David Brooks, Obama Sycophant Extraordinaire
David Brooks' latest love letter to Obama was filled with such sloppy wet kisses that at least two commentators think he's trying to apply for an administration gig. So if you see the position of "Czar of Servile Flattery" open up, you'll know who's got the inside track.
Brooks' main thrust is that Obama isn't the pinko that the righties think he is, nor is he the sell-out that the hard Left thinks he is. The Gospel according to David says that Obama's a left-center President. Of course, Brooks is wrong. Obama has always been a Leftist. He grew up a Leftist, he campaigned mostly as a Leftist, and he's doing his damnedest to govern as Left as he possibly can.
Before the election, I
argued that Obama was a neo-Fabian
socialist. Fabian socialism is defined at least in part by its tactics of
incrementalism, attrition, and misdirection. Using the working thesis that Obama is an incrementalist (a "progressive" even), the lack of complete sovietization of our economy shouldn't count against me. Nothing that has occurred
during Obama's time in office has dissuaded me from this assessment. more...
1
Great post. I've been on the "He's doing it deliberately" side of the "Deliberate/Incompetent" debate since this clod took office. You found examples I had forgotten about.
Posted by: Go_Fish at March 12, 2010 04:41 PM (U2K1L)
Brooks is a tool, and this post is well thought out. A few notes about the financial aspect:
From the standpoint of a socialist trying to quietly increase government control in a capitalistic society, the current bank situation is ideal. Those on the left who want immediate nationalization, and those on the right who believe in the current veneer of bank capitalism, are ill-informed.
Effectively, the big banks are already nationalized, as their survival depends entirely upon the government at this point. If off-balance sheet assets were forced bank onto the balance sheet and if mark-to-market rules were restored (and other non-economic accounting gimmicks were disallowed), most (if not all) the big banks would be shown to be bankrupt. Thus, Obama has the financial sector completely in his pocket -- when Obama said he was all that stood between the bankers and the pitchforks, it was one of the few times he told the truth.
Also, ZIRP (zero interest-rate policy) is an incredibly socialistic tool (which may come as a surprise to many on the right who think it's great for businesses). While the effects of ZIRP are highly complex, in part it has the following effects: it penalizes savers for the benefit of the banks and risk-takers, making a good portion of the population (mostly the elderly) more dependent on the government for income; it also allows borrowing by the government that could not otherwise occur, due to interest expense issues. In short, ZIRP perpetuates a transfer of wealth from the middle-class to banks and the government (which are largely one and the same at this point).
Granted, a good bit of the authority to fix the rules lies with with congress, but Obama has done what he could (renomination of Bernancke, dog and pony show with executive salaries, failure to exercise the regulatory authority of the Treasury, etc.) to keep things on the current path. The reason Obama hasn't done much of anything with the economy is because he doesn't want to -- things are going swimmingly as far as he's concerned.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 12, 2010 07:29 PM (WhFvm)
6
@HD - Mostly agree, though I've heard more than a few conservatives defend mark-to-model over mark-to-market. Mark-to-market is a very pro-cyclical regulation, and still-performing assets shouldn't have to be marked down into oblivion.
Posted by: JoeCollins at March 12, 2010 07:44 PM (VWd7T)
7
Brooks was born in Toronto, so if you want to trust Mexicans, go ahead.
Posted by: Dr. Spank at March 12, 2010 09:26 PM (I1/U/)
Mark-to-model is one of those things that, like counter-cyclical government deficits, sounds good in theory but is horrible in practice.
The main problems with mark-to model:
Tail risk is never properly accounted for (see LTCM).
Systemic risk is masked (see CDSs -- eg. AIG -- and CDOs).
Fraud is much easier, as mark-to-model eventually becomes mark-to-fantasy (our current situation). For example, banks are currently holding 2nds on the books at or near par, even if the primaries are distressed. This is insanity, not mark-to-model.
Mark-to-model is popular with those who would attempt to eliminate the business cycle. This is an admirable concept, but will simply never work in practice, barring a complete change in human nature.
The only situation in which mark-to-model becomes preferable is during a purely financial panic (eg. 1987). There are enough tools to use during financial panics that allowing mark-to-model solely for this eventuality is a terrible idea.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 12, 2010 10:50 PM (WhFvm)
Yep eddie, Yellin (and the others under discussion) would just perpetuate the current idiocy. Reuters, of course, can't stick their tongue far enough up her and Obama's asses.
Inflation, however, is not a given. Have a look at Japan, which is going into its third decade of a deflationary depression, even though their government debt (as a percentage of GDP) continues to hit record highs.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 12, 2010 11:23 PM (WhFvm)
Dear Andrew Sullivan: You're a Fucking Douchebag
Dear Andrew Sullivan,
You quoted (your way of agreeing, generally) , March 8th, 2010:
In the wake of last week's shooting, James Joyner begs:
"Can we please stop with the political name-calling whenever one of these nuts goes off?
Look, we’re a big country. There are over 300 million of us. Almost everyone holds a position or two that’s way off the charts and a whole lot of people believe in 9/11 Trutherism, black helicopters, and all the rest. Less than a handful of those people are out trying to kill people. However stupid or loathesome a political view may be, the fact that some nut also holds it adds nothing to the counter-argument.
Ohhhhhhhh fuuuuuuuuuuuck you, you hypocritical son of a bitch.
September 24th, 2009 in regards to the "Fed" hanging:
From this profile of the cancer survivor and volunteer, it appears suicide is unlikely. We'll find out. But at some point, unhinged hostility to the federal government, whipped up by the Becks, can become violence.
Yeah, you said that you motherfucker.
In fact, you were frothing at the mouth about Teabaggers and murder for quite some time, as I recall. Now that the last few murderers are avowed communist cocksuckers, you're all "let's not rush to group nutcases in with others who share their beliefs.'
Ergo hoc ipse delenda hoc, you're a fucking douchebag.
That or you just like to quote sentences containing the words, "hold some nut."
I have to say I'm impressed at your intestinal fortitude to be able to not only read Andi's posts, but to dig into his, uh, archives for info w/ which to clown him.
I Hate Rude Behavior In A Man. I Won't Tolerate It
Last week, a commenter came over here and in the course of one of the discussions, decided to cross the line and demean, insult, and otherwise cast malice upon people who are members of the GLBT community, not for their views, but for their lifestyle. The comments this fellow made went beyond legitimate policy arguments and went to the pointless, cruel, and stupid route, and hurt and offended several people who come here to participate in our slice of Moronia.
I was so angry, I actually wrote down in MS-Word (fuck you, MS-Word!) a response that I was itching to give to this person, should he choose to reappear. Sadly, the guy did not, and I now can't find the response (fuck you, My Mad Computer Haxxor Skillz!), but it was passionate. I was and continue to be angry that people with whom I share a common bond (opposing leftism) and a Fake Internet Friendship were told they were not worthy of consideration based not on their political views, but on the fact their sexuality is different than his.
Fuck that. Fuck it with a Roast Beef Combo with rocket AIDS in place of au jus. While this is not my site, I do not look kindly upon somebody coming along and demeaning my friends and cohorts. I will not tolerate those who wish to go beyond legitimate political debate and into bigotry directed at or about my friends. I fucking look at people based on whether or not they are decent people, share my views, and just want to be left the fuck alone by the Nannyarchy, and not other things. Maybe I am wrong and naive, but fuck it. I just don't like seeing any of my friends hurt.
And since I can't duplicate what I wrote, please allow me to present an audio visual portrayal of how to handle people who are assholes.
1
Thank you. I've admitted before that I'm not nearly as badass as I pretend to be on ye olde internets and it's getting really really tiring to keep being told how I'm not actually a conservative just because of how I want to bang.
You know, maybe it's time that I stop being a better person and show the exact same lack of respect to those who do so as is shown to me.
Posted by: alexthechick at March 05, 2010 10:16 AM (8WZWv)
2
Before you start railing on bigots, tell me more about "how you want to bang." Do you have a newsletter?
I was just talking to Alice today about how we must be the most gay Conservative blog that isn't specifically gay in nature. Even the straight bloggers here have strong ties to gay people in one way or another, for the most part.
I think we need to make it more clear to the readers that this ISN'T the kind of place you go to bash on teh gheys.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at March 05, 2010 10:52 AM (GC5S2)
3
Yeah, that sucks when someone decides to share their suppurating soul pus with everyone in a thread.
Posted by: Dan Collins at March 05, 2010 10:56 AM (BPs+6)
4Before you start railing on bigots, tell me more about "how you want to bang." Do you have a newsletter?
