ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [246] -- So What Would You Cut Instead?

[ Posted Friday, February 22nd, 2013 – 18:47 PST ]

We've got a number of oddities to dispense with before we get started this week.

Let's begin with a quick trip through the South. Texas Republicans are worried that their state might vote for Hillary Clinton, should she run for president in 2016. Down in Florida, yet another Republican governor decided that the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid isn't such a bad idea after all. Mississippi finally ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, which really needs no further commentary of any sort whatsoever. North Carolina Republicans are in a panic because some women in Asheville like taking their tops off in public. Now this is all fun to poke fun at, but we feel that Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post went too far, when she reprinted a quote in an article on guns which engaged in a little gratuitous South Carolina-bashing:

So it goes in the state that James L. Petigru, anti-secessionist and former South Carolina attorney general, long ago described as "too small to be a republic and too large to be an insane asylum."

Further north, the small town of Sanford, New York is trying to ban speech. Only speech about a subject they don't want to talk about, mind you -- fracking. Does Sanford not have a library, where the town council can peruse a copy of the Constitution, one wonders?

From much further west comes the most bizarre story of the week. The island of Guam is going to air-drop mice laced with acetaminophen, in a plan to control the brown tree snakes that was apparently dreamed up by a James Bond villain. The mice will have streamers attached to them, and will be dropped one-by-one, by hand. All while 007 struggles to avoid a laser beam, strapped to a table, one assumes.

Speaking of struggling, the Republican Party are in open warfare with their Tea Party wing. Don't believe me? One Tea Party group sent out a photo of Karl Rove in a Nazi officer's uniform, in a fundraising letter (to which I couldn't help but think: "couldn't have happened to a more appropriate guy"). Another conservative group provided the most amusing story of the week, when they announced a $10,000 "Liberty Prize" for anyone -- anyone, someone, please -- who can come up with a plan to "take over the Republican Party, win the November 2016 elections, and govern America by 2017." Seriously -- got an idea for world domination... um, I mean "Republican Party domination"? Jot it down and send it in, and you could win a $10,000 prize for your efforts! From the announcement, what can only be read as a declaration of open warfare among Republicans:

The most important political battle in America is not between Republicans and Democrats or between conservatives and liberals. It is the battle for control of the Republican Party between establishment big government Republicans and limited government, constitutional conservatives.

OK, so Washington Republicans are a big pit of snakes, right... so we take a bunch of mice....

The next few election cycles are going to be one whale of a lot of fun to watch, that's my humble prediction.

What else? I swear I hadn't read Robert Reich's article "Showdown Fatigue" when I wrote my own article yesterday titled "Crisis Fatigue" -- just a bit of synchronicity, that's all. And for a bit of nostalgia, Eugene Robinson just wrote one of those "Obama's playing multidimensional chess" types of article, on Obama's leaked immigration plan. But that's enough, let's get on with the rest of the column, shall we?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Way back in FTP 227, we gave this award to James Earl Carter IV, our ex-president's grandson, for being the key link in the public airing of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" video. So we were pleased to read this week that Barack Obama personally thanked Carter upon meeting him. That video was a pivotal moment for the Romney campaign, if not the pivotal moment that he never recovered from. So he deserves Obama's thanks. Also, mentioning him again means we can sneak in a link to an adorable photo of him sitting on his grandfather's lap (in a photo series labeled "Ten Epic Yawns").

Since Congress was off on vacation all week (instead of doing their jobs), we're reaching down to the state level, where marijuana is in the news. In North Carolina, Republicans exemplify why Americans have just about zero faith in their elected officials to address their concerns. The Republicans voted down a medical marijuana law that they were originally going to ignore, because -- get this -- their constituents "harassed" them about the bill. Think you can't get more cynical about government? Read the story.

But we're supposed to be talking about Democrats. Up in Maryland, state delegate Curt Anderson just introduced a bill to legalize and tax recreational use of marijuana for adults. For doing so -- in a state that has yet to legalize medicinal marijuana, Anderson is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. Voter initiatives are one thing, but legalizing marijuana through the legislative process is even more impressive. Sooner or later Democrats are going to realize this is a winning issue for them and get on board. People like Curt Anderson are showing the way forward.

For his proposed legislation, Curt Anderson is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Maryland Delegate Curt Anderson via his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Colorado state representative Joe Salazar said something stupid this week. He later apologized, but we still have to hand him a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week for the comment. In a debate on concealed-carry permits for guns on college campuses, Salazar said:

It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop... pop a round at somebody.

This is not the way to make the Democratic case, folks. It is disappointingly demeaning of women, in fact. So even though he's profusely apologized, Salazar still earns this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[I couldn't find direct contact information for Colorado Representative Joe Salazar but here's his official web page, maybe it's elsewhere on the site.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 246 (2/22/13)

The White House has been using the fact that Congress is off gallivanting on vacation this week to pretty much own the airwaves in the sequester battle. All week long, administration officials have been making a strong case that if the sequester happens, there will indeed be consequences that the country will face, and so far they've been doing an excellent job at making that case.

By doing so, the White House is putting cards on the table in the "let's cut the federal budget" game. Republicans, so far, have been very averse to talking specifics on such budget cutting, so this is a conversation that is long overdue.

Which means now is the time to press these points hard. So this week, we've got a theme for the talking points. The first two are introductory side-issues that set up the rest of the conversation. Ideally, they should be used by a Democrat on a Sunday morning political talk show, sitting next to a Republican.

 

1
   73 and 98

Republicans have been bending over backwards to call the sequester "Obama's fault." They think they're going to insulate themselves from any blowback by doing so. Democrats need to remember just two numbers to fight this nonsense.

"Excuse me, but you keep saying the sequester is all Obama's doing. That is not true. In fact, 73 percent of the House Republicans voted for the sequester. A higher percentage of Republicans in the House voted for it than Democrats. So how, exactly, was Obama forcing people like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor to vote for the sequester if it's such a bad thing? Did Obama put a gun to the head of 174 Republicans in the House? In fact, John Boehner said at the time that he had gotten, quote, 98 percent of what I wanted, unquote, in the bill. So let's all remember the facts, OK? Because 73 percent of the House Republicans and 28 of the Senate Republicans voted for this sequester."

 

2
   Do you support the sequester?

This is a very basic question most Republicans have been weaseling out of. It's a fundamental question, but Republicans want to have it both ways. Which sets up the rest of our talking points.

"I'm not even sure if Republicans are for or against having the sequester happen. Do you support the sequester? Or not? Yes or no?"

 

3
   Cut the Pentagon?

The answer to that previous question is likely to be some flavor of "I support cutting the federal budget, but I'd do it in different ways than the sequester." Take this and run with it.

"OK, then let's take the cuts one by one. Do you support furloughing over 700,000 Defense Department contractors to save money? Do you support the Pentagon having to postpone aircraft carriers' missions? Do you support cutting medical benefits for veterans? The Pentagon's got to find $40 billion in such cuts this year. If you're not in favor of cutting the Pentagon budget, then what else are you going to cut that'll save $40 billion this year? Please be specific."

 

4
   Law and order

This is the second issue to hit Republicans with -- another issue that will get them in trouble with their base.

"Do you support cutting back on FBI agents? Fire a bunch of them? Do you support having fewer Border Patrol? Do you support cutting the Coast Guard's budget? How about federal prosecutors -- think we should prosecute 1,000 fewer cases this year in federal courts? These are very real consequences of the sequester, so if you're against any of these cuts, please explain what you'd cut instead."

 

5
   Travel delays

Congresscritters use the airlines more than most people, so this one is especially personal.

"Do you think we should save a bunch of money by cutting the budget for air traffic controllers? It'd mean more flight delays for air travelers. Or how about TSA airport screeners? Think the lines at security should be a lot longer for all Americans this summer? Because that's what is going to happen if the sequester takes place. I notice that you travel home quite often, Congressman -- think it'll mean your life will be easier if we take a big chunk out of the transportation budget? Think you'll maybe be sitting on the tarmac and waiting in lines more often? Well, if you want to fly home in a timely manner every weekend, then you'd better come up with some other cuts to offset these."

 

6
   Fewer jobs

This is an especially strong card to play.

"Do you really think now is the time to put 750,000 jobs in jeopardy? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the sequester goes through, that's how many jobs it will cost the American economy in the first year alone. Just when the economic recovery is turning the corner, who in their right mind would want to put three-quarters of a million jobs at risk? It's just insane to even contemplate doing so, and yet that is exactly what will happen if the sequester takes place. Unless you've got some other ways to cut federal spending that don't impact jobs -- but I certainly haven't heard any ideas for this coming from Republicans so far."

 

7
   Shrink the economy

Which leads directly into the last point.

"Economists tell us that if the sequester happens, it will carve a half a percent off the growth of the American economy this year. Republicans have been talking about their supposedly pro-growth agenda for a while now, and then they turn around and want to shrink the economy by a half-percent, because they are incapable of giving one inch on budget negotiations. Oh, sure, it's fun to talk about cutting federal spending in the abstract, but when the consequences include things like making veterans homeless by cutting housing vouchers for over 200,000 of them, then it isn't so much fun to talk about, is it? You can scoff all you want to at the effects these cuts will have, but neither you nor your party has put any specifics on the table at all in terms of how to replace these cuts with other budget cuts. All you can do is sit back and allow the American economy to shrink a half a percent, without even offering up any suggestions of how we should do any of this differently. It's like you're actively rooting for economic failure, and it mystifies me, personally."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

119 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [246] -- So What Would You Cut Instead?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am going to hit the commentary in the AM when I get up..

