Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   GOPtalk, part 2 (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5563)

bjkeefe 07-16-2010 03:53 PM

GOPtalk, part 2
 
Eh, the old thread devoted to observing the Republican Party and its slide down the depressing spiral was getting too long. Therefore, let's have a fresh one.

Start us off, won't you, O Shrill One?

Quote:

Redo That Voodoo

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.
The rest.

chiwhisoxx 07-16-2010 05:15 PM

Re: GOPtalk, part 2
 
Jon Kyl was being stupid here, as people like Reihan Salam and Kevin Williamson have already pointed out. But it's ironic for Krugman to point this out, as he's the opposte end of the crazy economic perspective. On one hand, we have people like Kyl engaging in "starve the beastism", claiming tax cuts will always pay for themselves. They won't. But on the other hand, we have Krugman advocating spending as much money as possible during a recession, claiming no real negative repercussions will result. They will.

Full Williamson: http://www.nationalreview.com/excheq...na-ve-stimulus

AemJeff 07-16-2010 05:22 PM

Re: GOPtalk, part 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 170148)
Jon Kyl was being stupid here, as people like Reihan Salam and Kevin Williamson have already pointed out. But it's ironic for Krugman to point this out, as he's the opposte end of the crazy economic perspective. On one hand, we have people like Kyl engaging in "starve the beastism", claiming tax cuts will always pay for themselves. They won't. But on the other hand, we have Krugman advocating spending as much money as possible during a recession, claiming no real negative repercussions will result. They will.

Full Williamson: http://www.nationalreview.com/excheq...na-ve-stimulus

I think calling Krugman "crazy" would carry a significant burden of proof. You might disagree with him philosophically or on the merits of a particular issue; but he's synonymous with (iconic of) one of the poles of contemporary economic thinking, and is certainly considered to hold an authoritative position within that spectrum.

bjkeefe 07-17-2010 11:47 AM

"Looks like Erick 'Son of Olaf the 0-Fer' Erickson is keeping his streak alive"
 
RedFace in the RedState, once again.

And sadly, this means no more campaign commercials of awesomeness.

Also: bets on whether, nonetheless, the GHEMRotRSTF will still declare victory?

Whatfur 07-17-2010 01:27 PM

Re: GOPtalk, part 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 170151)
I think calling Krugman "crazy" would carry a significant burden of proof. You might disagree with him philosophically or on the merits of a particular issue; but he's synonymous with (iconic of) one of the poles of contemporary economic thinking, and is certainly considered to hold an authoritative position within that spectrum.

Krugman provides proof quite often on his own. I have provided some right here a few times.

Here are a couple economists who are not more worried about getting invited to the next liberal soiree than they are about correctly analyzing the current situation. This has the 5th segment queued up...watch them all. Probably won't see them matched up here together...would love to see them matched up with the hack you defend.

listener 07-17-2010 01:53 PM

Re: "Looks like Erick 'Son of Olaf the 0-Fer' Erickson is keeping his streak alive"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 170306)
RedFace in the RedState, once again.

And sadly, this means no more campaign commercials of awesomeness.

Also: bets on whether, nonetheless, the GHEMRotRSTF will still declare victory?

Ah yes, I remember seeing that "Gather your armies" ad, and Dave Weigel's analysis of it and of the primary race in general. IIRC, Weigel leaned toward thinking that Barber's strategy in running those ads would not ultimately be effective.

bjkeefe 07-17-2010 01:55 PM

Your moment of juxaposition
 
Back a couple of years ago, on this site, a claim was made:

Quote:

Take it from someone who was born and raised in Los Angeles, visited Idaho when he was 22, moved there as part of a telecommunications project at 27, bought a farm there at 35 and spends about half his time there, Idaho is just like most of 'the rest of the US'.
As was this, also posted on this site, from about the same time.

Quote:

And believe me, I love the fact that ID is not Seattle or New York City (or Los Angeles). People are the same everywhere ...
And now from elsewhere and more recently, we have this story, which begins as follows.

