What is being misunderstood about the angel and devil graphic? All it did was get a chuckle out of me, so I assume I don't get it.

Werthless wrote:What is being misunderstood about the angel and devil graphic? All it did was get a chuckle out of me, so I assume I don't get it.

I think that the commentators thought that the angel by the liberal paragraph signified that liberals were angels, when in fact, the angel signifies the liberal belief that people are good. Indeed, I'd say the angel signified the foolishness of liberals. I was reminded of the quote from Madison "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Phillies fans are without a doubt cut from different clothe - references to both Madison AND the Putney debates on the same page. Well done, TV!

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess my one random question about UK politics is who is a stereotypical Liberal Democrat voter? It's easy enough to come up with generic versions of Labour and Tory supporters from afar, but who is the Lib Dem base? Is there one?

I honestly couldn't tell you. I mean, you could wikipedia the history of the party and its genesis in the awkward merging of the old Liberal party with the SDP (MPs who split from labour in the 80s), but that still wouldn't tell you what the voter base was. Although there would be some clues in there, with voters following MPs. The Liberal part of the lib dems is straightforward enough - they were the principal opposition to the Tories for large chunks of the english parliament, and used to be called the Whigs.

Their principal political identity for most of the late 80s till very recently has been built around Proportional Representation , progressive taxation, and number of experienced and in the case of Paddy Ashdown, very charismatic politicians. More recently they've gained a lot of political capital through their shadow Chancellor Vince Cable, a smart public speaker, economist who spent the best part of the last 4 years telling everyone that things were going to go badly, badly wrong with the economy. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. He's recently spent a lot of time saying that with the current size of our public deficit, we can't afford to be picky about where we make cuts, unlike Labour and the Tories who insist they won't go near the NHS (and to a lesser extent, Foreign Aid). They've also made a good go of speaking up on issues surrounding Civil Liberties, and I think were the only major political party to oppose going to war in Iraq.

If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the voters are hard to define in terms of age, gender and income, but heavily biased towards the middle classes.

Should be an interesting election. God knows, this country is due one after the the last two.

Lib Dems don't care for the Royals.

Glenn Beck went after the President's dead mother

pacino wrote:Glenn Beck went after the President's dead mother

despite his paychecks, about the only action he can get


(yes, I am a horrible person)

Newt Gingrich is a huge douchebag.

pacino wrote:Glenn Beck went after the President's dead mother

How so?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Newt Gingrich is a huge douchebag.

Why?

When did this thread become the place for liberals to post whiny one liners that lack context or humor or really any point at all

The point is that Newt Gingrich is a douchebag. I think that's pretty clear. He constantly lies or just doesn't understand what is actually going on, not sure which one I prefer to be the case.

He swears Obama is making America open to terrorist attacks citing things such as the handling of the underwear bomber. When someone (Jon Stewart?) pointed out that he was handled the same way the shoe bomber was handled by the Bush administration he said that's different because Reed was an American. Which is not true.

Or how bout the latest example and the one that I think really highlights how much of a know-nothing douche Newt Gingrich is? Not only is he bashing a treaty that reduces the nuclear weapons total of the world by a third he is doing so by misrepresenting what is actually in the bill. He is crying that the US can't strike back even if someone drops a biochemical attack on us because we aren't allowed to use nukes anymore unless used on us, which is specifically adressed in the treaty and untrue. Oh and it also doesn't apply to those not in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty. ya know, Iran and North korea. And oh yeah it says the US can also use its own discretion when situations arise about the use of nukes. So basically we got rid of a third of the nukes in existence for...nothing. How awful. Even though there is no downside to that.

So in essence Gingrich is lying and is an evil evil bastard. If you doubt the truthiness of any of this plz watch the daily show. Thank god for Jon Stewart.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:He is crying that the US can't strike back even if someone drops a biochemical attack on us because we aren't allowed to use nukes anymore unless used on us, which is specifically adressed in the treaty and untrue.

The New York Times wrote:For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

The one assertion you say Gingrich makes about the treaty that is a lie appears to be true if you have represented what he said correctly.

Honestly, Jon Stewart is entertaining, but he clips things out of context and him and his staff don't understand all the issues all that well either. It's like quoting a negative attack ad verbatim and pretending it's the news or that it paints a clear picture of the whole story. There are few things that drive me more nuts than people pretending they get a better picture of the news from Jon Stewart than they would from any major network or newspaper.