    For now, just let me leave you with a quote...

    The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

    Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
    -Bob Woodward
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

    So, maybe amongst all the finger-pointing at Republicans, maybe the Democrat leadership can fess up to THEIR responsibility for the whole mess..

    Yea.. And maybe pigs will fly outta my butt too... :^/

    As an aside to CW.. Kudos to your MDDOTW award... What a slimy and disgusting thing that Salazar said....

    Amazing that it didn't get much air time in the MSM, eh??

    Or not....

    Michale.....

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because 73 percent of the House Republicans and 28 of the Senate Republicans voted for this sequester."

    And yet, it was OBAMA's idea!

    Need I remind ya'all that ya'all STILL blame Bush for the Iraq War, even though practically ALL Democrats voted for it..

    So, using the reasoning in this Talking Point, the Iraq War is completely the fault of Democrats...

    As far as the rest of the talking points, there is a common theme...

    National Security..

    Why choose National Security to cut??

    Cut unemployment benefits to a reasonable time frame. 6 months. Period.

    Cut the waste and fraud out of Medicare, Medicade, Food Stamps and Social Security..

    Why not support THOSE actions??

    Or are ya'all for letting people use their Food Stamps for alcohol and cigarettes and at strip clubs and casinos???

    Throughout ALL the fear-mongering by Obama and the Democrats over the sequester, keep one thing in mind.

    It was OBAMA'S idea to begin with...

    Obama and the Democrats made this bed.. Now they are all whiney and bitchy because they have to lie in it...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, using the reasoning in this Talking Point, the Iraq War is completely the fault of Democrats...

    I W B W :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    From much further west comes the most bizarre story of the week. The island of Guam is going to air-drop mice laced with acetaminophen, in a plan to control the brown tree snakes that was apparently dreamed up by a James Bond villain. The mice will have streamers attached to them, and will be dropped one-by-one, by hand. All while 007 struggles to avoid a laser beam, strapped to a table, one assumes.

    Okay, I couldn't resist tackling that one. Though, undoubtedly, I have my Bond villians somewhat mixed up ...

    The only problem is that I'm not half-way clever enough to come up with a proper and fitting analogy pointing up the similarities between rats and Washington Republicans, how they all might be coaxed into some chamber or other, having been lured there by their deep desire to sabotage Obama’s promising ideas, and where they are forced to eat each other to survive, until only a couple are left and they no longer attack Obama’s policies as they’re too busy conspiring to destroy their own vacuous agenda as they drift inevitably toward irrelevance ...

    See what I mean? Michale, you’re the preeminent master of Republican analogies around here, so I’m relying on you to help me out with this ...

    As for avoiding a laser beam while strapped to a table ... well, Q branch really don’t go in for that anymore. Ahem. Do you suppose SKYFALL will win any big awards Sunday night?

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'll jump on your request when I get home.....

    But I had to jump on this....

    As for avoiding a laser beam while strapped to a table ...

    LOGAN'S RUN FTW!!!! :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    My point (I've made it twice this week, actually) about the sequester is that you can truthfully say "it's BOTH parties' fault" or even "it's NEITHER party's fault" but you cannot truthfully say "it is Dems/Obama's fault" because that is horse manure.

    You might be surprised that I would agree (kind of) with your point on Iraq. Iraq was BOTH PARTIES' fault, precisely because of that vote in Congress. If Dems (including luminaries such as Hillary Clinton) had stood firm, the Iraq bill never would have passed. I know I've argued before that repealing Glass/Steagal was indeed BOTH PARTIES' fault, the vote count on that one was overwhelming (something like 90 votes in Senate).

    Now, if you truly were an independent voter, I would think you'd agree on the sequester: it is BOTH parties' fault. Period. Doesn't matter who thought it up, Boehner and 73% of House GOP voted for it. Boehner and Cantor PRAISED it as a "good deal" when they voted for it.

    That doesn't mean I'm saying (as you are, with Dems) that it is "the GOP's fault" or "Boehner's fault." The Republicans in the House OVERWHELMINGLY supported it, at a time when they EASILY could have killed it. Sure, Dems and Obama bear some blame. But so do House Republicans. Which is why it is LAUGHABLE now to hear them trying to whine "WAAAHHH! Obama MADE us vote for it! He twisted our arms! He held a gun to our head!" -- because it is just not true.

    Why is that so hard for you to admit? If you were truly independent, you wouldn't hesitate to do so. I wouldn't even be participating in the "blame game" if the GOP hadn't tried to sweep their own voting record under the rug. I thought any sane individual could see quite clearly that it was both parties' fault.

    So, here's my position, just in case you missed it: "Sure, go ahead and blame Obama -- as long as you equally blame all the Dems and GOP in the House and Senate who voted for the sequester. They are all pretty equally responsible, because any of them could have stopped it, and they ALL GOT ON BOARD instead."

    Note closely: I am NOT saying "I blame Republicans and John Boehner for the sequester, it's all his fault!" Not even close.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    I blushingly have to admit I still haven't seen the new Bond. Or Lincoln, either.

    Man, I've got to get out more often...

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Ah, now there's a movie I HAVE seen. Farrah Fawcett was awesome in the "New You" scene in Logan's Run, I concur.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    You are absolutely correct..

    The sequestor is not the sole province of one Party.

    EACH Party shares the blame, in equal parts...

    So, while I might intimate (or more than intimate) that it's all Obama's/Democrats' fault, that is merely in response to the rank and file trying to put the blame solely or even mostly on the Republicans.

    This is truly one of those times when BOTH Partys are at fault..

    And you are right again with regards to the first Iraq War.. Democrats have as much blood on their hands as Bush and the Republicans do...

    Ah, now there's a movie I HAVE seen. Farrah Fawcett was awesome in the "New You" scene in Logan's Run, I concur.

    Yea, I added it to our video server a while back and have watched it now and again.. A great flick...

    And you simply HAVE to see the new Bond.. As I said, I am not much of a CraigAsBond fan, but I thoroughly enjoyed SkyFall... And the theme song!?? Haven't enjoyed a Bond song as much since Sheena Eastin's THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or Paul McCartney's LIVE AND LET DIE..

    Liz,

    I am still trying to come up with something, but I plead diminished capacity.. My day started about 18 hours ago, so I might need to sleep on it..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Take your time ... :)

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I don't know, "The Spy Who Loved Me" I think did the best on the music charts, but it's pretty hard to top "Live And Let Die" on musical value alone. And I'm not really a big fan of Paul McCartney, even...

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Here's some deep sci-fi trivia for you: the final scene in Logan's Run is filmed in Houston (? I think, in a public park), but it is also used as a backdrop for the final scene in a PBS movie of "The Lathe Of Heaven" which is an even more AWESOME sci-fi flick from the 70s. It used to be very hard to run down, but these days, it's probably online somewhere. Joe Bob says check it out...

    -CW

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    You didn't like Shirley Bassey singing Goldfinger?

    Skyfall is much better than The Spy Who Loved Me - song and film!

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    See what I mean? Michale, you’re the preeminent master of Republican analogies around here, so I’m relying on you to help me out with this ...

    The problem I am having creating a proper analogy is that it would be operating under a false premise..

    False Premise 1 being that Obama actually has some good ideas.. :D

    Seriously, though. I just have a hard time getting all worked up over the political machinations of the Republicans. Because it's par for the course that the Democrats followed during the Bush years..

    My take is that it would just be really really awesome if our political leaders, on BOTH sides of the aisle, would quit placing their Party agenda WAY above the welfare of the country..

    Yea, like THAT is ever going to happen.. :^/

    Skyfall is much better than The Spy Who Loved Me - song and film!

    I have to agree.. :D

    CW,

    I find it hard to believe that PBS and "Awesome" sci-fi can be in the same sentence! :D

    Be that as it may, you might be happy to know that LATHE OF HEAVEN was actually re-done in 2002...

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290230/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    If you like, I can get it for you. :D

    David,

    I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to pull your comments from the ROVE commentary as I don't feel like dividing my talents (such as they are :D) between two commentaries. :D

    BTW, I don't think anyone here who knows you is buying your "I'm unbiased" argument.

    You've firmly supported just about every right wing piece of nutjobia from Obama's birth certificate to Benghazi to Herman Cain to the poor are poor because they're lazy (Romney's 47% comment).

    Of course I firmly supported all of the above.. I would "firmly support" a trained (or not so trained) cockroach if it was running against Obama..

    Obama is a BAD leader. PERIOD.

    Obama is BAD for this country. PERIOD.

    Wanting to see Obama removed from office has absolutely NOTHING to do with political bias and has EVERYTHING to do with what is best for this country..

    And if you would take that rant and replace "Obama" with "Bush" you would get the exact feelings that permeated from the LEFT during the Bush years...

    Which is why, as I explained to Liz above, it's hard to get really excited about what the GOP does to the Democrats and what the Democrats do to the GOP..

    Because it's all so typical...

    "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again".
    -Colonial Scripture, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

    So in your world Michale, fair is 50/50 denigration of Republicans and Democrats ... no matter what either side does or believes in.

    No. "Fair" is calling Democrats when they are wrong..

    Because it appears, in YOUR world, that Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong..

    Now I am sure you will concede that THAT is simply not possible.

    So, being that it is not possible, the ONLY explanation that fits the facts is that ya'all won't admit that Democrats are wrong, even if they are...

    Ideological loyalty trumps logic..

    Like I said. When ya'all start slamming the Dems as much as I slam the GOP then (and ONLY then) do ya'all have the moral authority to call me on my bias.

    In other words, I might be bias. Probably am.

