Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:54 AM ET, 01/29/2011

Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Only 21 months until election day.

By Greg Sargent  | January 29, 2011; 6:54 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

Bill Clinton's Free Trade deals have placed a great deal of economic pressure on nations like Egypt.

If you think American workers have felt the pain from the addition of millions of Chinese and Indian low-paid workers to the global workforce, imagine what the impact has been in Egypt.

Clearly, it is Bill Clinton's fault.

The cause of the problems in Egypt can be traced directly to Bill Clinton's economic policies.


The democrats really have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the policies of their own party. When the democrats cause a major problem, the democrats and the liberals run like little children. It is unbelievable that these are adults representing themselves as mature enough to have a voice in the government's policies.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

The Egyptian situation is extremely serious on several fronts.

First, the Muslim Brotherhood could take over Egypt. Please do not listen to anyone who is trying to make this group sound like the Woman's Garden Club.


This is a highly radical Islamic group seeking to impose Islamic law all over the Middle East. PRACTICALLY EVERY TERRORIST GROUP in the Middle East has its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. They are a extremely secret group. People who have posed their whole lives as moderates have been found out later to have been a secret part of the Muslim Brotherhood for decades.


Don't be fooled by any pundits attempting to tell you that this group isn't that bad.

They are bad. They want to spread to other nations in the Middle East. And don't forget the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty will be out if these people take over.

Hamas in the Gaza Strip will immediately gain with a radical take-over in Egypt.


This situation is extremely serious. So liberals - please don't try to place a patisan garbage democracy label to anything that is happening right now. These are the radical Islamics - the suicide bombers - trying to take over a major country.

This is potentially on the level of the Iranian revolution.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Ha'aretz reporting at least 35 dead in Egypt...

http://www.haaretz.com/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:37 AM | Report abuse

tao said:

""So everything printed in the Daily Mail can be dismissed as propaganda""

Bernie replied:

""Neither said nor implied.""

Riiiight.

I presented excerpts from book by a former BBC employee, excerpts that had been re-printed in the Daily Mail. Your immediate, and in fact only, response was not to address the substance of the excerpts but was, rather, to present the Daily Mail as a disreputable propaganda organ. The clear and undeniable implication of this was that the excerpts were discreditable simply for having been printed by the DM.

It is striking how someone who rails on and on about the alleged dishonesty of so many others can so easily lie through his teeth when it suits him.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:00 AM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""I fail to see how a bunch of local service businesses on the order of donut shops would support the massive U.S. economy.""

""Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees."

http://economics.about.com/od/smallbigbusiness/a/us_business.htm

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Kristol tries to rally the troops. Again. A few points to note: first, the acknowledgement of the centrality of economy/jobs for 2012; second, the implicit advice to continue trying to portray health reform as an albatross; third, insistence that Obama hasn't redefine the center but moved right (a key narrative for Bill). But I'll quote two key passages...

"Moreover, to the degree the economy is coming back, will Obama’s stimulus—passed despite Republican opposition—get the credit? Or will it be his move to the center and his acceptance of the Bush tax rates that will seem to have worked? It’s more likely to be the latter, which will be of less electoral utility to Obama."

It's not more likely at all, of course. But as we've already seen, it's exactly the way Republicans will tell the story.

"Of course, much will depend on the caliber of the GOP ticket. It would be good if that ticket were superior to—or at least more exciting and inspiring than—the past five. Ryan-Rubio or Christie-Rubio, anyone?"

Boy, does Bill want a savior. He wants that really really a lot. But they all do.

The thing to attend to with Kristol is how what he says and writes has a particular relationship to the truth. He doesn't have interest in it other than in a utilitarian sense (he has to look like he cares about it so he's wary of being caught in shallow lies and incoherencies). He tells stories.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

That is the Muslim Brotherhood for you. They are trying to take over the crowd - and make Egypt an Islamic Republic using Islamic law.

The women of Egypt will be suppressed.


The liberals are rushing to support an Islamic revolution seeking to establish Islamic law.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I was in Jakarta when Suharto fell in this way, I did not know if I was going to live through it. I hired thugs wearing lots of watches on both arms to protect me. In one 24 hour period I saw maybe 500 corpses and pieces of corpses, mostly from the fires. Until the WTC horror, I thought I would never see a skyscraper on fire again. This event in Egypt is too well televised for carnage, Gil Scott Heron was wrong, a proper revolution should be televised.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 29, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""It's not more likely at all, of course.""

Isn't this an admission that what you perceive as Republican "propaganda" will fail? And, if so, why are you continually so hyped up about it?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Boy, does Bill want a savior.""

Shocking, isn't it, that a Republican wants a strong Republican presidential ticket? We can only shake our heads at such desperate craziness, eh?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Bernie and All,

It is clear that NOTHING Obama has done has worked. The stimulus wasted 800 Billion dollars.


Sorry, but you seem more concerned with whether Obama gets credit for something - rather than the people who are out of work.

That is the problem with the liberals.

The liberals have lost their way to such an extent - they are supposed to care about the working man - but in reality the liberals are more concerned with Obama's approval ratings.


I tell you - what would you rather have - Obama having a solid 55% and 15 million out of work OR Obama stuck at 45% and 5 million out of work?

Are you willing to trade jobs for Obama's approval rating???

WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU???

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Bi-partisan redefinition of "rape"...

"Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), a chair of the House pro-life caucus, isn't answering questions today about the controversial abortion law -- or its potential deleterious effects on rape or incest victims -- that he's cosponsored along with many big names in the Republican majority."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/dem-co-sponsor-of-forcible-rape-law-not-talking.php?ref=fpb

I, for one, firmly hold that the Church ought to have control and effective ownership of womens' vaginas and wombs. Women, on their own, will commonly mis-use that which they are only borrowing from the Creator.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Reports are that Obama has NOT been on the telephone with the Egyptian government -


WOW


Deer in headlights time for Obama.


Obama has NO IDEA what he is doing


The liberals have forced an unqualified person on this nation - and it is a serious situation right now - Thank you liberals for putting our GREAT NATION at such a disadvantage in these trying times.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

You are right - women misuse their vaginas.


The government should do something about that.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

@shrink - Yes. Still and video photographic capability in damn near every citizens' hands is a seriously wonderful phenomenon.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Reports are that Obama has NOT been on the telephone with the Egyptian government -

WOW

Deer in headlights time for Obama.

Obama has NO IDEA what he is doing


Unbelievable how bad this dude Obama is. How clearly unqualified and inadequate for the job he is.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

a proper revolution should be televised.

Is the technology driving the policy???

Perhaps we should step back - and chose the correct policies - instead of reacting to some car burning.

Seriously folks - this is a serious situation -

Serious for our Economy. Obama is worthless. The American People are correct to have ZERO CONFIDENCE in Obama that he can accomplish what needs to be done for proper National Security.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Every liberal who voted for an UNQUALIFIED PERSON was clearly being IRRESPONSIBLE with America.


It is that simple, every adult who IGNORED QUALIFICATIONS when voting for Obama was EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE WITH THIS COUNTRY.


The liberals are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the wasted $800 Billion in stimulus, responsible for Obama's drag on the economy, and PERSONALLY responsible for Obama's horrible Middle East policies.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Hey ScottC.

Could you at least try to create a token appearance of responding to the post you're nominally quoting?

Your responses seem to bear no relation at all. You're one step away from posting recipes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Shocking, isn't it, that a Republican wants a strong Republican presidential ticket? We can only shake our heads at such desperate craziness, eh?

