ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [218] -- Worst... Congress... Ever!

[ Posted Friday, July 13th, 2012 – 15:21 PDT ]

To fully appreciate that subtitle, you really have to read it in your best impression of The Simpsons character "Comic Book Guy." I'm just sayin'....

The phrase refers to a very in-depth article by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, who gives us (happy Friday the 13th, by the way) thirteen reasons why this is the "worst Congress ever." It is an excellent article which I highly recommend, and I'm not just saying that because I am (admittedly) a sucker for articles with lots of graphs in them.

Even Truman's infamous "Do-Nothing Congress" actually managed to get a lot more done than what we've got now, folks. Yesterday, I wrote one of my quasi-semi-annual articles dinging Congress for its incredibly lax work schedule (from now until the end of the year, Congress has 41 scheduled work days, or a little over eight work weeks' time -- in five-and-a-half months' calendar time). But I have to take my hat off to Klein, because he does a superb job of quantifying exactly how unproductive the 112th Congress truly has been.

Since I'm plugging my own columns here, I also think I had a creative idea while getting ready to watch baseball earlier this week -- hold an "All-Stars of Politics" debate each election year! OK, enough with the self-aggrandizing nonsense. Instead, let's get right on with the show.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Vice President Joe Biden gave a rip-snortin' speech this week, which definitely earns him an Honorable Mention award. Biden is going to be Obama's most valuable asset out on the campaign trail this fall (especially in a few key swing states), and it's good to see he's in fighting form already.

But this week, we've got to give out our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award (with special "Told you so!" vindication icing) because of what President Obama told a CBS reporter recently (the full interview is slated to air this Sunday night). The reporter asked Obama what his biggest mistake in office had been so far. The president responded:

The mistake of my first term -- a couple of years -- was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important, but the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times. It's funny, when I ran, people said, "Well, he can give a great speech, but can he actually manage the job?" And then in my first two years, I think the notion was, "Well, you know, he's been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where's the story that tells us where he's going?" And I think that was a legitimate criticism.

So do I, Mister President, and it is nice to hear you say so. In fact, I spent a goodly portion of the first two years of Obama's first term saying exactly this -- "Who would have thought Obama's biggest problem when he got into office would have been communications?" But I'm just a guy who writes a blog. I'm free to blather about such things without it becoming an inside-the-Beltway intra-party fracas.

What got everyone in the political world's attention, though, was when Professor Drew Westen -- a progressive voice if ever there was one -- wrote an opinion article in the New York Times which said pretty much exactly the same thing, much more eloquently than I ever had. Compare what Obama just admitted with what Westen wrote last year (speaking of his feelings while watching Obama being sworn into office):

I had a feeling of unease. It wasn't just that the man who could be so eloquent had seemingly chosen not to be on this auspicious occasion, although that turned out to be a troubling harbinger of things to come. It was that there was a story the American people were waiting to hear -- and needed to hear -- but he didn't tell it. And in the ensuing months he continued not to tell it, no matter how outrageous the slings and arrows his opponents threw at him.

Westen, when this article ran, got a lot of grief for what he wrote. The grief from conservatives was to be expected, but the grief from Lefties was almost as scathing (some of it, at any rate) -- especially for Westen's use of the metaphor of "telling a story."

We may be bending the rules for the MIDOTW a bit, because Westen is not a Democratic officeholder and we are only making the assumption he is a Democrat. But until we hear otherwise, we're going to go ahead and say that Drew Westen is not only completely vindicated -- by Obama's own words -- but also that he is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. You were right, Mr. Westen, and I for one am glad President Obama has now said so quite clearly.

[Professor Drew Westen of Emory University is not a public official, and it is our general policy not to provide contact information in such cases.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

The United States Attorney for Northern California has been on a crusade against medical marijuana providers for some time now. This week, she announced she'll be continuing her aggressive targeting of such providers, based solely on (are you sitting down?) their size. The legal reason used: if they're big, they must be doing something wrong. No, seriously. Here it is in Melinda Haag's own words:

I now find the need to consider actions regarding marijuana superstores such as Harborside. The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need.

Well, golly gee, maybe she needs to be reassigned to Wall Street, huh? Wouldn't that be great to see? "The larger the bank or investment firm, the greater the likelihood that they are abusing financial regulations and performing transactions which are illegal, so we are hereby immediately moving to shut down [fill in the name of your least favorite "Too Big To Fail" institution], even though we have not a shred of evidence that any such crime has been committed."

This will, of course, never happen in a million billion years, but it sure is fun to daydream, isn't it?

Seriously, though, this is her stated legal reasoning for not only targeting successful medical marijuana dispensaries, but also aggressively going after their landlords as well, in an effort to force them back out onto the street -- precisely what the medical marijuana law is supposed to prevent.

Steph Sherer has a longer piece on this dismaying turn of events at Huffington Post, which is worth reading for some sordid details. In it, she suggests: "If you live in Northern California, tell President Obama's campaign to take control of his law enforcement officials and fire Ms. Haag -- call them and say, 'I want Obama's administration to stop raiding dispensaries -- fire Melinda Haag!' "

We would go even further. Any donor or supporter of President Obama's campaign (especially donors) anywhere in the country should pick up the phone and call up campaign headquarters and say exactly the same thing. It is time for Melinda Haag to go. Again, we're not sure of Haag's political affiliation, so we're going to give her award instead to Attorney General Eric Holder, her boss (who is indeed a political appointee).

[Also, if you agree with these sentiments, head over to the Courage Campaign and sign their petition to Eric Holder. Or you can contact the White House on their official contact page, to let them know what you think of these actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 218 (7/13/12)

OK, seriously, those "Team USA" Olympic outfits? Really? That's the best they could come up with? It's like some brainstorming session was held where some bright spark chimed in with: "Well, it's in Britain, so let's go with a preppy outfit -- for all those folks in American who all secretly want to be British anyway -- yeah, that's the ticket!"

Sigh. Sorry, didn't know where else to insert that particular bit of snark, so it wound up here.

