Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 657 Comments
"Sorry, I don’t believe this season of outrage will last any longer than the length of time a Democrat is president."
Have to agree with this. Moreover, when there's a Red in the Oval office criticism will be be both mocked and used as a sign of sedition.
And this isn't blaming past generations. This is based off of stuff from the last 5 years. The racist issues came screaming to the forefront with the Obama presidential campaign. 18 months ago. And it usually only takes a few months for another embarassing example to surface . . . often from a member of the GOP party (not just a Republican).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.02.2010 @ 18:00
"meaty, intellectually coherent, and now add politically courageous to that thumbnail."
Except his budget benefits are based on a pretty obvious falsehood:
"For their analysis Ryan provided CBO with a remarkable assumption: he asked CBO actuaries to assume that the major tax cuts he calls for won't create any change in federal revenue over the next two decades--at all.
Here's how they put it, in budget-ese: 'As specified by your [Ryan's] staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under [current fiscal policy],' the analysis reads."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/expert-the-gop-shadow-budget-might-not-even-eliminate-deficits.php?ref=fpaRyan is certainly to be applauded for being more specific than "do good things" . . . but advancing a budget with the caveat that you have to consider it assuming only good things about it is hardly what I'd call "meaty" or "intellectually coherent".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.02.2010 @ 13:47
SARAH PALIN AND THE ASPIRATIONAL POLITICS OF RESENTMENT
Wha?
Biden's opinion contradicts the view of Brennan . . . who misrepresented the facts. So Biden disagrees with someone who misrepresented the facts, and that is a strike against Biden?
There are two completely different issues here, and you are mixing them up. The first is whether AlQ is going to launch large-scale (9-11 style) attacks. The second is did Biden say that America has nothing to fear from AlQ. You claim he said that, and he clearly did NOT say that.
Now, is he right that AlQ is going to focus on small-scall atacks rather than massive attacks? I don't know. Nobody does. But just to play Devil's advocate . . . since 9-11 what attacks have been launched against America? Shoe Bomber. Underwear bomber. Any others? If that's it, then AlQ has launched nothing but small scale terror attacks, and no large-scale attacks -- which is what Biden said they were focusing on. So just based on the evidence, he appears to be backed up.
Does that mean that there will never, ever, ever, be another massive attack? No. Did Biden say that? No.This misrepresentation is again evident in your other statement "that nuclear Iran is not a problem". He didn't say that. Again, from the exact same article you linked to in comment #24:
"In terms of threats to stability abroad, Biden said Iran becoming a nuclear state was 'a real concern, not an immediate concern.'"
Do you honestly read the words "a real concern" and somehow hear in your head "not a problem"? I doubt it. But since you're certain he is stupid/evil/dangerous, then regardless of what he says you are hearing some nonsensical exageration.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.02.2010 @ 14:18
It is absolutely your right to do that -- but it makes your comments meaningless. Biden (or Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid) could drag an orphan from a burning building and you'd say "see? they are child molesters!" I have to assume that you don't have any actual criticism, just pathological dislike. Again, that's fine. But also worthless from a discussion standpoint.
@narciso (and Sshiell):
So in regards to Iraq, he's trying to say that good results that happen during this Administration are to the credit of this administration? Okay, a somewhat fair criticism I guess. True, its hardly 100% accurate, but every administration and politician does that (as they blame every other administration for anything bad that happens on their watch) so I'm not too plussed about it.
I don't think that's quite the same thing as "[Joe Biden] tried to take credit for the operation in Iraq", but fine. Saying "this administration is starting to bring the troops home, and thats an achievement" is hardly the insane and dilusional ramblings of a madman . . . since it IS sort of true. Is it exclusively, 100% all the doing of the Obama admnistration? No. Is it 100% to the credit of the Bush administration? Hell no.The "America has nothing to fear from an AlQ attack" comment? Is that what you linkewd to in comment #24? You mean this:
"Vice President Joe Biden said it is unlikely the United States will see another terrorist attack of the proportions of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, but that the nation could still be the target of more 'small bore' attacks.
'The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view,' Biden said Wednesday night on CNN's 'Larry King Live.' 'But if you see what's happening, particularly with al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula, they have decided to move in the direction of much more small bore but devastatingly frightening attacks.'How in the hell do you get from that to "[Biden] told us we need not worry about an AQ attack in the near future." He stated the exact opposite. Explicitly. I've quoted it right there above.
If you can read "AlQ is focusing on smaller but devistatingly frightening attacks instead of mass-casualty attacks" and somehow hear "America has nothing to fear because AlQ isn't going to try and attack us anymore" . . . well respectfully you're having a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.02.2010 @ 22:11
@narciso:
When did Biden say america didn't need to worry about an AlQ attack? And which operation in Iraq did he claim credit for?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.02.2010 @ 09:56
@kenGirard:
"As to Palin writing on her hand… If she had some precise details in there ($86.43 million or July 14, 1936) written in there then I’d think it is fine, and shows she wanted to get the right info out there. But when it is vauge terms… She could’t remember energy, tax and budget cuts? She had to read those words to answer questions?"
This. I don't care if her notes are on an expensive teleprompter or scribbled on the back of a napkin* . . . the issue is WHAT she wrote as notes.