==

The craziness is in believing you have one.

Wow you sure have your undies in a bundle over GOP prospects in 2012. River in Egypt; you know it's a lost cause already, don't you.

It's OK to cry.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Now, here's a big surprise. John Bolton, Mark Levine and Michael Ledeen would rather have an oppressive political regime remain in place rather than allow the citizens of Egypt to sort out their own government for themselves.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/29/no-caring-democracy-bolton/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

MARXISTS

Clearly, the liberals keep on saying that the Egyptian situation has its roots in economics - that the poor are not treated well Yea, Bill Clinton's Free Trade deals have hurt the working people of Egypt dramatically.

However - the MARXIST interpretation which focuses on economics ignores the Islamic motivation - that the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to take over the crowd - and impose an Islamic Revolution on Egypt

These people are NOT your friends - and dont be naive

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

MARXISTS

Clearly, the liberals keep on saying that the Egyptian situation has its roots in economics - that the poor are not treated well Yea, Bill Clinton's Free Trade deals have hurt the working people of Egypt dramatically.

However - the MARXIST interpretation which focuses on economics ignores the Islamic motivation - that the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to take over the crowd - and impose an Islamic Revolution on Egypt

These people are NOT your friends - and dont be naive

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Bernie

You are a fool if you want an Islamic government to take power in Egypt.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Q.B. In response to you from the prior thread.

“Your fever dreams aren't reality. “ Actually, the author factually refuted this latest ignorant attack on her.”

This of course is simply a matter of your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions so I won’t go there. :-)

“OMG! She mispoke one word for a similar one”

No that wasn’t the point at all now was it?. I tossed in her “creation” refudiate. She does this with regularity and even you noted how she mangled syntax in that sentence. As far as the limits of a TV interview…these are not interviews they are Fox plugs for one of their hosts. By that I mean, unlike a REAL interview Sarah still has control…she could get a list of the questions if she wished…but in this case it’s even worse…knowing that she was going to be giving a response to the SOTU she could have “prepared”. Oh but that’s right Sister Sarah doesn’t do preparation. Her handlers are idiots. They eliminated “real” interviews and confine her to facebook and twitter…again speaks highly of her gravitas as Rove might say. Since her only TV exposure is on a “reality” show and Faux News they should insist she stay on prompter for anything over :30 seconds.

“No, I'm sure she used it without knowing it had that double-entendre meaning. When she said "WTF moment" she meant "Winning the Future moment."”

And your certainty is based on what? No snark I missed any follow up where SHE said this but perhaps you have a link enlightening. me. Really unfortunate if it was AN ACCIDENT…because I not only read the transcript I watched the Faux commercial and she clearly went from addressing Obama’s Winning the Future” moment to her typical sarcastic harpy witch mode with yea WTF.

“Duh it right, ruk. Sputnik was considered the winning salvo in the race "to" space, bud. That's what she said. You are trying way to hard and lookin silly”

Projection about trying way too hard and looking silly Q.B.? LMAO

She said….“And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won,”

No they did not win…and statements must be taken in context…Obama clearly made the reference as an analogy about facing a great challenge…such as the Soviets getting out of the gate first…but us responding and ultimately WINNING that race. IF she did mean what you’re trying to foist on us, you poor pathetic apologist that would be just as ignorant because it means she not only can’t speak English she doesn’t comprehend it either…Obama’s analogy was very clear and confused nobody but Sister Sarah.

“Historians and our own intelligence analyses said the SU in fact was on the road to bankruptcy way back then”

On the road to bankruptcy? Cmon Q.B. you can do better than that…on the road is not the same as bankrupt…especially when you’re talking about 30 years. According to all the R’s we are on the road to bankruptcy as we speak.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Nothing more needfully dishonest than defending Palin.

Really, QB, and to think you claim to be educated. You're disgracing yourself here. Reading you defending Palin is like watching a house burn down.

She's a lazy idiot and you know it.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Cao

Please leave this blog. You have left the country - stop interfering in the internal affairs of the United States.


Go start taking your anger to Vietnamese pols.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

cao said: "Could you at least try to create a token appearance of responding to the post you're nominally quoting?"

It's alright. Scott and I had a tiff. There were things said, tears, some broken china, and photographs of in-laws desecrated. We're not talking presently so he's free to say whatever he likes.

On another matter though...

Here's an instance of why I love Michelle Bachmann's political philosophy as much as I do.

"Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) broke unexpected ground this week, presenting a budget plan that included freezing Veterans Affairs health care spending and cutting veterans' disability benefits considerably."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027753.php

So, on the one hand, we have these veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with arms and legs and half their faces blown away and/or with deep psychological trauma from what they've just gone through (along with any hope of a normal happy human future for many of them) and it is necessary that they tighten their belts because spending is bad.

On the other hand, we have the Wall Street/corporate heroes who have put in long hours under unhealthy lighting and who suffer the egregious demands to limit their purchase of large sailing vessels and private jets and Polynesian get-aways because of the theft of some portion of their earned billions via taxation.

What kind of morality refuses to recognize and reward those executives who have given so much for the good of themselves?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone read about the governor of Ohio telling a black state senator in a meeting about is all white cabinet that he didn't need her people? She said she didn't know if he meant black people or democrats. His spokesperson said he meant democrats which is just as idiotic. Guess he plans on passing bills with only republicans that effect only republicans

Posted by: osmondbrinson | January 29, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

@OhioHunter
"@fiona5 "Actuarial reports indicate SS will run a surplus and pay full benefits until 2037."

@jnc4p "What's your source for this? The reports I read recently stated that SS is due to go into deficit (defined as starting to draw down the "trust fund" and thus requiring the government debt it holds to be repaid rather than helping to mask the deficit that the rest of the government runs) this year. I think the timetable moved up due to the decision to suspend collections on employee withholding taxes this year as part of the lame duck tax cut deal.

I believe that 2037 is when the "trust fund" is exhausted."

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

This is "A SUMMARY OF THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORTS" by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees"

I think I am correct on this. Per the report linked above:

"Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report."

Note that in order to "redeem trust fund assets" other Federal government spending must be cut, other taxes raised, or a larger overall deficit run. But the fact remains that Social Security is running a deficit this year, and if the projections are accurate, will permanently run deficits starting in 2014.

I also think the expectation of the social security deficit "shrink substantially for 2011" was written before the payroll tax cut was done during the lame duck.

Posted by: jnc4p | January 29, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

@Scott Wow that was one of the weakest posts I've seen from you.

12BAR said """I fail to see how a bunch of local service businesses on the order of donut shops would support the massive U.S. economy.""

ON THE ORDER OF DONUT SHOPS not a small factory like Obama visited earlier this week. I am a small business man with 5 Employees. Most of my friends who have small businesses employ similar numbers.
Small business obviously has different meanings for different folks.

You present statistics which actually confirm 12Bar's post not refute it!
She said again..."on the order of donut shops so she clearly qualified what type of small business she was talking about...as did Palin. A small donut shop would be lucky to hire the equivalent of a half dozen full time jobs...probably most positions would be part time with zero benefits...you know Scott as in no health care!

Even though 12Bar and Palin clearly qualified the "size" of the small business...a donut shop...even if we were generous and took your figure from 0-20 employees when you do the math you see that is less than 1 out of four...right at 25%. While again according to your statistics...actually those you linked..not yours...I'm not doubting their accuracy...half of the workers are employed by very large companies of over 500.

