Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 839 Comments
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WON'T TELL US ABOUT THE STATE OF THE NATION
Nothing is more pathetic than watching you toady the teabaggers.
Heh - since I doubt seriously that they would let me in their little club, what motivation would I have to "toady?"
You really should get more than one point of view sometimes. It is affecting your judgment.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 27.01.2010 @ 21:57
CONSERVATIVE 'HERO' - CONSERVATIVE DOPE
Lionheart:
Read the updated stories. He was using the cell camera to tape his compatriots who were doing the bugging. In other words, he just supplied the evidence to convict himself.
These guys are screwed. And it's a shame because they're just dumb-ass kids high on ideology and arrogance. They need to cop a plea fast. If they drag this out the feds will hammer them.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 26.01.2010 @ 21:27
What an idiot. The FBI will have no choice but to throw the book at him. You just don't tap a Senator in the Capitol. I don't think he'll even get any cover on the Right, although Fox will give him lots of air time to make unsubstantiated accusations against Landrieu.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 26.01.2010 @ 17:01
OBAMA'S FRIENDS ON THE LEFT GIVING HIM 'THE BIG FREEZE'
I admit Mr. Obama has had some difficulty mopping up the giant, steaming pile of manure your party left behind.
But disaster?
We were staring at a depression. Not a recession, an honest-to-God, 1930's depression. And now we aren't.
We were looking at a complete financial system meltdown. And now the system is stable.
We have no inflation.
The dollar has stabilized.
The stock market is over 10,000 after a huge rally I wish I'd invested more in.
We are carrying out our Iraq withdrawal in an orderly fashion.
We have stepped up the war against Al Qaeda.
We have at least temporarily staved off looming disaster in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama has secured more NATO support.
Mr. Obama is at 55% overall, and over 80% among Democrats, despite appointing unpopular centrists to dominant roles at Treasury, despite taking a very moderate stance on banking reform, despite disappointing Lefties who thought he'd run from Afghanistan, despite disappointing the left so far on gay rights.
And as usual, Rick, you've let ideology and your own emotions blind you to reality. The reality is that we are far, far better off today than we were under your party. And infinitely better off today than we'd have been under an increasingly disconnected Mr. McCain and the Wasilla Wonder.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 26.01.2010 @ 14:01
ETERNAL DAMNATION TO MOUSE OVER POP-UP ADS
Bravo!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 10:08
WHAT'S ALL THE HUB-BUB ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE?
Dragon:
I note that you have failed to refute a single point on its merits.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 15:34
Andy:
There is the press which should be providing context and analysis. Once it comes out that this attack ad is funded by foreign interests, then the game is up.
Ad campaign Day 1, Election Day 2, reporting Day 3. That's why we had the time limit on late hit ads from corporations.
Candidate Smedley, if he/she is smart, is going to refuse the money.
Irrelevant. They don't contribute to the candidate, they run their own independent attack ads. That's the problem. They run their own campaign not subject to the candidate's approval.
Mass media is increasingly irrelevant. Those huge ad buys aren’t going to have nearly as much impact today and going into the future.
Again, with all due respect, you don't understand how the game is played. An attack ad on TV has an impact, then it gets replayed for free and has a broader impact, then it goes online and has a third impact. Some time later, when it's too late, we get fact-checking that has a tenth of the impact of the lurid attack.
That's why in many cases ads are created without even a media buy -- they use free air to get their point out. The law as it stood forbade corporations from doing that, from paying for an ad with or without a media buy. Now a CEO can order an ad, buy time or not, have an impact, absorb any backlash as a cost of doing business, and affect an election.
Now, I don't know just what ideology Republicans believe they are serving here. I thought Republicans opposed foreign influence in US elections. But apparently not, so long as they think they can achieve an electoral advantage.
But then it's hardly breaking news that Republican's so-called beliefs can be traded away for cash or power.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 15:33
Republicans invite foreign corporations to influence American elections.
It's fun how no matter how low my opinion of the GOP sinks, they manage to sink even lower. I've discovered perpetual motion: chasing the falling intellectual and moral stock of Republicans.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 15:19
Dragon:
I guess Valero with @21,000 employees and @5,800 business locations is a Foreign Corporation. Doing business in 44 states, I can see how there few local issues that might matter.
And who runs Valero in the final analysis? Hugo Chavez.
So for the record you have no objection to Hugo Chavez ordering a million dollars worth of hit ads on your favorite candidates.
Okay. That's certainly a point of view.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 14:50
Dragon:
This is nonsense and you know it. We have more than two centuries of a free press. Those rights could not be dependent on a finding that corporations are persons because corporate personhood came after, not before. A thing can not be a result if it came before, not without rewriting the laws of physics.
This is a red herring. Propaganda designed to conceal a blunder of huge dimensions. No constitutional scholar of any respectability buys it.
As for "disclosure" that's absurdly naive.
Let's say the governor of Tennessee wants to grant a tax break to Ford to build a plant in his state and is up for re-election, leading by three points. His opponent opposes the tax break. Fair enough? A realistic scenario, no?
But Hyundai doesn't much like that idea. They don't want Ford competing for workers and they don't want Ford to be able to quickly ramp up production of their new SUV.
So three days before the election Hyundai makes a five million dollar media buy -- every minute of air time it can find -- and runs an attack ad claiming the governor has taken bribes from Ford.
Your disclosure accomplishes nothing. The lie is out there and in such volume that countervailing truths are drowned out.
Orders sent from South Korea to an American subsidiary decide an American election. And Hyundai, having done a cost benefit analysis, concludes that the possible resentment of some portion of TN voters is manageable.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.01.2010 @ 12:54