    But my bias is NOT based on political ideology, because I HAVE no political ideology..

    And my bias is NOTHING compared to ya'alls bias..

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another front.....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/23/nra-justice-department-memo_n_2749553.html

    It looks like ANOTHER Justice Department Memo is going to land the Obama Administration in hot water..

    What IS it about Obama's Justice Department that it can't keep it's secrets?? :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    False Premise 1 being that Obama actually has some good ideas.. :D

    "I have half a mind to deny it!"
    "I deny that you have half a mind!"

    -M*A*S*H

    :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    I think the "sequester fatigue" is about exactly right. The public is simply tired of having these crises every couple of months.

    What this means is that those who want this to happen will likely get their way because of their singular, if ill-conceived, persistence.

    It's a horrible idea though: let's crash the economy! Yay!

    Unfortunately, I think this might have to happen for people to wake up to the destructive tactics of the Republican party: we would rather see the country burn than work with Democrats.

    *sigh* What a bloody mess

    I would "firmly support" a trained (or not so trained) cockroach if it was running against Obama.

    We know, Michale. We also know you'd support any efforts to make Obama look bad, even if these involved making things up, supporting a trained cockroach, or destroying the economy.

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    We know, Michale. We also know you'd support any efforts to make Obama look bad, even if these involved making things up, supporting a trained cockroach, or destroying the economy.

    Not at all...

    Nothing HAS to be "made up" to make Obama look bad...

    He handles that pretty well all by himself.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you WANT to talk about making things up, we COULD discuss the Bush National Guard papers.. :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a horrible idea though: let's crash the economy! Yay!

    It's a horrible idea though: let's glut Mexico with assault rifles! Yay!

    I W B W :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, I think this might have to happen for people to wake up to the destructive tactics of the Republican party: we would rather see the country burn than work with Democrats.

    Unfortunately, I think this might have to happen for people to wake up to the destructive tactics of the Democratic party: we would rather see the country burn than work with Republicans.

    The sequestor was OBAMA's idea!!

    And yet, somehow, it's all the Republicans' fault..

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The sequester was designed as a tool to force both parties to work together to find a compromise.

    The Republican party, however, has decided that the sequester is better than compromising with Democrats.

    That, my friend, is some bullheaded uncompromising idiocy.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republican party, however, has decided that the sequester is better than compromising with Democrats.

    Just as Democrats have decided that the sequester is better than compromising with Republicans..

    That, my friend, is some bullheaded uncompromising idiocy.

    I completely and unequivocally agree...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The sequester was designed as a tool to force both parties to work together to find a compromise.

    Another one of Obama's grand ideas that ignore reality..

    And yet, no one blames Obama for the moronic idea...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have Democrats put some REAL spending cuts on the table..

    THEN you can claim that it's only the Republicans who are "uncompromising"...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Have Democrats put some REAL spending cuts on the table.

    Spending cuts which would sink the economy.

    This is a terrible idea.

    The only solution Republicans seem willing to entertain are different spending cuts. In particular to social programs. And that's the problem. Spending cuts period are likely to squash the economy.

    Just look at Europe.

    -David

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    A compromise which destroys the economy is not a compromise.

    -David

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Spending cuts which would sink the economy.

    So would excessive taxes and regulations..

    Gutting the military would also not be a good idea..

    The GOP has agreed to unprecedented taxes.. This is well-established..

    Where are the tax cuts the Democrats promised??

    Like EVERYTHING else Democrats promise, they are non-existent..

    A compromise which destroys the economy is not a compromise.

    Again, agreed..

    Which is why, I believe, the GOP is done compromising..

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Uhm the sequester hasn't actually happened yet. Considering Obama has openly stated that he does not want this to happen and would sign a bill to stop it - if someone were able to present him with such a bill - then how on earth is it 'his fault'?

    If you want to trace the origins then start with why the sequester was needed in the first place (House Republicans wouldn't do anything). Then consider who voted for the people who wouldn't do anything and allow their politicians to get away with this by not holding them accountable for not doing anything.

    I'd blame those people.

    In other news, Ted Rail (as usual) nails it regarding the minimum wage: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2013/02/25/slave-wages

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, ya'alls problem is this..

    It's your claim that, in this issue (matter of fact, in ALL issues) Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.

    Ya'all claim this, despite ALL the evidence that supports the opposite conclusion..

    That the Democrat's way is making things worse, not better.

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm the sequester hasn't actually happened yet. Considering Obama has openly stated that he does not want this to happen and would sign a bill to stop it - if someone were able to present him with such a bill - then how on earth is it 'his fault'?

    Because it was his idea...

    Duuuuhhhhhh :D

    If you want to trace the origins then start with why the sequester was needed in the first place

    Because Democrats wouldn't compromise on spending cuts..

    I'd blame those people.

    Of course.. You blame anyone but the Left...

    Der's a shocker!!! :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    then how on earth is it 'his fault'?

    Besides, the Left established quite well during the Bush years that ANYTHING that happens that is bad is ALL the President's fault..

    Apparently, in the here and now, I guess that only applies to Presidents with a '-R' after their name.. :^/

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then consider who voted for the people who wouldn't do anything and allow their politicians to get away with this by not holding them accountable for not doing anything.

    Amen, michty.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Right consider that politicians are so safe in their jobs and unaccountable to the people in your country that to force them to do their jobs this sequester was created. It was supposed to jolt the economy so badly that politicians would be forced to work to stop it.

    Instead the politicians are so unaccountable and their jobs are so safe that they plan on sitting back and going 'meh I can probably use the propaganda machine to blame this one on Obama, my re-election isn't in much danger anyway' and let everyone else suffer.

    If you blame anyone except these politicians you are an idiot. Unfortunately there are too many people like this in America that they will probably get away with it.

  35. [35] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And the Republican reaction to this is laughable:

    Democrats: Cutting spending when the economy is fragile probably isn't a good idea...

    Republicans: CUTS! We want CUTS! I demand CUTS! Massive cuts. Get me some scissors right now. Bring me a list of spending things and a pair of giant inflatable scissors. Time to do some cutting! Gimme a C! Gimme a U! Gimme a T! What's that spell??

    Economists: Uhm you do realise these cuts will cost about 700,000 jobs and probably 1% of GDP growth. They are pretty bad for the fraglie economic recovery. I mean look at Europe...

    Republicans: Cuts? Us? No way! Obama! It was Obama. I don't remember saying anything about cuts. Those giant inflatable scissors in my office? Oh they're not mine I borrowed them from... uhm... Obama! It's Obama's cuts! The cheerleaders at my rally spelling cuts? Uhm Obama sent them there! He is sooo evil! DAMN YOU OBAMA you're ruining America!

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Basically, ya'alls problem is this..

    It's your claim that, in this issue (matter of fact, in ALL issues) Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.

    Actually, it's your claim that's is our claim that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.

    I haven't seen anyone else on this forum say it in anything coming close to the all encompassing way you wish to attribute to us...

    But it brings up a interesting question: If I say the left is as bad as the right does it completely alleviate your need for me to ever criticize Obama or the left? Or is this purely a one way street in your favor?

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, it's your claim that's is our claim that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.

    It's a claim backed up by tons and tons of verifiable evidence..

    But, hay.. I am fair.. Point to me some comments that slam the Democratic Party, AS A PARTY, for actions taken that have nothing to do with Republicans..

    Can you find any?? Hell, can you find ONE!???

    Remember, COMMENTS.. Not commentaries..

    I haven't seen anyone else on this forum say it in anything coming close to the all encompassing way you wish to attribute to us...

    And yet, all we ever see from the comments is praise for the Dem Party and attacks against the Republican Party...

    No??

    Prove me wrong, then...

    If I say the left is as bad as the right does it completely alleviate your need for me to ever criticize Obama or the left? Or is this purely a one way street in your favor?

    You would have to be as specific and as relentless against the Dem Party as you are against the GOP Party..

    All I am asking for is a little common sense..

    Ya'all would have me (and any lurkers) believe that the Democratic Party is ALWAYS right and the Republican Party is ALWAYS wrong..

    No???

    Again, prove me wrong..

    Point to any policy, action or platform that the Republican Party has right and the Democratic Party has wrong...

    I await with baited breath... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bashi - don't waste your time I could've predicted that reply from Michale. What will happen is you'll point out where you/almost everyone on here have criticised Obama/Democrats and he will ignore it and go on to his next rant. Boring. Michale thinks that because you think Democrats are right on one issue you must think they are right on all issues and are completely biased. Nothing will change this opinion of his.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    What will happen is you'll point out where you/almost everyone on here have criticised Obama/Democrats and he will ignore it and go on to his next rant.

    No.. Ya'all have criticized *A* Democrat..

    But NONE of you have EVER indicated that the Democratic Party has it wrong and the Republican Party has it right.

    NEVER.. Not ONE single time...

    Nothing will change this opinion of his.

    Of course there is..

    FACTS will change my opinion.

    But, as usual, ya'all never HAVE any facts on this issue....

    And so it goes and so it goes.

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You would have to be as specific and as relentless against the Dem Party as you are against the GOP Party..

    So it is a one way street. You get to be all "independent" by saying the right is as bad as the left while never really going beyond that with criticism of the right but I have to be "as specific and as relentless against the Dem Party". Seems I smell some seriously stinky hypocrisy in the air.

    I think I will wait for some "as specific and as relentless against the Repub Party" from you first...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    But NONE of you have EVER indicated that the Democratic Party has it wrong and the Republican Party has it right.

    But hay.. I am the epitome of fairness..

