Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 431 To 440 Of 657 Comments
OBAMA PULLS THE TRIGGER: NOW HOW ABOUT SOME FOLLOW THROUGH?
"And by all accounts, the Navy SEAL’s acted in response to the Captain trying to escape - brave felow, him."
??? "Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat, exposing themselves to clear shots, and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing an automatic rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirates.html?scp=5&sq=pirate&st=cse
I haven't sean any accounts detailing it as a 2nd escape attempt -- the first was over 24 hours prior to the rescue. Any links for more information?Shoot - I didn't read anything today on it. Yesterday, the story was the Captain jumped overboard during negotiations and before the pirates could fire on them, waiting SEAL's took them out. Will have to double check.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.04.2009 @ 15:37
The Beckian Wing of Conservatism
@ nancy irving #51:
For fun, do an InterTubes search with the terms "e pluribus unum" and "conspiracy". For the Capital-W-whackadoodles, its not a symbol of facism, but rather a "clear and obvious" mark that the Illuminati rule US politics (and the globe).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.04.2009 @ 06:31
Conspiracy theorists are great for your self-image. Whenever I question if I'm completely off my rocker with an interpretation of something, a little "New World Order" hysteria lets me know that no matter how wacky I am, I'm DEEPLY within the "goofballs only beyond this point" line.
STACEY McCAIN ON WHAT AILS THE RIGHT
Been annoyingly cold out here in L.A. lately too, but I'll happily concede to your sub-freezing numbers. Might be moving (back) to upstate N.Y. -- can't say I've missed the whole "snowy hell" ambiance.
Glad to hear things are going good, and good to see you back -- now I can go back to disagreeing with everything you say by default. I likes me some consistency.Any guesstimate as to probable T-party numbers in Austin?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.04.2009 @ 05:42
where you been retire05? You used to be a regular commenter, then nothing. Everything allright?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.04.2009 @ 18:05
GLENN BECK AND THE RADICAL RIGHT
@moose #106:
"The birth certifcate things seems to be simply asking Obama to present his certificate of live birth like any other job applicant."
He did. Hi-res scans available at:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlNever let the facts stop a good conspiracy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.04.2009 @ 17:25
@kagai #97:
I agree with most of what you've said, but when we're talking about "influence" here, I get the impression that we're talking about two different things.
Why didn't the pundits sway the election in 08? Because they don't speak for the "silent majority" as some other commenters have referenced. If they did speak for the majority (B. HUSSEIN Obama is a Totalitarin Socialist Marxist Fascist (neat trick that) who will destroy America as we know it), then why the heck did a (large) majority vote for him?
"Sure, he'll destroy the world as we know it . . . but I'm really mad at the party in power so I'll vote for him."That's not the "influence" that I think Mr. M. is talking about. His concern is the influence on the hysterical voices in the conservative movement. Repubs aren't going to win back power without at least part of the middle, period. And the more Repubs appear to be whack-a-doodle hysterics, the less possible it is for them to attract potential votes. No matter how "correct" they are, they will lose.
Is the portrayal of the Right as fringe nutjobs a vast MSM conspiracy? Let's assume so for the moment. Snarky editing, quotes taken out of context, the whole shebang. The viewer feedback isn't part of a conspiracy, and they push the voters away.
"Wake up America! Glenn speaks the truth that the Real Americans know! You commie sissy pinkos are the devilspawn! We shall fight to our last breath!"
As Mr. M. comented previously, did the inciteful comments of Beck and others cause the Pittsburgh shootings? No, probably not. Was it a FACTOR, did it take someone on the edge and goad them into jumping over the line into suicide by cop? Will whack-a-doodles hear Bachmann claim re-education camps are being drawn up and seize on that as the final straw, the reason to start the Last Stand that they just know in their hearts is coming? Look at the commenters above -- how many view their opposition to the Administration as an Apocalyptic battle between Good and Evil? Life and Death? If I believed that, I'd certainly think I had no choice but to start loading magazines and Do What Must Be Done -- shouldn't I think they do as well? And keep in mind . . . these are commenters on a blog that is more reasoned, posted specifically to throw out a call to arms to the "blind weak sheep" who don't "get it" -- wonder what the general atmosphere is on the pro-whackadoodle sites?
These folks are influential for one basic reason: they drive votes away. In our Democracy, that's death for a political party. The people that stir the pot damage the party, and even allowing that Glen, Rush, et. al., are correct on some things they do stir the pot. In that sense, they are influential . . . but the worst kind of influential if you support the Conservative philosophy.2nd to last paragraph, original post:
"Beck worries me. Conservatives worry me. I worry about myself. I feel trapped in a huge ball of cotton, trying gamely to make my way out but don’t know which direction to start pushing. I am losing contact with those conservatives who find Beck anything more than a clown - and an irrational one at that. Same goes for those who worship at the altar of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and the whole cotton candy conservative crowd. I can’t take those people seriously. The fact that they are popular mystifies me.". . . and terrifies voters.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.04.2009 @ 17:18
@kagai #58:
"It amazes me that writers bemoan the state of conservatism by holding up such figures as Beck, Hannity, and Rush. Their effect on political direction is minimal at best."