Quote:

Idaho Republicans Hate Word ‘Fiesta’ For Reason You May Suspect

Some depressing county fair in Idaho decided its theme this year would be “Fiesta at the Fair,” as that seems exotic and fun (depressing). So of course the county GOP decided that this was an evil Messican idea. “Bonner County fair board Chairman Tim Cary said the fair was just looking for a theme that’s fun to decorate with, and the choice had nothing to do with official language or immigration disputes.” NICE TRY. The Bonner County GOP’s booth will say “celebrate” instead of “fiesta” and they have “asked Arizona officials for some license plates to put in the booth.” This gets more dumb and depressing, as you can imagine.

[...]
Wonder what happened to all those people up there, who used to be (?) "just like most of 'the rest of the US'" and "the same everywhere."

I suppose we could make things hang together if we concluded that Idaho Republicans are not any longer like "'the rest of the US'."

Whatfur 07-17-2010 02:34 PM

Re: GOPtalk, part 2
 
Fork in the road.

bjkeefe 07-17-2010 03:37 PM

Re: GOPtalk, part 2
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 170326)

"Are we going to reclaim the American idea -- an entrepreneurial economy where you make the most of your life, you tap your potential, we reinvigorate the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise -- and defend the morality of that -- or are we going to abandon that

and once again let fear and bigotry replace thinking, and thus elect a bunch of Republicans? Are we going to let ourselves get fooled once again into believing that the party who thinks all problems are solved by giving tax cuts to the rich actually gives a shit about small town RealAmericans™ like you and me? Are we going to pretend once again that the only thing preventing everyone in the country from becoming a millionaire is those few remaining shreds of consumer and environmental protection remaining on the books?

Fixt.

No charge for the translation. I'm here to help.

bjkeefe 07-17-2010 09:04 PM

A quiz
 
Who said these things?

1:

Quote:

In an interview with the Associated Press last week, [name1] said tea partiers are actually helping Democrats, given their support of novice candidates like Sharron Angle who might blow chances at unseating the party in power.

"[...] My sources in Nevada say with Sharon Angle there's no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada," [name1] said. S/He also said thanks to Rand Paul's candidacy, "that's a seat [Republicans] could lose."

"... at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we're going to do. And certainly among the tea party types there's clearly no strategy of this is what we're going to do," s/he said.
a. Robert Bennet
b. Donna Brazile
c. Tim Kaine
d. Joe Klein
e. Andrea Mitchell
========================================

2. Regarding the Virginia tea party people:

Quote:

“With this group, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you think you can be a member of Congress.”
a. John Cole
b. Jane Hamsher
c. Robert Hurt
d. Rachel Maddow
e. Chris Rock
========================================

3.

Quote:

"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out," s/he said.

[name3] also said s/he challenged a group of Tea Partiers in a meeting: "'What do you want to do? You take back your country -- and do what with it?'...Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent."
a. Eric Alterman
b. Lindsey Graham
c. Mickey Kaus
d. Ezra Klein
e. Christina Romer
========================================

4.

Quote:

In an interview with the Associated Press, [name4] suggested "that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits" of "demagoguery" that threatens the Republican party long term.

[name4] didn't directly name the tea party movement, but challenged one of the key talking points tea partiers picked up from Palin during the health care debate.

Quote:

"There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery."

a. Eric Holder
b. Arianna Huffington
c. Bob Inglis
d. Paul Krugman
e. Kathleen Sebelius
========================================


(answers | details | h/t)

listener 07-17-2010 11:04 PM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 170351)
Who said these things?

...

Well, ya kinda gave the game away by putting it in this thread... ;)

But I guess I've been paying more attention this week than I'd thought -- I saw the interview with #4, and had heard about 1 and 3. After all this time, it is mildly encouraging to finally begin hearing such words.

bjkeefe 07-18-2010 12:23 AM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 170361)
Well, ya kinda gave the game away by putting it in this thread... ;)

Yeah, I probably should have put it in the Dem thread, huh?