    Show me an issue where Weigantians have stated that the Republican Party has right and the Democratic Party has wrong..

    Put up or shut up.. ;D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Show me a wall of text criticizing McConnell or Boehner to prove your independence.

    Put up or shut up... :D

    See it works both ways...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    So it is a one way street. You get to be all "independent" by saying the right is as bad as the left while never really going beyond that with criticism of the right but I have to be "as specific and as relentless against the Dem Party". Seems I smell some seriously stinky hypocrisy in the air.

    How can it be a one-way street when I am asking you to be as critical of the Democratic Party as I am of the Republican Party???

    The ONLY reason you would have a problem with it is if you simply CAN'T be critical of the Democratic Party...

    I think I will wait for some "as specific and as relentless against the Repub Party" from you first...</I.

    Jezus, seriously!!!??

    These pages are FILLED with comments from me as to how bad the Republican Party is..

    That has NEVER been in any doubt...

    Me thinks yer just not capable of being critical of the Democratic Party and you are trying to weasel out of it by claiming that it's all on me..

    Nice try.. But no cigar...

    My bona fides are WELL established...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww crap...

    Well, you get the idea...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Show me a wall of text criticizing McConnell or Boehner to prove your independence.

    Put up or shut up... :D

    See it works both ways...

    We're not talking about specific individuals..

    We are talking about ideology...

    Ya'all are simply INCAPABLE of criticizing the Democratic Party due to political ideological loyalty.

    *I* don't have that problem because I HAVE no political ideological loyalty..

    BOTH Party's are to blame for this country's mess...

    Hell, even CW agrees with me.

    Michale....

  46. [46] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    How can it be a one-way street when I am asking you to be as critical of the Democratic Party as I am of the Republican Party???

    Which 99 times out of 100 boils down to "the right is just as bad". Therefore if I say the left is just as bad I would be matching my criticism of the left exactly as much as you criticize the right. Or would I have to amend the end all my posts with it as a sort of signature for it to fly?

    These pages are FILLED with comments from me as to how bad the Republican Party is..

    FILLED?!?!? This is by far the grossest exaggeration ever posted to the comments section of this blog...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know what would be kewl!

    If I could meet with Obama quarterly and tell him how I feel..

    Well, what do ya know!???

    http://freebeacon.com/chuck-todd-on-ofa-fundraising-this-just-looks-bad/

    If I had a half a million dollars, I COULD!!!

    A shame I don't have that much money anymore, eh?? :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    FILLED?!?!? This is by far the grossest exaggeration ever posted to the comments section of this blog...

    Yes, FILLED...

    Compared to ya'all, "FILLED" is the entirely appropriate description..

    But why do you insist on making this about me..

    All I am asking is that ya'all employ some common sense and drop the ideological fanaticism every once in a while..

    Is that REALLY too much to ask???

    I guess so...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bashi
    FILLED?!?!? This is by far the grossest exaggeration ever posted to the comments section of this blog...

    You've clearly missed the posts when Michale states what the 'facts' are. I had to complain to the fact police many times and I think he is heeding their warnings.

    Michale,
    How about you give us some examples of where you are believe the Republicans are 'right' and we will tell you whether or not we agree with you? That should be entertaining...

  50. [50] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    All I am asking is that ya'all employ some common sense and drop the ideological fanaticism every once in a while..

    Is that REALLY too much to ask???

    Are you willing to do the same? I see post after post criticizing Obama and the left followed by post after post with links to some conservative opinion piece. What I don't see is walls of text filled posts criticizing the right or specific Republican leaders. What I don't see are links to liberal blogs (or ever moderate ones) with opinion pieces criticizing the right.

    You are highly ideologically fanatical. It just happens to be anti-left rather than right or left.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about you give us some examples of where you are believe the Republicans are 'right' and we will tell you whether or not we agree with you? That should be entertaining...

    First, you have to pay for your entertainment..

    You will have to tell me where Democrats are wrong and Republicans are right...

    I wish I could say that THAT would be entertaining, but the only description I can come up with is.... "non-existent"...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I don't see is walls of text filled posts criticizing the right or specific Republican leaders.

    Then you are missing about 30% of my postings...

    Your lack of attention is not my fault.. :D

    What I don't see are links to liberal blogs (or ever moderate ones) with opinion pieces criticizing the right.

    And THAT is your problem.. You don't see it..

    They are there as ANYONE here can attest to...

    But YOU don't see it because it doesn't fit your agenda.. :D

    You are highly ideologically fanatical. It just happens to be anti-left rather than right or left.

    This.. coming from the guy who cannot criticize the Democratic Party for ANYTHING. :D

    But once again, you want to make it all about me...

    We're discussing YA'ALLs inability to criticize the Democratic Party in their policies on governing this country..

    Sure, ya'all bitch and moan that the Dems don't stick it to the GOP enough, but that's hardly criticsm of the Dem Party or acceptance of the GOP...

    My anti-politician ideology is well-established. I have nothing to prove..

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Then you are missing about 30% of my postings...

    Well, you say the right is just as bad as the left enough times it does take up a lot of space... Why never anything specific or of substance?

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am asking is for ya'all to give the Republican Party some credit once in a while..

    Jeezus, ya think I was asking ya'all to commit treason!

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you say the right is just as bad as the left enough times it does take up a lot of space... Why never anything specific or of substance?

    There is... So much that I wouldn't even know where to start..

    But, again.. This isn't about me..

    If you can't criticize the Democratic Party and credit the Republican Party, for christ's sake, just say so!

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://daily-download.com/msnbc-ex-obama-aides-a-bona-fide-organ-state-propaganda/

    How many times a day does the Left slam Republican politicians that go to Fox News..

    Strange how that same Left has no problem with propaganda coming FROM the Left...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Is there anyone on here who is not in agreement that MSNBC are biased to Obama/Democrats? I think you're talking to a wall. They are basically trying to become a version of what Fox are for Republicans. Just a few years behind.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there anyone on here who is not in agreement that MSNBC are biased to Obama/Democrats? I think you're talking to a wall. They are basically trying to become a version of what Fox are for Republicans. Just a few years behind.

    Awesome to hear you say that, michty..

    The conventional wisdom around here is that there is *NO* Left Wing media bias...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note..

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/25/vulcan-and-cerberus-win-pluto-moon-naming-poll/?intcmp=features

    Vulcan has been discovered!! :D

    :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The conventional wisdom around here is that there is *NO* Left Wing media bias.

    For the record, Michale, I haven't seen anyone here claim what you're saying they did.

    The argument I've seen made here (by myself and others) is that the predominant bias in the media is corporate. Not right. Not left.

    In certain obvious cases outlets have decided to support one side or the other (ala Fox or ClearChannel or MSNBC) but for the most part, the media is more cowardly corporate entertainment than anything else.

    Just a slight (but important) correction.

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The argument I've seen made here (by myself and others) is that the predominant bias in the media is corporate. Not right. Not left.

    Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary..

    There is so much evidence that supports the Left Wing bias MSM theory that you simply can't address..

    But at least you concede the MSNBC Left Wing bias..

    That's a start..

    Baby steps. It's all about baby steps.. :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There is so much evidence that supports the Left Wing bias MSM theory that you simply can't address.

    Bull.

    If there were a "liberal media" this whole sequester BS wouldn't even be an issue since everyone would know which party is pushing for cuts.

    When people actually know and understand the political situation, they tend to vote liberal.

    Which is why, of course, confusing people is such a key part of the conservative strategy.

    -David

  63. [63] 
    michty6 wrote:

    And stopping them voting through any means necessary.

    Interesting stat I spotted today that in the Italian election - which is killing the markets just now - turnout is expected to be around 75% which is considered 'low'.

    Low! Certainly puts other countries to shame. If the USA, for example, had turnout of 75% at every election Republicans would be dead as a party...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    If there were a "liberal media" this whole sequester BS wouldn't even be an issue since everyone would know which party is pushing for cuts.

    It *IS* a story.. And the Leftist MSM is running Obama's propaganda that it's all the fault of the Republicans..

    When people actually know and understand the political situation, they tend to vote liberal.

    Do you comprehend how utterly and completely ideological biased that statement is!!!???

    Basically what you are saying is that smart people vote Democrat and stupid people vote Republican..

    Nope.. No bias there whatsoever!! :D

    Lemme ask ya something??

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-26-10-10-24

    If the MSM doesn't have a Leftist bent, where is all the hysterical fear-mongering from the MSM over that??

    If we had had a GOP POTUS and this story came out, it would be howled from the rooftops..

    But because the MSM is in the bag for Obama and the Dems???

    {{{{{chhhiirrrrrrpppppp}}}} {ccchhhhiiiiiirrrrrrpppppp}}

    Cricket city...

    Explain that, if there is no Left bias amongst the MSM..

    You can't.. Just as you can't explain the lack of coverage over the Afghani Kill Teams, the Menedez/Prostitution scandal, the Salazar rape comments and a host of other stories that make Obama look bad that are killed...

    The *ONLY* conclusion that supports *ALL* the facts is that the majority of the MSM has a Obama/Democrat/Left bias...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The *ONLY* conclusion that supports *ALL* the facts is that the majority of the MSM has a Obama/Democrat/Left bias...

    I know that's a bitter pill to swallow..

    Ya'all want to believe that the MSM coverage is fair and that the support Obama/Democrats/The Left gets from the media is because of the merits of the position..

    And, if you cherry pick a fact here and a fact there you can "make" your case and feed the delusion...

    But the simple fact is, there is only ONE conclusion that fits ALL the facts...

