pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:chuck todd loved it bullies!

does chuck todd still have that rat on his face he calls a goatee

Chuck Todd needs to get laid.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Colin Campbell ‏@BKcolin 1m
NY1 political director on Grimm: RT @Bobmagic01 He threatened to throw him over the balcony and then said "I will break you in half" more tk

OMFG...hopefully he resigns tomorrow. Who does that? I love that he looks right at the camera too, and is like, yeah, I'll threaten you anyway.

I'm not surprised. Congressman Grimm represents Staten Island. He's also shown signs that he's a lunatic before.

TenuredVulture wrote:If it weren't for all the applause, this speech would take 10 minutes.

Misread that as applesauce.

Everything about that screengrab is great

I just saw the Grimm story on NY1. What a scumbag.

I'm guessing he's gone this year anyway, which at least would leave him more time to bully child-sized reporters.

reporter looks like a ezra klein/nate silver mashup

TenuredVulture wrote:I always end up watching the response due to inertia, but really, each party needs at least a few people who can make a coherent extemporaneous speech. If you're smart and informed, it's not that hard. You have a pretty solid idea of what the Pres is going to talk about, you take some notes, talk about why your position is superior.

This pablum about showing animals at the county fair and picking apples is not getting the job done. This speech is utterly devoid of substance. Definitely a step down from Rubio and his drink of water.

I watched it as well; strictly for the "accident about to happen" value. Fortunately, Laura Bush-lite did not disappoint, though I thought it was better than Rubio and definitely better than Jindal. I agree 100% WRT substance. Most of her subject matter and her tone made me feel like I was a three-year-old getting a lecture from my school teacher. She was certainly well-spoken and I am sure her message hit home with the people it was supposed to but, from my perspective, it was empty.

well, that does that. O'LIAR!!!

BigEd76 wrote:http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/111537-seven-big-lies-obama-told-in-his-state-of-the-union-speech/

great read. other great reads by "soopermexican"--

Attack On The Media! Wendy Davis Campaign Goes After Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Infamous Outburst’
You Must Hear This Shameless Welfare Abusing Mother Brag About Not Working & Smoking Weed All Day
Sorry Obama! Harvard Study Finds One Thing Holding Kids Back, And It’s NOT ‘Income Inequality’
The Reason Rush Limbaugh Geeks Out About This Politician Could Help Him Get to the White House in 2016
Get Out Your PC Dictionaries! Richard Sherman Adds ‘Thug’ To List Of Racial Epithets
Uh, Oh – is NYC’s New Mayor Guilty of ‘Plowgate’? Wealthy New Yorkers Complain of Snow Job

What the fuck would these people know about "ethics" (somewhat GW Bridge related):

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/0 ... mplaints/#

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Do your research, guys. Jus sayin.

drsmooth wrote:apparently we need to steroid-test congresspersons

In other bizarro appearances, Congresswhacko Tim Huelscamp getting his tiny nuts clipped by a storied butch broadcaster at MSNBC

congratulations, Kansas

I missed it live so I looked it up (in case anyone is interested):

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/rep-t ... hel-maddow

Timmy, baby:

Ir`rep`re`hen´si`ble: Not reprehensible; blameless; innocent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... u/?hpid=z3

Distributions of key words in the state of the union address, over time.

interesting piece onf the savings program deal

i appreciate all the small, decent ideas that will have an actual effect on the lives of the working poor. too often we tend to forget about them and just talk about the middle class as though that's the be all and end all of our society.

dajafi wrote:(I still think it's illogical for a self-professed libertarian to assert grounds to invoke state power in support of one opinion on an answer to an essentially unknowable question that itself comprises only one facet of an issue of wrenching moral complexity. But that's a different subject.)

Protecting people from being murdered is a nearly universally accepted use of state power. To the extent that it's unclear whether we're talking about a life here, it's not illogical for a libertarian to support the state's protection of that target. Just because there is a moral and emotional component does not mean that it is not a valid state action. To dumb down libertarianism, I would say that the philosophy is basically "you should be able to do whatever you want if it doesn't infringe on the rights of your neighbor." If we're not sure if a fetus is alive, then maybe we don't want to allow a mother to do whatever she wants with it.

Coming at this from a different angle, and this is related to a comment made by someone other than dajafi, we cannot talk about issues of life and death without engaging our morals. Not to quote Hobbes or Rousseau directly, but we as a people and a society have agreed that certain principles and rights are worth protecting. I can't kill you and steal your TV, improving my material situation and hurting yours, without repercussion. We have, implicitly or explicitly, agreed that there is a broad moral code that is near universal.

When it comes to the application of that broad moral code, reasonable people can disagree. I err more on the side of "we shouldn't allow abortion if that baby might be alive" instead of on "the mother can choose when to terminate the fetus." But it's a question of judgment and moral instinct, unfortunately, since there will never be scientific proof of when life begins. Personally, after sitting through 20 week ultrasounds, when you can see the tiny baby, measure the heartrate, etc, it becomes very difficult to deny the vitality of that fetus. Yes, it's a judgment. It's unavoidable. I'm using the same moral judgments and the same parts of my brain to argue against abortion as you (generic pro-choice liberal who prides him/herself on using logic instead of morality) would use to argue against a Swiftian proposal to kill mentally and physically disabled 1 year olds. You'd argue something like "Why, that's a life you're taking away. That person has the right not to be killed, since they haven't done anything wrong. They don't deserve to die." If one is an atheist who believes we have 1 shot on this Earth, and then you're dead with no chance at an afterlife or heaven, that makes for an even more compelling reason to not take that away.


I apologize for the tone of my initial response. While I was annoyed at the time, I realize that putting people on the defensive is not the way to convince people to read one's post with an open mind. I feel that I (sometimes) have something worth reading, so i don't want that to be missed. Everyone on this board has conservative friends and family, and I'd like for you to understand that most of them take these kinds of positions absent the callousness often attributed to conservatives.