The week in politics consisted of two speeches to the N.A.A.C.P. -- one to get their votes, and one to get the votes of people who enjoyed seeing this particular audience boo the speaker. That's about as polite as I can put it, really.

The other news centered around Mitt Romney and his days at Bain Capital. I have to say, the Obama campaign team so far has done a superb job of attacking Romney on the Bain issue, and the polls show it is really doing Obama some good with the voters. Expect this to be a major storyline all throughout the campaign.

To put this another way, for once it is amusing to see a Democrat define a Republican so well with the public that the Republican is the one left flopping around like a dying fish on a trawler. Usually, these positions are reversed. And usually, Democrats take the entire summer off from campaigning, often to their detriment in November. It is refreshing to see a Democrat pulling out the full-court press so early in the game, I have to admit. Although there's a good possibility I'm biased. Heh.

But enough of this blithering and blathering, let's get on to the real blither-blather -- this week's suggested Democratic talking points.

 

1
   Mitt's actually talking to the press?!?

This one is sheer twist-the-knife schadenfreude, I freely admit. But still, it's just too tempting an opportunity to pass up.

"Boy, this Bain story must really be terrifying the Romney campaign. I heard that Mitt is actually going to give mainstream media interviews to address it -- to every single news channel. Wow. I can't remember the last time the Romney team allowed Mitt to, you know, actually speak to reporters in such a fashion. I guess they realized how damaging the story has become, because they sure are looking desperate, aren't they?"

 

2
   Did Mitt lie to you, or to his investors?

This is the perfect way to frame this story. Either Mitt was lying to his investors (and the S.E.C.), or he lied to the American public on his campaign financial disclosure statement. Those are really the only two choices. We're going to turn this talking point over to Stephanie Cutter, who is Obama's deputy campaign manager:

Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.

 

3
   The more the public hears...

These attacks are working. So hammer them home!

"What I find interesting is that the more the public finds out about Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital, the less they trust him on economic matters. He's sinking in the polls on the economic trust issue, precisely because of financial shenanigans such as these. Romney says he left Bain in 1999, but for years afterwards he was listed as 'chief executive officer and president' of Bain. Either Mitt was misrepresenting himself by these titles, or he actually did Bain work for longer than he's now admitting, or -- even worse -- he thinks that merely 'phoning it in' is acceptable behavior for a chief executive officer. That's something American voters are going to be thinking about when we elect our own chief executive this fall. And the more the public hears about Bain, the less they trust Mitt Romney."

 

4
   You say outsourcing, I say offshoring

Before the "When did Mitt quit?" scandal broke, Romney was fending off another Bain attack, by trying to split hairs between "outsourcing" and "offshoring." This is a fun game to play with Mitt, because no matter what he says, he just digs the hole deeper. Neither term is a big winner with the public, even if Mitt hasn't figured this out yet.

"Mitt Romney complains about people saying Bain Capital contributed to the offshoring of American jobs, by trying to say it was really only about outsourcing jobs. Here's my idea for a drinking game while watching Mitt twist in this particular wind: When Mitt says 'offshoring,' drink a shot of tequila. When Mitt says 'outsourcing,' down a full margarita. No matter how the game plays out, you're going to wake up the next morning with a pounding headache -- much like the people whose jobs disappeared. That hangover was painful for workers with good-paying jobs who got nothing but a pink slip from Bain, and I don't think those people cared where the jobs went, because they hurt just the same either way."

 

5
   What's the matter with America, Mitt?

Speaking of offshoring....

It's actually rare that Democrats get to play the "jingoistic" card, so please, have all kinds of fun doing so. Maybe have an American flag in the background. Heck, why not have ten or twelve? Heh.

"You know what -- I am an American. I keep my money in American banks. They have always been good enough for me, because I know my money will stay right here in this country. I've never even been to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands in my life. I particularly haven't traveled anywhere just to make use of their secretive banking laws. Apparently, Mitt Romney is too good to keep his money right here in the good old U.S.A. I find that disappointing, personally. What's the matter with America, Mitt? There aren't enough banks here to hold all your dough, or something?"

 

6
   Mitt's Olympic bailout

NBC has been all but peeing their pants in excitement over the upcoming Olympics, as they do every four years, while most Americans steel themselves for two weeks of extra-crappy coverage by the likes of clueless folks like Bob Costas (shudder). Which makes it a dandy time to attack Romney on another of his supposed strengths: the Salt Lake City 2002 winter Olympics. By the time the games actually begin, we'll all be talking about how much Mitt pays every year for what David Letterman calls "his dancing horse," an official U.S. Olympic contender in the dressage event. For now, it's time to take down Mitt's supposed miracle in Salt Lake City.

"Mitt Romney likes to brag about how he personally 'saved' the 2002 Olympics. But you know what actually saved the games? A federal bailout of 1.3 billion dollars. That's right -- Mitt got a gigantic 'earmark' from the American taxpayers so that Utah wouldn't have any more egg on their face than they already had from the bribery scandal. Republican John McCain called this bailout a 'ripoff of the taxpayers' and a 'national disgrace.' Republican Rick Santorum went even further, saying during the primaries about Romney: 'He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Olympic games, in an earmark. Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?' Those aren't partisan remarks, mind you -- merely what Mitt's fellow Republicans have to say about how Mitt 'saved' the Olympics."

 

7
   It cost how much?

Finally, we're going to end where we began: Worst... Congress... ever! This talking point comes from Scott Pelley of CBS News, who helpfully put the Republican action in the House of Representatives on Obamacare in perspective this week. After pointing out that the House held their thirty-third vote on the issue, and that this all took a combined 80 hours of House floor time, Pelley had this to say:

We wondered how much it cost taxpayers for the House to repeal the law again and again. You can't be exact about these things, but the Congressional Research Service tells us that the House of Representatives costs us $24 million a week. So with two weeks spent repealing the law, that comes to a little under $50 million.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

100 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [218] -- Worst... Congress... Ever!”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I'm afraid you got the MIDOTW award and the honourable mention completely ass-backwards.