The tax laws and regulations impact businesses like mine...10 or less far differently that employers with 20 even though for your statistical analysis we are lumped together. I can guarantee you we are nothing like companies that employ 21-99! 12Bar's point is right on....our economy is not going to survive on small businesses of 10 or less. We are unable to provide health insurance. By and large..."generally" speaking if you'll permit an observation that I do not have time to document....workers with the "good" jobs...like SBJ's golden benefits employer..are not those with 20 or less employees but rather the largest..those over 500...thank heavens we have those employers...and we should be looking for more good jobs...not mom and pop donut shops with dead end positions.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Greg, can you also estimate how many MONTHS before the new comment system?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 29, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Peace all, back in a week or so.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 29, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Palin says donut gimmicks are more important than the advancement of space exploration and Scott responds with some employment statistics.

Dickens couldn't make this stuff up.

Kafka couldn't make this stuff up.

Take a break, Scott. Seriously. Defending Palin is like contemplating infinity. It's unhealthy and in the end it just deranges you.

She made a really really stupid remark. She gets nothing but underhand softballs, she gets to preview them, she could have all the time she wanted for fact checking, and still she gets basic facts wrong and basic words wrong.

And still people defend her. Simply heartbreaking how badly some people need something to believe in.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"One US Corporation's Role in Egypt's Brutal Crackdown
by Timothy Karr
The open Internet's role in popular uprising is now undisputed. Look no further than Egypt, where the Mubarak regime today reportedly shut down Internet and cell phone communications -- a troubling predictor of the fierce crackdown that has followed.

What's even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt's harsh response through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.

The power of open networks is clear. The Internet's favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)

But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.

Telecom Egypt, the nation's dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.

Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, "disappear" truckloads of cyber-dissidents..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/28-12

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Greg, can you also estimate how many MONTHS before the new comment system?

==

What do you care, Jake? It only means that your reading audience will be reduced to RFR.

Any special reason you can't use Troll Hunter like everyone else?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"This of course is simply a matter of your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions so I won’t go there. :-)'

No, my friend. He cited specifics like Robert Gates' first-hand history. Dismissing that as nothing but "Bullshite" is just . . . Bullshite.

"No that wasn’t the point at all now was it?. ...."

You can diss the interview-ness of it however you want. It was extemporaneous speaking, where no one is perfect. People can even say they just visited 57 states, with more to go.

"And your certainty is based on what?'

I'm at a loss to understand how you can mockingly question whether she knows the "meaning" of WTF, particularly when you at the same time attack her lack of class for using it. Your Palin rage is overcoming the most elementary logic.

"Projection about trying way too hard and looking silly Q.B.? LMAO"

Hardly. Obama said,"Half a century ago, the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik."

Did you catch that? The Russkies "beat us into space." Said Obama.

But you trash Palin as stupid and ignorant for saying they won "the race to space." Perhaps you can explain what the major, factual difference is between those two formulations, one accurate and one stupid and wrong.

"No they did not win…"

That's funny, because Obama said they beat us into space. See above.

"and statements must be taken in context"

That's rich, coming in the midst of an argument by you that is nothing more than trying to twist Palin's words and deny their clear meaning.

"Obama’s analogy was very clear and confused nobody but Sister Sarah."

It didn't confuse her. She responded directly too it and more particularly to the lesson he draws from it. Her point is was perfectly clear to all but you crazed haters.

"On the road to bankruptcy? Cmon Q.B. you can do better than that…on the road is not the same as bankrupt…especially when you’re talking about 30 years."

If you could refute the point made by the linked column, you would. But you can't. The SU was already an economic house of cards even in the 50s. That's a fact, as you like to say, one documented by Robert Gates among others. They couldn't afford their space and military programs, but of course they didn't care about that.

If we go with the bankruptcy analogy, nations and businesses and people can be insolvent and in the red for a long time before the reckoning. Totalitarian states can live off the backs of their oppressed victims that way for years.

You are quibbling over whether it's a precise statement to say the SU was bankrupt only when it ceased to exist or during the decades of its zombie-like existence leading to that momemt. Pathetic.

"According to all the R’s we are on the road to bankruptcy as we speak."

We are. We know you are double-minded about debts and deficits, but most people don't think our current course is sustainable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""We're not talking presently...""

We? I don't think so.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

"His spokesperson said he meant democrats which is just as idiotic."

Actually it's you and the race-hustling Nina Turner who are idiotic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Quarterback, you're melting down before an audience.

Hide yeer shame, mon.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The most prominent AA pol in Ohio is conservative Republican and Kasich ally Ken Blackwell.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/01/28/story-columbus-kasich-cabinet-controversy.html?sid=102


How big a fool and race hustler does that make Nina Turner?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""Wow that was one of the weakest posts I've seen from you.""

If only I had a dollar for every time you have said that.

In any event, if you or 12Bar want to limit the point strictly to Palin's single anecdotal example, that's fine. In that case you are definitely correct that the American economy cannot be supported by nothing more than bakeries in Richland, Washington. Very sage of you, and how stupid of Palin to think otherwise.

(Although, it is probably unfair of me to include 12Bar above, as even she understood that "Mrs. Palin just wanted to talk about small business". This silly literalism is, it seems, primarily an ruk affectation.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 9:53 AM | Report abuse

OhioHunter

We understand that you are attempting to find evidence that ALL Republicans are racist.

WHY DONT you confine your RACIST-HUNTING to Rev. Wright and the members of his group, like Obama????


_____________


Kasich told Turner, “I don’t need your people

WHAT Kasich was saying is

he didn't want their LIBERAL BLACKS


Kasich meant


He CAN FIND HIS OWN CONSERVATIVE BLACKS

They do exist you know

STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING RACIST

THE PROBLEM WITH THE LIBERALS IS IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE LIBERALS, YOU ARE RACIST.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

OhioHunter


You are clearly trying to turn an innocent comment into a national racial incident.

Kasich was clearly saying that he wanted to get his own CONSERVATIVE Blacks for those positions.


The liberals think they have a monopoly on the blacks - and they should be referring blacks for government positions.

Well, the Republicans can get their own Blacks Conservatives - and they are fine - they do not need referrals from the liberal groups on who to hire.


Get it???

Im sure you all would LOVE TO MAKE THIS RACIAL.

But it really is not racial - it is about partisanship.

The Governor has a RIGHT to appoint people who AGREE WITH HIM. And I can assure you that there are ENOUGH BLACKS IN OHIO WHO AGREE WITH HIM.


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 10:05 AM | Report abuse

So!

Has everyone staked out some property near the next huge U.S. Government project for opening their own doughnut shop?
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

OhioHunter

The American People are not going to stand anymore for your kind of RACE-BAITING and RACIST WITCH-HUNTS.


OK? Kasich can find his own people to appoint - Conservative Blacks who agree with him and who have helped out Conservative causes.


What his comment meant was CLEARLY THIS: Ms. Turner, we do NOT want your LIBERALS in our administration.


It had to do with the over-spending, deficit-loving, liberal-agenda-imposing LIBERALS. It was not a racial thing.


I know you want to MAKE this a racial thing.

Time to go now - time for the liberals to leave now.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

What Sarah Palin actually said:

"That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the INEVITABLE collapse of the Soviet Union." (Emphasis Added)

As part of "inevitable" I include the race for a space-based missile defense system that, yes, REAGAN finally used to push them over the edge.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 29, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

clawrence

What are you hoping to get out of the new comments section?

Clearly, it will be used against the Conservatives.

The liberals always get off scott-free.


