Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Adolescents, Wordsmiths and The Right Wing Blogsphere

The New York Times has an interesting piece in today's paper about the "four words that imperil" the Affordable Care Act...interesting in that it fails to address the real problem with King V Burwell. It seems some parties concerned are most befuddled at how a simple phrase could lead to a Supreme Court Case that could ultimately lead to the removal of health care subsidies for all those states which do not have their own exchange. Well, when you understand these assholes...

and the fact that they live  most of their lives in the comments sections of blogs vainly attempting to wordsmith and fallacy their way into a "win," you grasp the origin of the problem. The drafting error of the ACA that led to the use of the words "the state" was the sweetest crack cocaine for the conservative base which is filled with adolescent losers that one frequently sees trolling various online forums. After all, nothing sends these children into a tantrum like the words "the state." 

Shit...every right wing blogger from here to Timbuktu sprung a boner at the thought of being able to finally "get" Obama and those liberals in the ULTIMATE FLAME WAR. The lead attorney and all the plaintiffs in this case are classic examples of the mouthfoaming conservative who endlessly try to find some way to wordsmith and bamboozle their opponents into defeat. Of course, it can never actually be about the law itself because they have fucking lost on that every single time. It has to be some sort of hyper obsessive focus on a word that will ultimately spell "doom" for those evil statists.
Then, they can merrily dance their happy dance with one another, issuing imperial declarations at how we've all been told many times how right they have been all along, revealing the inner authoritarian they pretend doesn't exist. 

I suppose this is finally their day in the sun and they should get to enjoy one last chance at denying success to their mortal enemies. Consider what joy their lives will be filled with should SCOTUS rule in their favor. The adolescent glee in the air will be almost palpable....

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

The End of the Liberal Media Meme

Today, I formally declare the death of the liberal media meme so often used by conservatives. With the admission that the New York Times and the Washington Post have joined Fox News for exclusive deals to anti-Clinton research, this signals the end of that giant pile of shit.

The media has always been interested in what sells and sensationalizes, not propping up liberal leaders and candidates. Conservatives don't like when the media reports on liberals succeeding because it reveals the contrast they don't want the voters to see. There's no bias in illustrating that liberals are generally better at solving problems than conservatives. It's simply a fact. Whether it's the economy, foreign policy, the environment, health care or education, liberals do a better job. Period. Relating these facts doesn't make the media liberal.

Every major news outlet is going to be reporting about the emails, the donations and Bill Clinton's shenanigans for the next 18 months...just like they reported about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Benghazi, and all the other "OMG!" moments in the political career of Barack Obama. The difference between their reporting on this stuff as opposed to say...WMD's in that conservative mistakes invariably result in massive disaster (terrorists attack on US soil-loss of 3000 lives, city of New Orleans falling into the sea, economy collapsing).

Perhaps if conservatives don't like that, they should do a better job of being more competent. Of course, that begins with an admission that the core tenets of their ideology are complete failures.

Monday, August 13, 2012

It's True

Here's a photo that has been making the rounds lately...

Is it true? As we say in Minnesota, "You betcha!"

When Paul Ryan's dad died suddenly of a heart attack when the VP pick was 16, he used the Social Security death benefits to pay for college. Once again, I find it enormously frustrating that someone on the right shits all over the nice place in which he lives simply because he read Ayn Rand and is on an adolescent power trip.

Oh, and I also don't want to hear any more bitching about the "liberal media" after this piece in the New York Times. 

His self-reliance followed him to summer camp, where as a counselor he canoed and hiked, and into young adulthood, where he took up deer hunting, a fact noted in his engagement notice in 2000 in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “Ryan is an avid hunter and fisherman,” the paper reported, “who does his own skinning and butchering and makes his own Polish sausage and bratwurst.”

Self reliance aided by...someone else...and something else...Social Security. In fact, isn't Paul Ryan a living example of what President Obama meant by not doing everything on your own?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Early Look at The House Races 2010

There has been quite a bit of talk in comments regarding the Dems getting their ass kicked on November 2nd. In looking at two separate analyses of the electoral map, I'm wondering how that is possible.

First up, we have the Cook Political Report which puts 214 House seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Democratic, while 181 seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Republican, and 40 seats are in the Toss Up column. No doubt, things are going to shift between now and the fall but I don't really see how the GOP is going to win 39 of 40 seats if we are operating in Cook's framework. This is especially true considering the fact that the Democrats have more money right now than the GOP.

The New York Times has a more realistic (and extremely cool!) map which I think illustrates the fluidity of the situation more accurately. They have 168-Solid Dem, 55-Leaning Dem, 31-Tossup, 18-Leaning GOP, and 163-Solid GOP. That basically puts 104 seats into play. The question is, if you are the GOP, where do you put your money? You would need to get all 18 of the leaning GOP (likely) which will put you at 181. Then you would need all 31 of the Tossups (doable) which would put you at 212. Now you need 6 of the leaning Dem (somewhat tough). Are these final 6 where you really spend your money? Again, I don't see an ass kicking here...just a possible eeking out of a victory or falling short. Of course, this could change but after looking at these numbers, I am revising my prediction for the House to 25 flips...which would put us at 230-Dem and 202-GOP.

As John Boehner said at a recent Monitor lunch, it will be an uphill climb. For once, I agree with him. When you look at the numbers this way, I guess I don't see the ass kicking.

Tomorrow: An early look at the Senate Races 2010.