swishnicholson wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Posting from the Republic of Texas.

I don't see the tanks rolling or anything. Had some pretty good Thai food though.

And NPR is still broadcasting.

Where the hell are you, Vichy , TX?

Close. Austin.

By the way, stopped at Mickey Ds for lunch in Carthage, TX, and that place had more inbreds than I've ever seen gathered in one place in Arkansas.

Matt Taibbi wins:

So yeah, government waste sucks, it’s rampant at every level, and taxes are a vicious racket, and everyone should be pissed off . What’s hilarious about the teabaggers, though, is how they never squawk about waste until the spending actually has a chance of benefiting them. You will never hear of a teabagger crying about OPIC giving $50 million in free insurance to some mining company so that they can dig for silver in rural Bolivia. You won’t hear of a teabagger protesting the $2.5 billion in Ex-Im loans we gave to GE through the early part of this decade, even as GE was moving nearly a hundred thousand jobs overseas over the course of ten years. And Michelle Malkin’s readers didn’t seem to mind giving IBM millions in Ex-IM and ATP loans at the same time it was giving its former CEO, Lou Gerstner, $260 million in stock options.

In other words teabaggers don’t mind paying taxes to fund the salaries of Bolivian miners, Lou Gerstner’s stock options, deliveries of “sailboat fuel,” the Hermes scarves on Sandy Weill’s jet pillows, or even the export of their own goddamn jobs. But they do hate it when someone tries to re-asphalt their roads, or help bail their slob neighbor out of foreclosure. And God forbid someone propose a health care program, or increased financial aid for college. Hell, that’s like offering to share your turkey with the other Pilgrims! That’s not what America is all about! America is every Pilgrim for himself, dammit! Raise your own motherfucking turkey!

That's one elablorate misplaced rant. So he's telling us that people don't protest every $50 million boondoggle, but may be willing to gather to protest when the spending approaches $1 trillion? Hilarious indeed.

Werthless wrote:That's one elablorate strawman. So he's telling us that people don't protest every $2.5 billion boondoggle that helps the rich get richer, but may be willing to gather to protest when the spending benefits the community? Hilarious indeed.

Fixed it for you.

taibblog wrote:The really irritating thing about these morons is that, guaranteed, not one of them has ever taken a serious look at the federal budget. Not one has ever bothered to read an actual detailed study of what their taxes pay for. All they do is listen to one-liners doled out by tawdry Murdoch-hired mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin and then repeat them as if they’re their own opinions five seconds later. That’s what passes for political thought in this country. Teabag on, you fools.

Hear that, he guarantees it! I hope I never reach the level of cynicism displayed here, that I'm willing to pass judgment on EVERY SINGLE member of a group based on assumptions that have no basis in reality. It's one thing to say that the average person is misinformed, which I have absolutely no qualms saying. It's quite another level of arrogance to say what he says.

Edit: I suck at homophones.

Werthless wrote:That's one elablorate misplaced rant. So he's telling us that people don't protest every $50 million boondoggle, but may be willing to gather to protest when the spending approaches $1 trillion? Hilarious indeed.

wow, did you ever misread that.

It's plain his contention is that people seem perversely to grouse only when the 'excessive' spending benefits people like themselves, & not when it coddles plutocrats & their interests.

once again your expensive 'prestige' education has let you down.

Werthless wrote:

taibblog wrote:The really irritating thing about these morons is that, guaranteed, not one of them has ever taken a serious look at the federal budget. Not one has ever bothered to read an actual detailed study of what their taxes pay for. All they do is listen to one-liners doled out by tawdry Murdoch-hired mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin and then repeat them as if they’re their own opinions five seconds later. That’s what passes for political thought in this country. Teabag on, you fools.

Hear that, he guarantees it! I hope I never reach the level of cynicism displayed here, that I'm willing to pass judgment on EVERY SINGLE member of a group based on assumptions that have no basis in reality. It's one thing to say that the average person is misinformed, which I have absolutely no qualms saying. It's quite another level of arrogance to say what he says.

Edit: I suck at homophones.

Strawmen piling up fast and furious from our own world-class point-misser.

Jon Huntsman. You heard it here first.

If you ever want to put yourself in deep despair about the intersection of corporate media, political culture, and public policy, just watch some of these Sunday morning shows. On ABC, their "expert panel" today was George Will, Peggy Noonan, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts; on NBC it was Dick Armey, Harold Ford Jr., and a bunch of business columnists.

Before that, David Gregory--who's just worse than I could have possibly imagined he'd be--had Larry Summers on for a half-hour, and didn't once ask him about the money he took from the financial institutions--a fairly significant point given public skepticism from both the right and the left about too-close ties between the government and the banks. I was not a big fan of the late Tim Russert, but you know he wouldn't have let that one slide through the crease.

dajafi wrote:If you ever want to put yourself in deep despair about the intersection of corporate media, political culture, and public policy, just watch some of these Sunday morning shows. On ABC, their "expert panel" today was George Will, Peggy Noonan, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts; on NBC it was Dick Armey, Harold Ford Jr., and a bunch of business columnists.