Newt Gingrich is an interesting fellow. He's a damn bright guy, prone to hyperbole, with remarkably inconsistent political instincts. He played a crucial role in the biggest Republican landslide since 1946, and did a decent job enacting stuff initially, but crippled himself and the GOP majority in losing the budgetary showdown with Clinton. Plus he proved himself to be a moral hypocrite in the whole Lewinsky bit. He's had lots of interesting ideas, is one of the most prominent reviewers of books on Amazon.com, likes to pretend he's going to run for president so people still take him seriously, and all sorts of other stuff. I guess you can think he's a douchebag if you want, but he's not Dick Cheney or anything in the "evil, conniving" sense. The man has little to no filter, and just thinks out loud. He's like a conservative version of Joe Biden.

I have a hard time seeing the clips that were shown being taken out of context especially considering he was on Hannity. I have yet to see something that Stewart took out of context that completely reshaped how the average viewer would take something. If you have an example please point it out because Stewart makes it a point to try to prevent this.

Of course he doesn't understand all the issues, few people do. He's not a journalist. He's a really smart guy who has a very concrete set of ideals, but he also follows a guy making poop and sex jokes or a cartoon. He is a comedian first and foremost, but that does not mean he does not nail people every now and then or that he is not an important political figure in this country.

As far as the liberal thing goes, I'm not exactly liberal yet. My identity in politics is still growing. I've moved further to the left the more I've learned about government so its likely I will be liberal, but I'm also to the right on quite a few issues. Gun rights, cap and trade, free trade, etc.. I have a massive distrust of the right because I can not reconcile the bigotry and religious influence with the libertarian, country club republicans and what not. If it were not for that I'd say a Republican has about as good a chance of getting a vote from me as a Dem. Especially as candidates stray further and further from party lines which I suspect will be the case. Its all moot because I doubt the pubs will do that though. Any who. I've been up for like 30 hours now so this might not be really coherent, but I give myself an A for effort. Good night.

It's important to note that the treaty recently concluded with Russia has been in the works for something like a decade. That is, before Obama took office.

For the most part, regardless of what anyone says, Obama's foreign policy is a continuation of Bush's foreign policy with some modest adjustments. The Israel dust up reflects a change in circumstances, so one can reasonably but not conclusively assert that Bush would have handled things differently. Also, Obama seems to be more aggressive with his use of missiles to target bad guys in AfPak.

The development of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea is a problem, but again, Bush couldn't solve them easier (and by any reasonable account, those problems would have been less difficult to deal with a decade ago then they are now). The point is, regarding foreign policy, none of this is new.

Remember, neo-con foreign policy really isn't that much different from progressive foreign policy, so none of this should have been surprising to anyone.

Bergen County, NJ educators must have been hanging out with Mohammed al-Madadi recently because their sense of humor sucks:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/articl ... /100409002

traderdave wrote:Bergen County, NJ educators must have been hanging out with Mohammed al-Madadi recently because their sense of humor sucks:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/articl ... /100409002

For people who don't click on the link, the NJ teacher's union in Bergen County, the largest county in the state, closed a recent memo about the state budget fight with the following "prayer"

"Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."

The teacher's union so stupid. Why would you write that down...ever?

Stevens retiring

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess you can think he's a douchebag if you want, but he's not Dick Cheney or anything in the "evil, conniving" sense. The man has little to no filter, and just thinks out loud. He's like a conservative version of Joe Biden.

this, particularly your last sentence, is where your observations are on a par with - well, there's no one I know of who does this sort of thing, whatever it can be called, as well.

That last sentence is, word-for-word, the best encapsulation of the phenomenon that is Newt that I've read in a long time.

Many things he says - like his particular iteration of the "the IRS will hire 16,000 agents to police the new health reform law" - are the baldest lies. But it is frequently damn difficult to tell whether he actually believes what he's said.

jerseyhoya wrote:Stevens retiring

Nice, I'ma send in my resume. I'm qualified.

Bakestar wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Stevens retiring

Nice, I'ma send in my resume. I'm qualified.

Actually, according to the Constitution, pretty much anyone with a pulse is qualified.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Bakestar wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Stevens retiring

Nice, I'ma send in my resume. I'm qualified.

Actually, according to the Constitution, pretty much anyone with a pulse is qualified.

Sure but after the disaster when Bush initially nominated his pal What's-her-name with her Southern Methodist law degree, good luck seeing any President nominate anyone outside the Yale/Stanford/Harvard/Columbia orbit ever again.

I actually appreciate that Bush was willing to go outside that circle; his choice of person was just horrendous.

The law clerks do all the work anyway, so what?