Michael, your dig at aoibhneas is clever, but do you think any of your posts today are any more mature, or add greater value? What does gloating over a poor performance by Jindal add to the discussion? Seems more appropriate for the daily kos.Comment Posted By lionheart On 25.02.2009 @ 11:48
Great song! Very good excuse.Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.02.2009 @ 16:12
Michael (comment 14), are you a hash-house harrier? I've been to my share of down-downs, but I never figured you for one :-)
And yes, I do stand corrected.Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.02.2009 @ 14:34
There is no doubt that all GOP governors will take most of the money
Jindal has already turned it down, and I would be surprised if Haley Barbour takes it.Comment Posted By lionheart On 24.02.2009 @ 09:07
Oops, screwed up the link... didn't mean for it to redirect, only to pop up a new window. Sorry, Rick.Comment Posted By lionheart On 23.02.2009 @ 07:44
I think it is unrealistic to believe that any group as large as the GOP would have a unified message. Steele needs to lead the charge with an optimistic message, but a multi-prong attack is not only realistic, but probably effective. For example, Steele's message would not convert some center-left voters, but pointing out Obama's broken campaign promises may be effective for that bloc. Red-meat from Limbaugh and Hannity fires up the base. Gingrich's intellectual counters to the Obama plan (see here ) will attract some, and taxpayer rage will play well to others.
As far as taxpayer rage goes, what surprises me as much as anything is that more leftys aren't outraged by the method by which this stimulus bill got passed. There is certainly consensus that: nobody has read the entire bill; that it is laden with pork; that some, if not most of the pork will have no effect on stimulating the economy; that this gigantic spending package needed more analysis and debate. There's no magic money tree, and somebody is going to have to pay for it- that's you and me (both leftys and rightys). I suspect that the taxpayer rage issues is now in its infancy. Wait until it starts coming out of our paychecks.Comment Posted By lionheart On 23.02.2009 @ 07:43
Michael, my point is that most people (myself included, and you too, based on your anecdote about the children's book), would never have associated the cartoon with Obama. It had to be pointed out by the racialists. When my wife asks me if her butt looks big in a dress, I am aware that the answer "it kinda does" may hurt. But I shouldn't have to measure every word or action to see if anybody's feelings will get hurt when I am oblivious (or possibly naive) about the effect, and especially so when those hurt feelings are manufactured for political or personal gain.Comment Posted By lionheart On 20.02.2009 @ 15:10
Michael Reynolds, it seems to me that if the intent was NOT racist, then there should be nothing to "think through". By doing that (giving consideration to how it is perceived), then you are perpetuating political correctness and enabling phony outrage.
At what point will our society (both blacks and whites, conservatives and liberals) stop trying to read something into nothing, or more importantly, ignore as freakish aberrations, real acts of racism? Do we need to say, elect a black president? Appoint some blacks to high cabinet posts? Give blacks preferential treatment in job interviews and college entrance?
Oh well, maybe one of these days something like that will happen.Comment Posted By lionheart On 20.02.2009 @ 12:46
It's the "Equalization of Opportunity Act", right out of Atlas Shrugged. Sorry, I can't resist pointing out the amazing similarities.Comment Posted By lionheart On 16.02.2009 @ 11:45
"Fat old man"?
Maybe old, but svelte now, no?
Heh - well, 50 lbs is a lot to lose - except when you have to lose 50 more.
ed.Comment Posted By lionheart On 12.02.2009 @ 12:42