Cillizza's blog is dead. Im not exactly sure if it is working very well on twitter either. I mean - how many people are following it on twitter? Perhaps people are forwarding Cillizza's articles around, however as a blog, the place is roadkill.

Im not sure what the solution is.


However, one thing I am sure of: the unequal enforcement of moderation policy leads to more fighting, and a worse blog. Injustice leads to fighting.

Greg should learn that.

The Washington Post is still trying to deal with the internet itself - adjusting to actually having a webpage.

Add to that the blogs, and they really can't handle it.

Add to that the moderation policies, and how one enforces that policies. They have these blog writers - who hardly understand how politics works - being assigned the blog moderation on the side. They really don't want to do moderation enforcement.

Add to that a guy like Cao who had 50 IP addresses per day - and things are a nightmare.

The Washington Post wants to put out a newspaper. If they didnt HAVE TO have a webpage, I would imagine they wouldn't.

The editors don't want to listen to their own reporters, much less the readers.


There is still EXTREME ARROGANCE in the news room. The editors STILL think they are TELLING the readers what to think.


Guess what? The readers ARE WRITING BACK. and its not pretty.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Telegraph of London is reporting

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.


He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.


___________________


So, this paper is saying that Obama is BEHIND THE UPRISING


So, Obama is so fed up with the Israelis - and their position on the settlements - that Obama is PURPOSELY DERAILING THE EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI PEACE FROM THE 1970s.


And purposely trying to put pressure on Israel


The idiot Obama might end up with a revolution in Saudi Arabia and all of us waiting in line at gas stations -

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""In that case you are definitely correct that the American economy cannot be supported by nothing more than bakeries in Richland, Washington. Very sage of you, and how stupid of Palin to think otherwise.""

It's even better than that. She said we needed "more Spudnuts moments," and went on to say this one in Richland has been open 60-some years.

So what she's saying is that we all need to be savvy business owners, who **open our businesses in proximity to HUGE U.S. Government spending projects** -- in this case, the Manhattan Project, but maybe in our case it'll be a FEMA concentration camp or Death Panel HQ.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

You can argue (laughably) that the government doesn't create jobs, but you can't argue that this doughnut shop would have opened and prospered for over 60 years if Richland, WA were still a rural farming community of 300 people... as it was before Uncle Sugar came to town.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

jp:

""So what she's saying is that we all need to be savvy business owners, who open our businesses in proximity to HUGE U.S. Government spending projects""

I'm not sure quite what your point is.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""I'm not sure quite what your point is.""

I'm saying that she picked the perfect example of a business that wouldn't be where it is today had the U.S. Government not spent a trainload of cash there to practically transform the area from a muddy spot in the dirt road to a thriving small town -- thanks to U.S. Government jobs and taxpayer money.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"I'm not sure quite what your point is."

His point is that all jobs are "created" by the government, so all we have to do is increase government spending until everyone is employed and rich.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

... which is to say, irony and subtlety are completely lost on certain people who're looking to score cheap, easy points via alliteration, also, such as.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 11:43 AM | Report abuse

jp:

""You can argue (laughably) that the government doesn't create jobs""

Who argues that? Clearly, if the government hires someone to do something, it has "created a job", even if that new hire does something of no value whatsoever to anyone.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"thanks to U.S. Government jobs and taxpayer money"

. . . that was all part of the effort to build nukes to win WWII. Not government economic plannning. Duh.

And if the larger context matters, Spudnuts was a franchise company that didn't start in Richland. But please keep flailing away.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Did the Spudnuts build in Richland because of the Manhattan Project, or did the Manhattan Project come to Richland for the awesome doughnuts?

Res ipsa loquitur.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"... which is to say, irony and subtlety are completely lost on certain people who're looking to score cheap, easy points via alliteration, also, such as.
."

Cheap point scoring is exactly what you were doing by hooting about Richland's Manhattan Project history. If you had a more sensible and subtle point, you should have made it. But that's not your thing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Res ipsa loquitur.
."

There you go again.

Even here you fail to grasp such elementary flaws in your implicit argument as the fact that the folks who opened the franchise there could just as well have opened it somewhere else if Richland hadn't grown up during the war. See, people moved there to work on the project. From other places doing other things. If all those people hadn't been needed for reactor work to beat the Germans and Japanese, they'd have been somewhere else doing something else, like building cars or baking bread.

That's what you people don't get -- what is not seen. Study it sometime.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

While I seem to be alone in my disdain for a Congress that could not pass any appropriations bills and funds the federal budget on Continuing Resolutions, I want to again make the point that our lawmakers whom we elect, D and R, for years now, have shirked their primary responsibility. And we are about to pay a price for it.

From Scripps-Howard:

*Nearly a year ago, the Obama administration asked Congress for $549 billion to run the Pentagon in the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1.But because of delays, partisan politicking and the inefficiency of the system, Congress never got around to approving that money.*

*Instead, it enacted a series of temporary bills — the Pentagon is currently operating under the fourth such measure — allowing the military to spend at fiscal 2010 levels. But the budget for that year was $526 billion, $23 billion less than was needed for this year.*

*The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq won't be affected since they are funded separately, but everything else in the military will be. Unless Congress acts, Gates will be forced to order cuts in training, operations and maintenance.*

*"Frankly," says Gates, "that's how you hollow out a military, even in wartime. This has to do with the security of the country."*

*While Congress seems unable to bestir itself to enact the current year's military budget, lawmakers can't seem to wait to get at the fiscal 2012 defense budget. Gates has promised that the military would do its part for the new austerity by cutting $78 billion in planned spending over the next five years.*

*Among the cuts: killing the Marines' $15 billion expeditionary fighting vehicle; delaying production of the F-35 fighter; and trimming the manpower of the Army and the Marines by 42,000 or more.*

*Deficit hawks in Congress say it's not enough; traditional supporters of the military, like Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, say it's too much.*

*Lawmakers will have plenty of time to argue that out this spring and summer. Right now, says Gates, "I have a crisis on my doorstep. And I want them to deal with the crisis on my doorstep."*

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 29, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Someone who's defending a moron who claimed that the space race brought the Soviets to bankruptcy (over the span of 35 years) is in no position to be judging whether or not others are making "sensible and subtle" points.

This must be a real struggle for you - "do I defend the obviously unintelligent grifter from Wasilla, or stand firm behind the myth that the Soviets collapsed because St. Ronnie said 'tear down this wall!'?" The cognitive dissonance must be quite severe.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Scott...

You're having a rough day my friend...Q.B. I understand...but you?

"This silly literalism is, it seems, primarily an ruk affectation.)"

If this isn't one of the most egregious examples of the pot calling the kettle black. As 12Bar would say..bwaaahaaahaaaaa
That is truly rich coming from the masterdebater.

Q.B. You continue to show your ignorance defending Sarah Palin. You do realize of course that when you view "intelligent" "serious" people from EITHER party you are in such a small minority it's pathetic. But go ahead Q.B. run with the blog half wits...sad to think of you as RFR or clawrence/jake but that's pretty much what you represent when it comes to Palin.

Now Q.B. why don't you begin lecturing us on he fact that Obama is not really a citizen and therefore not President because that is the level your intellectual presentations on Palin have descended.

I'll pound you no more on the subject Q.B.
You seem like a nice guy and it's wrong to kick someone when their down. Good luck on your Palin defense...too bad your children will learn the truth in decades to come when the history books are written.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Did the Spudnuts build in Richland because of the Manhattan Project, or did the Manhattan Project come to Richland for the awesome doughnuts?""