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    Yesterday, I wrote one of my quasi-semi-annual articles dinging Congress for its incredibly lax work schedule (from now until the end of the year, Congress has 41 scheduled work days, or a little over eight work weeks' time -- in five-and-a-half months' calendar time).

    Yesterday I wrote one of my it-seems-more-often-than-that comments, saying that the real work of Congress is done in offices. Of course, begging for money is no vacation.

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "You know what -- I am an American. I keep my money in American banks. They have always been good enough for me, because I know my money will stay right here in this country. I've never even been to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands in my life. I particularly haven't traveled anywhere just to make use of their secretive banking laws. Apparently, Mitt Romney is too good to keep his money right here in the good old U.S.A.

    Those are blind trusts, Chris. Romney doesn't control any of those transactions or decisions.

  4. [4] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    University of Virginia Center for Politics director Larry Sabato on whether and how much the attacks on Bain Capital are hurting Mitt Romney in swing states.
    http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-how-big-are-romney-bain-liabilities/9FD1E1E8-DCC5-41DE-BD23-9D1E61D3F742.html

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Hey, be glad I didn't ding Geithner for the whole LIBOR thing, which he was apparently aware about quite a while ago... but I'm waiting for more info on that one...

    dsws -

    I probably write about it a heck of a lot more often, but I only devote a whole column to it twice a year.

    :-)

    Chris1962 -

    Foof. You can give a blind trust sweeping overview instructions such as "divest from South Africa" (apartheid era) or "no money in foreign accounts" right when you set it up. Nice try, but a weak excuse. Name me one other presidential candidate ever with a Swiss bank account. [Well, OK, Steve Forbes most likely, but he hardly counts.]

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gonna try something new this morning...

    So do I, Mister President, and it is nice to hear you say so. In fact, I spent a goodly portion of the first two years of Obama's first term saying exactly this -- "Who would have thought Obama's biggest problem when he got into office would have been communications?" But I'm just a guy who writes a blog. I'm free to blather about such things without it becoming an inside-the-Beltway intra-party fracas.

    Sorry, CW.. But I have to say, with the utmost respect, that I think yer wrong..

    Obama's biggest problem has NOT been that he hasn't explained himself properly. It's not that he didn't give a good "story"..

    Obama's biggest problem is that the majority of Americans simply DO NOT LIKE his policies...

    Obama putting a story to his policies would be like putting lipstick on a pig..

    It's a vain attempt to make the pig more attractive, but in the end, it's still just a pig...

    You have fallen into the Dem trap that is common since the Great Shellacking Of 2010...

    "If we just explain our policies better, the American people will like them."

    That is simply not the case, as fact after fact after fact after fact demonstrates..

    No amount of lipstick will make these policy pigs any more attractive to the American People...

    Michale......

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    TWO MIDOTW Awards???

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, seriously, those "Team USA" Olympic outfits? Really? That's the best they could come up with? It's like some brainstorming session was held where some bright spark chimed in with: "Well, it's in Britain, so let's go with a preppy outfit -- for all those folks in American who all secretly want to be British anyway -- yeah, that's the ticket!"

    YES!!!!!!!

    Vindication is mine!!! :D

    Aren't they just the WORST possible attire for Team USA possible???

    Again, given the elitest snobbish attitudes of this Administration, it's not a huge stretch to see their hand at work in this..

    And to add insult to injury, the uniforms are made in CHINA!!!!

    Apparently, another example of Team Obama outsourcing jobs...

    Obama outsources. Romney did not..

    Michale..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other news centered around Mitt Romney and his days at Bain Capital. I have to say, the Obama campaign team so far has done a superb job of attacking Romney on the Bain issue, and the polls show it is really doing Obama some good with the voters. Expect this to be a major storyline all throughout the campaign.

    You'll have to point out those polls to me.. :D

    About the only GOOD thing that anyone can say about Obama's latest BAIN offensive is there hasn't been the plethora of Obama surrogates calling these unfounded and completely BS attacks what they are...

    Unfounded. Complete BS...

    It's like blaming ME for what the US Army did today because I served during Desert Storm...

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the perfect way to frame this story. Either Mitt was lying to his investors (and the S.E.C.), or he lied to the American public on his campaign financial disclosure statement. Those are really the only two choices. We're going to turn this talking point over to Stephanie Cutter, who is Obama's deputy campaign manager:

    I was afraid ya'all were going to get snared by this Leftist BS...

    Come'on.. There was no lie (do Obama-Bots REALLY want to go toe to toe on who has lied and who has not??? :D) and there was no crime..

    What the Left is getting hysterical over is simply paperwork...

    Accusing a presidential candidate of a felony!?? When every FACT and every REPORT says otherwise!???

    That's really the lowest of the low.. Even for Team Obama, who has charted new depths in 'lowness'..

    It's simply a signal of how desperate Team Obama is...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You know what -- I am an American. I keep my money in American banks. They have always been good enough for me, because I know my money will stay right here in this country. I've never even been to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands in my life. I particularly haven't traveled anywhere just to make use of their secretive banking laws. Apparently, Mitt Romney is too good to keep his money right here in the good old U.S.A. I find that disappointing, personally. What's the matter with America, Mitt? There aren't enough banks here to hold all your dough, or something?"

    Yea, and how many Democrats in Congress up to AND INCLUDING President don't have investments in off-shore accounts??

    This TP is simply like the one when Romney was asked how many servants does he have..

    How many servants does Obama have??

    :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    “As president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you.”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78495.html#ixzz20aZFNGLn

    I have a great idea..

    Romney will answer ALL questions about Bain when Obama answers ALL questions about Fast/Furious, his forged Selective Service card and all the other legitimate questions that Americans want to know the answer to...

    This hypocrisy on the part of Obama is nauseating..

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Oh, I would dearly love to see someone try to "ding" Geithner on the LIBOR thing but, certainly not you!

    However, perhaps you can help me understand why it is that people have it in for Geithner and will try to do everything in their power to take him down, facts be damned!

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, perhaps you can help me understand why it is that people have it in for Geithner and will try to do everything in their power to take him down, facts be damned!

