Beck is legit crazy. I can't even get mad at him anymore. I actually think he really truly believes what he says. I actually feel sympathy towards him. Limbaugh, on the other hand, knows exactly what he's saying, and he just doesn't care. He's a piece of garbage.

I like Olbermann and he's definitely not crazy like Beck. But I could see where the right would get angry watching his show. Maddow is perfectly reasonable and thoughtful in her presentation of the issues. If a conservative tried to watch her show with an open mind, I think he would see that.

That's one of my favorite's... "If you would just open your mind or be honest with yourself or be intellectually honest you would see that I'm right."

Never said anything about being right. I just said that someone would see a calm, reasoned argument, as opposed to Olbermann's shouting and histrionics.

I hate everything about all of them. I hate Sean Hannity more than the rest of them combined and then multiplied by infinity

Echoing Trent: The comparison I think is most apt is Joe Morgan. None of these people are as informative about politics as Joe Morgan is about baseball. It's about entertainment and making money, it's not about informing a democratic electorate.

For me, they fail as entertainers, since they're all as predictable as an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Rococo4 wrote:I do believe that if Bush was president and McChrystal said that he would be hailed by many in the media as a hero for "speaking up."

I wonder how McChrystal got to be a general given his obvious respect for military discipline. I say court martial the mother-fucker, that will learn him.

jerseyhoya wrote:Weekly Standard Tea Party article goes after Glenn Beck a good bit. (long)

I'll tell you one rapidly-developing problem that the Tea Party Movement represents for the left side of the aisle: just as the right had previously co-opted God and patriotism for itself, because the left let it, the Tea Party is now also co-opting the "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights" and the "Founding Fathers" for itself. The left needs to do something about this. Fast.

It's bad enough that, in the political imagination of too much of America, the right is on the side of God and country, making the left on the side of atheism and foreigners. Now, the right is also going to be the party of George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, AND Thomas Jefferson all at once (which is patently absurd for those who know anything about those four people) - not to mention Abraham Lincoln - as well as the party of the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Unless the left comes up with an answer to all of this soon, they are going to be the party of King George III, the Proclamation of Rebellion, the Intolerable Acts of 1774, and The Theory and Practice of Oligarchica Collectivism.

They could start to oppose this inexorable process by pointing out that the Tea Partiers, for the most part, are particularly in love with the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights, which makes them original originalists: they should be called the party of the Articles of Confederation. Or Rebel scum for short.

Trent Steele wrote: I hate Sean Hannity more than the rest of them combined and then multiplied by infinity

You're clearly not a great American, my friend

TenuredVulture wrote:Echoing Trent: The comparison I think is most apt is Joe Morgan. None of these people are as informative about politics as Joe Morgan is about baseball. It's about entertainment and making money, it's not about informing a democratic electorate.

For me, they fail as entertainers, since they're all as predictable as an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Given the choice between Rush Limbaughand Jim Rome for over my lunch break I listen to Rush. He's an arrogant blowhard, but at least he's honest about it. Also, off-topic but Jim Rome is possibly the worst sports radio guy in the history of sports radio guys (Except possibly Stephen A. Smith)

WheelsFellOff wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Echoing Trent: The comparison I think is most apt is Joe Morgan. None of these people are as informative about politics as Joe Morgan is about baseball. It's about entertainment and making money, it's not about informing a democratic electorate.

For me, they fail as entertainers, since they're all as predictable as an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Given the choice between Rush Limbaughand Jim Rome for over my lunch break I listen to Rush. He's an arrogant blowhard, but at least he's honest about it. Also, off-topic but Jim Rome is possibly the worst sports radio guy in the history of sports radio guys (Except possibly Stephen A. Smith)

I think I would choose silence.

mozartpc27 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Echoing Trent: The comparison I think is most apt is Joe Morgan. None of these people are as informative about politics as Joe Morgan is about baseball. It's about entertainment and making money, it's not about informing a democratic electorate.

For me, they fail as entertainers, since they're all as predictable as an episode of Dora the Explorer.

Given the choice between Rush Limbaughand Jim Rome for over my lunch break I listen to Rush. He's an arrogant blowhard, but at least he's honest about it. Also, off-topic but Jim Rome is possibly the worst sports radio guy in the history of sports radio guys (Except possibly Stephen A. Smith)

I think I would choose silence.