Stephanopoulos' show has an weekly obits item near the end. Harry was 1st up.

dajafi wrote:If you ever want to put yourself in deep despair about the intersection of corporate media, political culture, and public policy, just watch some of these Sunday morning shows. On ABC, their "expert panel" today was George Will, Peggy Noonan, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts; on NBC it was Dick Armey, Harold Ford Jr., and a bunch of business columnists.

Before that, David Gregory--who's just worse than I could have possibly imagined he'd be--had Larry Summers on for a half-hour, and didn't once ask him about the money he took from the financial institutions--a fairly significant point given public skepticism from both the right and the left about too-close ties between the government and the banks. I was not a big fan of the late Tim Russert, but you know he wouldn't have let that one slide through the crease.

I saw some of Peggy Noonan's comments and think she exemplified the Republican political approach. On torture, just walk on by -- don't release the memos, don't find out what happened, just end the practices and pretend the past didn't happen. Great approach for the Cheney crew, who badly want to perpetrate their favorite myths and don't want to be inconvenienced by the public learning the facts. The biggest myth, all of this unitary executive move toward a security state of greatly diminished liberty is a necessary response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The truth -- this was a core Cheney belief and something he has been trying to accomplish since the Nixon administration. The other myths, the torture was very limited, not really so bad, and it prevented oh so many American civilians deaths have also started to be exploded by the release of these memos. The biggest myth that is exploding -- that these secret legal memos were within the bound of constitutional rule of law and were secret just to avoid tipping off our enemies. The revelation of the twisted legal reasonings shows the truth.

The other Republican attack is to limit Obama to just cleaning up after W. They say he needs to focus on a very few things, just clean up the banks and get credit flowing and the economy growing. Translation -- abort any Democratic agenda. Abort bipartisanship. If Obama wants the appearance of bipartisanship, it will be only by replicating the Bush policies, with more tax cuts for the wealthy as the means of depression fighting. On these morning shows, you saw the conservative media elite charged with selling this nonsense.

allentown wrote:

dajafi wrote:If you ever want to put yourself in deep despair about the intersection of corporate media, political culture, and public policy, just watch some of these Sunday morning shows. On ABC, their "expert panel" today was George Will, Peggy Noonan, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts; on NBC it was Dick Armey, Harold Ford Jr., and a bunch of business columnists.

Before that, David Gregory--who's just worse than I could have possibly imagined he'd be--had Larry Summers on for a half-hour, and didn't once ask him about the money he took from the financial institutions--a fairly significant point given public skepticism from both the right and the left about too-close ties between the government and the banks. I was not a big fan of the late Tim Russert, but you know he wouldn't have let that one slide through the crease.

I saw some of Peggy Noonan's comments and think she exemplified the Republican political approach. On torture, just walk on by -- don't release the memos, don't find out what happened, just end the practices and pretend the past didn't happen. Great approach for the Cheney crew, who badly want to perpetrate their favorite myths and don't want to be inconvenienced by the public learning the facts. The biggest myth, all of this unitary executive move toward a security state of greatly diminished liberty is a necessary response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The truth -- this was a core Cheney belief and something he has been trying to accomplish since the Nixon administration. The other myths, the torture was very limited, not really so bad, and it prevented oh so many American civilians deaths have also started to be exploded by the release of these memos. The biggest myth that is exploding -- that these secret legal memos were within the bound of constitutional rule of law and were secret just to avoid tipping off our enemies. The revelation of the twisted legal reasonings shows the truth.

The other Republican attack is to limit Obama to just cleaning up after W. They say he needs to focus on a very few things, just clean up the banks and get credit flowing and the economy growing. Translation -- abort any Democratic agenda. Abort bipartisanship. If Obama wants the appearance of bipartisanship, it will be only by replicating the Bush policies, with more tax cuts for the wealthy as the means of depression fighting. On these morning shows, you saw the conservative media elite charged with selling this nonsense.

I didn't watch Stephanopoulos--once I saw that his panel was two right-wing pseudo-intellectuals (or maybe that's too harsh; Will at least is smart and sometimes principled, while Peggy is a dimwit), ultra-establishmentarian Cokie (who last year found Obama "alien" because he's from Hawaii), and Sam D who's basically a liberal but won't quite cop to it, I knew my breakfast digestion would be at risk.

But I agree with pretty much all of this. And I'm heartened by the fact that the Obama administration sees all of this for the bull shit that it is and glides on past--as opposed to a Hillary administration which I think would have taken it all deadly seriously and made decisions in dread of what David Broder might say. (My theory is that starting their careers in the '70s and '80s, in the teeth of the conservative ascendancy, just rendered them hopelessly timid, and the vicious beating they took during Bill's term inflicted a kind of political PTSD. It's pretty much the only way to explain the stunning lameness of Hillary's Senate career.) Particularly on the torture memos, he seems to have struck a middle ground between getting the information out there and "moving on" without dwelling on payback (to the disappointment of many on the left)--realizing, as his political enemies evidently don't, that it's impossible to really "move on" until the air is cleared.