Quote:

But I guess I've been paying more attention this week than I'd thought -- I saw the interview with #4, and had heard about 1 and 3. After all this time, it is mildly encouraging to finally begin hearing such words.
That it is. But let's wait and see how much of an effort is made to purge them. I have a feeling things are going to have to continue to get uglier before they get better.

chiwhisoxx 07-18-2010 12:33 AM

Re: A quiz
 
And the string of never ending concern trolling continues

AemJeff 07-18-2010 12:41 AM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 170368)
And the string of never ending concern trolling continues

That's a mis-characterization I think.

bjkeefe 07-18-2010 01:27 AM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 170370)
That's a mis-characterization I think.

That's a polite way of putting it. I'd say it was more like throwing out a poorly-understood buzzword, just to be contrary. A little bit of piddle on the ground before fleeing again, from someone who has put forth approximately zero effort the past few days to say anything more than neener neener boo boo.

To think that only a few days I was standing up for chi as someone worth engaging with, and a hopeful sign that we were adding another worthwhile conservative to the community. Oh well!

chiwhisoxx 07-18-2010 02:54 AM

Re: A quiz
 
It's funny, in a sense, I think you'd be better off if you actually WERE concern trolling. Maybe you weren't; I assume on some level that if you believe the things you say you do about the Republican Party, then it would be of concern to you. Maybe you don't care. But like it or not, they're going to play a substantial role in governing going forward. I care about the general health of the Democratic Party, because I think debate and back in forth is better for public policy.

I dunno, I wouldn't say I'm fleeing. I'm re-evaluating. You're not someone who is easy to debate BJ. I was pretty naive with the front page stuff up until a few days ago, when I delved deeper into these forums. And you're just fucking relentless man. Seeing these forums for the first time was like in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Gestapo dude looks at the spirits and his face melts.You probably have started like 60% of the threads on this page, and they're all in a pretty similar vein. They aren't aimed towards promoting back and forth and debate. And I don't think you can honestly tell me they are. Making a thread that you can update seventeen times a day with "LOL, LOOK AT DIS WIGNUT!!1111" doesn't really seem like something that's going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

I think you probably want a real debate on some level, but you have nasty habit of acting like the Nurse Ratchet of these threads. You can't just say "this goes and this doesn't". I mean you can say it, but you kind of act like you expect it to be authoritative. So maybe condense your GOP hating into one thread?

Let me put it to you this way, and if you respond to nothing else, please just respond to his. How would you respond if we flipped spots? Say you're me, and I'm you, and you walk into these forums and see the sheer volume of hostility towards your viewpoints. Not disagreeing with them in deep, reasoned, policy critiques, but the worst kind of nasty internet vitriol. Do you think you would then want to have serious discussions with me? I'm actually asking. Believe it or not, I have no interest in this being acrimonious. And to be honest, I get along with all sorts of people here, many of whom I disagree with. So I don't think you can pin it on my narrow mindedness.

bjkeefe 07-18-2010 11:32 PM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 170385)
... please just respond to his. How would you respond if we flipped spots?

I'd probably look for the most obnoxious, immature, spiteful, bitter, insecure commenter I could find and ally myself with him.

Oh, no, wait. That's what you'd do. And did. Learning anything yet?

As to the rest of your quivering-chin post, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you're asking for a copy of Learn How to Behave Like An Adult in 28 Days! and I don't have one to offer. I suspect there may be no royal road. You'll just have to figure it out for yourself, and steel yourself to the reality that it will take some time and effort, and it won't be without its occasional setbacks.

Meantime, I'd say that an extra dram or two of effort put toward resisting the temptation to whine on an hourly basis about how I am So Mean and making this site not your happy place would probably help you on your journey. We do see, every so often, people who sign up to post on this site, who appear to have done so solely to complain about me, or me and the other regularly posting liberals, and you know what? They eventually slink away, having gotten no satisfaction. Every single time.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it. Use the Ignore List feature if you lack willpower.* But unless you truly have nothing better to do with your life, don't waste any more time trying to get me to change what or how often I choose to post. Your mewling means nothing to me.

