Are Republicans completely stupid?
I mean honestly. How could the Republican Party let this special election in NY-20 get so close? It's going to a recount.
And, I know this may get me kicked out of conservatism (or something), but the voters are just as idiotic. What the hell is up with voting for a Democrat because they say they're pro-gun or pro-life or pro/anti-whatever? They fucking lie to you. They think/know that you don't pay any attention to the things they do in DC. They campaign on being pro-life, then they vote to bring pro-abortion bills to the floor knowing that they'll pass without their vote.
When will you people wake the fuck up? Say what you want about the Dems but, with very few exceptions, there aren't that many Democratic districts in Republican hands. In fact, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Rep. Cao in New Orleans.
And, I know this may get me kicked out of conservatism (or something), but the voters are just as idiotic.
Why should telling the truth get you kicked out of conservatism. One of the tenets of conservatism should be the ability to speak simple truth.
The scumbags in Washington operate on this very principle. Hell, Murtha called his constituency a bunch of idiots and was proven right by getting reelected. How many people do you know that research their reps' voting records? Outside of the political blogosphere, most likely zero.
We can blame the pols all we want (and it's fair to do so), but at the end of the day, these fucktards get elected and reelected by the populace. As sick as the thought makes me, America has the government it deserves.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at April 01, 2009 12:08 AM (WhFvm)
2
I've also gotten word from a source who was helping in the election efforts that his campaign staff was completely incompetent, and they kicked out both the NRCC and the RNC a few weeks ago. Then their 13-point lead dropped to this.
I don't leave in NY but reading the papers it appears he has been elected to state office a number of times from that area so he should have some idea how to run a campaign.
Not to cast doubt on the NRCC but isn't the NRCC the same group that handed the Dems a 79 seat advantage in the House and isn't the RNC along with the McCain campaign the same group that completely blew the Presidential election despite everything Sarah Palin could do.
I'm not saying that Tedisco didn't lead to his own downfall I'm just saying that the NRCC and RNC haven't shown much in the way of electioneering lately and I'm not sure why we should believe this race was different.
Posted by: chad at April 01, 2009 03:03 AM (Fdmhw)
Posted by: chad at April 01, 2009 03:04 AM (Fdmhw)
5
Local staff usually is incompetent, but don't react well to "UR DOING IT WRONG" from nrcc types.
NRCC/RNC/State Committee/Consultants often (that's often, not always) have a lot of knowledge, but think in a very cookie cutter manner. They tell local campaigns to do 80% good stuff and 20% bat shit stupid stuff and local staff can't tell the difference.
consultant types are so blasted cocky you just want to tell them to go suck an egg.
Posted by: Sockless Joe at April 01, 2009 10:10 AM (tzEdT)
Nuance
So, the Obama Administration has decided it wants to be a part of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which serves mainly as a forum for bashing our staunchest ally in the Middle East. I found the following very interesting:
Asked if Washington would attempt to shield Israel from criticism if it wins a seat on the council, [US ambassador to the UN Susan] Rice said, "The Human Rights Council has the potential to be and should be a venue for dealing with the most egregious instances of human rights abuses."
"And we are running for a seat on the council because we believe that human rights are universal, they need to be universally respected," she added.
Um, notice that she didn't, you know, actually answer the question. Huh.
3
During the early 80's I worked for a mission group that had the last residential house on the hill. still remember the address 133 c street. DC, Orlando, and Mexico City are the worst places that I have ever driven in.
Posted by: Vmaximus at March 31, 2009 08:25 PM (uDFXl)
4
heh I just typed that address into GE and the house is gone and the neighborhood is quite different. I guess it is 28 years later.
Posted by: Vmaximus at March 31, 2009 08:31 PM (uDFXl)
5
My landlord actually lives a few houses down from that address. It looked really nice when I got the keys. My neighborhood is in transition. It was bad a few years ago, but it's on the rebound now that the stadium is in.