Damn intermittent dyslexia! Who. Who. I think I've already disclosed enough about how.
I was just talking to Alice today about how we must be the most gay Conservative blog that isn't specifically gay in nature.
I was thinking about that too. From what I can tell this is, hands down, the most homocon friendly blog that isn't explicitly run by them thar ebil queers. All credit and kudos to DPud for that.
Posted by: alexthechick at March 05, 2010 11:12 AM (8WZWv)
5
I'm certain MP'd accept a newsletter about who instead of how, alex.
DPUD's just hoping that alex will slip up and post some of her homemade videos. If it wasn't for that, he'd be raving about the homasecksul agenda too.
Posted by: Alice H at March 05, 2010 12:18 PM (qJHYy)
6
I'm always torn between thinking the people who hate gays are mobys looking to make righties look bad or angry social cons bitter over the rejection of the Labarbera agenda. Either way they're vomiting out venom all over the place is childish and disgusting.
Posted by: Rob Taylor at March 05, 2010 12:56 PM (c0v44)
jeezus, alex' ...I'm a slightly-to-the-right-of-Herod fundie Christian (and proud of it), and you're one of the reasons I stay at, and daily read, this blog.
...been busy lately. VERY! Uh, still am. But I read that guy's post last week, and he was ...simply ...an a$$hole AND an idiot.
Back to work, slave!
...ah dammit, I've been caught out ...again ....
Posted by: davis,br at March 05, 2010 11:55 PM (uCShA)
8
Dan: heh. You have had to deal with some real nutters at PW and POWIP. I know of which you speak.
And I appreciate Davis for his comment. I hope we can debate and disagree, often vigorously, but remind ourselves that those who wish to treat others as below them based on their "banging" choices should be treated with malice and a branding iron to the face.
Posted by: eddiebear at March 06, 2010 12:04 AM (X+t3I)
Her mistake is understandable -- she didn't want to believe she could have a kid just as stupid as she is, so she figured it must be autism.
All the same, I have little sympathy for anyone who believes anything out of the mouth of celebrities, especially something as important as medical diagnoses.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at March 01, 2010 10:23 PM (WhFvm)
5
One of the things I completely agreed with Chuckles J over at the Green Gulag as he descended into madness was his mockery of Jenny McCarthy and the anti-vax crowd's rampant stupidity. Look at how many gullible housewives who would see her on Oprah bought the shit she sold and put their children at risk.
Posted by: eddiebear at March 01, 2010 10:27 PM (T177f)
6
I think the best part of that whole fucked-up interview is that she still wants to be the voice of autism.
I want to be the voice of all those unheard rocket scientists out there. Never mind that not only am I sorely unqualified to be a rocket scientist, but my statements that if I eat enough beans, I can light a fire under my ass that will shoot me to the moon pretty much disqualify me from any sort of rocket-scientist credibility. But not as much as Jenny McCarthy has disqualified herself as being the voice of autism - at least I understand that you need fuel and fire to make a rocketship go, she doesn't even have that basic of an understanding of autism or vaccines. I'd be more qualified to be the voice of rocket scientism than she is about autism if I claimed that if we just drove to the horizon fast enough, we'd launch into space.
Posted by: Alice H at March 01, 2010 10:38 PM (qJHYy)
I think that you are underestimating the scientific and academic gravitas that comes with displaying your genitals in a major pictorial publication. Let's compare the epidemioloigcal credentials of the opposing views here. Number of times the staff at John Hopkins Childrens' Hospital has appeared naked in Playboy magazine: 0. Number of times Jenny has shucked off her cloths for a check from Hugh Heffner: 2. The science is settled; the debate is over.
Posted by: vermindust at March 01, 2010 10:41 PM (ccNpT)
8
My comment should have been "one of the few things..."
Posted by: eddiebear at March 01, 2010 10:43 PM (T177f)
9
Bless you. The damage, the DEATHS this woman has probably caused... If there is a Hell, I hope it has a Jenny McCarthy wing.
Posted by: winewife at March 02, 2010 01:34 AM (OnM4p)
10But not as much as Jenny McCarthy has disqualified herself as being the
voice of autism - at least I understand that you need fuel and fire to
make a rocketship go, she doesn't even have that basic of an
understanding of autism or vaccines.
Well, truth be told, autism is a lot more complex than rockets. To make a rocket go all you need is a fuel and an oxidizer, a properly shaped nozzle, and the ability to pump both out of their tanks fast enough (shut up about solid fuel rockets, liquid was good enough for Werner von Braun and it is good enough for me).
The brain, on the other hand is made up of billions (I think it is over a trillion, but I don't want to overstate it) of nerve cells. We have very little idea how any of them work, much less what happens when they don't work.
So yeah, this dumb ass took on a discipline that is more complex than rocket science without even taking a freshman level biology course. And people listened to her!
Posted by: Jeff M at March 02, 2010 10:30 AM (8P3+x)
11
This is specifically the problem I have with the "autism scale". By the modern definition, my nephew is on the "autism scale". The boy talks, interacts, and generally acts like any other kid. He's got some developmental problems, but to call him autistic is like calling me a Marine combat infantryman, because about thirteen years ago I was in Army Intel and that's kinda sorta almost like being a Marine, right?
Look, they like to throw out scare statistics on autism these days (1 out of 100 kids by the most recent estimate) and claim that it's an epidemic because we never had these numbers twenty years ago. The reason, which goes unmentioned of course, is that they abandoned the actual definition of autism and lumped in every kid who had any form of social developmental problem in as "on the autistic scale". Well, if you lump every solder, sailor and air force member in with the USMC it suddenly goes from our smallest service to the biggest service in the history of the United States since WWII. It would be lying by definitions.
Yes, autism is a serious problem and deserves research money and such. But by lying about what autism is to get attention, you're GOING to get cases like this and it will hurt the cause overall.
Posted by: MikeD at March 02, 2010 11:00 AM (FkL60)
Alright Conservatives
Its time to make some decisions. In other words, its time to stop being all or nothing douchelickers and start making the country a better place.
So who is all upset about this? I keep seeing people say, "Stop getting mad", someone put a "Noooooo" button in the sidebar at Ace's as an example of the reaction, but I haven't seen it.
At least, not here and not by any bloggers I read.
I'm sure some comment sections are all full of "concerned Christian conservatives" who voted for Reagan and Ron Paul types and maybe even some realio conservatives who are against spending but......
A Mass career pol is leftish, color me absolutely unsurprised.
He did what we wanted him to do, send a message and cancel the Dems unbeatable majority.
Of course he's going to vote for crap like that, just because Massholes voted for a Republican doesn't mean they want to be a Republican. They want their pay and handouts too.
So long as he derails health care he'll be cool.
But since he seems to have plans, he had better learn that being a Mass Rino ain't gonna cut it in a national election.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 23, 2010 12:15 PM (aFnZ8)
2
"If
Scott Brown can vote with the Dems on something that is nearly
insignificant in order to be able to vote against them on something as
ridiculous as cap and trade, not only do I agree with his decision but
I'm confused as to how you can NOT agree with it."
Wouldn't it be preferable that he would vote against them in both situations?
That is why I've been saying that while it's good that Brown won, it's not great.
Posted by: Scott at February 23, 2010 12:48 PM (KexVx)
I hate this 'argument'. Mostly because it seems less like an argument and more like an excuse for folks to unload on the Socons, which a lot of people seem to have a lot of very thinly veiled contempt for. For example, the trigger for this rant, the bill Brown just voted on had absolutely nothing to do with social issues at all. It was strictly a fiscal responsibility decision. Supposedly so important that people (specifically socons) should set aside all other issues for. And he botches it. He didn't vote against social issues, he voted against fiscal responsibility. Yet you take the opportunity to trot out the old STFU Socons ultimatum again. I doubt any socons were swayed after the last 500 comment thread at Ace's or the 20 before that one. I can't imagine you actually think this is going to be effective. It comes off, as I said, as more of an excuse to unload all the contempt you normally conceal towards socons.
For the record, I agree with you. Social issues are never as important to me as fiscal issues or defense issues. I just don't think you need to be a dickbag about it.
Posted by: Mob at February 23, 2010 12:59 PM (uEH1s)
4
I have no contempt for socons as I tend to favor their positions if not endorse them. I guess I don't care at all about gay marriage one way or the other.
I just don't think any social issues belong at the national level and I'm certain that previous tickets that placed these issues as centerpieces to their campaign lost votes because of it.