    I'll take a stab at it.. :D

    My guess would be is that he was part of the problem when it came to the financial meltdown and hasn't done a very good job in getting the economy back on track with a REAL recovery...

    Gods forbid, if Obama IS elected a second term (which is seeming more and more unlikely) you can bet that both Holder and Geithner will be out..

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: What the Left is getting hysterical over is simply paperwork...

    And they're trying to spin it into a felony. Desperation doesn't even begin to describe the state of Team-O. Meanwhile, members of the Left are distancing from this:

    Rendell: Bain Attacks "Went A Little Bit Too Far With The Felony Business"
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/13/rendell_bain_attacks_went_a_little_bit_too_far_with_the_felony_business.html

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Slightly off topic, but cool as can be. Check out these new invisible bike helmets, at 38:22 mark: http://www.businessweek.com/video#video=Y4ZDdtNDqg8TphAEAOglHtKLFrYXycEh

    O should get himself one of those.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Name me one other presidential candidate ever with a Swiss bank account. [Well, OK, Steve Forbes most likely, but he hardly counts.]

    Oh foof... :D

    Why pick on the Swiss???

    You name me one Democrat in or out of power that DOESN'T have overseas investments and I'll concede you have a reasonable point in dinging Romney...

    But if you can't then you have to concede you don't... :D

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    I would love to know what is really behind the attack on marijuana in California. Does anyone really believe Melinda Haag is a rogue actor who thought this up all by herself? Someone in the White House thinks this is going to help Obama. But how? Does team Obama think there is a hue and cry from independents to crack down on this? Where is it? All I see is a lot of votes and MONEY running away. I don't think these people are stupid, but what on earth are they thinking? No matter how much I smoke I can not imagine how this is going to turn out well for him.

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder how soon it will be til Team Obama accuses Romney of murder, arson and having an overdue library book.... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments.

    So much for cries and whines for "civility" that exude from the Left, eh??

    Once again, the Left with their "do as we say, not as we do" hypocrisy..

    "There is no Arizona"
    -Jamie O'Neill

    Michale....

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    And why do we have the worst Congress ever?

    One reason is because the corporate owned media refuses to report on the idiocy and only reports the same old Republican/Democrat stories when it comes to Congress.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. Installed the Nest thermostat this weekend and it's pretty darn cool. Not only can I control it from anywhere on a laptop, but I also downloaded an iPhone app to control from my phone (Android apps are also available).

    http://www.thereckoner.com/wp-content/uploads/nest.jpg

    The interface is really slick (Apple-esque) and easy to use. Also, install was relatively simple. I say relatively because the only hard part was the old drywall at my girlfriend's house. All the wiring and electronic setup was easy. Attaching to the wall was the only real challenge and this had little to do with the Nest.

    -David

  24. [24] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    the corporate owned media

    Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Who's supposed to own the media? The government?

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

    Not at all. It's simply a matter of recognizing bias, Chris1962.

    The bias from the media is "corporate". It's this way because the majority of media outlets are owned by large corporations.

    As such, most major media outlets tend to not want to offend potential advertisers.

    If you are interested in "news" as news, I simply recommend a few things: 1) look to a wide variety of media outlets, including ones which aren't always in this country and ones which don't depend on corporate advertising and 2) recognize the corporate bias.

    Unfortunately, you have to fight through all the "paid advertisements" these days to find reality.

    I'm ok w/ corporate owned media but much of it simply does not resemble "news".

    -David

  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Who's supposed to own the media? The government?

    BTW - I'm a big contributor to public broadcasting because it is not nearly as indebted to corporate influence and cronyism.

    Which is ... of course ... why corporations spend so much time trying to get rid of it.

    -David

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The bias from the media is "corporate". It's this way because the majority of media outlets are owned by large corporations.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    The bias from the media is ideological..

    The corporate influence tends to gravitate towards the suited ideology...

    Not the other way around...

    Michale...

  28. [28] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David: As such, most major media outlets tend to not want to offend potential advertisers.

    Offend? Sorry, D, but I think your own biases have gotten the better of you. Advertisers' are concerned with "reach," i.e., how many targeted consumers they can show their wares to for the best media price. And they're business people. They don't become "offended" unless you punch them in the face, literally. As the old saying goes, "It isn't personal; it's business."

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    That corporations own our media is actually pretty easy to prove.

    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hoffm794/medialit/media_concentration.png

    Gannett should be on this chart as well to give you the 6 corporations that own over 90% of the US media.

    The bias from the media is ideological.

    Only from those media outlets owned by NewsCorp.

    All the other outlets by and large only print the talking points of each side rather than any analysis or investigative journalism. If there is analysis, it tends to take the shape of 2 conservatives for every liberal. Or, one strong conservative and one weak paid liberal shill (i.e. Hannity and Colmes).

    All you have to do is look at the coverage of Wall Street lately.

    Why does the media keep believing JP Morgan's lies about their recent losses? First ... the losses were $500 million. Then $2 billion. Then $5 billion, but the company is still profitable. According to Dimon. Everything Dimon says is exactly what gets printed. And little more.

    Does anyone really know what's going on at JP Morgan?

    Not really.

    Why? Because our media only reports the talking points of Dimon and then some counter-talking points from the other side.

    Very little of what is actually going on or what has happened. It's lazy corporate infotainment instead of investigative journalism.

    Does most really know what's going on with our Congress? Nope. Same thing. Lazy corporate infotainment.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just when I thought Obama couldn't be MORE of an arrogant prick...

    "They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own."
    -President Barack Obama

    Hear that, successful people??

    You didn't do it on your own...

    Jeezus...

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    That corporations own our media is actually pretty easy to prove.

    My apologies. You misunderstood my emphasis....

    The bias from the media is "corporate".

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    Only from those media outlets owned by NewsCorp.

    Well, iddn't THAT convenient. :D

    The bias from ALL media outlets is ideological...

    This is very easy to prove...

    Why does the media keep believing JP Morgan's lies about their recent losses?

    Because JP Morgan's CEO is one of Obama's pets..