6
I grew up in the DC suburbs and can tell you driving in DC is easy- just remember the city is divided into quadrants bisected north south east west and that this is overlayed by streets in concentric circles (as well as a standard grid of streets) that radiate outwards from the Capitol Bldg now here is the tricky part some of the streets are one way and here's another thing to remember- streets that have names start with one letter til they get to the end of the alphabet then 2 syllables then three depending on how far from the Capitol Bldg they are (A Street, then Arthur, then Albemarle, etc) - now remember NE SE NW and SW are the quadrants and the one way streets and the streets that are closed for security reasons and for personal safety it is best to remain in the NW quadrant do not go south of The Mall do not go east of 14th St NW do not make eye contact with locals good luck!
Posted by: Jones at March 31, 2009 10:30 PM (KOkrW)
7
I can't stress this enough: if you look up at a DC street sign and it ends in anything other than "NW" and it's getting dark, CALL A TAXI AND GTF OUT
Posted by: Jones at March 31, 2009 10:34 PM (KOkrW)
8
haha. i know to stay out of SE, i'll be living in SW.
11
You know, I still have the Metro lines memorized from when the Bastard Ex spent a few summers working on the Hill and I was down there nearly every weekend. I love the Metro.
Posted by: alexthechick at March 31, 2009 11:15 PM (nLryO)
12
I forgot the funnest part: where e/w and n/s streets intersect with the streets that radiate out from Capitol like spokes, that intersection is sometimes a traffic circle
Posted by: Jones at March 31, 2009 11:19 PM (KOkrW)
Mr Shannon continued: “He volunteered to police that he had a stick and a torch inserted in his anus for sexual gratification. He had inserted it because he was depressed.”
Interesting idea about Ra. Also makes sense with the eyeliner vs. hieroglyphic figure representing the sun god (if you don't know what I'm talking about, watch Stargate).
I don't know if I necessarily buy it though. The Hieroglypics we've seen were all built into Dharma initiative structures (think, the countdown meter in first hatch), not Hostile-built things.
I think kid Ben Linus is probably not dead, although the show becomes increasingly more interesting if he is. My guess is that Shephard will be faced again with the choice to help Ben or not.
Also, interesting tie-in here. Didn't Ben have that tumor near his spine? Perhaps this gunshot is the reason he developed that tumor (i.e. bullet fragment still lodged in his back).
Well, they've continually CONTINUALLY shown that nobody can change the past even ... except maybe Desmond... and really he only is AWARE that he can't more than anything.
So... Ben Linus is not dead. Or, more accurately, the man we know as Benjamin Linus in 2004 did not die in 1977 at the hands of Sayed OR, if he did, he was revived by the magic of the island.
If that boy didn't get killed by that shot to center mass by a trained murderer miles away from help with only a very knocked out Jin to help him, I'll be amazed.
And remember, when little boy "Ben" was leaving to join the Others he was still .. whatever, 10 but when he came back with the poison he was much as he is now... who's to say he's even the same person... I mean, there are obvious similarities but nothing conclusive.
More on that later.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at March 31, 2009 04:29 PM (83gRI)
4
Adult Ben is the way he is because Sayid shot Young Ben. And Sayid shot Young Ben because Adult Ben convinced Sayid he was a killer.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at March 31, 2009 05:42 PM (cvmgB)
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.
1
The only micron of hope I can see here, is that businesses will refuse to take government money in the future. Of course that hope gets obliterated if Obama gets the power to decide a business is integral to the economy and force it to take government money.
The "conservative"writer David Frum said Mr. Beck's success "is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility."
Scare quotes and change in hue were my doing, by the way.
"To see the look on the faces of the kids as we were handling and weighing the toads and then euthanizing them was just...The children really got into the character of the event."
Uh, no, actually, that's pretty much in context. I'm not sure if Australians are budding psychopaths at an early age or if this particular city councilman needs to have his basement checked for a layer of limestone covering a bunch of dead bodies.