I guess I don't see where I was being a dickbag. I also attempted to split the two choices apart in a clear way but I guess failed.
I don't bring this up to beat a dead horse, I see fractures in the movements that are bringing us closer to victory in 2010 caused by the same stupid "can't be in the same tent" arguments that always come when we dilute our message too much with non-critical issues.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at February 23, 2010 02:25 PM (GC5S2)
Even I think this vote, taken in isolation, is a big nothingburger. The reason people are upset is that they feel it's an indicator of his likely future voting. We're just going to have to wait and see on that score.
He was supported nationally for some very specific reasons, and while it's tempting for a 'purist' like me to use this vote to needle the GOP some more, it would be intellectually dishonest. By 2012, he'll either have kept his key promises or not and it will be very easy to evaluate his performance.
If he keeps down this path, I'll be the first to go all third-party on his RINO ass, but I'm not going to get myself in a lather over one relatively unimportant vote.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 23, 2010 07:03 PM (WhFvm)
6
I think the reason that people are so upset is that he was the Great Brown Hope of the Tea Party Movement (like how i did that switching Brown for white. God I am a clever little bugger. Modest and good looking too, but I digress). People expected him to vote no on everything. Hell they were talking about him pulling an Obama and running for President 3 minutes after he was sworn in as a Senator. It's stupid that people are pissed there was a ton of warning but they ignored it and now it has slapped them in the face.
Posted by: chad98036 at February 23, 2010 07:11 PM (WNcvq)
I think MP has a great point, here, though. The guy is a Republican in one of the bluest states since blue moved to bluetown. I'd rather have Scott Brown than another Kennedy, for example; he's going to have to break rank with the rest of the Republicans sometimes or he'll be out of a job, and the heavens know we could have something a lot worse holding that seat.
Am I thrilled about this stupid jobs bill? No. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the spending this administration has managed to rack up.
And, while this vote isn't necessarily a socon vote, I think it's another great point that we are going to have to give some ground on social issues - in fact, when it comes to most social issues, I'm actually fairly liberal. But, just because I have a fairly liberal social agenda doesn't mean that the collective conservative you don't want me on your side. Because on the big stuff - the small government, the spending, upholding the Constitution, immigration, et cetera, I'm 100% with the group.
I think, too, that the youth feels pretty ostracized from the GOP. I remember going to a GOP convention in Nevada with a friend of mine, and we could feel the stabby-eyes from all over the room. The nerve of that tattooed girl, coming in to our sacred halls! Sadly, that attitude can and will turn off kids who should be the future of our party.
That got a little rambly and off topic.
Posted by: Ember at February 23, 2010 07:15 PM (LdRAG)
8
For fucks sake... "Scott Brown isn't a real Conservative?" Naw, REALLY? I simply can't understand WHY he won a Republican Primary in Massachusetts then. I mean, the only Republican that can win there is a down the line, 100% Conservative, right?
FUCK OFF. If you will sacrifice "good enough" for not being "perfect", then fuck the fuck off. You honestly think the MA voters will vote in a perfect Conservative? "But they voted for Reagan." YES they voted for Reagan. Only DC and Minnesota didn't, and that's only because they were fucking idiots (oh, and because Mondale was from Minnesota... I mean if a Presidential candidate can't win his home state... oh, sorry AlGore, didn't see you over there). Reagan was lightning in a bottle. The last time ANYONE had a vote like Ronald Magnus, he had the last name Washington and had turkey slapped King George III. There's not another Ronnie now, and there CERTAINLY isn't 535 of them to get elected to the House and the Senate. Be GLAD you got Scott Brown. Because he was as Conservative as you were going to get out of that cesspit.
Never forget, had Scott run against Teddy Kennedy he STILL would have lost. As fucked up as that is. Massachusetts is a fuckhole of Liberal shit. Calling Scott Brown a RINO when the fucking people who voted for him consider him slightly less right-wing than Lyndon Larouche is fucking stupid. He's as Conservative as you will get out of that place (until the day we finally get Zombie Reagan to stop eating people on the campaign trail... that always kills him in the polls).
Posted by: MikeD at February 24, 2010 10:41 AM (FkL60)
Recently, the debate in the Virginia State House turned to the funding of Planned Parenthood. While I am adamantly opposed to the practice of abortion, I feel as though this asshole performs a major disservice to those of us opposed to abortion when he makes epically idiotic comments such as this.
Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall, R-13th, says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.
He made that statement last Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.
“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.
“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”
As a parent of two special needs kids, I have to say I have less of an issue with what he asserts (I love my boys, this idiot's misinformed opinion doesn't change that) than I do with the Authority he cites. I wanted to say "Really? 'Cause my Old Testement doesn't day that."
I get that he has religious objections to abortion. I can agree with him there, but rather than preaching from the Gospel of Making Shit Up™, a practice usually engaged in by liberals when they take a minute, find a verse they like, and quote it like they have a clue what it means, I think he could have stuck to the several prohibitions against shedding innocent blood. Once again the real Savior, not the ersatz Chicago substitute, gets a black eye because some tool assumes that 2 + 3 =10.
6
What really ticks me off about this is that there are actual physical problems that can occur with abortion, let alone multiple abortions. There's an enormous fight to get PP and others to properly and accurately disclose those risks. Then this jackass comes along and gives ammunition to those who don't want to do so.
Posted by: alexthechick at February 22, 2010 03:55 PM (8WZWv)
7
Alex took the words right out of my mouth, as well as the gag ball but thats another story.
Posted by: Jonahex at February 22, 2010 03:59 PM (DitTd)
8There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.
Oh there's a special punishment I'm gonna suggest, but it has nothing to do with children.
Posted by: pajama momma at February 22, 2010 05:07 PM (275r1)
9
I agree with 99% of what has been written here, I'm a bit disappointed that Blackiswhite, Imperial Consiglierie has chosen to make this an opportunity to dis liberals but so be it.
The one glaring fact that seems to escape all of you is, yes, Sarah Palin does come to mind and NO, Sarah has not said squat about this. Sarah reserves her scorn for Rahm Emanuel and Seth McFarlane but when a man claiming Christianity as his basis for disgusting comments about the mentally challenged shoots his dumb-ass mouth off, Sarah goes silent.
Aren't any of you troubled by Sarah's selective outrage?
10
Has she heard about it? I hadn't heard it until I saw it here, and I watch the news like a hawk. This isn't like Rahm Emanuel where it was made into an national shitstorm, or like Family Guy, which was pretty much trolling her directly.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 23, 2010 06:18 PM (GcfAO)
11
That's a good point. She's still a politician. It seems to me that she will hear about this fairly quickly, it's a VA Delegate. Has anybody national covered this? WTOP is affiliated with CBS (news), the Wash Post has a lot of programming and ads and their morning traffic chick is, I think, with ABC, but I don't watch or read them so I don't know if they've covered it.
So I'd guess she doesn't want to pick a fight with a non-national, putatively friendly, figure. So politician acts like politician. Film at.... ohhhh... 24 hours a day on cable.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 23, 2010 06:47 PM (CECek)
This is dismaying, to the extent one takes it seriously. Ron Paul is the crazy uncle in the Republican Party’s attic. He is not a principled libertarian like, say, Steve Forbes.
Why is Hinderaker letting this bug him? They're Paulbots, they spam polls, it's what they fucking do. If they can find a way to spam a poll, by God, they spam the hell out of that poll. Why get all bent out of shape over it? The Paulnut spammers are like the Underpants Gnomes,
Gah, I can't stomach Powerline, but I assume Hindraker's just pissed that Paul beat out his boy Mitt. But, in the end, you know who that helps?
Damn right.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at February 21, 2010 02:46 AM (WhFvm)
2
54% of poll respondents where 18-25. Kids love crazy uncle Ron.
http://66.147.244.188/~conserz8/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-10-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf
h/t
http://twitter.com/mkhammer/status/9408735919
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at February 21, 2010 02:52 AM (zVgnK)
2. He's upset because he thinks the mainstream (i.e. those that have no idea that Paulbots exist, i.e. nearly everyone) will pick this up and paint us w/ the crazy brush and, uh, he's probably right.
