Rachel was dead on right with this one. Pay attention to what John McCain says at 5:18.
"Violence the worst I have ever seen." Really? According to the FACTS presented here in this piece the EXACT OPPOSITE is actually true. I wish he and other Cult Tribe members would actually come out and say, "I want to scare you so you will come out and vote against the party who is actually doing something to solve our nation's problems which will result in my party being irrelevant." That's essentially their tactic. I wonder how long it will work.
Add in all the anti-mosque garbage lately and one has to wonder why people think that the Cult Tribe is prejudiced. Golly whiz, I just can't understand why Maher's opinion (not all Republicans are racist but if you are a racist then you are probably a Republican) is even remotely valid.
I guess it must be my lyin' ears again!
31 comments:
Thanks for the laugh.
Well...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
...makes me wonder what you are laughing about. Unless that's your definition of not doing anything. I guess I'd like to hear a point by point refutation of this list.
Good Luck!
>the party who is actually doing something to solve our nation's problems
Rofl.
>I want to scare you so you will come out and vote [a certain way]
Wow, what a completely new and unusual tactic! Those dastardly Republicans, coming up with a brand new and oh so cynical approach to politics! Good thing Democrats are far too principled to make appeals to emotion. I, for one, am eternally thankful that Mark is reflective enough to figure this all out. Much be his teacher's training.
John McCain and the other Cult members? Wait, really? John McCain and the other Cult members?
I thought you claimed "The Cult"(tm) was conservatives.
Okay now I'm confused.
the party who is actually doing something to solve our nation's problems
Your lips were moving when you typed that, weren't they?
Sheesh, for a guy who once* aspired to so much more, this is all you can come up with these days. I shudder to think what it will be like come this winter of liberal discontent.
* That brief period when you were actually thinking about what Manzi wrote.
FYI, most conservatives despise McCain.
I'm as racist as MLK. I want everyone judged on the content of his character, not his skin color.
Your white guilt skirt is showing again.
Have you read "Dreams of my Father" by Obama? Yesterday, Beck spent his monologue explaining how his (Obama's) grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by the British Colonists for belonging to the Independence (Socialist) party that was forming in Kenya back in the late 1940's.
And then he (Beck) went into detail about Obama's father's Utopian aspirations, and how he left him to realize them when Obama was just 2 years old.
Last week, Kenya ratified a new constitution based on social justice, or rather exactly what all Obama men see as a charter of positive liberties-what the government must do for it's people.
That's NOT what the US Constitution is AT ALL. That man is going to be run out of town, and it's not because he's black.
I'm not racist. I don't like Biden either.
Why aren't our nations problems solved already? Perhaps we haven't thrown enough money at them.
I'd drool over a specific, detailed explanation of what "doing something" means.
Good thing that stimulus bill passed.
I left a comment up above and blogger ate it. Oh well...here we go again...
Regarding the laughter about Obama doing something...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
I expect a point by point analysis of how this list of 120 accomplishments is "nothing." Good luck!
Beck watcher--
Some thoughts for you...
"I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/entertainment-fox-news-simon-schuster-glenn-beck-inc.html
and
"If you take what I say as gospel, than you are an idiot."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/media/30beck.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Straight from the horses mouth. I would suggest thinking for yourself especially when it comes to the notion of social justice.
And a re-reading of the Constitution is in order as well.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
Try to focus on the Bill of Rights. Clearly you need to learn what they mean.
Have you read Obama's book?
You tell someone to "think for themself" in the same post where you post 4 links to other internet sites as an explanation of what you are trying to say?
That politifact link is about campaign promises kept, not American problems solved. Any politician can fund some program, create some commission, etc.
I was kind of hoping you, blk, brandon, vheights, downtown, or torch could type something up yourselves. You guys must have got the same memo as the folks you voted for...
From the LA Times recently...
"Our candidates’ job is not to sell the accomplishments of the past but to send a message that strikes a chord," said a senior Democratic advisor who did not want to be identified while discussing strategy.