Alamogordo, the musical
While you rubes in flyover country were busy listening to your Rush Limbaugh talk-radio-hatefests, your cultural betters were busy watching this:
Unfortunately, no, I don't think it's some sort of elaborate joke.
I couldn't watch it all, I got to Oppenheimer talking about a secondary target and well, that's about what I could take.
I do wonder one thing, will Andrew Lloyd Webber be suing?
Obviously they changed the costumes and the lyrics, but that surely looks and sounds an awful lot like the scene from Jesus Christ Superstar where the Pharisees are on the scaffolding.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 07:44 AM (ThMnZ)
Smoke 'em if you got 'em
If you're a smoker like me (yeah, yeah, I know...it's a filthy habit) you might want to run out and stock up before the new massive and punitive tobacco tax increase wonderful expansion of health care For The Children!!!11one!!1!™ takes effect on Wednesday.
Now, let us pause for a moment and think about how this tax hike makes any goddamn sense. Sure, it's supposed to pay for government programs while, at the same time, discouraging people from buying the products that are already heavily taxed to pay for those very same government programs. Uh-huh. If you think that's in any way rational or a good idea, go ahead and punch yourself in the dick. Or buy an economics textbook, maybe.
This story is actually nice companion piece to the Wash Post story at by Slublog at Ace's about how changing the tax deduction won't affect how people give to charity.
The cigar tax story has this quote
"Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down,"
Wait, so what he's saying is that when things cost more, people buy less of it?
What economic school did that tool go to?
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 09:46 AM (ThMnZ)
Errr, the story linked in Goldstein's comments about how lowering the amount of charitable donations you can deduct won't affect how people give to charity.
That story is wonderful, it's starts out ignorant, rude and hitting at four lefty tropes in the first paragraph.
In order: lobbyists bad, Obama's opponents are crazy, tax increases are small, and two, count them two, class warfare attacks in the opening, two sentence, paragraph.
Not really related to my point, but this is a beatiful quote from that story
Second, voluntary private charity is a less equitable way to solve community problems. While many people assume that the rich amass their wealth on their own, the truth is that their business interests are almost always aided by public efforts such as roads, bridges and ports through which they ship their goods or public schools that educate their workforces. Given that even the wealthiest benefit greatly from this modern "public commons," it is wrong to give them unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go to, say, well-heeled operas or lavish care of pets rather than to organizations that meet more pressing communal needs.
You know, cuz even though their taxes go to roads, bridges, ports, schools and, except for occasionally schools, don't receive charitable donations, since they use these things, the gov't has the right to take their money and decide which charity gets it.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 09:59 AM (ThMnZ)
abusing the posting privileges again
I've had a singularly craptastic day so instead of railing about the insanity of the universe I'm going to think about how much I love Gambit. Even if Remy is a gigantic douche.
Pic below the cut due to size. Sadly not due to NSFWness.
When President Obama signed the omnibus land conservation bill this afternoon, he again broke his campaign promise to post bills on the Web for five days before adding his signature.
The bill passed the House last Wednesday, but the White House did not post the document for comments until Friday, leaving just two weekend days for the public to register comments.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs addressed the shortened time saying: "Although not perfect, I think the president has made a greater step forward in transparency and feels like we're making progress on ensuring that the American people can see and read what their president is going to sign into law."
Gibbs was later tried for and found guilty of heresy for his statement that Barack Obama is "not perfect."
Seriously, though, I'm starting to wonder whether or not I'll actually ever receive my free unicorn.
Update: I should note that the article goes on to mention that this is the sixth out of nine bills that Obama has signed so far that he's neglected to post online for the promised five days. It also gives the White House's lame excuse that the President is leaving for his tour of Europe and Turkey on Tuesday. Yeah, so? Why not wait until he gets back to sign this? It's not like this was an emergency, and the public would have had extra time to view the bill for even more of that promised transparency.