3. I don't like Paul one bit nor do I much care for Powerline most of the time. (Especially their T-Paw obsession.)
Posted by: ECM at February 21, 2010 09:28 AM (nYKDd)
Posted by: alexthechick at February 21, 2010 09:46 AM (lvYSc)
5
Heh, Mara tried to tie Paul to tea partiers, right on cue. If they received an electric shock every time they were dishonest, they couldn't open their mouths. And for Mara to spin it like that shows desperation, she's a lefty but she's been relatively honest (next to Juan that's not hard), and I usually respect her. That was just lame and Bill Kristol showed her up, so much she interrupted him as he was doing it. Funny.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 21, 2010 09:55 AM (Mk4Nu)
6
Mara's an idiot. I dislike Ron Paul even more every time his stoopid Ronulans fuck up a poll or even get a mention. Tools
Posted by: Frank G at February 21, 2010 11:45 AM (4X0aT)
7
The big government neo-tards had their chance under Bush and they failed miserably. They created the first new entitlement since LBJ; largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history; a failed belligerent foreign policy; and waste, fraud and abuse at record levels, including allowing Hurricane Katrina "victims" to spend tax money on Caribbean vacations, Dom Perignon, Girls Gone Wild videos and at least one sex change operation.
We can't trust the neo-tards ever again. It's time for people who truly believe in limited government to stand up and say no more to the big government neo-commies who have taken over the "conservative" movement.
Posted by: jwpegler at February 21, 2010 11:50 AM (YXTlb)
8
Most of that is true, Ron Paul is still an intemperate jackass and conspiracy mongering crackpot.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 21, 2010 11:56 AM (GcfAO)
Look, Ron Paul is right about the excess power, growth and spending of the federal government, but he's also an intemperate conspiracy mongering nutball who says stupid, insane shit on a regular basis. And please note, I called McCain an intemperate jackass too.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 21, 2010 12:00 PM (GcfAO)
11
He's also a major hypocrite, RP pulls in serious pork for his district.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at February 21, 2010 12:04 PM (GcfAO)
12
Ron Paul is a fucktard. If there was anything that could make me bolt to the other side it's him.
Posted by: chad98036 at February 21, 2010 12:54 PM (WNcvq)
13
In this Funniest End of Civilization Ever, you need people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Traficant or you get no funny with the endy.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 21, 2010 01:39 PM (j/ktl)
14
There was some booing when Ron Paul was announced to be the winner.
While I'm sure every last Ronulan voted, the age distribution probably isn't that far off of what the attendance was.
Heh, I attended a quasi-Ronulan event about state nullification at CPAC, mostly to watch the freak show. I'll work up a post in a day or two for that. Right now I am super tired.
Posted by: Sockless Joe at February 21, 2010 09:30 PM (jtJig)
15The design of links london Bracelets is
special because no other bracelets are designed like the links of london Bracelets. The
bracelets are very unique jewelries that have been in production for a long
time. All in all,links london
Bracelets are works of art.
Posted by: links of london at February 23, 2010 09:41 PM (AEJ3L)
16Links london
2010 New Arrivals are part of the most beautiful jewelry collections in the
world. With wide variety of styles and designs,links of london
2010 New Arrivals are the best gift and links london is the most popular jewelry of all the
others.
Posted by: links of london at February 23, 2010 09:45 PM (AEJ3L)
Bob Barker donates $1 million to try and stop PA pigeon shoots, Haitians still starving in the streets
For those unaware, this has been something of an issue in PA, mostly with the PETA set, and of course some squishy suburbanites and liberals. PA is the last state to legally allow pigeon shoots. Some of you might remember the ending of the pigeon shoot in Hegins, PA in the 90's, which saw some publicity. Anyway, the PETA set and HSUS (who are really the people you need to watch out for) have been driving hard for a ban for a while in PA.
There have been a couple of proposals, but they've thus far all languished in committee. The NRA has been opposed to the ban, because most of the bills have been written in ways that would probably make life difficult for birdhunters, particularly upland and waterfowlers who use dogs when they hunt. Naturally most of the PETA/HSUS set don't care, as they want hunting banned anyway. PA of course is pretty much in a perpetual contest with Texas to be the huntin'est state in the union, there's a strong hunting and gun culture here, so the bill is seeing some resistance.
So we now have Bob Barker dropping $1 million into a group that's been actively pushing for a ban. The good news is he didn't give it to HSUS, which is a proven capable organization. The bad news is politicians are whores and cowards, and a million dollars can still buy votes, and can buy ad space and be used to stir up a shitstorm, and pigeon shoots aren't exactly the most PC thing in the world.
I'm inclined to defend the PA pigeon shoots. For starters, the anti-Nanny instinct kicks in, I hate, hate being told by my "betters" what to do, I hate being told you can't do this. My first reaction is almost always fuck you, yes I can. Seriously, every time I see the PETA set screeching for a ban on the
shoots my first instinct is to buy a nice double, break some clays and
then sign up for the next pigeon shoot out of pure spite, just like my first thought is, why yes, a double bacon cheeseburger would be tasty right now, every time I hear the PETA set cry about eating meat.
I also don't like politicians getting into the habit of banning everyfuckingthing that comes down the pike that people don't care for, the last thing I want is a million little Nanny Mike Bloombergs running around banning every one of life's pleasures. There's also a good bit of cultural elitism involved in the push for a ban, most of the published pictures and video are of white trash types from poorly run venues doing these shoots, not the respectable looking hunters in the old days.
Are the pigeon shoots a blood sport? Yes, but properly run, there's no reason it can't be done with as much consideration for the pigeon's welfare as hunting, and most people aren't opposed to hunting. I know I'll probably take some flak for defending this activity, which I can live with.
That said, if the PETA set start spamming or screeching, I'm locking comments, I don't need to read the squealing and threats from PETArds.
I agree on the general principle (as dpud stated) that you can't go around banning everything someone finds unpleasant. Plus pigeons are basically rats with wings; filthy creatures that deserve to be gunned down mercilessly. New York City could do with a good pigeon shoot, as could Tokyo.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at January 31, 2010 03:29 PM (WhFvm)
3
This is a perpetual issue in PA, or at least it's a perpetual issue to a certain variety of lefty animal activist. I remember getting letters about this back in 1998 when I interned in my state rep's office.
Posted by: JoeCollins at January 31, 2010 04:04 PM (jtJig)
4
I'll be happy when they jump in front of my loaded shotgun. Fucking hippies and brain-dead douche nozzles.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 31, 2010 07:59 PM (k5nPY)
5
Pigeon shooting ain't my cup of tea (I like to shoot other critters instead) but PETA and the creepy misanthropes at HSUS can go fuck themselves. I'd personally blast a bucket full of pigeons with my Desert Eagle just to piss them off.
Posted by: Go_Fish at January 31, 2010 10:04 PM (+eYLq)
Posted by: eddiebear at February 01, 2010 01:39 PM (wnU1W)
7
I've always wanted to see a pigeon shoot after the one that gained publicty for Petards. Because they should have another let PETAards come then when the pigeons are released don't shoot the pigeons shoot the PETArds and say they were in the way of my shotgun NOT. The only thing if they would have a pigeon shoot and some over zealous shooter would kill some PETArds, then get ready for another round of gun conrtol talk.
Posted by: J.M Browing at February 01, 2010 09:11 PM (LBhpC)
8
Because let's face it I mean PETA's is another liberal organization. I live in Western MD and I can tell how liberal MD is but we still hunt deer here in Western MD, But if you have a bear wonder on your property and cause damage for god sake don't shoot it Annapolis doesn't want you to hurt that 900lb bears little head no,and bears stick around where food is. So I going to always look over my shoulder when I leave my house NO WAY I'm waiting in my house and when smoky comes around I'm going to be havin bear stew or stake and a nice rug in front of my fireplace.
Posted by: J.M Browing at February 01, 2010 09:33 PM (LBhpC)
This certainly proves the point I have made several times on other blogs (and twitter).
It doesn't matter who runs against the Dim, that person will win. Period.
The Dims are driving their party over the cliff.....getting the jiffypop out now!!! This is too funny to watch.
JUST WAIT YOU ASSCLOWNS IN CONGRESS...YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO US, AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO VOTE YOU OUT...ONE BY ONE!!
Frankly, when that fucking Pelosi is in trouble then it will be the icing on the cake.
Posted by: Charlotte at January 28, 2010 11:13 AM (iXIlj)
5
You know, I see these polls and I try not to get too cocky 9 months out, but it really looks like there could be an absolutely massive wave of Republicans elected in November. Seeing that and that in 2012 the Democrats have 20 Senate seats to defend to our 10, I think the next four years could be pretty awesome.
I may need to start stocking up on pudding now, there might be a sudden shortage in November.