Again, what exactly is your point? People who work for the government are no different from other people...they need and want goods and services, and so private businesses will arise in order to provide those goods and services.

Is it your point that the people who moved to Richland to work for the government, and hence spawned the creation of the likes of Spudnuts would not have had those needs and wants if they had worked for a non-governmental entity in a different place, and hence would not have spawned anything like Spudnuts? If so, that seems a rather foolish belief. If not, then again, what point are you trying to make?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

On record as not a Palin4Pres person. Calling her a moron here has quite the "Lord of the Flies" vibe for the rote/prog crowd. Its oddly exhilarating for some. Lots of sturmdrang but short substance, usually the case with those of the self-annointed SP(tm)* feedback loop.

btw: Why did the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics collapse? Enlighten us.

{{{they seemed so...vital, sniff, so young,
sooo...so...sexy...sob...why?why?why?....}}}

*SmartPerson

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

rukidding - you missed the qb fun yesterday. First he claimed that Frances Fox Piven was trying to incite violence because she made an observation that probably the only way the unemployed would be able to tear Washington's attention away from attending to the needs of their wealthy and corporate clientele is with massive street protests - like those seen in Greece. She went on to say that of course no one can predict the tipping points that cause these things to flare up, but that if such a movement did flare up here, she would go out and march with them.

Ok so...first off, he claimed that was a call for violence, because she alluded to Greece, even though it included no call to action. Next up, he crapped all down his leg trying to claim that Frances Fox Piven is a leading light and spokesman for the left and always has been (Eurasia has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia...) and his evidence for this was...wait for it...he'd heard of her before and she once debated Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Next he tried to pretend that how would I know if she was a leader and spokesman for the left for the past 45 years or not if I hadn't even heard of her? (the question that answers itself) Which of course 99% of Americans had probably never heard of her before she became the newest Beck bogeyman (really, Glen? You can't find anyone other than old ladies to terrorize?), including me, and in fact if I, as a newshound and political junkie, hadn't heard of her, then I know hardly anyone else has - certainly not the "heartlanders" who make up the GOP base, which is not surprising since she doesn't have a huge movement of people following her like Martin Luther King, and she isn't even a nascent Al Sharpton, who never had much of a following in terms of numbers of people but who has been very good at raising his profile both through showboating and legitimate issues.

After that, he didn't respond again.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Arfie arfed:

"Someone who's defending a moron who claimed that the space race brought the Soviets to bankruptcy (over the span of 35 years) is in no position to be judging whether or not others are making "sensible and subtle" points."

Oh the irony. Some of you libs are nothing if not simple minded.

"This must be a real struggle for you - "do I defend the obviously unintelligent grifter from Wasilla, or stand firm behind the myth that the Soviets collapsed because St. Ronnie said 'tear down this wall!'?" The cognitive dissonance must be quite severe."

Since neither one of those is something I need to do, I don't feel and dissonance at all. But I'd think you libs do, since your official story holds that the SU collapsed of its own weight and dysfunctionality, and Reagan's reckless and dangerous defense spending had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 12:35 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

""That is truly rich...""

Perhaps, but true nonetheless.

As I said, even 12Bar seemed to understand that Palin was making a point about small businesses in general, and of course my original simply highlighted some statistics about small businesses and the economy. Now, of course one could argue about what defines a small business, and claim that those stats exaggerate their relevance. But who could possibly have guessed that the difference between making a solid point and having "one of the weakest posts I've seen" hangs on whether a small business is defined as less than 500 workers or less than 100?

You really need to get some perspective, ruk.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Scott C. Homer Simpson, and Chief Clancy Wiggum have all come out in favor of Sarah Palin's proposal to establish An American Donut Industrial Complex.

Run Sarah Run. This is your Sputnik moment. Only you can win the space race to have America be the first to establish Donut Shops on Mars.

Run Sarah Run. You can get the job done.

Just for two years. Just for two years.

Palin for President:
2013-2015.
Make Homer your Campaign Manager. Well Donut!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

".too bad your children will learn the truth in decades to come when the history books are written."

Unless they read whatever the hell Palin has been reading.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"I'll pound you no more on the subject Q.B.
You seem like a nice guy and it's wrong to kick someone when their down."

Hahahahaha. When you get knocked down, it's really not good form to promise to stop beating your foe.

You apparently can't explain how Palin was so stupid and wrong for saying precisely the same thing about Sputnik -- that the Russkies beat us to space. Just admit you went off the deep end. You'll feel better, and your yoga instructor would probably be proud of you.

"Q.B. You continue to show your ignorance defending Sarah Palin."

I'm just laughing at you patients of the PDS ward. She's not my "candidate," as you know. I just like watching all the fleas jump to find any word she says wrong.

"You do realize of course that when you view "intelligent" "serious" people from EITHER party you are in such a small minority it's pathetic."

?????????

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

qb:

""Hahahahaha. When you get knocked down, it's really not good form to promise to stop beating your foe. ""

ruk reminds me of the Black Night in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

sorry...Black Knight.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

However we define small business, surely no one thinks we can support our economy with only small business. The example that Mrs. Palin used is a donut shop! This is the classic business who serves the needs of a larger employer, as jd writes.

We all probably worked at this type of business when we were young, and I appreciate my experience and my 90 cents an hour, but get real. This is not what most of us aspire to to fulfill our destiny.

We need business of every size. We need businesses who mine, manufacture, construct, assemble, and yes deep fry donuts. It is plain silly to claim that donut shops have some privileged place in the economy and Oracle and Microsoft and GE don't. It is plain silly to make it hard for donut shops to open (and close). That's what makes for a vibrant economy.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The Russian Empire Collapsed.

The British Empire Collapsed.

The French Empire Collapsed.

The Spanish Empire Collapsed.

The Portuguese
Empire Collapsed.

All Empires Collapse, so Tao's pathetic attempt to claim that The Russian Empire would not have collapsed, if it had not being a socialist Empire, is ridiculous.

Like all Empires, it collapsed, because it tried to occupy, and dominate other nations.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm sure you deep thinkers will all scoff at this, but what brought them down was of course a combination of things, the most important of which (IMO) is never cited by either faction, but which I could see coming as a high school senior, 10 years before the collapse actually happened: the world was undergoing a tech revolution and in order to survive in competition, much less hold superpower status, you have to have free flow of information. Otherwise you're out of the game, and the Soviets were out of that game, because free flow of information is ultimately the thing that highly centralized oppressive authoritarian states cannot tolerate or survive. Remember, this was pre-Chinese enlightenment - they have found a way to straddle that line but there's no denying the tensions it has created. The Soviets never got there - they were still kicking it old-school in all regards. Gorbachev was late getting to the game and couldn't turn the ship around quickly enough and of course that old guard, when they'd had enough of his lip, tried to stage a coup which led to Yeltsin and you know the rest.

So if it hadn't happened in 91, it would have happened within a few years. By 91, the Soviets were about 20 years behind the free world in developing an information technology economy, and the inefficiencies of their system were putting them further and further behind. They were spending themselves into the grave on their military - they had gone through their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, which greatly added to that military spending, and basically their model of government could not sustain superpower status in world whose economy had moved beyond the limits it could accomodate.

Reagan may have played a role by encouraging them to spend even more of their dwindling resources on the military than they would have had to spend to simply continue our standoff and fight in Afghanistan, but it wasn't the proximate cause for the collapse.

By the way, neither was Sputnik. The Soviets hadn't done much with their space program in 10 - 15 years by the time of the collapse.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Arfie arfed a bunch of other nonsense starting with:

"rukidding - you missed the qb fun yesterday...."