How do you figure? Reading the coments here alone displays a pretty substantial impact that Beck has.
"I like Beck because to me he seems genuine." #10
"Beck is serving a purpose though by drawing needed attention to a large segment of our country who aren’t buying the whole hope and change BS." #11
"Is he melodramatic, yeah. But I’ll take that over Brooks whiny schoolboy, Noonan’s affected poise or Friedman’s wannabe hipster lingo." #16
"You know whats funny? So called conservatives being frightened by the truth." #17
"I enjoy Glenn Beck because he is very good at explaining complex ideas in a way that most people can understand. He loves his county - SO DO I." #20
"If Beck is a kook, than its obvious that our country’s forefathers were also loony according to your standards. . . .but if Glenn Beck were a Roman slave, you would find many other slaves, including myself, screaming that they were Spartacus too." #21
"Beck merely has the radar pointed in that direction and he is picking up the begginning signals." #22I'll stop there. How can you say that there is no impact? How can you say Rush has no impact when (R) pols that criticize him (or merely call him an entertainer) can't go 24 hours without personally apologizing?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.04.2009 @ 13:29
Has anybody said "I never believed this crap, but once I heard the dulcet tones of Glenn's golden voice I became a believer"? No. But a basic advertising strategy is state multiple things the target agrees with, then state something they might not. Why? Because it works. Not on everybody, but on lots of people. Look at the "Super-Mega-Hardcore-Dittoheads" in Rush's sphere of influence. For them, the greatest statement of belief is to proudly proclaim "whatever you said!!". If people feel a connection to a personality, and the communication is one-way (personality talks to you, you don't talk to them), then they ARE influential.
Its never as blatant as doing something solely because the personality said it. Nobody says "Derek Jeter is selling Pepsi? Well, I hate Pepsi with a passion, but if Derek says to drink it I better start right away!" If somebody is (a) a kook and (b) listened to by millions of people, then that's a serious issue of concern. Isn't that what all the wingnuts are complaining about with Obama? That millions of people are being mesmerized by his Jim Jones lies?
OBAMA'S FORIEGN APOLOGIES: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
@ jackson1234:
" Many liberal Democrats opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, too."
You may well have known people that opposed the Afgan invasion . . . but I find it difficult to believe that "many" people did, political affiliation regardless. I don't know a single person who opposed invading Afganistan.
@someguy:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.04.2009 @ 17:57
"”When I say something, we actually go do it,” Mr. Bush told an interviewer from Nile-TV, an Egyptian network. ”And when I say that I’m going to be involved in the peace process, I mean I’m going to be involved in the peace process.” OOOOOH, so derisive here."
When you make a big promise like this, then basically piss all over it . . . yes, that can be seen as pretty derisive. It implies that you think the listener is such a chowderhead that regardless of what they see, they'll just beleive whatever you say.
BLOWHARD NEW YORK TIMES CONTRIBUTOR A PARANOID LOON
"It would be like saying Jeananne Garofolo is a liberal leader. People know who she is and she is quoted by liberals on occassion but does anyone believe that she is an important spokesperson for the left?"
Didn't Bill O'Rilley and whatshisname list her in the Top 5 Liberal Conspiracy Politburo? Can't find a link (the FoxNEWS and MSNBC websites are a mess), but it was her, DailyKos, MSNBC, and I forget the two others -- about 2-3 weeks ago.
I suppose this all depends on what you're defining the term "Conservative Leader" as. Popularity? then you've got Rush, O'rilley, Coulter, etc. Political Power? I suppose technically its Boener and Cantor. Officially elected to a "leadership" position? Then I suppose it's Steele.
The term is nebulous enough that anybody who gets labeled as a "conservative leader" can simply be denied.Mr. M: Why do YOU consider to be the "leaders" of Conservatives today?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.04.2009 @ 17:59
FIRST, THEY CAME FOR THE SMOKERS
For an entertaining passive-aggressive FU to the ninnies,walk around buildings with an unlit smoke in your mouth. People will rush to you to clarify that there is no smoking allowed in the building, and when you agree and point out that there is in fact no smoke, they get very upset. They're still sure you're doing something wrong, but they're just not sure what.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.04.2009 @ 13:31
Stunbled on this when I used the unlit smoke trick to at least take the oral fixation aspect cravings off when I was stuck at work and couldn't sneak out. Happily, it turned out to be a great way to annoy those I wanted to annoy.
Virtual 100% success rate. Rational people will look, notice there is no smoke or ember, then go about their day. Ninnies will push old ladies down the stairs in their desperation to be the first to lecture you. And the confused, accusatory glare when they realize you're not breaking any rules and don't care what they think . . . ah, priceless. Almost makes up for not being able to smoke in my office.