Posted by: Jeff M at January 28, 2010 11:41 AM (8P3+x)
Good Thing I Never Planned To Go The Tea Party Convention In Nashville
I mean, when this sort of stuff is going on, it can't be good. Add to the fact the guy who runs it seems to have a few skeletons in his closet, you have a recipe for disaster.
Meanwhile, all money made by the sold-out event will go straight to
Tea Party Nation, Inc. while grassroots activists have donated their
time to make the event happen.
Tami Killmarx, a nurse, and an original member of the Nashville Tea
Party Nation Steering Committee says,” I don’t believe for an instant
that this money that Judson Philips is making will go to anyone but
him. He doesn’t have a PAC. He’s been promising to form a 527.”
He has done neither. Killmarx was asked to leave the Tea Party
Nation group of volunteers and kicked off the Tea Party Nation social
networking site for voicing her concerns. Her husband, Robert, was
asked to leave soon after.
That’s not the only financial funny business Phillips is accused of
making. Kevin Smith, the website developer who was never compensated
for his work on the Tea Party Nation social networking site and who
wrote an insider’s account of the Tea Party Nation dealings, says that
Phillips called his account a lie, but offered no proof to the
contrary. Smith asserted that Philips mishandled Tea Party funds by paying for expenses out of his wife Sherry’s PayPal account. Judson Phillips did not return my request for comment.
Smith says, “Judson has been very slick and deceptive about PayPal.
He’s answered the wrong question. He had two different accounts. One
was his wife’s account. After August, there was a TPN account.” Smith
was paid from Sherry’s account.
In the same NBC article, reporter Domenico Montanaro notes Judson Phillips personal financial problems:
A background check of various public records databases
raises questions about how he has handled money in the past. The search
shows that during Phillips filed for Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy in
1999 and during the past decade, he has had three federal tax liens
against him, totaling more than $22,000.
In an interview with NBC News, Phillips admitted to the financial
difficulties. He declined to comment on the bankruptcy, but said the
federal tax liens have been paid off.
As angry as I am at the GOP and RfuckingNC, I don't know if I want to be hanging around with this sort of mess.
1
He's not the only Tea Party leader with tax problems - the guy that started TCOT is in a similar boat. It leaves a big hole to question motives. And it makes it that much less effective when we challenge Dems like Geithner when they don't pay their taxes. Because of course you're going to be upset about taxes when there are liens on your stuff.
Posted by: Alice H at January 18, 2010 12:06 PM (qJHYy)
...and then let us never speak of it again
I was asked to comment on the Stacy McCain/Patterico/Jeff Goldstein clusterfuck. Wanted to stay out of the whole thing this time around given how nasty it got last time around, and it got even nastier this time, but you know how that goes,
1
So hypothetically, where do we draw the line between public vs behind the scenes criticisms of bloggers, vs public vs behind the scenes criticisms of public figures?
Posted by: Alice H at January 12, 2010 04:03 AM (qJHYy)
2
Instead of all the word swapping crotch grabbing, I offer the use of my octagon so Jeff and Frey can settle it like men.
Posted by: Tattooed Fighter at January 12, 2010 07:28 AM (QC5j9)
3
Actually, in the last few weeks, my respect for Patterico has grown. I guess a good part of it comes from how he has been taking on LGF. I guess part of it is the whole "enemy of my enemy" thing, but it did do some self examination recently. I thought it through, and we need Patterico as much as we need Goldstein. We need Patterico for his ability to hammer the media and dishonest lefties (BIRM). We also need Goldstein for what he can bring to a debate.
Soooo....I am through.
As for Sherman: well played. Well played indeed, especially since my countrymen helped keep Missouri in the Union, which was a good thing.
Posted by: eddiebear at January 12, 2010 08:15 AM (k/aqD)
4
I am extremely hesitant to grant Patterico any leeway considering the complete and utter bad faith he demonstrates in discussing matters regarding wrong house raids. I appreciate why he believes in giving police the benefit of the doubt. That being said, the manner in which he deals with those who take the opposing view is anything but reasonable and mature. He's lost nearly all of his credibility with me due to that.
Posted by: alexthechick at January 12, 2010 09:15 AM (8WZWv)
5
Alice, I think ideally you try and give people an opportunity to fix something they effed up on, like I tried to do with Barrett, or if something is starting to get ugly, trying to at least bring things back down to just a civil disagreement.
It's not really something you can establish ground rules for, I think it's more of a gut thing, but I think it's something to keep in the back of our minds. Does (righty blogger here) really deserve this literary beatdown I'm about to post, or maybe I ought to email him and ask him what the hell he's thinking, or why he did whatever shitty thing to (whoever) first? If Jeff or Patterico had tried to hash some things out in private, I think we could have gotten an interesting debate like we had in the beginning, but then it got really nasty and personal and turned into a pissing contest.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 12, 2010 09:56 AM (l7mLM)
6
I am extremely hesitant to grant Patterico any leeway considering the
complete and utter bad faith he demonstrates in discussing matters
regarding wrong house raids. I appreciate why he believes in giving
police the benefit of the doubt. That being said, the manner in which
he deals with those who take the opposing view is anything but
reasonable and mature. He's lost nearly all of his credibility with me
due to that.Here is a related movie
Posted by: Karla at January 22, 2010 06:53 AM (q8wFD)
7
Okay, that's good spam. That's the spam and eggs of spam.
Bravo spambot. I'm almost tempted to click your spam link.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 22, 2010 09:57 AM (xmnp0)
Thank You, Lefties, For Reaffirming Everything I Knew About You
As the news of Rush Limbaugh's health situation broke and developed through the night, the unsurprising level of hate spewing forth from the left on their blogs or on other social media sites reached China Syndrome levels of sickness. Save a classy tweet from Rachel Maddow, the reaction from our "betters" was a case illustration of how nasty, mean, petty, cruel, and hateful their otherwise empty souls really are. They were reacting on a personal level to a man who holds political views opposite of their own. They were hoping for the death of a man who didn't engineer murders or try to kill our servicemembers on the field of battle. They filled thread upon thread on their sites with taunts and classless statements.
And to that, I say, "Thank You." Thank you, lefties. Thank you for dropping the mask of tolerance and revealing for all to see how nasty and sick you are. And thank you for allowing me to say the following to you:
1
The worst think, Eddie, is that I bet 99% of those asshats have never, ever, listen to a word he has said. They may have heard stuff taken out of context, but actually listened to a segment of his show?
My sister gave my mother some asinine book about Fox news - here, when I know that neither of them has EVER watched fox news. Ever. My sister doesn't even have cable.
Posted by: Carin at December 31, 2009 10:26 AM (9xR02)
^they rely upon Katie Couric, KOS, Mediamatters, and Gwen Ifill to tell them what to think about him.
Limbaugh never told me what to think, but rather HOW to think like a politicial animal. and for that, I am thankful.
But, yeah, fuck any lefty who said nasty things about him. Fuck them hard. And doublefuck the media folks who fail to realize Limbaugh and the ad revenue he can create will pay for their jobs.
Posted by: eddiebear at December 31, 2009 10:29 AM (wnU1W)
I think that the only mistake you made above is actually thinking they HAVE souls.
These people sold them a long time ago. They are hateful, vile and evil. And in their black hearts they validate and congratulate themselves on being so "tolerant" and "enlightened."
It's disgusting. Thank you for all you do!
No apologies. No regrets. They are scum.
Posted by: Charlotte at December 31, 2009 10:31 AM (iXIlj)
4fuckingly fucked up fuckfisting fuckbags of fuck and fucklicks
Poetry.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 31, 2009 10:39 AM (NtiET)
5
Senator Roland Burris is racing to outdo himself before the year is up! Chicago's new poet laureate isn't done yet.
http://www.indictburris.com
Posted by: Indict Burris at December 31, 2009 11:36 AM (IvcJe)
Carin - how the heck do you KNOW I've never watched Fox news? Well you KNOW wrong - I have watched Fox news - at your house amonst others... and listened to Rush. NOW how do you KNOW the books is asinine? Have you read it?
Posted by: Kirby at December 31, 2009 12:24 PM (e98Ib)
Is it really any surprised they didn't have a problem with the fucking President palling around with hateful subhumans like Wright and Ayers?
They cheered that shit! They love it! They love Castro, they love thugs, they get a kick out of being naughty and the crckling excitement of potentially having their asses kicked for their "cause". Their lives have meaning!
Just a bunch of fucked up little kids.
Posted by: Rev Dr E. Buzz Esq. at December 31, 2009 01:15 PM (CHf6r)
10
So, sis, you know - from firsthand experience - that Fox News is biased?
