Anonymous: "Translation: “See, democrats can be bigot douchebags too!”
Interesting way of making your point."
Translation: "Let's avoid the unpleasant reality and establish a moral equivalency after someone claimed this was one-sided."Comment Posted By obamathered On 5.11.2009 @ 08:45
"Thanks GOP. The money you vomited into Maine for this election season worked. Thanks churches. Your army of idiot reverends and priests led a good fight to take away rights from people who genuinely love each other."
Given the voter breakdown in Maine is 54 percent Democratic/31 percent Republican, you might want to give a really big shout out to the Donks, Chuck. Without their active support to overturn this legislation and their encouragement from anti-gay marriage president Barack Obama, this could have passed. While at it, give a shout out to those right-wing bastions such as California.Comment Posted By obamathered On 4.11.2009 @ 21:11
I don't see it, Rick. Where is there is this huge urge to purge outside of meaningless blogoland? Republicans--and Independents--are energized and are ready to push back against the left-wing politics of this Administration. Christie certainly is moderate, but conservatives have cheered his victory. The irony is that the only seat that may go to the Democrats is NY23--because the New York GOP appartus orginally pushed a ridiculous candidate to the left of the Democrat. From what I see, Republicans are very united in trying to regain the House in 2010, and Independents seem ready to hand it to them.
This wasn't even the first shoe to drop tonight. That will come in 2010. I can be very objective on this point: if I were a Democratic MoC in a moderate to conservative district, I would be scared shitless tonight. Political fortunes can turn in a year, but 2010 is poised to be a very, very Republican year. Note "Republican," not "conservative."Comment Posted By obamathered On 3.11.2009 @ 22:02
A column about "anti-reason" devolves into mouth breathing. The irony is too thick to cut. Your mythical right-wing urge to purge in 2010 also is a howler. You almost seem upset the left-wing loons who now run the country have proved so godamned unpopular. I look forward to your November 2010 column about how massive Democratic losses somehow proved your point.Comment Posted By obamathered On 2.11.2009 @ 18:59
The excerpt from Sullivan is beyond his usual diseased and deranged dish; nay, it is utterly incoherent. I mean, a mix of a purge and a clusterfuck? Holy shit. I think it is a pure and simple "no" not unlike what you described, and was executed logically and rationally. As for the massive conspiracy between Matt Drudge and Dick Cheney to "create reality," that is howling madness for even Sullivan.Comment Posted By obamathered On 1.11.2009 @ 14:21
The stimulus bill is the one true litmus test. No one can claim to be conservative, and it is tough to make the case even a moderate, if they supported it. Poor Olympia Snowe fell for it, and that may have made her wary of support for health care with a public option.
I think the real "purge," for want of a word, will be of the phony moderate Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill in conservative areas over the next two or three election cycles. The Left also plans its own purge of these faux moderates if they don't go along with a public option on nationalized health care. I see nothing but win/win from the Hoffman situation because there will be simply a message sent and no subtraction at all, the hint of which seems ironic coming from some corners.Comment Posted By obamathered On 27.10.2009 @ 18:46
No, Obama isn't Nixon because the latter was an intelligent, capable leader. They do share the same paranoia, though. The FOX episode is just more stupid and transparent than Nixon's war on the press, which simply reflects Obama is more of a fool. As this Administration continues to tank and drag the Democratic Party into irrelevancy, watch Obama grow worse about this business.Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.10.2009 @ 08:45
This will be as non-partisan and non-ideological as is humanly possible.
I attended and graduated from a top tier law school in the Eighties. Although quite conservative, I believe(d) environmental conservation to be a consistent with my beliefs. I joined the Environmental Law Society, and in addition to distinguished environmental law professors, climatologists, ecologists, demographers, biologists, and other PhDs were regular participants. My last attendance was after a member challenged the student president with the seeming non-sequitur about the environmental movement's failure to challenge capitalism. The president responded that the movement was geared that way, and most members, faculty, and visitors nodded in assent. Until that moment, there was no hint that was the direction of this particular organization. Sure, there were cost/benefit disagreements about how to protect the environment, but the subtext never was obvious or even voiced until that day. Remember, this was more than two decades ago.
Excuse the anecdote, but it will tie up.
I also was a global warming and/or climate change agnostic, more prone to belief earlier than I am now. People on both sides claim a certainty that doesn't exist. I began to grow more skeptical as it emerged some data used to model had been speculative at best, and skewed at worst, to achieve the desired result, i.e., to "prove" the existence of manmade climate change/global warming.
My disbelief grew when I ran into the same student president described above. He now is an attorney and works in the Office of General Counsel for a major federal department and that is as far as I will go in identification. The Kyoto Treaty had just been rejected by the United States Senate by a margin of 98-2, I believe. I asked this man why China and India had been exempted from Kyoto. He responded, and this is not an exaggeration, that poorer countries need the opportunity to achieve the same wealth as Western democracies. His rationale had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. This proves nothing but does indicate motive.
I strongly suspect the United States Senate will not pass Cap and Trade due largely to the number of Democratic members from industrial states that would be absolutely devastated by it. But if it does pass, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind it will have absolutely nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with socialism in the sense of leveling the playing field between the West and the Third World. Greenhouse emissions will continue to rise, the United States will be a second-rate economy, and as a result will have little influence to exert on the new worst offenders.Comment Posted By obamathered On 16.10.2009 @ 14:32
When you declare that Limbaugh isn’t a racist, aren’t you gleaning what’s in his heart? You’re giving him a rather generous benefit of the doubt, and I don’t see how you can fault others for not doing so.
Witches float, the innocent drown, eh?
Frankly, I found out a long time ago how easy it is to give up the NFL. I and thousands of others in my hometown did over a local issue that had nothing to do with national politics, race, or mind reading. My guess is that a substantial minority of Limbaugh's vast audience may discover the joys of football-free TV, or at least boycott sponsors. The former will give up nothing, I have found out, and the latter probably very little as well.
Even if inclined to watch NFL despite how easy it is to kick, pardon the pun, I wouldn't watch jackshit on NBC because it felt Keith Olbermann a mainstream enough character to bite the heads off of chickens, let alone act as a football color commentator. Forgive me. There is no difference although chicken head biters are less thuggis, criminal, and overpampered than NFL owners, coaches, and players.Comment Posted By obamathered On 15.10.2009 @ 13:43
It is not an analogy. I never intended it to be and you and other ideologues seem to be the only ones taking it as such. I am not comparing war to the Olympics. That is incredibly simplistic and shows you have a mind incapable of processing information correctly. I am showing a similarity in attitudes - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples given. There is no reason to give more or less weight to one example or the other. It is the attitude that is at issue - and I pointed out that both right and left suffer similar ideological delusions.
You didn't explain anything. You denied something you obviously did. Jesus Christ, man, you wrote something incredibly stupid that even a ten year old could correctly interpret. And then you compound the stupidity with denial of the obvious. The only ones not "taking it as such" are left-wing ideologues only because they also think disloyal opposition to an ongoing war is analogous to the ridicule of a president over his failure to snag the Olympics.
As someone above wrote, the actual test of whether the Right will act as despicably as the Left will be if the president commits additional troops to Afghanistan and they then raise hell.
Again, it is a shameful comparison that at one time would have been beneath you. And since I think you are twitching to hit the ban button, the irony is that I opposed the Iraq invasion. Unlike much of the Left, though, I didn't do anything to undermine the troops once they were sent.Comment Posted By obamathered On 14.10.2009 @ 17:08
I honestly can't remember whether I snickered when Chicago didn't get the Olympics, though. If I did, please forgive my unpatriotic behavior.