Why, if I didn't know any better, I might think that he didn't give a shit about keeping his promises.
1
Not sure about the whole unicorn, but you're definitely getting the horn.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 30, 2009 09:17 PM (WhFvm)
2
I'll grant him just a bit of slack for the G20 trip, because of the possibility of a pocket veto under the 10 day rule. Of course, they could just fly the paperwork over there, but is it worth it?
Posted by: xbradtc at March 31, 2009 01:37 AM (Xz13e)
3
How much longer until reporters start coughing *bullshit!* at his press conferences?
Posted by: Go_Fish at March 31, 2009 09:54 AM (13vXO)
4
^never. They have too much invested in him to see him fail.
Posted by: eddiebear at March 31, 2009 10:09 AM (wnU1W)
Yeah, I'm curious about that too, but I figure that they won't. As eddiebear says, they can't admit they're wrong so they'll double down.
But I will tell you what appears to be happening around America these days: People are finally realizing the media's bias is real and it has consequences.
Mark Levin's book is a hit, a big hit, and yet, it's not touted on Minitru*. Tea Parties are getting bigger and they're ignored or attacked by Minitru, Obama's poll numbers are going down, and it's lied about by Minitru. Obama, Minitru and the Dem Cong all attack Rush and he comes out stronger.
Average people are noticing that all those "crazy people" and "stupid people" discounted by Minitru, the ones who were saying all those "crazy" things about Obama were, what's the word.... uhhh.... absolutely correct. Heck, only the craziest ones went far enough. Even I owe a couple apologies to some Ron Paul fans.
Heck, I have a friend who about 4 years ago thought I was a crazy right winger, one step away from Tim McVeigh. Now? He's quoting Hannity at me, has Levin's book and he even listens to...gasp... Rush Limbaugh, and I only respond to when he starts political conversations, I haven't tried to convert him or anything.
Yup, people are noticing Minitru lies so they're going around them, going to Drudge and talk radio and blogs.
*Minitru: The NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 31, 2009 10:27 AM (ThMnZ)
Has Australia finally found a workable solution to the cane toad?
The cane toad has been a serious ecological problem for Australia for a long time. They introduced the toads as a predator for a certain type of beetle that was destroying sugar cane. Turned out that the toad wasn't a very efficient killer of these beetles to begin with, but it was however killing a lot of the native species that were trying to eat the poisonous toad. Interesting solution they're offering up.
This is going to escalate to the point where they'll need to bring in Galactus to deal with the problem.
Posted by: ECM at March 30, 2009 08:12 PM (q3V+C)
2
This reminds me of that Simpsons episode where they release lizards to kill the pigeons. Then snakes to kill the lizards. Then gorillas to kill the snakes. Then you wait for winter.
It's really a simple solution if you think about it.
Posted by: Jeff_McAwesome at March 30, 2009 10:31 PM (tbhiv)
No, Patterico doesn't hate Rush
I never thought he did, but apparently he felt it necessary to prove it. I think, all the personal drama between him and Goldstein aside (and I mean every last grisly bit of it), Pat's overall a good soldier. Occasionally he throws out a weird one, but at least he isn't endlessly antagonistic to conservatives or conservatism. Certainly he should get credit for how relentlessly he hounds the LAT.
I don't think we should dismiss Patterico, and if you're on Patterico's side, you shouldn't dismiss Goldstein either. Jeff has a lot to bring to the table regarding classical liberalism, individualism, language and intentionalism. I think ugliness of the personal drama is starting to eclipse the original debate, which was of critical substance. As I said in my first commentary on the whole thing, we need both of them. I meant it. I don't think it serves any of us well to have Pat and Jeff completely destroying each other, or their readers trying to do the same by proxy in comments and elsewhere. I'm hoping they call a truce at some point, and this goes back to being solely a philosophical argument.