One example.
Posted by: Carin at December 31, 2009 02:01 PM (kb7sI)
11
If there's going to be a fight between sisters, I think the guys here would appreciate some hairpulling. In the mud or maybe some jello, in bikinis. With high-definition video.
Posted by: Alice H at December 31, 2009 03:23 PM (qJHYy)
I'll go get the oil and the monkey that's been trained to work a video camera.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 31, 2009 04:06 PM (6Hbvd)
13
I should have said "the guys here and alexthechick". Sorry for being discriminatory. Although I suppose it's not any more discriminatory than lumping Vinty in with those who would appreciate a girlfight. Maybe we can change the definition of guys to 'those who have more than a passing appreciation for the ladybits'.
Posted by: Alice H at December 31, 2009 05:18 PM (qJHYy)
14
Has anyone searched Chris Matthews for CO2 pellets?
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at December 31, 2009 07:57 PM (zVgnK)
Posted by: Kirby at January 01, 2010 03:54 AM (xyxjJ)
17
Sis - won't take much viewing to get you an example - as soon as I can stomach some Fox I'll fill you in... Now, your examples of why the book I gifted (not to you - god forbid your eyes ever spot upon anything remotely liberal) is asinine?
Posted by: Kirby at January 01, 2010 04:01 AM (xyxjJ)
18
^ok, why would I want to watch anything liberal, since liberalism has done wonders for whatever it touches (see: Michigan in general, and Detroit in particular) and destroys lives, such as the National Health Service in the UK?
Posted by: eddiebear at January 01, 2010 12:14 PM (uqi7X)
OK, so I am going on about 3 hours of sleep, so I may or may not recall all of the details to this story, but my daughter woke up with a fever this morning that was in the scary range. We were able to get her in and out of medical treatment within the span of a morning, and she is resting at home.
Anybody who thinks that Obamacare will improve things better not have a sick shild who needs rapid treatment, but is told to wait in line until a bureaucrat tells them it is OK to proceed. And so help me, after seeing how awesome the medical assistance we had today was, any attempts to change or "improve" it will be met by me consuming something combsutible, so that I can then piss fire on an "improver" for supporting something that will hurt so many people in the name of fairness.
And if a family member of mine is hurt or forced to suffer becasue of a bureaucrat, whole neighborhoods of liberals will go up in flames in my wake.
So yeah, fuck you, O-care Advocates. Fuck you with a toxic parking meter soaked in a fever inducing gonorrhea. You want to hurt my family? I will hurt you back on retard strength levels.
But I swear to Gaia, anything that would lead to any problems to my family's health or well being because of some assfistery by a bureaucrat or policy decision will lead to some interesting moments
Posted by: eddiebear at October 30, 2009 04:06 PM (wnU1W)
Posted by: eddiebear at October 30, 2009 04:27 PM (wnU1W)
4
I feel you, Eddie. My little girl was sick all last week; we took her to the ER a few nights back because she had a pretty high fever, and the hospital (which is right next to my house) has always been beyond awesome to us when we've gone in with our baby - and always made her health a priority. If anyone ever tells me that we have to wait when our baby is sick, I will kill them and carry her in to the doctor's office with the blood still on my hands.
Posted by: Ember at October 30, 2009 05:41 PM (LdRAG)
5
Eddie, ask me sometime when I've had a few beers in me about our adventures with a sick baby and Kaiser Permanente. Before it, I was against managed health care. After it, I was convinced that I'd end up bodily harming a doctor if my family had to be subjected to managed care ever again.
Posted by: Alice H at October 30, 2009 06:32 PM (qJHYy)
6
This is of course why gov't run medicine will not work in America. Americans aren't going to put up with a lengthy waiting list while their family members are in serious danger.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at October 30, 2009 10:03 PM (RJXcJ)
7
I'm with you eddie, only infinitely moreso. I could tell a you a story about a HEALTHY child that received:
Pediatric appointment ultrasound CT scan Surgery consult Oncology consult Surgery
in exactly 7 days. And one week later started chemo treatments.
There are no works to express my feelings on this subject.
Posted by: Mob at October 31, 2009 07:56 AM (CwBzu)
More random BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN stuff
This came up in conversation at work today and I thought I'd ask my fellow Morons what they thought.
Would it bother you if your child's kindergarten or elementary school teacher was male? Would it make a difference if your child is a boy or a girl?
While I have an opinion (No! I have an opinion about something! I never do that!), I'm not going to say what it is. I'm really interested in what all y'all think.
I don't think I've ever even heard of a male kindergarten teacher, and that's including my own time there 40 years ago.
Weird.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 22, 2009 04:24 PM (xeRif)
2
Wouldn't matter to me. In fact, my daughter's pre school teachers are a 60 year old woman and a 24 year old hawt woman. I am more worried for the young teacher having to deal with horny male parents at "conference" time
Posted by: eddiebear at October 22, 2009 04:35 PM (wnU1W)
I don't see what difference it would make, as long as he was a good teacher. My criteria would always be how does the teacher treat the children, and how well does the teacher communicate the subject matter on a level the students understand.
Of course, this is coming from a woman whose husband stays at home with her daughter since she doesn't have the patience for small kids. I'd trust my husband to teach kindergarten more than some actual kindergarten teachers I know.
Posted by: Ember at October 22, 2009 05:51 PM (LdRAG)
4
Agreed, Ember. Patience is the key, non-pedophilia is generally a plus as well.
Posted by: roscopico at October 22, 2009 06:45 PM (0szUA)
I wouldn't care (in the end) the gender, though I would kinda make sure I knew about a male a bit more than I would a female I admit. There would be a squinty curiosity, making me wonder what attracts a grown man to accepting custody of not just one but several children.
In my experience (me) being around small children frightens me. Kinda like why I like athletic chicks, or tall chicks, I'm not worried about accidentally hurting them.
But in general I wouldn't care. I remember in 4th and 5th grade, some of my friends and I were "peer mentors" or something like that. We would go to the lower grades, and when kids had time off, basically we just showed up and were the cooler older kids, and to impress us they would try to show off, and we would engage them intellectually rather than with their ability to get the most attention by acting up.
Pretty satisfying experience for an 8 year old kid.
Posted by: Douglas at October 22, 2009 08:06 PM (uU+Ss)
Since I did the !- pedophile, with the intention of sarcastically agreeing with chad, while also making a sorta kinda joke.
It made me think of the STUPID joke I!hotchicks. !ingdudes doesn't make you !kids, and it is ~= to pedophilia.
Posted by: Douglas at October 22, 2009 10:45 PM (uU+Ss)
11
One of my son's preschool teachers was a guy. I have no idea what his sexual orientation was, never asked. He was great with the kids, and convinced me that having male and female teachers can be as beneficial as having male and female parents.
Of course, I'm operating from the assumption that no preschool or grade school teachers would even attempt sex ed. Why a bunch of people who claim they don't have time to properly teach kids how to read and write and rithmetic would think they have the time and skills to teach kids sex ed is beyond me.
Posted by: Alice H at October 23, 2009 09:31 AM (qJHYy)
Posted by: jic at October 23, 2009 11:08 AM (B1+xY)
13
Well, I don't have kids, but male kindergarten teachers wouldn't bother me. On a side note, I worked in an elementary school (computer repairs, I actually worked for the County, they assigned me to the school). And I was one of three men in the building. And I gotta say, if you're a single guy, you NEED to be teaching elementary school. Because teachers never looked like THAT when I went to school. Thankfully, I am happily married. But the young attractive women teaching at that school would be a selling point for more men in the education field were I not.
Posted by: MikeD at October 23, 2009 12:56 PM (FkL60)
14
While I was in the Marines, us perefectly designed sexy bastards, had a habit of dating teachers.
In fact, except for ONE person, I think every one of my Marine buddies who got married, married teachers.
They are hot. Van Halen is right.
Posted by: Douglas at October 24, 2009 01:16 AM (uU+Ss)
15 Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...
Posted by: lii at November 02, 2009 04:38 AM (90fqm)
You know what we haven't had in awhile?
A good old blogfight. Now, since no one ever reads this blog, that can be a bit difficult to accomplish. Thus, I'm going to start a fight between all three of us who pretend that we read this blog.
Sean Connery is the Best Bond Ever. Anyone who disagrees is a Nancy Pelosi humping libtard.
Posted by: eddiebear at October 13, 2009 04:18 PM (wnU1W)
5
Now, Gabe, c'mon. You don't really expect us to believe that you know who both Sean Connery and Daniel Craig are, do you? Please.