==========

* [Added] Third possibility: do what I do when I see your furry friend has added to several of his pet Life, the Universe and Everything threads, like "Poser" and whatnot, since the last time I visited this site. Just go to that forum's index page (here), click "Forum Tools" and in the drop-down menu, click "Mark This Forum Read."

chiwhisoxx 07-19-2010 12:41 AM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 170451)
I'd probably look for the most obnoxious, immature, spiteful, bitter, insecure commenter I could find and ally myself with him.

Oh, no, wait. That's what you'd do. And did. Learning anything yet?

As to the rest of your quivering-chin post, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you're asking for a copy of Learn How to Behave Like An Adult in 28 Days! and I don't have one to offer. I suspect there may be no royal road. You'll just have to figure it out for yourself, and steel yourself to the reality that it will take some time and effort, and it won't be without its occasional setbacks.

Meantime, I'd say that an extra dram or two of effort put toward resisting the temptation to whine on an hourly basis about how I am So Mean and making this site not your happy place would probably help you on your journey. We do see, every so often, people who sign up to post on this site, who appear to have done so solely to complain about me, or me and the other regularly posting liberals, and you know what? They eventually slink away, having gotten no satisfaction. Every single time.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it. Use the Ignore List feature if you lack willpower. But unless you truly have nothing better to do with your life, don't waste any more time trying to get me to change what or how often I choose to post. Your mewling means nothing to me.

I'm not sure who you're referring to in the first sentence, but I'm guessing it's Whatfur? How in the world have I allied myself with him? Seriously, go back and read my posts, I literally haven't even MENTIONED him in a post, let alone defend him in anyway. So get that straight, for whatever it's worth.

I realize I'm not going to change how you do things around here now. And you're right, it was foolish to try. But I don't think instigating some self reflection on your part was out of line. You asked me to self reflect over something I wrote on these boards only a few days ago, why can't I request the same?

It's not so much that I'm looking for a manuscript on how to behave like an adult (and before I forget, honestly, we can do better in terms of insults than quivering chin, right? This isn't 19th century Britain, is it?) but how to behave like an adult amongst many people who don't. Stop lumping yourself in with the other liberals, saying that people complain about them, and you! No BJ, it's you. I talk to Jeff. I talk to others. We can disagree and debate without it becoming overly toxic. This is what I was talking about with self reflection.

I obviously can't dictate how you post here. But I think one of my questions still remains on the table. Do you think the way you conduct yourself here really is the best way to promote frank and productive dialogue? You may not care, and that's fine. But I would have thought you were someone who would have aimed for goals like that. Maybe I'm wrong. Think about this though, as a parting shot. And once again, there's a good chance I'm wrong here, as I haven't been around here nearly as long as you have. Has there ever been a conservative commenter who spent significant time here that you have real and honest dialogues with for extended periods of time?

bjkeefe 07-19-2010 12:44 AM

Re: A quiz
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 170464)
Seriously, go back and read my posts, ...

Request denied. Once was bad enough.

Quote:

Do you think the way you conduct yourself here really is the best way to promote frank and productive dialogue?
Yes.

With those who have shown some indication that they are up to participating, I mean.

As for people lost in their petty grievances, like you and your furry friend: to the extent that you're not just outright ignored, the only thing to do here is mock. And you know what? That in and of itself helps promote FaPD, too, because far more often than not ('fur is an exception), the mockery sends the mocked back to the echo chambers and cocoons they're really seeking. And then the rest of us can have good discussions without having to stop every five minutes to wipe the noses of people such as yourself.

In short, the notion of productive dialog with someone acting like you've been acting for the past week is ludicrous. If you want that to change, find something, you know, productive to talk about. Because biting at my ankles ain't it, by anyone's definition.

bjkeefe 07-22-2010 03:00 PM

Re: The Dangle of the Angle (also continued!)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 169526)

Of course you were dying for some fresh news from our beloved favorite Nevada Republican! Let us ask her some questions!