    And that conclusion is that the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama/Democrats/The Left...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Rant, rant, rant, rant, liberal media, rant, rant, rant, rant, conspiracy, rant, rant, rant, rant :)

    There is one party that wants cuts. One.

    This party insists that cuts are non-negotiable despite the fact that they will halt any economic recovery.

    There is one party that wants to destroy government. Through any method possible.

    Where is this story in your "liberal media"?

    Nowhere. The MSM plays what both sides say. Yeah, they're covering. But they're also giving equal time to people like Eric Cantor and John Boehner. And there's plenty of play for the conservative stories which look like the following: "the sequester isn't a big deal, it's only 2.5%" and the "Obama needs to act" story.

    Please.

    -David

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is one party that wants cuts. One.

    And there is ONE Party that wants taxes...

    Even though that Party GOT Taxes, AND ONLY TAXES, a couple months ago..

    And guess what.

    THAT PARTY ALREADY SPENT THAT MONEY!!!

    This party insists that cuts are non-negotiable despite the fact that they will halt any economic recovery.

    And the other Party insists that taxes are non-negotiable despite the fact that they will halt any economic recovery...

    blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa

    The Democrats way does NOT WORK....

    Period....

    Where is this story in your "liberal media"?

    EVERYWHERE!!

    Every MSM outlet has the same story..

    It's all the republicans fault. Obama and the Democrats are the saviors of the universe and it's the mean and nasty Republicans who are standing in the way of the perfect utopia...

    And blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaaa, so on and so on and so an ad nasuem...

    That is ALL we are seeing in the MSM...

    Like I said.. Explain the lack of coverage for the afghani kill teams. Explain the lack of coverage for the SCOTUS decision to bar challenges to government surveillance. Explain the lack of coverage of Menendez and his hookers.. Explain the lack of coverage of Salazar and his rape comments..

    Explain the lack of coverage from the MSM over all those and much much more and THEN you might have an argument..

    But you CAN'T explain those, so you don't...

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    ABC broadcast edits out Michelle Obama claim that Chicago teen was killed by an ‘automatic weapon’
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2522593

    Corporate Interests don't explain the bias...

    Unless it's your argument that Corporate Interests = Obama Interests...

    I could buy that argument .. :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Cheers, Michale ... g'luck w/ your anti-Obama raging and your conspiracy theories!

    I've got some Congress folk to write.

    -David

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cheers, Michale ... g'luck w/ your anti-Obama raging and your conspiracy theories!

    As g'luck to you and your anti-Republican raging and conspiracy theories.. :D

    I W B W

    :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just keep in mind... My "anti-Obama" raging is on par with the Anti-Bush raging from the Bush years.. (Much to my chagrin, I can tell you!! :D)

    But ya'all only have to endure the raging from ONE person..

    I had to endure the raging from DOZENS...

    All things being equal, ya'all are getting the better part of the deal.. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My "anti-Obama" raging is on par with the Anti-Bush raging from the Bush years.

    Except under Obama things are better while Bush squandered a surplus on two worthless wars. And there was that little economic collapse thing too.

    -David

  73. [73] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Everyone (Michale) knows that Bush was a puppet creating by a time travelling Obama David. Anybody who says elsewhere is part of the liberal media cover-up...

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Just keep in mind... My "anti-Obama" raging is on par with the Anti-Bush raging from the Bush years.. (Much to my chagrin, I can tell you!! :D)

    But how does that you make you any different than to which you complain?

    But ya'all only have to endure the raging from ONE person..

    You have to admit the frequency and length of that raging is the equivalent to a dozen :D

    The problem with labeling the MSM "liberal" or "corporate" or any specific bias label is it ignores the complexities of how bias shows up. Is the bias with the hard news, and to what degree? Opinion pages? Editorial (what stories get picked)? How strong is the bias. But most importantly, what is the bias? There are many more forms of bias than left or right. There are as mentioned, corporate but also capitalist which is slightly different. I would label the The Economist and NPR's Marketplace as capitalist. There is also left and right from different countries, which might vary quite a bit from the US's definition as well as not really caring about either side in the US. There are religious bias and bias from specific groups that are much more biased about their own ideology or interest than any left/right bias.

    The strength of the bias is also important. Democracy Now is night and day different in the strength of liberal bias from NPR. To the point that the bias label becomes meaningless.

    Fox news is actually not too bad when it comes to hard news. Neither is most of "MSM" whatever that term actually covers. I suspect we all have a slightly different grouping for "MSM". It's when you get to the opinion pages/arguing heads that bias really shows. But if you are looking for an opinion, don't be too surprised when you actually get one...

    My news sources mainly come from a news reader on my idevices. I find the sources I follow for the full story are a smattering of the usual suspects, including foxnews. I find myself reading more in depth with The Atlantic and Christian Science Monitor. I avoid all the 24 hour news channels like the plague but I will watch the local news and sometime the national half hour. I do seek out the BBC and DW as I like the difference of their perspective and areas of coverage. I listen to lots of NPR when driving and especially like MarketPlace.

    So, what is my media bias?

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except under Obama things are better

    There are absolutely NO FACTS to support such a claim...

    Just let me throw a dart and hit something..

    Gas prices were under $2 a gallon under Bush.. Under Obama, they hover around DOUBLE that??

    Oh let's throw another dart..

    Utility prices have skyrocketed under Obama...

    One more dart..

    Unemployment! BULLSEYE!!!!

    Your definition of "better" is a little skewed, my friend...

    "But!! But!!! You're cherry picking facts!!"

    Yes I am.. But THESE facts are what matter to the 99%...

    It's THESE facts that determine whether things are "better" or "worse"..

    And, these facts CLEARLY show that things are worse...

    MUCH worse...

    Bashi,

    But how does that you make you any different than to which you complain?

    I guess you missed the "Much to my chagrin" part, eh??

    I *thought* I was better than that.. I *thought* I could support my President, even if I didn't agree with what he does..

    I thought wrong...

    You have to admit the frequency and length of that raging is the equivalent to a dozen :D

    I'll take that as a compliment.. :D

    "My name is Legion for we are many" :D

    But if you jump in your handy-dandy trusty dusty time machine and go back to Weigantia circa-Bush Years, you would find that there were MANY "Michales" ranting about Bush on a daily basis with numbers that would be my envy any day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    So, what is my media bias?

    You are correct, media bias is a tricky thing to define..

    While you can find a point here or an article there where the MSM will skewer the Left (sometimes) Democrats (every once in a while) or Obama (hardly ever), if one looks at the BIG picture, one get's the feel for their bias..

    For example, MSNBC is universally accepted as being the propaganda arm of the Obama Administration and the Democrats. It has been stated so in this very commentary..

    Yet, an MSNBC reporter posted an article about all the groans that were heard when Michelle Obama put her appearance in at the Oscars...

    So it IS possible to find exceptions to the rule...

    But the exceptions do not the rule invalidate...

    One issue (which I have mentioned before) is key to demonstrate the Leftist Bias of the MSM..

    The comparison of the coverage of Abu Ghraib (Bush) and Afghani Kill Teams (Obama)...

    That right there epitomizes the Leftist Bias of the MSM...

    Because NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING explains that away BUT a Leftist/Democrat/Obama bias of the Mainstream Media...

    If one examines the totality of the coverage of the last election and compares the number of negative stories of Romney vs the number of negative stories about Obama, the picture becomes even MORE clear..

    To deny there is a Left/Democrat/Obama Bias in the vast majority of the MSM is simply to deny reality...

    The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive..

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gas prices were under $2 a gallon under Bush.. Under Obama, they hover around DOUBLE that??

    And since Michty is lurking, let me kill his argument before he even makes it.

    The Left held Bush responsible for high gas prices, fairly or not..

    So, fairly or not, Obama get's the blame as well...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left held Bush responsible for high gas prices, fairly or not..

    So, fairly or not, Obama get's the blame as well...

    "So say we all"
    -BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

    :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The comparison of the coverage of Abu Ghraib (Bush) and Afghani Kill Teams (Obama).

    It's actually quite easily explained.

    One has a much much higher spectacle and shock value.

    The other is shocking but not in the same sensationalist way (we've seen seen much of this before) and comes at a time of war fatigue where I think most people just want us to get out of Afghanistan so we can move past it.

    Cue next rant ...

    -David

  79. [79] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Michale Bush holds the record for high gas prices.

    Look around June 2008 if you don't believe me. The only reason they fell (plummeted would be a more accurate word) is because of the financial crisis.

    But hey that's an economics/markets issue and involves admitting there was a financial crisis right before Obama came to office - both of which are issues that you are not prepared to admit happened nor do you understand...

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. I guess Republicans got bored w/ Chuck Hagel.

  81. [81] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But David didn't you hear Fox News - he gave a lecture to a 'Friends of Hamas' group! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL amazing.

  82. [82] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I tried to think of an issue where I agreed with Republicans and thought "all Democrats" were wrong, but the only thing I could come up with was "a la carte" cable TV, which the Dems have blocked for a long time.

    That's it.

    Now, I do agree with certain Republicans on certain issues -- I give George W. Bush a lot of credit for pushing immigration reform, for instance. But what happened? It was killed by his own Republican Party. So while I was generally in Bush's corner on that, the GOP was wrong and Bush was right -- imagine if Bush had won on the issue, how many more Latinos might have considered voting for Romney, just for a minute.

    So, on party doctrine, here's my list:

    Abortion -- Dems right, GOP wrong. GOP = no abortion for rape victims (in their party platform in plain English).

    Minimum wage -- Dems right, GOP wrong.