I will give you that Daniel Craig is Bond Number 1A. But Connery is the Best Bond. You, sir, are racist for suggesting otherwise.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 13, 2009 04:31 PM (Q9bx2)
6
Craig's first was the best Bond evah! The second one was only lame because the first was so damned good. Connery's run from From Russia with Love to Thunderball was good but Bond is an assassin not this gadgety and glib spy.
Connery came back in Never and OMG, what a joke. No wonder he stopped for good.
Just for example, compare the potential penile torture of Goldfiger(I just expect you to die Mr Bond) to the actual penile torture of the naked Craig tied to a wicker chair with no seat and your tormentor has got a 5 lb weight on a rope. No contest.
Posted by: MM at October 13, 2009 04:34 PM (ELVVE)
Posted by: Alice H at October 13, 2009 05:21 PM (qJHYy)
11
Dalton was in a movie that was 10x better than any of the Bond flicks. I am speaking of course of the awesomeness that is Flash Gordon. That fact alone vaults him into first place.
Posted by: hudson at October 13, 2009 05:29 PM (n1uMU)
12
I have to disagree with all of you. I have it on excellent authority that Jason Statham is the BEST BOND EVAH!
(Okay, so my authority is in my dreams. Sue me. A girl has to dream.)
I would give the kidney of someone I like to see that happen.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 13, 2009 05:36 PM (Q9bx2)
14
Last time I tried to comment here, alexthechick tore my cock off. Not to be patronizing, but Sean Connery is by far the best Bond. Tough, and good with the ladies.
Posted by: MAJ O at October 13, 2009 05:42 PM (rhqHD)
15
Pul-eaze. Prince Baron was cuckholded by that wanton tramp Aura, and made a conscious decision to put up with it. Hans Zarkov was more of a man.
Posted by: Roger Moore at October 13, 2009 05:47 PM (jYsY5)
18
Prince Baron was just using Aura to gain power. Who was sitting on the throne in the end? Your point about Zarkov is well taken though. He was, indeed, more of a man.
Posted by: hudson at October 13, 2009 05:49 PM (n1uMU)
19
He was sitting on the throne in the end because Vultan could then pick him off at his leisure. Geeez.
20
Weak! Vultan will only do as he is told. He is a follower. He wouldn't do shit until Flash showed up to lead the way. Baron could twist him around his finger at leisure just as Ming did.
Posted by: hudson at October 13, 2009 05:58 PM (n1uMU)
Posted by: mrfixit at October 13, 2009 07:32 PM (TSfHi)
28
Look, Craig can take a good slap to the balls while seated. But, let's be fair, when a laser was oh-so-close, who was it that just mocked Auric? Connery, Sean Connery.
Craig? He whimpers and sweats.
You tell me who's got panache.
Stiff upper lip, and all....
Posted by: Keith at October 13, 2009 07:44 PM (tM52S)
29
Ok, we're all firmly in the Connery/Craig split as to best bond. Personally, I'm withholding final judgement on Mr. Craig's claim until I see one more Bond out of him. Now, you want a tussle, the real question is, who was the WORST Bond. I'll step on it first...
Creepy paedophile Bond (aka Roger Moore) is the worst Bond evah. Discuss.
Posted by: MikeD at October 13, 2009 08:05 PM (fQ9iS)
30
Best Bond ever? A picture of Sean Connery signed by Roger Moore.
Posted by: Sean M. at October 13, 2009 08:15 PM (rLWHv)
Posted by: Keith at October 13, 2009 08:44 PM (tM52S)
34
Connery, then Craig. Although....George Lazenby nailed Diana Rigg....but not as many times as I did, in my dreams, so he's out
Posted by: Frank G at October 13, 2009 09:19 PM (I+To0)
35
I'm way too tired to read this comment thread, but, just to make things lively-er (?), I've never actually seen a James Bond movie.
Posted by: Ember at October 13, 2009 09:25 PM (LdRAG)
36
Don't taze me, bro... but if Nancy was something like 40 years younger she'd probably have been better for a good romping.
Maybe the rest of us would be better for it as well (her romping, that is.)(maybe the rest of us, also, or whatever, fuck I need to lay off the Old Style)
Posted by: roscopico at October 13, 2009 10:05 PM (0szUA)
37
But you forgot One thing, Mr. Bond. Casino Royal, 1954. Barry Nelson...Worst Bond Ever!!11!!
Posted by: cbullitt at October 13, 2009 10:15 PM (3UhGA)
38
Gotta hand it to the spambot. Really getting in to it.
Posted by: Ember at October 14, 2009 01:01 AM (LdRAG)
This is what's going to be the final straw
There's been a lot of discussion about how the voters are angry and much speculation by The Punditry over why those teabagging racist bitter clinging assassins the citizenry is ticked off. Well, I think this sums it up quite well:
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
As others around this here Moron Blog have noted (which I do sometimes read in direct violation of the Moron Blogging Code), there is a societal contract that permits the American version of representative democracy to work. The citizenry elects a representative to represent their interests. In return for being given that power, the representative agrees not to abuse that trust too much. Look, let's be blunt, everyone expects the reps to get their beaks wet at least a little bit. The only point of being on, say, the sewer authority, is to get your idiot nephew a job. The public is aware of this and will put up with some wink wink nudge nudge type deals.
But there is a line over which the elected officials aren't supposed to go. Voting on bills that they haven't read, hell, that haven't even been written yet is one of them. The public isn't completely idiotic, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The bare minimum that a Senator should do is, at the very least, be physically able to read the bill before voting on it. Having 1,000+ page bills not even finished until 13 hours before a vote is insane.
I submit that this open and blatant violation of the most basic trust is what is fueling the rage. The political class isn't even pretending that the concerns of the citizenry are important. That, in turn, will lead the citizenry to revolt. As well it should.
If our legislators won't deign to do their jobs, well, I'll be happy to assist them in finding new ones.
1
Great post. Feel free to check out my blog anytime..
http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com
Posted by: Hack at October 06, 2009 01:34 PM (HfOdA)
2
I'm for 100% turnover in 2010, then 100% turnover in the next two Senate elections and of course, 100% turnover in the next presidential election. Throw them all out. We need new blood who doesn't think we need to vote for them, send in our money and shut the hell up.
The Dems are treating the leftists exactly the same way, I just think they deserve it so I'm torn on that.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 06, 2009 03:29 PM (ZVf9o)
3
I'm in total agreement with Veeshir. All this "old blood" is getting well stale.
Posted by: cmblake6 at October 06, 2009 06:52 PM (i174V)
4
As cmBlake said the other day, "These people need to gargle buckshot." Especially with this added insanity.
Posted by: cbullitt at October 06, 2009 07:03 PM (vKKh3)
5
While 100% turnover would be awesome, that would mean Michele Bachmann would be out of office. That would make Charles Johnson far too happy, and we can't have that.
Posted by: Alice H at October 06, 2009 07:36 PM (qJHYy)
8
I'd take a loss of a few good ones in exchange for clearing out the whole mess. Plus, remember that just cause the seatwarmer currently there doesn't suck doesn't mean the next one will. Heck, we might even get some improvements.
Posted by: MikeD at October 07, 2009 11:21 AM (FkL60)
9
Oh, I figure the next bunch would suck too, I just don't like the sense of entitlement from all of them.
The less secure politicians are in their jobs the better off we are.
I hate gerrymandering. I can't figure out why that's not unconstitutional.
It should be impartial, start at a certain point and include a certain number of people in any district. I'm in a heavily Dem district, my vote is worthless because of gerrymandering. That pisses me off.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 07, 2009 01:30 PM (yjVtX)
Who could have predicted that your entire country would be punished for following the laws enshrined in your very constitution. I, unlike our scary intelligent, constitutional-scholar President, understand that there is only one fully, truly forbidden activity in your Constitution and that the dipshit in charge violated it.
I also understand that your duly appointed Supreme Court ordered your would-be thug-in-chief to be removed from office according to the mechanisms present in your nation's governing document and that the military obeyed a Constitutional order by that Court when they ejected him from the country.
What you have to understand is, although he seemed swell to you and the rest of the world when he was running, our new President is absolutely hostile to the rule of law and all Constitutions. I'd compare his study of the Constitution to how a virologist studies the cold. He had no interest in strengthening and defending our Constitution but instead needed to find ways he could undermine it within the system.
