously proposed the claim you seem to want to shoot down, (i.e. that it's evident that Obama has actually fixed the economy) except as a smart-assed riposte. Here's Ezra Klein making the actually defensible claim that's packed into all of this:

We can argue about how much of the job losses should really be pinned on Republicans or Republican policies, of course. Financial deregulation happened under Bill Clinton, for instance. And it's hard to hold George W. Bush solely responsible for a global financial crisis. But insofar as the job losses go, it's hard to credibly blame this White House for the vast, vast majority of them.

That said, though this wasn't Obama's economic crisis, it is his economic recovery. There's a fair question as to whether another set of policies could've led to faster job growth over the last year or so. And the recent shakiness in the recovery is cause for concern on that front. So it's worth looking at Shapiro's proposal to strengthen the recovery, too:

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 09:25 PM
Megan has it exactly right, by the way. Oddly, considering the source.

The "current argument" is debunking a Republican claim that the job losses underlying the current employment crisis occurred on Obama's watch. Clearly they didn't, in large measure. The "simplistic bar chart" pretty clearly shows that to be the case. The graphs I put up made the point in a slightly more fine-grained way. Nobody here has seriously proposed the claim you seem to want to shoot down, (i.e. that it's evident that Obama has actually fixed the economy) except as a smart-assed riposte. Here's Ezra Klein making the actually defensible claim that's packed into all of this:

You yourself claimed the the job losses stopped in the "early part of his term". "It only took the socialists a few months to stop the bleeding". The chart itself insinutates the same. Unfortunately, we are still bleeding.

Also...whose "watch" is not "clear" in "large measure". I didn't, but one could also argue that a different approach during Obama's first 6 months could have had more positive affects that it did. Thrusting those months out of Obama's realm is presumptuous and IMHO makes the whole chart and what you/Ezra/Shapiro wish it to display utterly meaningless.

Like healthcare where Obama had an opportunity to create something special...he blew it..., Obama also had a huge opening to grab the job situation by the horns and move America into a solid future. Instead he created the stimulus that didn't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA)

Sorry but at this rate "The One" will not end up in the top 20.

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 09:31 PM
You yourself claimed the the job losses stopped in the "early part of his term". "It only took the socialists a few months to stop the bleeding". The chart itself insinutates the same. Unfortunately, we are still bleeding.

Also...whose "watch" is not "clear" in "large measure". I didn't, but one could also argue that a different approach during Obama's first 6 months could have had more positive affects that it did. Thrusting those months out of Obama's realm is presumptuous and IMHO makes the whole chart and what you/Ezra/Shapiro wish it to display utterly meaningless.

Like healthcare where Obama had an opportunity to create something special...he blew it..., Obama also had a huge opening to grab the job situation by the horns and move America into a solid future. Instead he created the stimulus that didn't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA)

Sorry but at this rate "The One" will not end up in the top 20.

'fur: The job losses stopped early in Obama's term! That's an empirical fact. The job losses clearly started during 2007/2008 and stopped by mid-to-late 2009.

Also, charts don't "insinuate." It's just data. Live with it.

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 09:48 PM
'fur: The job losses stopped early in Obama's term! That's an empirical fact. The job losses clearly started during 2007/2008 and stopped by mid-to-late 2009.

Also, charts don't "insinuate." It's just data. Live with it.

Jeff, define stopped. 130,000 jobs were lost last month. Joe Biden could have been elected President and the census workers still would have been hired and created the blip of positive numbers.

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 10:04 PM
Jeff, define stopped. 130,000 jobs were lost last month. Joe Biden could have been elected President and the census workers still would have been hired and created the blip of positive numbers.

"Stopped" means the slope of the curve plotting the unemployment rate against time is zero or negative. In the chart I posted yesterday, that point occurs at about 70% of the distance between 01/09 and 01/10:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGYQ0mkq2oI/AAAAAAAAASw/3qUok44jqZE/LNS14000000_413575_1281757364555.gif

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 10:50 PM
"Stopped" means the slope of the curve plotting the unemployment rate against time is zero or negative. In the chart I posted yesterday, that point occurs at about 70% of the distance between 01/09 and 01/10:



Ok, Jeff. At least in my state a rolling stop still gets you a ticket. Besides July losing 130,000 Jobs, June was corrected, doubling its lost jobs to something around 200K. You want to rely on a chart that is not up to date and also relies strictly on u3 numbers when the difference between u3 and u6 numbers has increased to its highest rate in at least 15 years.