Quote:

The wily Angle once again proved her nimble ability to avoid this terrible media-beast by a clever stratagem: calling a press conference, then not actually talking to the press or otherwise having a conference with it.

Quote:

Held at a Reno-area business, the event was promoted on the Angle campaign website as a “press conference” in which Angle was to publicly sign a “death tax repeal pledge.”

But after delivering a short speech, Angle turned away and left the event without allowing reporters to ask questions.

(Try this instead of the quoted link, I think.)

If she can't stand up to the "lamestream media," how will she stand up to Ahmadinejad, al Qaeda, or ObamaStalinCastroLeninHitler?

==========

[Added] Previous Dangle of the Angle coverage starting here. (Using threaded mode will help.)

bjkeefe 07-22-2010 03:53 PM

From the never-ending saga of the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™
 
Quote:

RNC fails to report $7M in debt to FEC
Party treasurer faults Steele

The Republican National Committee failed to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission in recent months - a move that made its bottom line appear healthier than it is heading into the midterm elections and that also raises the prospect of a hefty fine.

In a memo to RNC budget committee members, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen on Tuesday accused Chairman Michael S. Steele and his chief of staff, Michael Leavitt, of trying to conceal the information from him by ordering staff not to communicate with the treasurer - a charge RNC officials deny.

Mr. Pullen told the members that he had discovered $3.3 million in debt from April and $3.8 million from May, which he said had led him to file erroneous reports with the FEC. He amended the FEC filings Tuesday.

Campaign-finance analysts said that simply misreporting fundraising numbers to the FEC can lead to millions of dollars in fines and that criminal charges can be levied if the actions are suspected to be intentional.
The rest. Via.

chiwhisoxx 07-22-2010 04:10 PM

Re: From the never-ending saga of the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 171175)
The rest. Via.

Shockingly enough, the mainstream story is a woeful oversimplication...there's actually very little there there in this case.

bjkeefe 07-22-2010 04:15 PM

Re: From the never-ending saga of the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171177)
Shockingly enough, the mainstream story is a woeful oversimplication...there's actually very little there there in this case.

He asserted emptily.

I expect that you would be hopping up and down like a butthurt bunny if a story came out about the DNC having to face these accusations, which they felt were serious enough to require hiring the best lawyers in town, not to mention their own ethics committee recommending additional internal reviews, right after their chairman's own review was completed. Not to mention the treasurer accusing the boss of hiding information and blocking communication -- this is the smell of sweat from someone who's worried his ass is gonna be on the line.

But no! You know what's a big story? Some liberal blogger said something mean about Rush Limbaugh in an email! And then someone else LOLed! So let's talk about that instead! Forever!

Kind of comical for you to refer to the Washington Times as "mainstream," as well. Just how far gone to the right are you?

chiwhisoxx 07-22-2010 04:35 PM

Re: From the never-ending saga of the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 171179)
He asserted emptily.

I expect that you would be hopping up and down like a butthurt bunny if a story came out about the DNC having to face these accusations, which they felt were serious enough to require hiring the best lawyers in town, not to mention their own ethics committee recommending additional internal reviews, right after their chairman's own review was completed. Not to mention the treasurer accusing the boss of hiding information and blocking communication -- this is the smell of sweat from someone who's worried his ass is gonna be on the line.

But no! You know what's a big story? Some liberal blogger said something mean about Rush Limbaugh in an email! And then someone else LOLed! So let's talk about that instead! Forever!

Kind of comical for you to refer to the Washington Times as "mainstream," as well. Just how far gone to the right are you?