(translation - ignore the 2000 page bills we signed into law and never read - just say hope and change)
Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), in a two-day campaign swing through Democratic strongholds in South Florida, barely mentioned the Democrats' legislative record.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dems-august-20100809,0,6906697.story
Better have some amnesty and a side of writing down mortgage balances before the fall elections.
Yes, I have read both of his books. So what?
"You tell someone to "think for themself" in the same post where you post 4 links to other internet sites as an explanation of what you are trying to say?"
Yeah, that's right. It's called doing research. One of those links was the Constitution itself so I don't understand what you are getting at.
The charge was made that Obama "hasn't done anything." There is a list above of what he said he would do and what he has done. 120 items. If you think that these aren't accomplishments, let's hear why on each point.
No, the charge was made that he isn't solving the nations problems (who are you debating?). He's done things alright...things that haven't solved a damn thing (see - stimulus bill that you and blk refuse to talk about for some reason) or other things that may solve one probem but create 3 more problems.
Funding a Government Program and Solving a Problem are not the same thing.
Talking about the stimulus bill is pointless. When even the WSJ says that it has been a success and the Cult doesn't listen, one would get more out of banging their head against a brick wall.
Bottom line: it all comes down to whether you think that the government is the mechanism to solve our nation's problems. I do. Clearly, when the private sector is left to its own devices, they have failed completely. Because I think this to be true (in our current political climate) that makes me a socialist or a fascist...depending upon the day...and that is complete bullshit.
I'm not 100 percent sure where you stand these days, last, but I do remember you arguing vociferously for the privatization of social security. Had that happened, where would the money be right now? The answer to this question proves that the government (not the financial services sector) has a much better track record at solving problems.
Did you look at the list above? Not all of the items on it are simply funding a government program. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is a law that solves a very big problem pure and simple. Changing the standards for broadband access will have enormous implications on business in this country (especially in rural areas) and is also not simply funding a program.
You refused to talk about hte stimulus bill even before it passed the house when I posted the details of the bill on here.
I'll let Juris and co. have fun with the fact that you think the govt is the mechanism to solving our nations problems. If that is the case, surely you could post example after example of this track record you speak of (not from the turn of the century either when we had a farming economy).
You speak as if all social security money would have been invested in the stock market. It was only a very small portion of ones account from what I can remember, it was voluntary, and it didn't have to go into stocks. At least GWB tried SOMETHING. The number of baby boomers turning age 62 is increasing by 30% each year. Why don't you tell us what solutions the democrats have passed (who cares what they say, what have they done?) because something is going to have to be done.
I read the list and I don't have time to refute each point so let's take one you mentioned. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions could also mean that people won't bother getting insurance till they get sick, which defeats the purpose of insurance. Why don't you just say you want someone else you pay your medical bills.
If people could walk around uninsured and then be able to sign up when they got seriously sick, many people would adopt precisely that strategy. For the average family of four, health insurance costs something like $13,000 a year I think. If a family expected its medical costs to be below $13,000, it rationally it would forego insurance. Then if a member got seriously ill, it would sign up for insurance and couldn't be refused. The consequence of this new "solution" is that it would cause healthy people to cancel their insurance until the insurance companies were just insuring sick people, which would cause premiums to skyrocket and more people to drop their insurance.
Insurance companies are going to be forced to cover preexisting conditions indeed but the resulting product just may not be insurance. You cannot insure against something that has already happened. It will merely become a bill-paying mechanism.
Not treating alcholics and addicts is unconsionable. But so is letting them have medical coverage at no increased premium and with no demand that they get cured, and then dumping their costs on the rest of the population.
I would suggest thinking for yourself especially when it comes to the notion of social justice.
There is no such thing as social justice.
There is simply justice.
As soon as you add the modifier "social" you stopped talking about "justice".
"There is no such thing as social justice.
There is simply justice.
As soon as you add the modifier "social" you stopped talking about "justice"." - Juris
Now that right there is money!