    And the Media is ideologically bent to protecting Obama...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    They don't become "offended" unless you punch them in the face, literally.

    "If only.. Iiifffff only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, Michale. Installed the Nest thermostat this weekend and it's pretty darn cool. Not only can I control it from anywhere on a laptop, but I also downloaded an iPhone app to control from my phone (Android apps are also available).

    That is so frak'in awesome!!!! :D

    I want to get one of those fridges that scan the bar codes in your fridge and tells you exactly what you have, online!! :D

    Michale....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why does the media keep believing JP Morgan's lies about their recent losses?

    Because JP Morgan's CEO is one of Obama's pets..

    And the Media is ideologically bent to protecting Obama...

    Which is why you don't hear any bad things about GE from any media besides FNC and Drudge..

    Immelt is another one of Obama's pets.. And the Exalted One AND his pets must be protected at all costs..

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, someone... ANYONE explain to me why in the FRAK is Obama holding "fund raisers" in France, Switzerland, Sweden and ***CHINA***!!!???

    Could Team Obama POSSIBLY be more desperate???

    I mean, honestly.. Ya'all cap on Romney for having money on foreign soil..

    Obama is BEGGING for money of foreign soil... And one has to wonder just what he is going to have to promise these countries to get money from them???

    Wonder if there will be any "Open Mike" moments like the one where Obama all but swore allegiance to Putin....

    Any "red lines" yet??? Seriously!!????

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    Hey, take it easy with your comment drive ... Thanksgiving is still four months away.

    :-)

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, take it easy with your comment drive ... Thanksgiving is still four months away.

    Just practicing... :D I gotta hit... what?? 600??? :D

    Michale...

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And the Media is ideologically bent to protecting Obama.

    Sure, Michale.

    And the Illuminati rule the world ... heheheh :)

  39. [39] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale, he's begging for money from Americans who've offshored themselves.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Just practicing... :D I gotta hit... what?? 600??? :D

    YIKES!!!

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    And the Illuminati rule the world ... heheheh :)

    Naaaw... That's too far fetched..

    About as far fetched as corporations control/create the news.. :D

    I think I saw that in a Bond film once.. :D

    CB,

    he's begging for money from Americans who've offshored themselves.

    Sure seems that way...

    Speaking of out-sourcing.. I just read that a NASA Astronaut had to hitch a ride to the ISS with the Russians..

    Which reminds us all who the REAL overseas outsource-er is....

    President Obama...

    Liz,

    YIKES!!!

    "Be afraid. Be very afraid"
    -Geena Davis, THE FLY

    :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't ya'all jump on Republicans when they pushed for an economic melt-down during the Debt Limit crisis???

    Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-threaten-gop-with-fiscal-cliff-as-tax-fight-rages-on/2012/07/15/gJQAvybLnW_print.html

    How is that any different???

    I also see that Democrats are still pushing the myth about the rich and paying "their fair share"...

    The top 20% of the nations wealthy pay over 94% of the nations taxes...

    Maybe the lower incomes should start paying their "fair share", eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would like to revisit Obama's statements over the weekend, as I believe it shows the huge and very real disconnect between how Obama thinks and how everyday Americans think...

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
    -President Obama

    So, let me see if I got this right.

    Obama is saying that, because a guy built the road that I use to go to my VERY successful computer shop, that guy should get a piece of my wealth..

    But what Obama doesn't seem to grasp is that guy ALREADY GOT PAID for his work. He is no longer working to my benefit. So why should he receive the wealth from MY toil??

    And, if we take this wholly un-American concept to it's logical next step, then the guy who built the road should have to cough up money, if I don't do well...

    Right???

    I mean, isn't that "fair"?? The last few weekends, I haven't done well and I have been in the hole about $400 to $500 dollars each weekend.

    Using Obama'nomics, the guy who built the road should have to cough up some money to help cover my bad weekends...

    That's only "fair", right??

    What Obama is saying is that all the good the "rich" have done to BE rich should be shared with others who are not so good.. But, when the "rich" do bad and LOSE money, it's all of their fault and the not-so-good ones shouldn't have to be penalized...

    Basically, when a business owner is successful and MAKES money, he didn't do it all by himself.. The guy who built the road should get a piece of that wealth pie...

    But when a business owner DOESN'T make money, it's all on them. All of the sudden, the guy who built the road is completely not involved...

    In short(er), Obama wants the middle class to have all the benefits from the wealthy, but none of the responsibilities that go with it.....

    And ya'all wonder why Obama has a problem with connecting to REAL Americans..

    Michale...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF Bear,

    First off, as I am wont to do...

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    That never fails to crack me up. :D

    Anyways....

    I would love to know what is really behind the attack on marijuana in California. Does anyone really believe Melinda Haag is a rogue actor who thought this up all by herself? Someone in the White House thinks this is going to help Obama. But how? Does team Obama think there is a hue and cry from independents to crack down on this? Where is it? All I see is a lot of votes and MONEY running away. I don't think these people are stupid, but what on earth are they thinking? No matter how much I smoke I can not imagine how this is going to turn out well for him.

    I really don't have a problem with a crack down on marijuana.. That's my LEO/military background, I guess...

    But I do agree with you that it's really strange that Team Obama is doing it...

    My guess is that, it's likely only the Dem Base that has a problem with it.. And, with the Illegal Amnesty, Gay Marriage and the SCOTUS ruling, Obama is likely feeling he has the base pretty much sewn up, so he doesn't have to worry about them any more..

    He is after the Independent and NPA vote from here on out and someone must have whispered in Obama's ear that cracking down on marijuana users will appeal to Independents and NPAs..

    It may, but I doubt it. It's going to take a LOT more to bring Independents and NPAs back to the Hopey Changey fold...

    Now, an Iran invasion might do the trick... That would rally us Independents and NPAs... But I don't think Obama has the testicular fortitude for a real knock down, drag out war..

    He is more of the issue a memo/bomb an aspirin factory/lead from behind and let others take the risk kind of military "commander".

    Which is really sad, when you think about it..

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    About as far fetched as corporations control/create the news.