I wasn't specifically referring to the Washington Times as mainstream; nearly the exact same story ran in every news outlet that carried the thing. That's what I was referring to. How far right am I? I don't know, but by all accounts, you're probably considerably further to the left than I am to the right, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, maybe consider that I have inside infomration on this that you don't, and maybe I don't it's a good idea to discuss the gory details on a public forum? You may not believe me, but you should at least realize why I didn't fully flesh out the story.

bjkeefe 07-22-2010 05:06 PM

Re: From the never-ending saga of the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171183)
I wasn't specifically referring to the Washington Times as mainstream; nearly the exact same story ran in every news outlet that carried the thing.

You could, and should, have said that before. You can't just respond to a post that links to two sources and assume everyone will figure you weren't talking about either of them.

Quote:

The point is, maybe consider that I have inside infomration on this that you don't, and maybe I don't it's a good idea to discuss the gory details on a public forum? You may not believe me, but you should at least realize why I didn't fully flesh out the story.
Not teh dreaded inside infom-ration!

Release the Whitey Tapes, Larry!

(?)

bjkeefe 07-23-2010 06:23 PM

Two-fer Tuesday, Special Friday Edition!
 
1: SECESSION!!!1!

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009...p--300x300.jpg

Quote:

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is running in a heated three-way Republican primary for governor of Tennessee, has a dire warning about the new health care reform law: If a new Congress and president aren't elected in order to repeal the bill, states might just have to secede.

[...]

Wamp also praised Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) -- who has also floated the idea of secession -- for leading the fight against the health care bill. "Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp.
2. IMPEACHMENT!!!1!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...o.topi.190.jpg

Quote:

[Tom] Tancredo has an op-ed in the Washington Times calling President Obama "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" and suggesting that he ought to be impeached.

[...]

The ex-congressman said Obama "wants to destroy the constitution" and is more dangerous than al Qaeda because he represents an internal threat.

"He is a committed idealogue, and when you have somebody like that in the White House, it is to me a scary proposition, and I think that we can muster our defenses much more easily to take care of al Qaeda than we can to take care of the president."
In related news:

1. Two other Republicans will probably be labeled RINOs.

2. Megyn "Fox" Kelly is virtually certain to be declared a full-fledged member of the Biased Liberal InTheTankForObaMedia.

==========

(pic sources: Wamp | Tancredo)

bjkeefe 07-23-2010 06:41 PM

Re: Two-fer Tuesday, Special Friday Edition!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 171382)

Quick follow-up: Here is the artwork the Washington Times ("mainstream media," according to at least one commenter on this site) chose to decorate Tancredo's op-ed calling for impeachment of the president:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9...fobamascon.png

Hey, 'fur, can I get a "stay classy?"

bjkeefe 07-23-2010 11:33 PM

Compared to Karl Rove, Astroturf is authentic
 
Newell:

Quote:

How did American Crossroads, Karl Rove's "grassroots" fundraising operation, suddenly leap from $200 in monthly donations to a total of $4.7 million? Apparently 97% comes from four billionaires.

bjkeefe 07-24-2010 06:30 PM

Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9569/normsy.jpg
(Above: What a difference a haircut makes.)

Norman. Norman.

Don't get stabbed in the back, Mike! Least of all by a guy who is the only person in the world with more fiscal responsibamility problems than yours!

==========

(pic source for the more likable Norm)

chiwhisoxx 07-24-2010 07:59 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 171575)
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9569/normsy.jpg
(Above: What a difference a haircut makes.)

Norman. Norman.

Don't get stabbed in the back, Mike! Least of all by a guy who is the only person in the world with more fiscal responsibamility problems than yours!

==========

(pic source for the more likable Norm)

God that link about Steele was painfully moronic. If you're going to criticize Steele about all the (mostly legitimate) problems associated with his tenure as Chairman, maybe don't insinuate that the reason conservatives have a problem with him is race in every other sentence. It basically answered it's own hypothetical question that no one asked.

bjkeefe 07-24-2010 08:07 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171588)
God that link about Steele was painfully moronic.

I'm sure everyone else also lacking a sense of humor would agree.

chiwhisoxx 07-24-2010 09:09 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 171591)
I'm sure everyone else also lacking a sense of humor would agree.

Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.

bjkeefe 07-24-2010 09:38 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171598)
Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, ...

That is sometimes true, but if you can't figure it out when reading TBogg, you're really humor-challenged.

Quote:

... and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.
Scurrilous does not mean well-justified. Just so you know.

AemJeff 07-24-2010 09:53 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171598)
Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.

I agree with Brendan. Just inserting the adjective "scurrilous" isn't an argument. I accuse conservatives of racism all the time. I do it by name (not by category) and I always have an argument and examples to cite.

Can you mount a credible argument that Steele would have his job if a black man hadn't been a serious opponent for the Republicans at the time he got the job? It's not like the Republican bench is flush with black folks at that level. The language in the TBogg piece was pretty obviously a shot at actual rhetoric aimed at Obama from the Republican side, and switching up to name Steele was an obvious turn. And - do you really think there aren't people, high up in the party, whose feelings aren't uncomfortably close to the parody there?

chiwhisoxx 07-24-2010 10:17 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 171607)
I agree with Brendan. Just inserting the adjective "scurrilous" isn't an argument. I accuse conservatives of racism all the time. I do it by name (not by category) and I always have an argument and examples to cite.

Can you mount a credible argument that Steele would have his job if a black man hadn't been a serious opponent for the Republicans at the time he got the job? It's not like the Republican bench is flush with black folks at that level. The language in the TBogg piece was pretty obviously a shot at actual rhetoric aimed at Obama from the Republican side, and switching up to name Steele was an obvious turn. And - do you really think there aren't people, high up in the party, whose feelings aren't uncomfortably close to the parody there?

I'm not inside the brains of people high within the party, so I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. But I don't know, and I'm going to be the one to introduce pseudo racist things into their brains. Did the fact that he was black have something to do with the fact that he got the gig? Little bit of a touchy subject. But I don't think your statements are crazy by any means. I was referring to criticism of him being viewed as racist, not the job selection process.

bjkeefe 07-24-2010 10:36 PM

Re: Has Chairman Steele checked into the Bates Motel?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 171615)
I'm not inside the brains of people high within the party, so I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. But I don't know, and I'm going to be the one to introduce pseudo racist things into their brains.

Paging Dr. Freud. Slip in Aisle Nein.

bjkeefe 07-26-2010 01:44 PM

Ken Buck
 
Eh, I dunno, Eric Lach. Rather than snickering at this guy, I think we should be applauding him.

Quote:

Colorado Republican Ken Buck Caught On Tape (Again!) -- This Time Calling Birthers 'Dumbasses'

By the time his campaign's over, they're going to need the jaws of life to extract Ken Buck's foot from his mouth.

Buck is the Tea Party candidate running against establishment pick Jane Norton in Colorado's Republican Senate primary. His latest gaffe is being caught on tape by a Democratic operative saying, "Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" according to The Denver Post.
Maybe if he develops the guts to stand by his Kinsley gaffes and not walk them back, at least.

bjkeefe 07-27-2010 07:31 PM

What happens when you mix Republicans and cameras?
 
As in ... Republicans and hidden infrared video cameras?

If you're thinking Paris Hilton sex tape!, ew. And come on. These are REPUBLICANS.

But it's still pretty funny.

listener 07-27-2010 11:37 PM

Re: What happens when you mix Republicans and cameras?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 172082)
As in ... Republicans and hidden infrared video cameras?

If you're thinking Paris Hilton sex tape!, ew. And come on. These are REPUBLICANS.

But it's still pretty funny.

Hee hee. Maybe they were concerned about leaving fingerprints but not about infrared video cameras because their detective manual was not the most up-to-date.

bjkeefe 07-27-2010 11:46 PM

Re: What happens when you mix Republicans and cameras?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 172112)
Hee hee. Maybe they were concerned about leaving fingerprints but not about infrared video cameras because their detective manual was not the most up-to-date.

Oh, come now. That's not fair! I am sure they have kept up closely with their heroic DAs.

And if that's not cutting-edge, I don't know what is.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.