She needed a note to remind her that she was for tax cuts? Was she going to forget?
Even that isn't the most disengenuous thing about the incident. She had three things written down . . . and they were referenced in response to a question that asked what three things needed to happen once the conservatives took power. Clearly, the Q+A was staged. Fake. A sham. She knew the questions. She wasn't "answering" them . . . she was giving more engineered speeches. And she was doing this while decrying the falseness of other politicians, the ones who just don't talk directly and honestly and openly with the American People. I would expect people there to be outraged . . . but then again, I am pretty naive.*(although, to be fair, her glancing in her hand for her notes was friggin' hilarious. Just the visual.)
@CZ:
"Give the lady some credit. She ran a town and she ran a state.
The only thing 'The One' has ever run is his big mouth."Yeah. Oh, and the Country. That's hardly as impressive as quitting during your term as Governor, I'll give you that. Boy, you sure showed Obama and everybody that thinks Palin is incompetent! Well done.
Honestly, I think that the Palin demagoguery stems from the campaign. When she was unveiled, she was hailed as the Second Coming, and questions and criticisms were immediately and aggressively attacked. The Palin Defense League made her a genius, rogue, down-home, pit-bull tenacious, careing, Grade A politician. Every time a question was raised, the defense force fired back.
Since she has never faded into the background long enough for passions to cool down, there are too many people that simply aren't going to be able to go back on what's been said:
"Palin's awesome! She is just what this country needs! You're a commie for even questioning her! She's my idol! . . . Hang on . . . y'know, she's charismatic and all, but clearly unqualified to be President. My bad."
Political opponents would never let that slide. "What does my opponent think? Well, remember they wanted you to vote for somebody they now admit is incompetent and a danger to the country, and when we pointed that out they attacked us for being right . . . just like they're attacking us now. Think we should listen to them again?"
That slow quiet tacit admission (which we've been seeing slowly creeping along) is the only "face-saving" path out for her camp . . . but since she refuses to go quietly into that good night she keeps them locked into their same rhetoric, causing them more and more damage. Shame.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.02.2010 @ 03:59
So the "Republicans are far to gentlemanly to criticize the President to his face" actually means "They'll do it no problem, but they won't lie or cuss . . . unlike some OTHER politicians who shall remain nameless."?
I'm not following this concept at all, aside from the standard "GOP is sweetness and light, and anything that disputes is either a lie or a damned lie". Whatever idea we've been talking about in this thread seems to be, for you, as fluid as a rushing river. No doubt the language and imagery is magnificent -- it just doesn't have any coherence.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.02.2010 @ 12:46
"There is a certain reluctance by Republicans, and for that matter, any collection of real gentlemen, to call the sitting President a liar, a dummy, prig, or an ideologue–and to back the accusations up with detailed chapter and verse–to his face, anyway."
??? I guess I never realized that Republicans have such high standards that they'd never call the president a liar. To his face. While he was adressing Congress. Interrupting his speech. Name of Joe Wilson.
No? Okay, then. Must not have happened.
Or is the mark of gentleman to only accuse without facts to support it? Are you claiming that only men of low morals would attempt to justify their accusations, and only "true gentlemen" would accuse without any justification or evidence? That would be an . . . interesting approach.I am curious about the "to his face, anyways" part of the comment. It would be more gentlemanly to badmouth him behind his back, but then when confronted to smile and lie? I was always tought that was the behavior of men of low morals and weak resolution. Punks. Worms. Am I wrong? Is that truly the mark of upright and honest people?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.02.2010 @ 16:26
And if it is . . . does that mean your contention that Democrats will say one thing to the body public then do another thing behind closed doors mean that Democrats are the height of civility and genteel upbringing? For some reason, I suspect not. I wonder what the difference is between one party acting in such a manner and the other party acting in such a manner? Aside from "Me party good, you party bad", of course.
@manning:
"Ripping into the GOP by that excuse for a President is most certainly not the same as letting the public see and hear about all of the Democratic behind-the-scenes vote-buying for health care. "
Why?
As an aside, if he truly is the most pathetic, scum-sucking mouth breather that ever walked the planet . . . what the hell does it say that the GOP got spanked by him? At their own luncheon?
Not defending Obama's policies, or his credibility, or his veracity, or anything like that -- just pointing out that the GOP couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to call him out, and they utterly failed to do it. Anybody that tried to get into a verbal sparring match with him was soundly beaten. Not defensing Obama . . . but I think pretty much everybody can agree he whupped up on them. Either Obama has some skills, or the GOP is pretty incompetent.Don't watch American Idol. Actually aside from football, I don't watch television (at least on tv -- I may watch a show I want on the computer). Pretty much just use my television for games and football.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.02.2010 @ 03:08
Almost forgot -- Lost. I don't watch it (refuse is more accurate), but my girlfriend is hooked so she watches that on the TV when its in season (which is unfortunately now).
@manning:
"A video of Democratic legislators and Obama horsetrading away on national TV to buy votes for the Obama Healthcare bill would be instantly devastating to the entire gaggle of politicos shown!"
Doubtful. The broadcast of Obama ripping into the GOP didn't change anything. People who pay attention giggled, and the other 99.997% of society kept watching American Idol.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.02.2010 @ 16:19