    Corporations own the news. And by corporations, I mean most of our news is owned by 6 corporations. I don't think even you would dispute this.

    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hoffm794/medialit/media_concentration.png

    So if they own the news and aren't creating the news, who is, Michale?

    Ok, ok, I know what you mean. What you mean is that there is no corporate "conspiracy" to influence the news.

    I'd buy that. But that's not what I'm arguing.

    I'm arguing that we look at the actual biases in the media. Several of these are related to corporate ownership and consolidation in the industry.

    1. Corporate news organizations have grown more and more risk averse when it comes to situations that may involve lawsuits from other large corporations. This is why you'll rarely see anymore investigative journalism in the mainstream news which uncovers corporate wrong doing.

    2. Corporate news organizations are ever in pursuit of ratings. This leads to publishing "what bleeds, leads" in an effort to boost profits and results in more and more infotainment.

    It's an interesting dichotomy. One, you want to publish scandalous and highly charged emotional stories. Yet at the same time, you're worried about lawsuits and you don't want to offend advertisers. What this leads to is emotionally charged stories which are "safe".

    This is why they love the endless Democrat/Republican talking points. All they have to do is print what each side says. No work involved. It's safe (somebody else said it). And it tweaks people's emotions so they keep reading and keep coming back.

    -David

    p.s. BTW- Krugman alludes to some of this in a recent article which I think is one of his best.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/krugman-policy-and-the-personal.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120716

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-obama-tells-fainting-supporters-to-get-help-from-paralegals

    And ya'all wonder why I claim that the MSM is in the bag for Obama....

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: Obama is saying that, because a guy built the road that I use to go to my VERY successful computer shop, that guy should get a piece of my wealth..

    But what Obama doesn't seem to grasp is that guy ALREADY GOT PAID for his work. He is no longer working to my benefit. So why should he receive the wealth from MY toil??

    Not to mention, YOU continue to pay for the upkeep of that road with your taxes. I don't know what the heck O is talking about, but it sounds like it boils down to a core belief that we're all somehow indebted to Big Mommy Government, and those who have the unmitigated gall to become successful need to be taken to task for daring to step out of line.

    But whatever Marxist garbage he's peddling, this little gem is surely gonna come back to bite him: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    but it sounds like it boils down to a core belief that we're all somehow indebted to Big Mommy Government, and those who have the unmitigated gall to become successful need to be taken to task for daring to step out of line.

    Unless they're acquiesce to become a willing slave to Big Mommy Government...

    Then they can join the elites, keep their wealth and declare to the middle class and poor, "Let them eat cake..."

    But whatever Marxist garbage he's peddling, this little gem is surely gonna come back to bite him: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

    Yep.. it's going to be bigger than Obama's "we need to spread the wealth around" bonehead remark of 2008...

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Drudge is reporting that Romney has made his VP pick...

    I still hope it's Rice.. She would be the PERFECT In-Your-Face pick for Team Obama.

    About the ONLY think that would be a better In-Your-Face would be if Condi was a lesbian.. :D

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "We the people..." is Marxist garbage?

    Or did you read only the conservative website snippet and not the full speech? Bonus points for Elizabeth Warren's speech to which Obama was riffing off of...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    The problem with Obama's "we the people" is that it doesn't include anyone that doesn't agree with Obama's policies.

    They are, after all, just a bunch of racists...

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    BashiBazouk: "We the people..." is Marxist garbage?

    Did I say that or did you say that?

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Did I say that or did you say that?

    You did. Read both speeches and you might figure out why...

  54. [54] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You did.

    No, I didn't. That's some kind of translation that went on inside your own head. Don't ascribe it to me. I don't go for that style of so-called debate.

  55. [55] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    'And what do you know?': Business leaders hit back at Obama after he says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174160/Obama-says-wealthy-ARENT-responsible-success.html

  56. [56] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No, I didn't. That's some kind of translation that went on inside your own head. Don't ascribe it to me. I don't go for that style of so-called debate.

    Debate? Are you joking? You were trolling. Or can you actually defend calling Obama a marxist or what he is "peddling" as marxist? And by defend, I mean justify it by referring to how it fits in to the theories and writings of Karl Marx not random Conservative derogatory blog post of the day.

    Read the rest of the speech. He was talking about the historical connections of government to society. He mentions the importance of government in policing and fire fighting as well as road maintenance. How government has been involved in this since the beginning of the country. Are you really arguing that the people should not be taxed to maintain roads, police and fire departments? That government has helped or lead the way in things like the GI bill and funding DARPA which helped create the internet. Helped build major public works like the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate Bridge not to mention the moon shot? But hey, if all this is just "marxist garbage"... not sure where to go from there but to say: Yikes!

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just have ONE question...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174160/Obama-says-wealthy-ARENT-responsible-success.html

    How can such a "smart" person be so utterly stoopid and clueless???

    No wonder Obama refuses to release his school records.. He was probably a D and F student all the way across the board...

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Debate? Are you joking? You were trolling.

    I was stating an opinion. Last I checked, I'm entitled to hold one, whether you personally agree with it or not.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you really arguing that the people should not be taxed to maintain roads, police and fire departments?

    That's not what Obama is saying..

    Obama is saying that, ON TOP of the taxes and ON TOP of the road-builders salary, the road builders should share in wealth of those who are smart enough to create a successful business...

    THAT is what Obama is saying...

    And if you believe THAT, then you also MUST believe that the road-builder should share in the debt if they business goes bad....

    What!?? No!??? So, basically, you want the middle class to share the benefits, but none of the responsibility??

    How, exactly is THAT fair???

    That government has helped or lead the way in things like the GI bill and funding DARPA which helped create the internet.

    That actually was the military. Do you REALLY want to stake the claim that military = government and ALL that it entails???

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I was stating an opinion. Last I checked, I'm entitled to hold one, whether you personally agree with it or not.

    But can you defend your opinion when it turns inflammatory, that's the question...

    Yes, you are entitled to an opinion but by the same token I am entitled to disagree with that opinion. Neat, huh?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, you are entitled to an opinion but by the same token I am entitled to disagree with that opinion. Neat, huh?