AemJeff
08-14-2010, 10:59 PM
Ok, Jeff. At least in my state a rolling stop still gets you a ticket. Besides July losing 130,000 Jobs, June was corrected, doubling its lost jobs to something around 200K. You want to rely on a chart that is not up to date and also relies strictly on u3 numbers when the difference between u3 and u6 numbers has increased to its highest rate in at least 15 years.

You've just tried to change the subject again. "Rolling to a stop"? Nobody said it was over, we're just looking at the available data which show a general downward trend over approximately the last ten or twelve months. The data seems to cover up to about 05/10. When newer data is released that will tell a fresher story. If you want to have a debate about U3 v U6, or whatever, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with what we've been discussing up until now.

Whatfur
08-14-2010, 11:19 PM
...Nobody said it was over, ....

There you go. Stopped but not stopped.

Whatfur
08-15-2010, 09:27 AM
You yourself claimed the the job losses stopped in the "early part of his term". "It only took the socialists a few months to stop the bleeding". The chart itself insinutates the same. Unfortunately, we are still bleeding.

Also...whose "watch" is not "clear" in "large measure". I didn't, but one could also argue that a different approach during Obama's first 6 months could have had more positive affects that it did. Thrusting those months out of Obama's realm is presumptuous and IMHO makes the whole chart and what you/Ezra/Shapiro wish it to display utterly meaningless.

Like healthcare where Obama had an opportunity to create something special...he blew it..., Obama also had a huge opening to grab the job situation by the horns and move America into a solid future. Instead he created the stimulus that didn't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA)

Sorry but at this rate "The One" will not end up in the top 20.

Hmmm, maybe with Queef as my editor I could write for the NYTs (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14herbert.html?_r=2).

chiwhisoxx
08-16-2010, 02:31 PM
The Obamacare rationing begins. The FDA, of course, is not supposed to consider costs, but yeaaaaaaaaaah:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html?hpid=topnews

AemJeff
08-16-2010, 05:19 PM
The Obamacare rationing begins. The FDA, of course, is not supposed to consider costs, but yeaaaaaaaaaah:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html?hpid=topnews

"Rationing." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the recommendation of influential scientific advisers to revoke authorization of the drug to treat metastatic breast cancer. Contrary to initial research, new studies indicate that the benefits of the drug, which costs $8,000 a month, do not outweigh its risks, the advisory panel concluded.

Citing a dearth of evidence of the drug's effectiveness, its potential toxic side effects, and its high cost, many cancer experts, patient advocates and others are welcoming the prospect that Avastin's authorization for breast cancer might be repealed. But the possibility is alarming other cancer specialists, women taking the drug, some members of Congress and advocates for giving patients as much access to as many treatments as possible.

The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment.

TwinSwords
08-16-2010, 11:51 PM
The Obamacare rationing begins. The FDA, of course, is not supposed to consider costs, but yeaaaaaaaaaah:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html?hpid=topnews

"Obamacare." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The story has nothing to do with Obamacare. At all.

TwinSwords
08-16-2010, 11:58 PM
Looks like the activist right has been getting ready to blow their stacks (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&client=google-coop&cof=FORID:13;AH:left;S:http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/12/its-just-new-toy-o-o.html;CX:Wingnuttia%2520Search;L:http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/223/wingnuts2ar0.jpg;LH:100;LP:1;VLC:%23551a8b;DIV:%23 cccccc;&adkw=AELymgX8Gxjr9UVMgiCweKXUzchLmKFUai6MvfENP9qDN JBo5IBYTE5y-SGZSoVoqfmzIOevGEAXzoR8AunmHEVCJCYSO41PN1kfBpe11VJ w1SMuPqzzHRo&boostcse=0&q=Avastin&btnG=Search&cx=007432832765683203066:zj_ist-lct4) over this issue for a little while, now.

chiwhisoxx
08-17-2010, 12:52 PM
"Obamacare." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The story has nothing to do with Obamacare. At all.

I don't think you honestly believe that. Although I suppose partisan blinders are a very powerful thing.