    Immigration reform -- Dems right, GOP wrong (even the GOP is realizing this one, but they haven't really changed yet).

    Budget -- budgets have been far better under Dem control than GOP control. When the numbers are in this year -- sequester or no sequester -- Obama will have shrunk the deficit by more dollars than any other president, I bet. The budget handed to him was 1.3T in deficit, and this year it'll likely be 900B -- a drop of 400B or around 1/3rd. Also, Clinton/surplus.

    Taxes -- Dems right, GOP wrong.

    Military -- both parties probably wrong, for various reasons.

    Protecting the Bill of Rights -- both parties wrong, to various degrees.

    Guns -- both parties terrified of NRA.

    Education -- Dems right, GOP wrong.

    Social Security -- Dems right, GOP wrong.

    Infrastructure -- both parties used to be right, now Dems right, GOP wrong.

    Gay rights -- Dems right, GOP in dustbin of history.

    Drugs -- both parties absolutely insane.

    Wall Street -- both parties are whores. Period.

    Science -- Dems right, GOP batshit insane.

    There are probably lots of other issues that I could add to the list. But I saved one for last, to show you how it works on the left. Generally, hardcore Lefties will indeed take on a wing of their party when deserved. Or Dem individuals. But Lefties don't attack Democrats as a group, because there are usually some Dems who agree with them and are working for good.

    You're guilty of the same thing when you brush off some idiot Republican with "he's just one guy, that's not the whole Republican Party." Both sides see the other party as a monolith of thought, and split hairs on their side of the aisle. The problem is, as you've pointed out, the GOP are generally better at getting their people in line (not so much, with the Tea Party these days, but still...). So they're much more willing to close ranks when attacked.

    But back to my final issue. Health care. Dems were scathing towards the "Blue Dog Democrats" like Lieberman and others who stomped all over excellent ideas like a public option or Medicare buy-in for younger people. That was a full-on intraparty fight. Lefties did not hold back one iota in blasting the Blue Dogs.

    Now, I realize that list I gave is subjective. Your list is likely different. There are plenty of things on the list where I disagree with the Dem Party position, but in these cases the GOP position is even worse.

    I can think of no issue -- not one -- where the Republican Party is the voice of reason and the Dems are just flat-out wrong. Not one. If you'd like to suggest one to me, feel free, but it's a tough sell. Republicans are, more and more (backed up by recent polling) being seen as extreme and out-of-touch by not just 6 in 10 Americans, but by a healthy chunk of REPUBLICANS. This is because they are sticking to a rigid ideology that brooks no nuance, that is fast being overtaken by history.

    So, please, name me ONE issue where you think there's even a prayer of me agreeing that not just the Dems are wrong, but the Republican Party is right and has an answer to a problem that Dems are against. Other than a la carte cable, of course.

    I can name at least three where you disagree with the GOP position and think the Dems are right, I bet. So you should be able to come up with one for me.

    -CW

  83. [83] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Good post CW, I agree with you on almost everything. I'd say even more of mine would be 'both parties wrong'. I think most of Michale's would be almost 90% Republican and I can't think of 1 where he agrees with Dem's (maybe abortion but to me as a non-American abortion hasn't been an issue since before I was born)

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Screw it I'll do the list.

    Abortion -- Dems right, GOP stuck in the 1920s.

    Minimum wage -- Dems ok but too weak, GOP stuck in the 1890s.

    Immigration reform -- Dems ok, GOP stuck in the 1950s.

    Budget -- Dems ok but too weak. GOP borrow and spend/LOL military spending - stuck in the 1940s.

    Taxes -- Dems ok but too weak, GOP stuck in the 1980s.

    Military -- both parties completely wrong. GOP stuck in the Cold War.

    Protecting the Bill of Rights -- both parties wrong. GOP stuck in the 1700s.

    Guns -- both parties wrong, GOP stuck in the 1800s.

    Education -- both parties bad, GOP why educate when we can militarise? Stuck in the 1940s.

    Social Security -- Dems ok, GOP stuck in the 1910s.

    Infrastructure -- Dems ok but weak, GOP stuck in the 1990s.

    Gay rights -- Dems right, GOP stuck in the 1980s.

    Drugs -- both parties wrong. GOP stuck in the 1800s.

    Wall Street -- both horrendously wrong run by money. GOP stuck in the Romneys.

    Science -- Dems right, GOP stuck in 10,000 BC (which they don't believe exists).

    Summary -- Dems ok, GOP LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

  85. [85] 
    michty6 wrote:

    One more, sort of covered by Science but:

    Global Warming -- Dems ok if they stopped selling out, GOP stuck in the 1800s.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    One has a much much higher spectacle and shock value.

    You're exactly right!

    One *DID* have a higher spectacle and shock value than they other..

    But the one that had the higher shock value (Afghani Kill Teams) was the one that received the MUCH LOWER exposure from the MSM...

    CW,

    I tried to think of an issue where I agreed with Republicans and thought "all Democrats" were wrong, but the only thing I could come up with was "a la carte" cable TV, which the Dems have blocked for a long time.

    That's it.

    At least you can come up with something. But you have always been the leader in fairness in this issue..

    No one else can come up with ANYTHING..

    In spite of me BEGGING for an example for YEARS, not ONE single die-hard Obama supporter can come up with a SINGLE example...

    Budget -- budgets have been far better under Dem control than GOP control.

    How long has it been since the Dems passed a budget?? :D

    Wall Street -- both parties are whores. Period.

    Once again, you lead the pack.. No one else blames the Dems for anything to do with Wall Street.. It's always the Republicans fault..

    Science -- Dems right, GOP batshit insane.

    Awwwwww, you were doing so well...

    Dems only agree with "science" when it supports their ideological agenda...

    Proof??

    Any science that disagrees with the Left's ideological agenda isn't really science...

    Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is, of course, the best example of this..

    Nurture v Nature vis a vis gay is another example..

    So, the Left isn't about science at all. Science is simply a tool that they use/discard at will to further the ideological agenda...

    an think of no issue -- not one -- where the Republican Party is the voice of reason and the Dems are just flat-out wrong.

    And therein lies the crux of my argument..

    I would be willing to wager that you (and likely Joshua) would concede that there MAY be an issue that this is the case... That there IS an issue that the Republicans have it right and the Democrats have it wrong..

    While you cannot think of an example, I honestly believe that you would, at the VERY least, concede the possibility...

    Because, the alternative is for you (like all the rank and file Weigantians) state unequivocally that Democrats are ALWAYS right and Republicans are ALWAYS wrong...

    And I know you well enough to know that you would NEVER take such a position..

    Because (and I think you would agree) anyone who DOES take that position would be a politically ideological fanatic..

    I guess what it all boils down to is that rank and file Weigantians insist up and down that there is NO WAY that Republicans can be correct on ANY issue..

    And that simply defies reason...

    Michty,

    Good post CW, I agree with you on almost everything. I'd say even more of mine would be 'both parties wrong'. I think most of Michale's would be almost 90% Republican and I can't think of 1 where he agrees with Dem's (maybe abortion but to me as a non-American abortion hasn't been an issue since before I was born)

    Actually, remember that quiz we took a while back??

    I was 46% in Obama's corner..

    So, nice try... But no cigar... :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're exactly right!

    One *DID* have a higher spectacle and shock value than they other..

    But the one that had the higher shock value (Afghani Kill Teams) was the one that received the MUCH LOWER exposure from the MSM...

    In other words, the one that made Obama look bad had the higher shock value..

    And THAT was the story that was killed..

    Now, WHY was it killed???

    Further, would it have been killed if it had been a GOP POTUS???

    Of course not...

    So, the ONLY logical conclusion, the ONLY conclusion that fits ALL the facts is that the MSM is in the bag for Obama/Democrats/The Left...

    Likely in that order..

    I know, I know.. You still don't agree..

    Then explain why all the stories I mentioned above, ALL the stories that put Democrats in a bad light, are NOT reported on??

    Benghazi

    Menendez

    Salazar

    SCOTUS ruling

    and on and on and on..

    Corporate interests MIGHT explain one. Two would be a stretch..

    But dozens and dozens and dozens of stories??? HUNDREDS of stories??

    Hundreds of stories with TWO things in common..

    They put Obama/Democrats/The Left in a bad light...

    And they were killed and/or only reported on by obscure and/or conservative outlets...

    Ya'all say you are all about science.

    What are the statistical probabilities that ALL THOSE stories would be killed???

    Science doesn't explain it..

    Corporate interests doesn't explain it..

    But political ideological loyalty explains it all...

    If it barks like a duck and walks like a duck...

    Guess what??

    It's likely a duck...

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't think of 1 where he agrees with Dem's

    People should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sex...

    If an ADULT woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. PERIOD.

    Gay people should have ALL the rights (and responsibilities) that straight people have...

    If two (or three or 10) consenting adults want to gang bang in the privacy of their own home (this one is actually very personal for us) they should be allowed to...

    "Any other ball-busters????"
    -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON

    :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Heheh. Nice lists, CW & michty. I'd agree with most of these as well.

    My big change ...

    Military ... both parties are whores.

    Michale, I can equally list hundreds of stories I consider "liberal" which are back paged or ignored by the media.

    Here's a quick few ...

    - Causes of the economic collapse (the real causes, not Jimmy Carter)
    - The failure of austerity in Europe
    - The slap on the wrist for HSBC
    - Koch brothers telling their employees who to vote for
    - Stories about the non-existence of voter fraud
    - Stories publishing climate change research

    Most of these are not in the media because these stories tend to offend either a) big money advertisers or b) some monied interest who has the potential to sue (having a case makes no difference as the point of the suits is the cost).