    But the question is, can you disagree with the opinion w/o questioning motivations?? :D

    Sorry, didn't mean to butt in here..

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Yes, you are entitled to an opinion but by the same token I am entitled to disagree with that opinion.

    Jeepers, no kidding.

  63. [63] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    How can such a "smart" person be so utterly stoopid and clueless???

    O appears to be under the bizarre impression that "the government" is the boss, which We, the People, exist to serve. He doesn't quite understand that he's got things completely bass-akwards: that, here in America, We, the People, are in charge of "the government," otherwise known as our public servants, and that roads aren't built by "the government," as "the government" doesn't have any money. That money belongs to We, the People. We pay for the roads. We build the roads. And we do not owe "the government" our gratitude for OUR OWN success.

  64. [64] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Here [whitehouse.gov] is the full speech for context.

  65. [65] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It changes nothing.

  66. [66] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Well, now that you have allegedly read the full speech, can you enlighten us as to how it fits in with Marxism?

  67. [67] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think he's a closet Marxist. That's how it fits in.

  68. [68] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So you got nothing. Noted.

  69. [69] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I've got my impressions of him, and no need to defend my opinions. I think he's a radical from way back; as anti-capitalist as the day is long; and I don't even believe he's a Christian, aside from adopting the religion for political show. In short, I think Obama is pretty much fullacrap.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Well, now that you have allegedly read the full speech, can you enlighten us as to how it fits in with Marxism?

    Even thought I wasn't asked, I'll put in my 2 cents...

    It seems that Obama wants to take from those who are successful and EARNED their wealth and give it to those who DIDN'T earn it....

    Yep, that's pretty much Marxism.....

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    <I've got my impressions of him, and no need to defend my opinions. I think he's a radical from way back; as anti-capitalist as the day is long; and I don't even believe he's a Christian, aside from adopting the religion for political show. In short, I think Obama is pretty much fullacrap.

    Do believe he's a citizen?

    Ah, don't answer that ... you have already supplied enough nonsense to this otherwise quality blog site to last several lifetimes.

    You are quite free to continue to spew your own very special brand of nonsense. But, your comments do nothing to add to an enlightened debate and, quite frankly, they detract substantially from what this site is all about.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I've got my impressions of him, and no need to defend my opinions. I think he's a radical from way back; as anti-capitalist as the day is long; and I don't even believe he's a Christian, aside from adopting the religion for political show. In short, I think Obama is pretty much fullacrap.

    Do believe he's a citizen?

    Ah, don't answer that ... you have already supplied enough nonsense to this otherwise quality blog site to last several lifetimes.

    You are quite free to continue to spew your own very special brand of nonsense. But, your comments do nothing to add to an enlightened debate and, quite frankly, they detract substantially from what this site is all about.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I've got my impressions of him, and no need to defend my opinions. I think he's a radical from way back; as anti-capitalist as the day is long; and I don't even believe he's a Christian, aside from adopting the religion for political show. In short, I think Obama is pretty much fullacrap.

    Do you believe he's a citizen?

    Ah, don't answer that ... you have already supplied enough nonsense to this otherwise quality blog site to last several lifetimes.

    You are quite free to continue to spew your own very special brand of nonsense. But, your comments do nothing to add to an enlightened debate and, quite frankly, they detract substantially from what this site is all about.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The question of whether or not Obama is a citizen or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

    Right now we're discussing Obama's competence and lack of transparency...

    The Left wants full disclosure from Romney, yet they give Obama an unlimited pass on everything and anything..

    If you demand full transparency from Romney, then you MUST demand full transparency from Obama..

    Anything less and negates the validity of the Romney attacks..

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Anything worth saying is worth repeating, ad Bidenitum. :)

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The only thing I want from Romney is for him to continue doing what he's been doing.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, if you WANT to go that route, I'll be happy to follow you there. :D

    Obama's citizenship appears to be established. But there are still lingering valid questions into Obama's past...

    Why does he have a forged Selective Service card??

    Why does he have a phony SSN???

    Why won't he release any school records???

    All of these are valid questions...

    Why won't Obama be as transparent as he is demanding Romney be and address these questions?

    Why does he keep dodging these questions? Why does he spend MILLIONS in attorney fees to avoid answering questions..

    And why has the Left established a pattern of ridicule against anyone who ASKS these questions??

    What is Obama hiding and why is the Left aiding and abetting????

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The only thing I want from Romney is for him to continue doing what he's been doing.

    You mean, winning?? Catching up and passing Obama in the polls??

    Yep, me too.. I want Romney to continue to do that.. :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You will continue your curious defense of Chris1962 at your own peril. I implore you, my friend, to cease and desist!

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You completely misunderstand.. I am not defending CB.. She is amply able to do that on her own..

    I simply point out when she has good points. Which has been quite often lately.. :D

    Obama has some MAJOR problems of late. Denying them won't make them go away, it will just exacerbate them...

    Michale......

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If you have no concern for your own credibility when you defend Chris1962, you should care deeply about how her sheer nonsense is taking a great toll on the integrity and credibility of this otherwise enlightened corner of the blogosphere.

    I know you you care about CW as much as I do and I would just hope that you stop for a moment and think about how of this reflects directly back on him. He deserves much better from us.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If you have no concern for your own credibility when you defend Chris1962, you should care deeply about how her sheer nonsense is taking a great toll on the integrity and credibility of this otherwise enlightened corner of the blogosphere.

    I know you care about CW as much as I do and I would just hope that you stop for a moment and think about how all of this reflects directly back on him. He deserves much better from us.

  83. [83] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If you have no concern for your own credibility when you defend Chris1962, you should care deeply about how her sheer nonsense is taking a great toll on the integrity and credibility of this otherwise enlightened corner of the blogosphere.

    Next time you feel the need to insult me, put it in a private email to Michale, Liz. Or I'll be emailing CW, asking that he remind you that personal attacks are not welcome on this board.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    I thought that might wake you from your slumber.

    Now, does this mean that you will stop the personal attacks you have been directing towards President Obama?