Thank you. This is why I refused to participate in the Jeff vs. Pat cage match. It's just way too much drama, for no good reason (and both can be major league drama queens).
Philosophically I tend to agree more with Jeff, but interestingly enough, because of the way he runs his site and the level of drama typically involved, I don't have him bookmarked anymore, whereas I still have Pat bookmarked.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 30, 2009 09:13 PM (WhFvm)
I'm curious, does (did) anybody here read Hog on Ice?
I go there once in a while (every few weeks sometimes) and now it's gone. I have no idea for how long.
He stopped doing political blogging and started mostly just doing a daily journal, so it wasn't as interesting, but his cookbook is cool and he used to torture Nigerian scammers, that was funny.
Posted by: Veeshir at March 30, 2009 01:39 PM (ThMnZ)
Steve's old HOI is now called Tools of Renewal, in long hand: http://toolsofrenewal.com/ (when I add the www prefix, it changes to this).
His political posts are now very few and far between ...they're often jewels when he does post one though.
Posted by: davis,br at March 30, 2009 04:32 PM (uCShA)
7
This is ridiculous! Hasn't he heard of "The Mother in-Law's Manual by Susan Lieberman? If not, then he should have at least researched a bit - he would have found it and could have saved him from going psycho! Even though it is for Mother in Law's, I read it first and loved it! There are things I would like to say to my mother-in-law that I never will. By giving her this book, I guess I basically have said to her everything that I would like to - but she gets to read about it and figure it out for herself.
Posted by: Chrissy at April 01, 2009 09:07 PM (pGkyq)
Another witness said some friends and neighbours ignored the police warnings and tried to reach the family with ladders and a hosepipe. But again the police intervened and stopped them.
Chris Richardson, 37, said: 'It was shocking. I couldn't believe the police were acting like that.
'One woman climbed over the garden fence and went to the house but there was a policeman at the back who stopped her.'
Firemen using breathing apparatus-found Mr Colley, a DIY store supervisor, in the master bedroom with his wife. Sophie was in another bedroom and Louis on the landing.
Witnesses said police arrived 'several minutes' before firemen but South Yorkshire police refused to give the exact time, citing 'data protection' rules.
Detective Superintendent Peter McGuinness said: 'I would like to commend our officers. The Fire Brigade were only minutes away but our officers were faced with a raging fire. They handled the incident as professionally as we would expect and then worked long into the night.'
1
Monty Python is no longer satire, and it's all being run from the Ministry of Silly Walks and the League for Chartered Accountancy
Posted by: ian cormac at March 30, 2009 02:02 PM (eCrFX)
2
Good God! I would have punched them in the face. (and gone to jail I am sure) #1 They are people.It is a basic obligation of humanity to protect life . #2 They are Neighbors, that is much less a abstract thing. I know most of my neighbors and I actually like them. Would I stand back and watch them die in a fire? Never! Neighbors look out for one another, It may be dangerous to run into a burning house and I have never tried it. But if my neighbors house is on fire I am obligated to try to save them their children and lastly their animals, if I can without unreasonable danger to myself.
#3 If a Fireman can rescue someone, what is the difference? He ? She is allowed but I am not? Kiss my ass Police man you are a sub human that needs to be removed from the gene pool.
#4 A man who if afraid for his life, or simply unthinking in the face of tragedy is a Man. One who actively goes around prohibiting people from saving a life is reprehensible beyond words.
Bah I spit on you you ASS! . . . Sorry I got a little carried away there.
Posted by: Vmaximus at March 30, 2009 08:15 PM (uDFXl)
What did noted conservative firebrand Meghan McCain do this weekend?
Why, attend Perez Hilton's 31st birthday party in West Hollywood, of course. Her gift to him was not saying how "in love" she was with the Republican Party every two or three minutes.
She seems to love people who spend the last year or so telling the world that her dad is New Hitler.