    As for yours ...

    Menendez - This story is everywhere.

    Benghazi - There is no story. Except for Republican accusations.

    Salazar - This is one where I might almost agree with you. But for different reasons. Salazar likely gets a bit of a break from women because Democrats are not trying to pass crazy anti-abortion laws. Therefore his comments don't seem as controversial.

    SCOTUS ruling - Which one?

    So far I haven't seen a story you've listed which doesn't fit the theory.

    And there's many liberal stories which don't fit your "liberal media" theory.

    How do you explain?

    -David

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Menendez - This story is everywhere.

    Cite??

    Benghazi - There is no story. Except for Republican accusations.

    An American ambassador is killed (first time in a half a century) and 3 other Americans are killed on the anniversary of 9/11 on a ruthless attack on our embassy and it's NO STORY???

    But, inadvertently I am sure, you prove my point for me.

    If it had been a GOP POTUS, it would have been a MAJOR story.. It would have been screamed from the rooftops of EVERY MSM outlet..

    You know it. I know it... The comparison of the coverage for Abu Ghraib proves it..

    Salazar - This is one where I might almost agree with you. But for different reasons. Salazar likely gets a bit of a break from women because Democrats are not trying to pass crazy anti-abortion laws. Therefore his comments don't seem as controversial.

    Exactly. You prove my point again. Because Salazar is a Democrat and the MSM supports the Democrat Agenda, he gets a pass..

    Hell, no one here even KNEW about Salazar...

    But EVERYONE has read about rape comments from GOP'ers...

    WHY is that??

    Because the MSM is in bed with Democrats...

    SCOTUS ruling - Which one?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-26-10-10-24

    The fact that you don't even KNOW about this, once again, proves my point.

    If we had a GOP POTUS and the SCOTUS ruled this way, ya'all would have been bat-crazy hysterical..

    Need more evidence??

    Compare the MSM coverage of the Yoo Memos to the DOJ WhitePaper....

    While it's true that the DOJ WhitePaper did get some exposure, it's also true that the amount of stories about it is NOTHING compared to the amount of stories on the Yoo Memos..

    NOTHING explains that except that the MSM is Left Bias towards Obama/Democrats/The Left..

    There is simply too much evidence to support that conclusion..

    Your explanations/justifications and ignorance of those stories and non-stories simply supports that conclusion..

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Causes of the economic collapse (the real causes, not Jimmy Carter)

    Are you kidding!?

    The Leftist MSM mentions that DAILY..

    It's all Bush's fault. The Leftist MSM/Democrats/Obama (all the same entity) said so.. Over and over and over and over again ad nasuem...

    - The failure of austerity in Europe

    Once again, in the MSM daily...

    - The slap on the wrist for HSBC

    Cite??

    - Koch brothers telling their employees who to vote for

    The Leftist MSM hasn't resorted to outright Leftist propaganda... YET...

    - Stories about the non-existence of voter fraud

    Actually, there has been stories of actual voter fraud.

    It's just not in the Leftist MSM..

    - Stories publishing climate change research

    That's because the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) has been debunked as the con job that it is..

    By REAL science, not by agenda-driven psuedo science..

    Like I said above, the Leftist MSM is not resorting to outright propaganda..

    That will likely change as we approach the 2014 Mid Terms and Obama/Democrats poll numbers plummet...

    But for now, the Leftist MSM is simply resorting to killing stories that put Obama/Democrats in a bad light and touting the stories that make Obama/Democrats look good...

    Once again, your own points prove the Leftist MSM conclusion..

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finally (really!! :D) compare the number of MSM stories about domestic surveillance during the Bush years and the number of MSM stories during the Obama years..

    By comparison, MSM stories about domestic surveillance during the Obama years are NON-EXISTENT...

    No matter how you slice it, no matter what parameter you use, no matter what yardstick you measure with, no matter what, the ONLY conclusion that fits ALL the facts is that the vast majority of the MSM has a Leftist Bias...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If it had been a GOP POTUS, it would have been a MAJOR story.. It would have been screamed from the rooftops of EVERY MSM outlet.

    http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i57/2/11/6/pc_edab09a9087c964f50d749db1fd46bb9.jpg

    It happened. And it wasn't.

    The "leftist MSM" ... that's a good one :). Owned by some of the largest, most risk averse corporations in America like Disney, Gannett, and Comcast.

    Sure ...

    -David

  94. [94] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- What happened with Chuck Hagel? Was it simply too ridiculous to keep up the "faux fight"?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Lol Michale Bush holds the record for high gas prices.

    Yes, in Michtyland, I am sure he does. Just like Bush is to blame for EVERY bad thing and Democrats get the credit for every GOOD thing..

    In Michtyland...

    But here in the REAL world, when Bush left office, gas was under 2 bucks a gallon.. Under Obama it's hovering around 4 bucks a gallon. 5 bucks a gallon if you happen to be unlucky enough to live in the Socialist Republic Of California...

    But it's interesting. You are on record as saying that the POTUS is not responsible for high gas prices..

    I guess that only applies to POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSium???) that that the all powerful '-D' after their name...

    It must be really enjoyable to have so much ideological faith completely unsupported by reality and the facts..

    It's inspiring, in a way...

    :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    It happened. And it wasn't.

    I don't see an ambassador killed in any of those..

    Not even any AMERICANS killed in any of those.

    You are comparing apples and Eskimos..

    The "leftist MSM" ... that's a good one :). Owned by some of the largest, most risk averse corporations in America like Disney, Gannett, and Comcast.

    Disney gay pride

    Comcast owns MSNBC, the CONFIRMED propaganda outlet of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party..

    Are you SURE you want to go with those examples of "evil" corporations??

    SERIOUSLY!!??? :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i57/2/11/6/pc_edab09a9087c964f50d749db1fd46bb9.jpg

    It happened. And it wasn't.

    Further, we're not talking about "REPUBLICAN outrage"...

    We're talking about Leftist MSM Outrage...

    I bet if I were to research those stories, I would find dozens of stories on those incidents and how it was all Bush's fault....

    Want me to?? :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,

    You don't believe on Democrats with gay marriage (unless you've changed your position on this?). I distinctly remember you arguing that you believe people are not born gay but it is a 'lifestyle choice' and that you didn't think they should be allowed to marry because of this lifestyle choice they made.

    Glad to see you've 'evolved' on this though...

  99. [99] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You don't believe on Democrats with gay marriage

    That's what I get for writing a post before my morning coffee...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't believe on Democrats with gay marriage (unless you've changed your position on this?). I distinctly remember you arguing that you believe people are not born gay but it is a 'lifestyle choice' and that you didn't think they should be allowed to marry because of this lifestyle choice they made.

    I wasn't talking about the nurture/nature argument. You are correct. I am firmly on the SCIENCE side of things and not the Democrats side of things..

    But I do agree that those who choose to be part of the gay lifestyle should not be penalized for their choice...

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I found something that Republicans have done that I like. The States of Nevada and New Jersey - both run by Republican Governors - have just passed laws to legalise online gambling.

    On the other hand this is only because the Tea-Party sponsored UIGEA was shoved down the throats of the American people under the table by Bush.

    But I guess reversing the horrific laws they've passed is something 'good' Republicans are doing!

    And for entertainment, Nevada - realising that New Jersey was about to pass the bill to legalise online gambling - rushed their own version through just days before. The Democrat Assembly majority leader then made the following jab:

    "As to our competitor, New Jersey, they should be accustomed to following Nevada"

    Ouch!

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't believe on Democrats with gay marriage

    That's what I get for writing a post before my morning coffee...

    Apparently, the same goes for me with my Diet Coke..

    Because I understood you! :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If two (or three or 10) consenting adults want to gang bang in the privacy of their own home (this one is actually very personal for us) they should be allowed to...

    I totally agree with this. I believe in personal liberty where it is not likely to harm others. So 2 consenting adults people want to be gay, straight, polygamist etc and it is doing no harm to others then go ahead...

    Unfortunately both parties (and one party more so than the other) are dominated by a religious sector that extremely limits personal liberties based on their religious prejudices.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately both parties (and one party more so than the other) are dominated by a religious sector that extremely limits personal liberties based on their religious prejudices.

    I could not POSSIBLY agree more...

    Michale....

  105. [105] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But here in the REAL world, when Bush left office, gas was under 2 bucks a gallon.. Under Obama it's hovering around 4 bucks a gallon. 5 bucks a gallon if you happen to be unlucky enough to live in the Socialist Republic Of California...

    And what were gas prices just 7 months earlier? Why did prices go down? Pretty disingenuous not to mention that...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what were gas prices just 7 months earlier? Why did prices go down? Pretty disingenuous not to mention that...

    Not really...

    The Left likes to use stats like that so I am simply playing the game by the Rules established by the Left..

    Gas prices were under 2 bucks when Obama took over..

    Gas prices have almost doubled under Obama..

    And yet, the Left can claim (with a straight face, no less) that things are "better"...

    Things are "better".... For the Obamas...

    That's about it...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, you admit to fudging facts to stick it to Obama. My point stands. You are just as biased as those you accuse...

    As gas prices are directly connected to economic conditions, you have just proven that things are better.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you admit to fudging facts to stick it to Obama. My point stands. You are just as biased as those you accuse...

    Of course I am... I never claimed otherwise..

    But MY bias extends to ALL politicians, of which Obama is one, in spades... (not racist, despite how it may sound)...

    Ya'all's bias only extends to the REPUBLICAN politicians only.

    We're all bigots, as CW so deftly pointed out..