Why not just link the thread so folks can see what was actually said:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/joe_biden_renews_focus_on_tax.html#comments


Arfie didn't get much of anything right, did she? Well, okay, she didn't get a single thing right.

Arfie is a rare liar even for PL. Rare in that she's too dopey to realize that lies that obvious don't work. That's what vanity will get you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"ruk reminds me of the Black Night in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "What are you going to do, bleed on me?""

It's just a flesh wound!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 29, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love this site. It's amazing how the most concrete of facts somehow become debatable on here. People are actually supporting Palin's nonsense.

I want to be a Conservative for a day. I bet it's a hell of a mind-trip.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

Indeed. He even seems to become more strident the weaker his position becomes.

Some folks across the divide just can't figure out that jumping to rash conclusions and making rash declarations -- like declaring Palin stupid for saying the Soviets beat us to space, just like Obama did -- only sets them up for failure. But it does make this like shooting ducks on the pond.

(Oh no, did I just use hate speech?)

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes, folks, by all means go back and read the thread. You'll see that qb comes off as even more of a jackass than I was able to summarize.

Thanks for the link, qb!

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I am fully backing Palin for the Republican nomination, and will work the primaries for her.

She is fully rested, so I am sure that she can give us a fresh two years in office.

Run Sarah Run. Donut forsake me O my darling.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""However we define small business, surely no one thinks we can support our economy with only small business. "

Agreed.

""This is the classic business who serves the needs of a larger employer, as jd writes.""

Was that his point? I thought he was trying to make a point about the government being an employer, not simply about large employers. What that point was, I confess I don't know.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Crappy formatting...sorry.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

From the last thread:
---

Who decides what amounts to "fair share" ... you? Going back to your original post:

wonder what that fair share may be and why it necessarily requires government coercion to extract it. If bsimon isn't paying his fair share, why doesn't he simply . . . well, maybe he's misplaced his checkbook.

Posted by: Brigade | January 28, 2011 7:11 PM

When does the "coercion" kick in? 10% is not coercion but something more is?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 8:49 AM
==========================================

I'll take it slow, since you seem to have trouble keeping up. My post was in response to bsimon1, who said:

"we still demand services from government and refuse the tax hikes that are necessary to pay for them. Until the majority are willing to pay their fair share, the problem will go unsolved."

You see, it is left-wingers, like you, who seem to know what "their fair share" amounts to because the left-wingers, like you, are the only ones who consistently raise the issue. Coercion means the IRS, i.e. the law, requires that you pay what your representative government has determined is your "fair share". It is not voluntary. The "coercion kicks in" when you owe the government---it doesn't matter whether it's 10% or less or more.

I was responding to bsimon1, but since you've taken up the gauntlet (and judging from some of your other posts), I'll assume you share his sentiments---about people not paying their "fair share". So I'll make the same challenge to you: If you "demand services from government" that you are not paying "your fair share" to fund, just step up and pay your "fair share". You and bsimon1 decide how much more you need to send the government to meet your "fair share" and simply send a check.

If you and all the other liberals have the courage of your convictions, no additional coercion (through higher tax rates) should be needed. Problem solved. Why do you need the government to force you to do what you know is the right thing and your patriotic duty?

Of course we all know the answer, which is why responding to you and bsimon1 is merely a way to waste a few minutes. Neither of you are sending the government a dime more than you are required to by law, and you have no intention whatsoever of doing so. The "fair share" nonsense is merely a coded way of saying the government should take additional money from some OTHER taxpayer and use it to fund the programs you want to sponge from.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

his is the classic business who serves the needs of a larger employer, as jd writes.""

Was that his point? I thought he was trying to make a point about the government being an employer, not simply about large employers. What that point was, I confess I don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose we could ask jd what he meant since he might be around here somewhere, but I interpreted his meaning that large employers, whether government or private, are magnets for small service businesses, like donut shops. And that donut shops do not attract large employers to locate in the region. So, elevating the formation of donut shops over large employers does not make sense.

To repeat his punch line: res ipsa loquitur.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I love how the Plumline right wingers almost alway preface their comments in support of Palin's barrage of brain farts, by first stating that they really are not Palin backers.

They like and support all of her barrages of brain farts, but even they are ashamed to admit that they are really Palinistas.

In a nutshell:

They are trying to distance their-selves from Palin, while fully embracing all of her scatterbrained notions.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, firmly hold that the Church ought to have control and effective ownership of womens' vaginas and wombs. Women, on their own, will commonly mis-use that which they are only borrowing from the Creator.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:30 AM
========================================

There may be hope for you yet.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

12BB: "The example that Mrs. Palin used is a donut shop! This is the classic business who serves the needs of a larger employer, as jd writes."

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers wrote:

"Palin said:

"Well, the spudnut shop in Richland, Washington - it’s a bakery, it’s a little coffee shop that’s so successful, 60-some years, generation to generation, a family-owned business not looking for government to bail them out and to make their decisions for them."

The Spudnut shop Palin speaks of is half a mile from my house in Richland, WA and it's really good (the secret is potato flour in the batter). She may not realize that the federal government buys most of those doughnuts: the annual budget for cleanup of the nearby Hanford Nuclear Reservation is more than $2 billion, employing about 11,000 workers, and spudnuts are the pastry of choice at meetings there."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/palins-wtf-moment-ctd.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 29, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

LiamOlliol,

All I did was ask a ?.
Jenn responded. {{{thnx Jenn!}}}
No mind reading please.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Arfie just keeps arfing, so let's have some fun.

"First he claimed that Frances Fox Piven was trying to incite violence because ...."

No, actually I just stepped in to supply a quotation and link of a recent call for anger and violence -- riots in particular -- by good Prof. Piven.

"She went on to say that of course no one can predict the tipping points that cause these things to flare up, but that if such a movement did flare up here, she would go out and march with them."

Actually, FPP wrote, as I quoted:

"An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees."

"A loose and spontaneous movement of this sort could emerge. . . . We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom—and then join it."

And yest the elipsis hides more references to violence for which FFP said we should hope, and join it.

"Next up, he crapped all down his leg trying to claim that Frances Fox Piven is a leading light and spokesman for the left and always has been . . .."

Nope, never said.

"and his evidence for this was...wait for it...he'd heard of her before and she once debated Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell."

Nope again. Never mentioned. Said her work, primarily Poor People's Movements, has been taught (by radicals) in social science departments for several decades. Said I still have my copy from almost 25 years ago, and her views and advocacy are not news to anyone who's educated and informed. And noted Obama probably has a copy from his school daze.

"Next he tried to pretend that how would I know if she was a leader and spokesman for the left for the past 45 years or not if I hadn't even heard of her? (the question that answers itself)"

Again, nope, not even close to anything I said.

"Which of course 99% of Americans had probably never heard of her before she became the newest Beck bogeyman ....

After that, he didn't respond again."

What wasn't even coherent. Guess you ran out of fabrications and so just blathered about Glenn Beck.

Interesting that Beck (and Stanley Kurtz) had identified FFP's significance to the background of folks like Obama and his acolytes and the, low and behold, she pops up with a Nation editorial calling for riots in America like those that swept across Europe.

Arfie, you are like a sad clown. A little funny in your goofball and pratfall routine, but mostly just disturbing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

You are exactly right. I remember seeing Warren Buffet on TV talking about how people like him don't pay enough in taxes and thinking to myself "Well who is stopping you from paying "enough"?"