Sadly, it appears his disregard for governments enshrined on paper extends to your Constitution as well. Even I, a well-established pessimist on all things Obama didn't think his administration would stoop so low as to punish a neighbor for following its own rules. For nearly several years we've had to hear this dipshit whine about our "adventurism" and "meddling" in the Middle East only to have him lash out at a devout and honorable ally within months of taking office.
I'm sorry.
But fear not, because I have a plan. Instead of bowing to the idiotic demands of our State Department, I suggest you market the products and services of your country to those who oppose the thuggish behavior being demonstrated by the Obama Administration. You should make sure we are aware of any vacation opportunities you have as well as setting up a fund where we can donate a replacement to the funds you've wrongly had withdrawn.
Besides, I'm not really a strong supporter of fiat financial support of our allies. Instead, I'd prefer to set up a fully voluntary effort by the American people to become closer economic friends without the interference of a government now sadly so hostile.
Whatever you do, don't let that piece of shit back into your country. You did the right thing and no bullying from Cankles and Captain Bullshit should make you take it back.
Yet More Legal Geekery!
Here's some further healthcare questions I have - no special treat because these aren't as long and as the legal geekery only goes to say an 8.
1. If there is a public plan, will that plan have a right of subrogation against any and all awards for damages in a personal injury action? For example, Medicare currently has a first priority lien against any such recovery. Failure to pay that back results in the amounts being deducted from the individual's Social Security benefits until the amount is met. Will other public benefits to a public plan receipient be cut if there is a lien and that is not repaid? If so, does that implicate federalism concerns if the public plan is a federal plan and the public benefit receipts are from state run programs?
2. If there is subrogation, how will the subrogation be accomplished? To continue the Medicare example, Medicare retains for itself the right to determine what injuries are caused by an accident. Will that same position be taken by the public plan? Likewise, it is incredibly time consuming and frustrating to get an answer from Medicare as to the amount that is owed. Will the same procedures be put in place for the public plan? How much will the administrative costs run?
3. If there is a public plan, will automobile insurance companies be permitted to stop offering mandatory medical benefits with auto policies? If not, why not?
4. If there is a public plan, will workers' compensation programs be required to continue to pay for future medical care for an injured worker? If so, why? If not, why not?
Posted by: alexthechick at
02:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
My questions about health care reform
Caution! Caution! I'm kicking the legal geekery up to 12 here. You have been warned. I'll put this below the fold due to length.
(There may be a reward for those who read skim to the end)
1
Am I gonna have to photoshop her another earring?
And I still have no idea who the dude is.
I'm gonna have to memorize this list and ask it at the town halls my representative is putting off until late in the month.
Posted by: Alice H at August 13, 2009 12:51 PM (qJHYy)
2
Nail. Head. These are exactly the levels of detail where we the proles discover that we've been even more heartily screwed than it would seem just by paying more of our money than we already do into a Federal system where we get less access to lower-quality healthcare. The more attention these questions get the better!
Posted by: HayZeus at August 13, 2009 12:51 PM (RHxVZ)
Those are all damned good questions which I bet my senators would whiff on like a toddler with no arms playing T-ball.
I work in the legal/regulatory compliance dept of small, Mid-Western health insurer. I'm not a lawyer but my boss is. I think I know the answers to a few of those but I don't have time to research them right now. Give me a day and I'll let you know what I find.
Posted by: Go_Fish at August 13, 2009 04:29 PM (CTpRY)
*** This was way better the first times I wrote it.***
Dear Dickfisters*,
Stop. Calling me. A fucking racist. No, put down your fucking latte and get the cum out of your ears. I fucking mean it. STOP CALLING ME A FUCKING RACIST. No, don't talk. If I gave you the impression that this was an honest exchange of ideas between equals, I apologize. No, its a dangerously escalating encounter that could easily result in a very severe beating.
Apparently you people** think that if our president were as whitedy white as my unsunned ass crack, I'd be fucking yanking my taffee in rapturous anticipation of having the government's rusty nanny rod of equality rammed up my asshole. Funny, I don't recall being so excited about the idea when the president was about as white as a human being can be. Fuck, even if I were president I'd be against it and I essentially agree with everything I fucking think.
Just to make sure you understand my position on being called a fucking racist, I've prepared a simple quiz question you can answer to see if what I've shared has sunk in.
YOU:CALLING ME A RACIST::ME
A: PUNCHING YOU IN THE FUCKING FACE.
B: HEAD BUTTING YOU IN THE FUCKING NOSE.
C: ELBOWING YOU IN THE FUCKING THROAT
D: KNEEING YOU IN THE FUCKING GENITALS
E: ALL OF THE ABOVE
P.S. - You may be one of those people that thinks my anger at being called a racist is based on my white guilt.
Fuck you, I explained.
How about I start calling all of you child rapists and see how you like it. No? Well, that must be because you secretly feel guilty for your part in all that child rape. See the similarity? Of course not, intellectual consistency has never been the left's strong suit.
* - For Alice H. While the video I saw doesn't involve that per se, it is certainly enough to inspire that terrible term. I'd share it but it should never be placed on any civilized website and I like you people.
** - What do I mean by "you people?" I mean windowlickers that believe it is more important that everyone have EQUAL coverage no matter how fucking useless they are than that the people who actually contribute to society have GOOD coverage. (Of course, EQUAL will only be for those of us that aren't politically connected or super wealthy. They'll have EXTRA EQUAL coverage.
I mean fucktards that think their so much fucking smarter than everyone else that they should help the government tell them how to live their lives. Freon-huffers that believe that a cocksucking bureaucrat in Washington DC with a political science degree can make more informed decisions about what procedures will improve your health than the doctor with his motherfucking finger in your asshole.
Yeah, I think I'm going to adopt that as my new talking point. And you know what, the child rapist thing is a good example. I lost my shit the first time I read someone using the term chickenhawk during the war. Why? Because I had no idea that the term supposedly meant a conservative who was prowar but not in the military. Chickenhawk has a whoooooole other implication to me, namely, a guy who likes to prey on younger people for sex, including nearly always those who are underage. Or, you know, child rapist.
I keep swinging between being ragey rage about the racist thing and being deeply amused. I mean, seriously, calling me a racist is objectively false. If that's the case, the word has lost all meaning.
I'd share it but it should never be placed on any civilized website and I like you people.
When the fuck did we become civilized? I missed that meeting.
Posted by: alexthechick at August 11, 2009 12:09 PM (SHHaV)
2
My sister who is very liberal has accused me of being a rascist a number of times. One day my dad stepped in and told her "Chad isn't a rascist he hates everyone." I was across the room when i heard this an popped up with "especially you (name deleted to protect her privacy)" she has never broached the subject again.
Posted by: chad98036 at August 11, 2009 01:35 PM (WNcvq)
3
Thank you, Moron Pundit for articulating my thoughts EXACTLY.
Posted by: mare at August 11, 2009 01:39 PM (X1fsj)
4
What's a dickfister? I'm coming up with two possible meanings, both of which may be wrong.
Why bother protecting your sister, Chad? You're taking all the fun out of things.
Posted by: Alice H at August 11, 2009 02:20 PM (qJHYy)
5
When people accuse me of racist anymore I respond, "That's the best you got?" and laugh in their faces. I love the stunned you look you get occasionally as they just can't process that they hadn't won the debate with that totally devastating thrust.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 11, 2009 02:39 PM (o4HMp)
6
Call me racist. I don't really fucking give a shit anymore. Fuck you. If defending the constitution = racist then fucking sign me up for an armband.
Posted by: Tangonine at August 11, 2009 07:15 PM (C8Pcc)
7
keep in mind, you fucking latte sipping little white daddy's money motherfuckers: the rest of us own rifles and know how to use them.
Posted by: Tangonine at August 11, 2009 07:16 PM (C8Pcc)
8
In fact, I'd get so much more pleasure from shooting a home-grown hippie fucking socialist in the face instead of some state-bread-russian commie there's no comparison.
Posted by: Tangonine at August 11, 2009 07:18 PM (C8Pcc)
My usual rejoinder for the racist thing is that if we had elected Thomas Sowell last Nov., I'd *still* be doing the happy-dance (and he's twice as black as Obama). But I haven't convinced anyone yet with that argument, unfortunately.
Posted by: iamfelix at August 12, 2009 08:00 AM (WV4dX)
I mean fucktards that think their so much fucking smarter than everyone else that they should help the government tell them how to live their lives. Freon-huffers that believe that a cocksucking bureaucrat in Washington DC with a political science degree can make more informed decisions about what procedures will improve your health than the doctor with his motherfucking finger in your asshole. 