  85. [85] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I know you've been desperately trying to get my attention with your personal attacks, Liz. That's obvious to one and all. Just consider yourself officially warned. If this behavior continues, I'll take the matter to Chris.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You completely misunderstand.. I am not defending CB.. She is amply able to do that on her own..

    I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% there on that assessment. Heh.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You don't think that she would actually move on her threat to take this matter to Chris, do you?

    I mean, should I be running for the hills, post haste!?

  88. [88] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Chris1962:

    Lets see, you called Obama:

    A Marxist
    a fake christian
    anti-capitalist

    Pretty much the worst name calling possible in American politics without delving into felony level sex and drug crimes. Until you get off your ass and Prove it, Liz is right, it is nonsense. Maybe there's history from other threads to justify it but purely on Liz's post in this thread [in triplicate, heh..], that's hardly a personal attack. Go to a video game blog if you want to see real, bannable personal attacks...

    You have jumped on to Michale's bandwagon of cruising Conservative blogs and then posting what you find to here, to get a rise out of the readership? If so, that is textbook, dictionary definition of trolling. Which is perfectly acceptable and keeps the internet interesting, but you dam better be able to defend what you post. Michale gets away with it because he has a long history here and no matter what he posts he is either ready to defend it or will go out a quickly figure out how to defend it. That and doing battle with him is a good half day affair at least, so those of us with lives that don't allow for large amounts of time connected to the net usually pick our battles. Which means he gets away with a lot more than he should :D

    If you are going to dish out smack, all the power to you, but be ready to defend it with logic, facts and a well reasoned argument. Hiding behind opinion, impression and cries of personal attacks is intellectually weak and feeble. You have the entire internet at your disposal. Learn why you have that opinion or impression. Back it up. Think.

  89. [89] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Until you get off your ass and Prove it

    Prove my opinion?

  90. [90] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Just when you thought you'd seen it all...

    Axelrod denies Obama is running a negative campaign
    http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/07/17/axelrod-denies-obama-is-running-a-negative-campaign/

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I thought we had agreed that questioning someone's motives is NOT "simply disagreeing" with an opinion...

    I can understand you not liking all the negative stuff posted about Obama..

    But it's a LOT more factual than the negative stuff ya'all are saying about Romney...

    If you want to stick with facts, then for gods' sake, stick with facts..

    Saying Romney committed a felony is NOT factual.. Saying there is evidence that indicates Romney committed a felony is not factual..

    Can we at least agree on that??

    If so, then let's do so and move on from there..

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/

    Why can't you just admit that Obama is wrong??

    And that you are wrong for supporting this??

    Michale.....

  93. [93] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Prove my opinion?

    Yes. Prove you know what you are talking about. Marxism is a very distinct political philosophy. In your opinion, Obama is a Marxist, why? What is Marxist about his policies. Otherwise it is just petty name calling...

  94. [94] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Yes. Prove you know what you are talking about.

    Err, I think you need to learn the difference between opinions and facts, Bashi. I don't need to prove my impressions or opinions of Obama to you or anyone else. They're the impressions I hold of him. I think he's an ace bullshoot artist, as far to the radical far-left as it gets, who bamboozled his way into the White House with a dazzling smile, a swooning press corps (or "corpse," as O prefers to say), and an agenda to swing this country as far to the far-left as he could get away with. I think he was raised by a mother who was as radically far-left as it gets, and I think most of his "guy from Kenya/gal from Kansas" storybook tale was a hunk of hooey that boils down to little more than a broken family, to beat the band, and a mother who left a potentially violent and drunken father, who was eventually thrown out of Harvard — and the country. I think Obama conveniently found religion right around the time he decided to pursue a political career, and I think he's a true Christian like my dog is a cat. I think he does nothing — nothing — that isn't politically calculated and 100% geared toward serving his own best political interests. In fact, I think he's basically a liar who will do and say whatever he wants or needs to, to serve his own personal agenda. Is that enough in the opinons department for you? Would you like to strap me up to a lie detector machine to ascertain whether they really ARE my opinions of Obama? Would you like to know if I think he authored his own books, or if he had ghost writers, or if I believe there's a reason he's got every last single one of his records locked up nice and tight? Let me know.

  95. [95] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Err, I think you need to learn the difference between opinions and facts, Bashi.

    I think you need to learn the difference between knowing what you are talking about and not knowing what you are talking about. Interesting diatribe, but still in no way connects Obama to anything Karl Marx wrote. If you don't know what Marxism is, maybe you should learn about it or move on to petty insults that you can actually defend...

  96. [96] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think you need to learn the difference between knowing what you are talking about and not knowing what you are talking about.

    I know precisely what my impressions of Obama are. That you don't personally like them, or disagree with them, are of no consequence to me. That's about as kindly as I can put it. And, no, I don't need to engage in a discussion of the definition of Marxism to sense that O is a closet Marxist. I just need to look at the people he grew up with, and surrounded himself with, and to listen to his occassional slip-ups, like he made the other day. He's a classic hard-core radical and class warrior, who revealed nothing in the way of factual information about his past on the campaign trail; just the dreamy storybook version that he wanted/needed the country to buy into. Closet radicals, with an agenda to become president and "fundamentally change the country," don't exactly publish their manifesto.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Question of a personal nature..

    It was my understanding the ObamaCare prevented Insurance Companies from denying care based on pre-existing conditions.

    Ya'all said that was an IMMEDIATE effect of ObamaCare, along with parents being able to keep their kids on their plans longer...

    Then why is it that Blue Cross can deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition???

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I don't think that goes into effect until 2014, Michale. But CrapCare will likely be dead long before then.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh, so of the two immediate benefits of ObamaCare, one doesn't actually exist..

    Why am I not surprised???

    Michale......

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    great point about drew westen. when he wrote it, i thought that column was one of the best pieces of political writing i've seen, and nothing has happened since then to change my mind on the matter. so with all respect that is legitimately due to joe biden (sorry liz), i think it was a superb call.

    ~joshua

Comments for this article are closed.