I am also continually amused by people who use the term "we" (as in "we still demand services from government and refuse the tax hikes that are necessary to pay for them.") when what they really mean is "others but not me".

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Palin is right about one fact--small business are not "bailed out" by the federal government. However, they can be, and often are, the beneficiaries of federal government installations, employers, projects, whatever you want to call them. It is a synergistic relationship.

I have to say that I fail to really comprehend **what** Mrs. Palin is really talking about, or if she has any big picture point at all.

The nexus of Sputnik and Spudnuts makes no sense to me. I asked several times yesterday for anyone to guess what she could mean, and except for Mark-in-Austin, no one even ventured a guess.

Mark wrote: "We do not need a massive government program like the Moon Project that was a manufactured reaction to Sputnik, we need lots of new small businesses like the Spudthingie."

That's as good an interpretation as any, I guess.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I know you FOOLS want to talk about Sarah Palin in a vain effort to make yourselves feel better about your own flawed liberal political views.


HOWEVER THERE IS A CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST


And one has to question the loyalty of Obama - WHOSE side is Obama on?


Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ???


OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Seriosly folks - we are in uncharted waters here. A crisis in a Muslim county, our President might be a SECRET MUSLIM - and we do not know where his loyalties are.


This is SERIOUS


If Obama blows this crisis, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"They are trying to distance their-selves from Palin, while fully embracing all of her scatterbrained notions."

You guys just can't get it straight, can you? No one is distancing himself from Palin. She'd be vastly superior to Obama or Biden. But no one is worshipping her.

We're just amazed and laughing at your obsession with her and your pathetic attempts to diminish her. We realize you all consider sliming and smearing and tearing down GOP figures your #1 duty to your party, and right now she's high on your priority list, even though she's an idiot, incompetent, uneducated, blah blah blah.

I wasn't a big fan of GWB either. But I certainly defend him from your blind hatred and calumnies. But Palin, well, she just drives you all mad, and I for one get a huge kick out of that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a small business man with 5 Employees. . . A small donut shop would be lucky to hire the equivalent of a half dozen full time jobs...probably most positions would be part time with zero benefits...you know Scott as in no health care!

We are unable to provide health insurance.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 9:16 AM
==========================================

You disappoint me. I didn't figure you for just another fat cat capitalist piker balancing your books on the backs of your poor workers, to whom you don't furnish healthcare. I suppose you even light your cigars with hundred dollar bills. Probably not paying your "fair share" to Uncle Sam either. For shame.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

OK Liam, I'll play.

"...scatterbrained..."
"...moron..."

Where would you put Mrs. Palin on the continuum of intelligent eminences currently practising politics?

Is she North of Nelson? South of Shaheen?

My opinion is that perhaps 1% of them are even slightly more intelligent than the average fellow or gal you might work next to at the OldeBostonFin/Comm/FabShoppe that's been there 15-20 or so years and is making a decently good buck.

What say y'all?

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""I suppose we could ask jd what he meant ""

I did, a couple of times. Waiting to hear back. Hopefully he will clarify. But you should note that in every one of his posts, he was quite specific about the employer being the government. He never mentioned simply "large" employers. From each of his posts:

"...the next huge U.S. Government project..."

"...in proximity to HUGE U.S. Government spending projects..."

"...before Uncle Sugar came to town."

"...thanks to U.S. Government jobs and taxpayer money."

Seems pretty clear to me that he sees government involvement as the relevant fact to whatever point he is trying to make.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Peace all, back in a week or so.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 29, 2011 9:23 AM
=====================================

Don't forget to pack the Vi*gra. Wow, even that word is tripping the text editor now.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The best are the pro-tax liberals who started the "give it back" movement, encouraging people to "give back your tax cut," NOT by writing the check to the government but by writing it to charity.

What amazing hypocrisy. So blind they can't even see the obvious contradiction.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Seems pretty clear to me that he sees government involvement as the relevant fact to whatever point he is trying to make.
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe he emphasized the government employer because the particular donut shop that Mrs. Palin identified, in Richland Washington, is next to a government employer?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

qb - wow, that was quite a rambling rationalization, but really there's no need for it - folks can go to your link and see for themselves what was said.

And again, saying that you'd like to see and would join a protest movement, and speculating that it would look like the protests in Greece, is not a call to arms. There's simply no "Workers of the World UNITE!" in anything Piven said, much less calls for violence.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

qb - wow, that was quite a rambling rationalization, but really there's no need for it - folks can go to your link and see for themselves what was said.

And again, saying that you'd like to see and would join a protest movement, and speculating that it would look like the protests in Greece, is not a call to arms. There's simply no "Workers of the World UNITE!" in anything Piven said, much less calls for violence.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Tao,

You still tried to get away with using the collapse of one specific empire, as having been caused by the form of government they ran.

Which was complete BS, and you know it, so I am not buying your latest dodge.

America would do well to take to heart the real reason that Russia lost it's empire. They got the tar kicked out of them, when they invaded and occupied Afghanistan, just like the USA did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Capitalist empires get ripped asunder, in foreign lands, just like Socialist ones do.

Then there is also that eight hundred pound socialist economic Gorilla sitting at The US Chamber Of Con Artists' table; Communist China:

Right Wingers love that great big hairy Communist Enterprise. Right wingers have been dishing out their double talk for so long, that they have now started to digest their own Big Lies.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

It seems we argue best when we try to find the biggest idea that someone is advocating. The big picture idea. I'm willing to enlarge my interpretation of jp (that's the right name, right) to include large employers because that makes sense.

I try to do that with Mrs. Palin's comments. Surely she couldn't actually mean to simply say that some donut shop in Washington doesn't get a bailout. Or that the U.S. economy would be vibrant if we only had more donut shops. I still think she is trying to say something, but I admit still don't get it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

One has to question the loyalty of Obama - WHOSE side is Obama on?


Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ???


OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Seriosly folks - we are in uncharted waters here. A crisis in a Muslim county, our President might be a SECRET MUSLIM - and we do not know where his loyalties are.


This is SERIOUS


If Obama blows this crisis, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.


A Middle East crisis is too important to be handled by an unqualified and inexperience person like Obama.

Something the liberals never thought about when they decided to force Obama on the rest of the country - "acting out" on their anger over the Florida recount and the Iraq War (which the Senate democrats voted for.)


So, NOW the nation is locked into a CRISIS with an unqualified person


are you happy now, liberals? I hope you are. Because we are lucky we get out of this one OK.


AND who knows, Obama may feel more loyalty to his Muslim brothers than to the American People in THIS CRISIS.


Liberals, you happy now ???


.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

No i didn't.
I just used their formal name.
I don't, of course, mourn the passing.

mushmushmush

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Palin says donut gimmicks are more important than the advancement of space exploration and Scott responds with some employment statistics.

Dickens couldn't make this stuff up.

Kafka couldn't make this stuff up.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:26 AM
========================================

Someone refresh my memory. How much is in the non-existent Obama budget for space exploration, and from whom is he borrowing the money? No one could make this stuff up.

------------------------------------------

What do you care, Jake? It only means that your reading audience will be reduced to RFR.

Any special reason you can't use Troll Hunter like everyone else?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 9:30 AM
========================================

LOL. The only people who use the troll hunter are trolls like cao and DDAWD and other liberals whose political and economic screeds wither under critical examination. Oh, well, they can always criticize women like Palin and Bachmann, whose accomplishments make the trolls look very, very small and stupid in comparison.
Arguing with people like cao is the blog equivalent of cripple shooting.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD

"Unless they read whatever the hell Palin has been reading."