And therein lies the problem. Juris, I have a ton of respect for you but much of your ideology springs from a cantankerous drive to isolation.
Whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.
Talking about the stimulus bill is pointless. When even the WSJ says that it has been a success and the Cult doesn't listen, one would get more out of banging their head against a brick wall. -M
Not pointless because it is pertinent to your fairy tale understanding of reality.
One Year After February 17 Signing Of Stimulus,
17 Numbers You Need To Know
3.5 MILLION: Jobs Obama Promised Stimulus Would Create By End Of 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Press Release, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
2.8 MILLION: Jobs Lost Since Obama Made That Promise. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
6.3 MILLION: Jobs Obama Must Now Create To Keep Promise By End Of 2010.(President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Press Release, Denver, CO, 2/17/09; U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
1.1 MILLION: Jobs Obama's Economists Project Will Be Created By End Of 2010.(David Jackson, "Obama Economic Report: Stagnant Job Growth This Year," USA Today, 2/11/10)
5.2 MILLION: Jobs By Which Obama's Economists' Projection Leaves Him Short In Keeping Promise. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10; David Jackson, "Obama Economic Report: Stagnant Job Growth This Year," USA Today, 2/11/10)
6 PERCENT: Not Surprisingly, Number Of Americans That Say Obama's Stimulus Created Jobs. (Stephanie Condon, "Poll: Economy Brings Down Obama's Job Approval Rating,"CBS News' "Political Hotsheet" Blog, 2/11/10)
7.7 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate When Obama Was Selling Stimulus In January 2009.(U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
8 PERCENT: Unemployment Rate Obama Pledged Stimulus Would Prevent Us From Reaching. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan," 1/9/09)
9.7 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
16.5 PERCENT: Current Unemployment Rate When Underemployed And Discouraged Workers Are Included.(Sara Murray, "Signs Of Hope As Jobless Rate Dips," The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/10)
334,000: Americans That Have Given Up Looking For A Job Since Stimulus Was Signed.(U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
47: States That Have Lost Jobs Since Stimulus Was Signed. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
10: States That Moved From Single-Digit To Double-Digit Unemployment Rate Since Stimulus Was Signed. (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/16/10)
$862 BILLION: Updated Cost Of Stimulus, $75 Billion Increase From Last Year's Cost Estimate.("The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 To 2010," Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/10; Douglas Elmendor, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Letter To Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2/13/09)
440: Number Of Nonexistent Congressional Districts That Received Stimulus Funds. (Richard S. Dunham, "Site Lists Jobs In Imaginary Texas Districts," Houston Chronicle, 11/18/09)
$6.4 BILLION: Amount Of Stimulus Funds That Went To Nonexistent Congressional Districts.(Richard S. Dunham, "Site Lists Jobs In Imaginary Texas Districts," Houston Chronicle, 11/18/09)
$18 MILLION: Cost Of Stimulus Website, Recovery.gov.(Rick Klein, "$18M Being Spent To Redesign Recovery.gov Web Site," ABC News' "The Note" Blog, 7/8/09)
That is a big load of FAIL (one among many) which you continue to promote as a win. Nice work "Baghdad Mark"
Whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.
"Justice" is a word with no meaning without a society to give it context, so
There is no such thing as social justice.
There is simply justice.
is not a refusal to admit anything. It is a recognition that justice means justice, and that when you stipulate social justice, you are declaring yourself in favor of something different from "justice" as it is defined in the dictionary.
Talking about the stimulus bill is pointless. When even the WSJ says that it has been a success...
You act as if the WSJ is some right wing rag. "Even the WSJ"....
I presume you can actually link to where it says that?
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125185379218478087.html
Granted, the economic conditions have changed since the time that this was published but last's comment was in regards to a debate that started around this time. And the facts presented in this link directly refute some of 6Kings links.
To put it simply, without the stimulus we would have 20 percent unemployment right now. The ideas from the Right on how to solve our economic problems (see: Herbert Hoover) would've sunk us into a Depression. Of course, many of you would have never admitted this but thankfully none of you are running the economy.