    However, my bigotry is a LOT less selective, hence less hypocritical, than ya'alls bigotry...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all's bias only extends to the REPUBLICAN politicians only.

    "In the dictionary under 'Redundant' it says, "See Redundant"..."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/9895948/Jobless-Indiana-teenager-rewarded-for-long-walk-in-the-snow.html

    It's a shame this type of work ethic is all but dead in the "Gimme Gimme Gimme" country that has been created the last 4 years....

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's a shame you're so easily manipulated, Michale.

    What would happen if Obama hated Obama? Would your head explode trying to figure out what to do?

    :)

    -David

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a shame you're so easily manipulated, Michale.

    Actually, it's ya'all that are the ones being manipulated..

    Those free of ideological slavery simply cannot be manipulated..

    It's one of the perks of being a registered NPA.. :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michty6 [84] -

    One slight correction, otherwise I found your list hilariously accurate!

    Drugs -- both parties wrong. GOP stuck in the 1800s.

    Actually, in the 1800s it was pretty much free market/laissez faire on drugs. You could by heroin or cocaine down at the corner drug store, cheap and pure. See: "Laudanum" for details, if you don't believe it.

    I would put it: "GOP stuck in the 1930s" as that's when the anti-drug hysteria really took off.

    Other than that, fine list!

    Michale [86] -

    So, the Left isn't about science at all. Science is simply a tool that they use/discard at will to further the ideological agenda...

    Awww, and you were doing so well! Heh. I know you really meant to say "the Right" in that sentence, right? See: teaching of evolution in public schools as "science," for starters. Or how about, see: teaching of abstinence-only as "sex ed". Every scientific study ever done on abstinence-only teaching shows it doesn't work. Republican answer? Double the funding, maybe that'll fix it!

    Anyone else? There are plenty of "GOP ignores science" subjects, feel free to toss out your own... how about "tax cuts pay for themselves," that's always a good one...

    I guess what it all boils down to is that rank and file Weigantians insist up and down that there is NO WAY that Republicans can be correct on ANY issue..

    And that simply defies reason...

    No, actually, it's because the Republicans defy reason on a daily basis. We're not saying there is "no way" Republicans can be correct, we are instead saying flat-out that Republicans "are not correct" on their issues. It's not a matter of personal projection, it's a matter of what the GOP stands for.

    I was glad you put up your own list of where you agree with Dems, as it saved me the trouble. I would likely have added a few constitutional issues that I think you'd probably agree more with the Dem position as a whole than the Republican position. But, as I said, you saved me the trouble.

    After thinking about it, there is one other issue that I agree with the (current, but could be fleeting) Republican position on, over the Democrats'. Now, I should mention that this hasn't ever really come to a vote (that I'm aware of), it's just one of those policy ideas that get batted around like a shuttlecock in Washington. So a more accurate statement might be "I agree with what some Republicans were pushing, over the objections of some Democrats" as I don't really know if EITHER party really has an accepted "party line" on the issue (I think the Dems do, but not sure; really don't know on the Republican side).

    Anyway, with that legal disclaimer in place, the issue is means-testing Medicare patients. It would, at first glance, seem to be a "Lefty" position, but it was actually pushed by Republicans. The idea is rich retirees who can afford their own health care don't get Medicare, or have to pay more for it. Really, this came from the Republicans! Anyway, the Dem position on it is suspicion that it's a "camel nose under the tent" or a "slippery slope" (pick your metaphor) which will eventually lead to politicians thinking about (and treating) Medicare like welfare. And welfare money is the easiest for politicians to cut (few poor people usually vote), so it's setting ourselves up for a future disaster of epic proportions.

    But I actually agree with the GOP position more -- if Medicare has to be reined in (due to the Baby Boomer bulge in the projections), then making wealthy Baby Boomers pay more seems like one of the least-objectionable ways to get there. I fully admit I could be wrong, but there you go. I even wrote an article about it, I think, a while back.

    But the problem is the Republican position on almost every issue under the sun is not just bad but deeply WRONG for one reason or another. Neither I (nor any Lefty conspiracy) forced the GOP to take these positions.

    I tossed down the gauntlet to you, and you couldn't come up with one, either. I'll do so again, directly: if you think I (or "the Left") is so pigheadedly unreasonable about the Republican agenda, and we just say "no" to it all in knee-jerk fashion, then NAME ME ONE Republican position that you even suspect I might support. It is very tough to do. Because almost all of them (and that's being polite) either make no sense at all under a reality-based lens, or are just downright mean-spirited in nature. Even dropping all the whoring for Wall Street portions of the GOP agenda (in fairness, because the Dems certainly have this problem too), pretty much everything else they've got is laughably wrong.

    So, to repeat: if that last paragraph is not true, then what issue should I (or "the Left") give a sober and reasoned second look at?

    Just one... that's all I ask. I bet you can't do it.

    And that right there is the problem with the GOP agenda. It is out-of-touch and growing ever-more extreme. They just have no centrist positions left, after having purged all the moderates from their party.

    -CW

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Anyone else? There are plenty of "GOP ignores science" subjects, feel free to toss out your own... how about "tax cuts pay for themselves," that's always a good one...

    And their are plenty of "DEMOCRATS ignores science" subjects as well..

    Like the two I mentioned..

    If Democrats were about SCIENCE, then they would acknowledge the science that DISPROVES their agenda..

    The fact that Democrats don't acknowledge that science PROVES that Democrats are only about agenda-based "science"...

    In other words, Democrats are all about policy-based evidence, rather than evidence-based policy..

    We're not saying there is "no way" Republicans can be correct, we are instead saying flat-out that Republicans "are not correct" on their issues.

    No, rank and file Weigantians are saying that Republicans are not correct on ANY issue..

    But hay.. I'll let them prove me wrong..

    Let them find an issue that the Republicans are correct on that the Democrats are not.. :D

    Because I sure as hell cannot see ANY position that Republicans have that ANYONE here would agree with..

    So, only ONE of TWO possibilities exist..

    Either,

    A> Republicans are ALWAYS wrong...

    or

    2> Weigantians are wrong...

    Now, I think you would agree that A simply CANNOT be possible..

    :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    And that right there is the problem with the GOP agenda. It is out-of-touch and growing ever-more extreme. They just have no centrist positions left, after having purged all the moderates from their party.

    I guess we'll find in about a year and a half which Party is really out of touch, eh? :D

    Especially if Obama and the Democrats accept the GOP's gauntlet that has been thrown down and THEY take COMPLETE control over Budget Issues.. :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    After thinking about it, there is one other issue that I agree with the (current, but could be fleeting) Republican position on, over the Democrats'.

    Which makes you the exception that PROVES the rule..

    NO ONE here has been able to come up with ANYTHING that they agree with Republicans and disagree with Democrats over..

    NOT ONE SINGE ISSUE, despite me BEGGING for YEARS for them to provide me with one..

    So, based on this (one again) only TWO possibilities exist..

    1. The Republicans are **ALWAYS** wrong...

    or

    2. Rank and file Weigantians are NOT ALWAYS right when they blame Republicans..

    Of course, number 2 is the, logically and rationally, correct answer..

    But it's been my experience that logic and rational are in short supply when the Left gets their dander up over the Right... :D

    Ironically enough, MICHTY (of all people) is the ONLY Weigantian to come CLOSE to logic and rational when he labeled Obama "incompetent" over his handling of the economy.. Obama's handling, not Michty's handling.. :D

    But it seems that other Weigantians' "tongues would surely turn to fire" (a thousand quatloos if you can cite the reference :D) if they EVER dissed "The One", The Great And Powerful Barack The First.....

    Michale..

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whooaaaa!!!

    BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing
    http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2

    WHITE HOUSE unchained!!!

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, based on this (one again) only TWO possibilities exist..

    I love when you present your ONLY options.

    This is a great trick btw. One of the options is the option you want. And the other option is always some crazy option which makes your option look good by comparison.

    1. The Republicans are **ALWAYS** wrong...

    or

    2. Rank and file Weigantians are NOT ALWAYS right when they blame Republicans.

    What about ... ?

    3. Republicans haven't presented any good solutions in recent memory.

    When George Bush bailed out the banks to prevent the financial sector from collapsing, I thought that was the right thing to do given the situation. I didn't like that he had to do it. And he could have done it in a way that benefited homeowners more directly. But it was the right thing to do.

    Lately, their platform and what they believe in simply is terrible.

    Republicans of today seem to believe in 1 thing. Seeing Obama fail.

    All of their ideas are a means to this end. Even if they have to go so far as to sink the economy.

    I'll name a good Republican idea when they have one. Until then, maybe they should work on coming up with another platform other than "We hate Obama"

    -David

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    3. Republicans haven't presented any good solutions in recent memory.

    That's a cop-out..

    It's like saying "It might rain today, it might not"...

    You're likely to be right, but it don't mean very much..

    When George Bush bailed out the banks to prevent the financial sector from collapsing, I thought that was the right thing to do given the situation. I didn't like that he had to do it. And he could have done it in a way that benefited homeowners more directly. But it was the right thing to do.

    If you can show me the posts you (or anyone else) made to that effect AT THE TIME you'll NEVER hear another word about it from me ever again...

    But I am guessing you can't.. :D

    I'll name a good Republican idea when they have one.

    So, in other words, Republicans are always wrong and Democrats are always right..

    But hay.. I'll be your Huckleberry.. :D

    I'll name a good Obama/Democrat idea when they have one..

    Ooopss. I HAVE.... :D I simply LOVE Obama's approach to Counter Terrorism.... :D

    Your turn...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]