Seriously I'd prefer a chorus of popcorn farts.

what is popcorn fart

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwr8KJO0Fc[/youtube]

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwr8KJO0Fc[/youtube]

Very amusing!

I'm starting to like Red Eye. I like it's hyper low-budget and the way that the "panelists" are mostly trying to make each other laugh even if though they're assigned "right aisle/left aisle" positions (and I don't think I've seen anyone yell at or over one another). I also think it's funny how, because everyone is trying to make each other laugh, they fail so often which creates a lot of good cringe moments.

No chatter about the elimination of long term unemployment benefits? I seriously liked the Republican I heard while driving (sorry, I missed which one) saying that ballooning the deficit is impossible and will not be tolerated, then I hear a female Democrat retort that the deficit expansion over an 8 year period was fine under Republican rule. Great retort.

The bottom line is that I cannot get my head around the idea that long term benefits in this economic implosion are creating opportunity for people to stay unemployed. I just don't see the flood of good jobs at great compensation out there going unfilled. I do see jobs at low ball wages going unfilled. So I will have to disagree with that statement that it is happening and it is common (I am sure some are enjoying the break and the ultra low unemployment benefit that comes with it).

I understand that national debt is bad and that there is, and should be, growing concern over it increase. This, however, is a drop in the bucket compared to what we have been saddled with so far, and what will need to be approached for a very long time.

I look at this more like a political vote to create wider spread economic strife that will flood down on the states and the people. The states will be pushed farther into trouble as their expenses will temporarily balloon, until they can layoff the unemployment agency and social services staffs. Obviously on the citizen front, you can expect that the people squeaking by will be the next round of foreclosures and homeless. The spin out to low margin businesses like grocery stores get hit next. Etc.

Unless there is some secret plan, the vote against these benefits may as well have been a vote to give a shot at Economic Depression.

The next war related, economic WTF will soon be realized when it is discovered that it is cheaper to abandon the machinery in Iraq and Afghanistan, then bring it home. Everyone close to this knows that the stuff is worth marginally more than scrap value, and that the maintenance on things like HMWVs is outrageous, because a HMVEE is not being used for what it was intended (i.e., wrong tool for the job).

So, a majority of the on the ground physical assets will remain as that is the wisest choice, and these will need to be replaced with the next generation weapon and transportation systems*. At least there will be some manufacturing and training jobs created. Just wait until you hear that no one saw this coming.

* There are some systems, such as the MRAP type vehicles, that procurement has begun, which likely will return stateside. JLTV requirements have been released for four years, but the funds have not yet been allocated (someone knows the score).

uc benefits are necessary for people to sustain their lives. simple as that, really

I understand that the principle is important, and I'm all for making ironclad commitments to reform entitlements and cut "defense" expenditures--steps that would reassure the markets that we're serious about the structural problems in the budget. But the money that would be spent extending unemployment benefits is a rounding error: something like $30 billion IIRC.

Add in that it's stimulative--like money to the states and localities, which generates something like $1.40 in economic activity for every dollar spent--and the fiscal prudence arguments don't hold water even before you consider that most of the same people taking the "principled" anti-debt stance would like to exempt the Waltons and Hiltons from paying any inheritance tax.

The element of it I find most upsetting is something that, to my knowledge, has gotten no national attention: the last few versions of the "extenders" bill that failed yesterday included about $1 billion for summer jobs for teenagers. This would have supported about 15,000 additional jobs here in NYC, where we operate the largest summer youth employment program in the country. About 143,000 kids applied for slots; we'll put around 30,000 of them to work, down from 52,500 last year.

The program isn't means-tested, but pretty much every kid that gets a job through SYEP is poor. Research shows that the poorer a kid's family is, the less likely he or she is to find a job (think about how you found your summer jobs--a parent knows a friend, or you walk past a store and fill out an application; these kids might not have two parents, they're going to be poor and possibly unemployed anyway, meaning that they won't have great professional/social networks; and they don't live in neighborhoods with a lot of local businesses that hire).

It's also been demonstrated that early employment is strongly correlated with just about every positive outcome you can think of: consistent job-holding as an adult, higher wages, finishing high school, going to college, staying out of jail, not getting pregnant. Each of these things, of course, has a pretty strong fiscal consequence in terms of public expenditures or contribution to the tax base.

Even before you consider that the large bulk of the $1,500 or so the kid makes over seven weeks goes back into the neighborhood economy, given everything we know about the long-term impacts, not making that expenditure is the definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.