But, by all means 6Kings, let's hear your solutions for our problems. Just a couple of points to start with. What would you have done differently given your economic expertise? Bear in mind that some of your ideas were already tried and shown to be failures.
From my perspective, it took us years to get into this mess and anyone with common sense knows it's going to take years to get out. Obama was always said that unemployment is going to be a problem for awhile. Of course, none of this matters...I know...it's more important to win the argument.
M,
None of my ideas, which aren't mine specifically, are failures. They all work tried and true. YOU may not like how they work but they do. I can point you right to kevin's comment in the other thread:
Here are some solutions for you.
Seal the borders - allow immigration in an orderly manner.
Lower taxes - let people keep more of their money and watch the economy take off.
Less regulation - get rid of the myriad agencies that have a stranglehold on this country's economy for no other reason than to continue their existence and watch the economy take off.
Less laws - repeal most of the BS laws that have been introduced in the last half century or so, AND ENFORCE THE REST. "If a man doesn't know the law, there are too many laws."
I will add: removing unions from public service, dropping pay to below private industry comparative pay scales, reducing foreign aid, expiration dates on every bill, required tests for every congressman for every bill to verify they read and understood it, and cut spending below projected revenue. Yes, these are not done instantly but they are a hard lesson in how to get something lean and functional and back to how the founders wanted government - limited and out of the way.
Unfortunately, people in government power positions are only in it for the gravy train and making the hard decisions won't keep them there.
And therein lies the problem. Juris, I have a ton of respect for you but much of your ideology springs from a cantankerous drive to isolation.
First off, I take pleasure in being cantankerous, as you may have noticed. That in and of itself is reason enough for me to do so. That it should cause other people discomfort only adds to my pleasure. I don't need any fuckwit, left or right, telling me how to live my life - most particularly when said fuckwit hasn't half a clue how to manage his/her own life.
My "ideology" can be summed up as leave me the fuck alone. If you can accept that as a starting premise we will get along fine. If you can't - well then, conflict it will be.
Whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.
Excuse me while I spit out the words you just shoved into my mouth.
Justice IS a concept that only exists in a society. There is no justice in a Crusoe-esque existence - there is simply survival or not. So your fundamental failure to comprehend what the very fucking CONCEPT is, is laid bare once again. The very reason "justice" need be modified by progressives is because they wish to pervert the meaning through that modification. You really don't want to talk about justice, but you like the connotations that word embodies - so you create a bullshit thing called "social justice". A thing that leeches off the host word and saps it of all its vitality.
That you assert that I am unaware of something that I am quite obviously aware of - when YOU are NOT is a prima facie case of cargo-culting.
Give me any more lip and I'll really take you to the woodshed.
Wait, 6Kings...whose ideas are these? Yours or Kevin's? I just responded to these exact same points...um...ahem...verbatim...in another thread. Wow...
6kings acknowledged they were kevins points from the other thread.
Maybe he can't read english and that is why everything passes by him?
Ah, sorry. I didn't see the top line.
I'll let Juris and co. have fun with the fact that you think the govt is the mechanism to solving our nations problems.
Well since last so graciously invited me, how can I refuse.
Here is a great article on the wrongheadedness of "govt as solution" AND the problem with public debt. This should be an object lesson to the left that wishes for a "more just" economy and a smaller human footprint in the world; Japan has been the model for both of those. How's that working out?
Juris, see my post today. Can't wait to see how you will react to that one.
So do Obama's speeches on the healthcare bill, where he tells us about foot rustlers and tonsil goblins, qualify as "Scaring People for Fun and Profit"?
Do your "Papers Please, Juden" style threads qualify as "Scaring Mexican-Looking People for Fun and Profit"? Well no, presumably you don't make any profit, so you'd only be doing it for the fun.
But of course, they wouldn't qualify anyway would they, because it's you doing it. Silly me.
Post a Comment