Still, the wonderfully named Dick Armey on NBC blasted the release of the memos as a thoroughly "political move" aimed solely to kick at Obama's predecessor. I'm sure there's a better example of projection in recent American political history, but it doesn't come immediately to mind.

taibblog wrote:All they do is listen to one-liners doled out by tawdry Murdoch-hired mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin and then repeat them as if they’re their own opinions five seconds later. That’s what passes for political thought in this country. Teabag on, you fools.

Riiiight. Like this guy, or any one of you, have an original political perspective in your head.

dajafi wrote:

allentown wrote:

dajafi wrote:If you ever want to put yourself in deep despair about the intersection of corporate media, political culture, and public policy, just watch some of these Sunday morning shows. On ABC, their "expert panel" today was George Will, Peggy Noonan, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts; on NBC it was Dick Armey, Harold Ford Jr., and a bunch of business columnists.

Before that, David Gregory--who's just worse than I could have possibly imagined he'd be--had Larry Summers on for a half-hour, and didn't once ask him about the money he took from the financial institutions--a fairly significant point given public skepticism from both the right and the left about too-close ties between the government and the banks. I was not a big fan of the late Tim Russert, but you know he wouldn't have let that one slide through the crease.

I saw some of Peggy Noonan's comments and think she exemplified the Republican political approach. On torture, just walk on by -- don't release the memos, don't find out what happened, just end the practices and pretend the past didn't happen. Great approach for the Cheney crew, who badly want to perpetrate their favorite myths and don't want to be inconvenienced by the public learning the facts. The biggest myth, all of this unitary executive move toward a security state of greatly diminished liberty is a necessary response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The truth -- this was a core Cheney belief and something he has been trying to accomplish since the Nixon administration. The other myths, the torture was very limited, not really so bad, and it prevented oh so many American civilians deaths have also started to be exploded by the release of these memos. The biggest myth that is exploding -- that these secret legal memos were within the bound of constitutional rule of law and were secret just to avoid tipping off our enemies. The revelation of the twisted legal reasonings shows the truth.

The other Republican attack is to limit Obama to just cleaning up after W. They say he needs to focus on a very few things, just clean up the banks and get credit flowing and the economy growing. Translation -- abort any Democratic agenda. Abort bipartisanship. If Obama wants the appearance of bipartisanship, it will be only by replicating the Bush policies, with more tax cuts for the wealthy as the means of depression fighting. On these morning shows, you saw the conservative media elite charged with selling this nonsense.

I didn't watch Stephanopoulos--once I saw that his panel was two right-wing pseudo-intellectuals (or maybe that's too harsh; Will at least is smart and sometimes principled, while Peggy is a dimwit), ultra-establishmentarian Cokie (who last year found Obama "alien" because he's from Hawaii), and Sam D who's basically a liberal but won't quite cop to it, I knew my breakfast digestion would be at risk.

But I agree with pretty much all of this. And I'm heartened by the fact that the Obama administration sees all of this for the bull $#@! that it is and glides on past--as opposed to a Hillary administration which I think would have taken it all deadly seriously and made decisions in dread of what David Broder might say. (My theory is that starting their careers in the '70s and '80s, in the teeth of the conservative ascendancy, just rendered them hopelessly timid, and the vicious beating they took during Bill's term inflicted a kind of political PTSD. It's pretty much the only way to explain the stunning lameness of Hillary's Senate career.) Particularly on the torture memos, he seems to have struck a middle ground between getting the information out there and "moving on" without dwelling on payback (to the disappointment of many on the left)--realizing, as his political enemies evidently don't, that it's impossible to really "move on" until the air is cleared.

Still, the wonderfully named Dick Armey on NBC blasted the release of the memos as a thoroughly "political move" aimed solely to kick at Obama's predecessor. I'm sure there's a better example of projection in recent American political history, but it doesn't come immediately to mind.

I wouldn't call Peggy Noonan a dimwit. She writes very well and has some incisive ideas, especially when she occassionally sheds the Republican talking points and analyzes events for herself, as she did around election time. She now seems to be back in full partisan battle mode.

So she's not a dimwit when she agrees with you.

Sometimes when a lot of Republicans are all saying similar things, it isn't because we pass around talking points, but rather that's what we actually believe.

jerseyhoya wrote:No Country For Close Calls

I'm surprised they don't put more emphasis on redistricting. I know there was always gerrymandering, but it seems like in the last 20 years both parties have been much more brazen about it. That plus the fundraising power of incumbency in the mass-media age would seem to explain things pretty well.

VoxOrion wrote:Riiiight. Like this guy, or any one of you, have an original political perspective in your head.

...he writes, from Mt Olympus

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Riiiight. Like this guy, or any one of you, have an original political perspective in your head.

...he writes, from Mt Olympus

You're confusing me with a mirror

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's not a dimwit when she agrees with you.

Sometimes when a lot of Republicans are all saying similar things, it isn't because we pass around talking points, but rather that's what we actually believe.

LOL.