Baddaboom! Rimshot please. Great snark DDAWD...although some might counter with
W-T-F you mean Palin has actually read a book?

@Jenn

Trust me. I've seen too many examples of you eviscerating poor Q.B. But Q.B. operates at a huge disadvantage. He comes here not in search of any truth that might vary from one of his fiercely held shibboleths, but rather to simply debate.
I'm cool with that. Q.B. is an attorney but I suspect he doesn't get enough litigation...I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm mistaken, perhaps he spends every day in court...but he truly seems like a guy in the debate club. He's handed his position to defend..and whether it makes sense or not he has to do he best to defend that position. It's how the game is played. So he drew Sarah Palin and that has to suck. Again since the Bobbsey twins Scott and Q.B. are enjoying the Movie/TV references...as for Q.B. I feel like Mr T.."Pity the fool"

But Scott normally holds up better than he is today.
Monty Python? I'm so wounded I hope I can recover enough to go out and find my last bit of perspective.

OK Scott if that's the level we're engaging might I suggest you seem like Austin Powers in the movie where he lost his mojo. So while I go look for my perspective I'll also help you look for your lost mojo. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh please Jenn, don't go too far.

Gramma Fran is an old commie fersure.

{{{NTTAWWT...other than a little romance, and semi-harmless delusion}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

So!

Has everyone staked out some property near the next huge U.S. Government project for opening their own doughnut shop?

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 10:07 AM
========================================

Have you staked out a position in line for your next ration of government cheese? Donuts are obviously out of your price range.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

This must be a real struggle for you - "do I defend the obviously unintelligent grifter from Wasilla, or stand firm behind the myth that the Soviets collapsed because St. Ronnie said 'tear down this wall!'?" The cognitive dissonance must be quite severe.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 12:14 PM
=====================================

On the contrary, it was the memory of Jimmy Carter and the prospect of a future Obama presidency that did the Soviets in. How could we have missed it?

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Donuts are obviously out of your price range."

Pretty sure he's not a cop, either.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Maybe he emphasized the government employer because the particular donut shop that Mrs. Palin identified, in Richland Washington, is next to a government employer?"

Exactly. But you seem to think that, if the bakery had been located in Winston Salem, jp would/could have been making the same point but using RJR Tobacco instead of the government. That seems pretty unlikely based on his posts. Again, it seems to me that it was the government nature of the project, and not merely the size, that was important to him.

But hopefully he will clarify.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"qb - wow, that was quite a rambling rationalization,"

No, that was a direct, point-by-point factual refutation of your lies, which obviously shames you.

"but really there's no need for it - folks can go to your link and see for themselves what was said."

Yes, they can, which is why I linked it. I just thought it would be fun to point out some of your bigger lies.

You remind me so much of a tiny Yorkie some friends used to have. So yappy and nippy and ferocious, but when the big dogs had had enough they would just swat him away.

"I've seen too many examples of you eviscerating poor Q.B."

On the other hand, you're a guy who calls Palin stupid and ignorant for saying exactly the same thing Obama said. Your judgment is a little questionable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

tao - not sure what you're saying since I don't know what NTTAWWT stands for...but whether Granmma Fran is a commie or not, she simply didn't do what qb says she did, which is call for violence.

Imagine that.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what Palin's chances are now that FOX seems to have apparently stopped endlessly promoting the tea party. The same forces that got nominations for Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, the woman who lost in Delaware, and Ken Buck might not be around to elevate Palin over someone more qualified.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

NotThatThere'sAnythingWrongWithThat

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

So, elevating the formation of donut shops over large employers does not make sense.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 1:16 PM
========================================

I guess we could say the same thing about McDonalds or even Wal-Mart. They're probably not going to open a store in an area where there are no people. And there won't been any people unless the government provides them work. I think that was the position of the sockpuppet---when you boil it down.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"On the contrary, it was the memory of Jimmy Carter and the prospect of a future Obama presidency that did the Soviets in. How could we have missed it?"

I dunno; how could you have missed it? Maybe in the same way you missed my post about what exactly it was that did in the Soviets. Go ahead and read it; we'll wait for you to catch up - it's right upthread at 12:55 pm.

Jackass.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

As you've perhaps read in my prior posts I take a couple of Yoga classes each week. I have come to know and "love" along with my wife in agape fashion (not in any manner Brigade would love to insult, sorry dude) two Yoga teachers.

I've asked myself why am I attracted so strongly to these people, and for that matter many of my fellow classmates, and also people who attend one of the two spinning classes I'm able to make each week.

12Bar I have been very impressed with you posts..and so I believe YOU will understand this point. When I ask that question two answers immediately came to mind. The first is that they practice a profound and very disarming humility. I sense that you share in this trait..you post with humility and not arrogance. I'm impressed and envious...but I'm working on trying to use you and lmsinca as role models. ;-)

The second reason these teachers and my classmates are so appealing is that they lift me up, they bring out the best in me, physically, spirtually, emotionally, and mentally. Being around people who bring out the best in you is IMHO one of the most enriching experiences life has to offer. Your posts 12Bar are always an attempt at reconciliation and bringing out the best in us.

Alas..certainly in my case and again IMHO many other people as well...there are also people who can bring out the worst in us...like my wife's colleague the endodontist who proclaimed recently to my wife that he has purchased land in Panama and plans to move there if Obama is reelected in '12 because he refuses to stay in a land with a n!$ger as President.
This kind of hatred...brings out the worst in me. "Pallin' around with terrorists..."he's not one of us"..."real versus unreal America" doesn't seem to really bring out the best in anybody on this blog right or left.

Consider a person who would take pleasure because she believed somebody's hope was betrayed as in "how's that hopey changey thing workin' out fer ya?" But that's what has kept her in the forefront and such a bone of contention this morning.

Sorry to go all maudlin on you 12Bar but I for one appreciate you lifting us ALL up..striving to bring the best out in us...it says a lot about the kind of person you are. As a former "mackeral snapper" (your words and I had to laugh when I thought back to my childhood) it gives me genuine pleasure that your Catholic faith has informed such wonderful behavior. Sorry I'm not going to return to Mass based on your excellent example...but keep on rockin' 12Bar your posts are an inspiration to me. Notice I didn't cap one word. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE CAN TRUST OBAMA

Obama has lied so much, and failed to keep his word on so many of his campaign promises.

One has to question the loyalty of Obama - WHOSE side is Obama on?

Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ??? OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Seriosly folks - we are in uncharted waters here. A crisis in a Muslim county, our President might be a SECRET MUSLIM - and we do not know where his loyalties are.

This is SERIOUS If Obama blows this crisis, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.


A Middle East crisis is too important to be handled by an unqualified and inexperience person like Obama. Something the liberals never thought about when they decided to force Obama on the rest of the country - "acting out" on their anger over the Florida recount and the Iraq War (which the Senate democrats voted for.)

So, NOW the nation is locked into a CRISIS with an unqualified person. Are you happy now, liberals? I hope you are. Because we are lucky we get out of this one OK.

AND who knows, Obama may feel more loyalty to his Muslim brothers than to the American People in THIS CRISIS.

Liberals, you happy now ???


.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Oops. Old habits die hard..sorry 12Bar I did cap YOU and IMHO..I'll do better next time.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

It is up to we Democrats to deliver the nomination to Sarah Palin.

Rush was kind enough to urge his cult followers to pitch in and help Democrats select their nominee in 2008, so it would be downright rude of us not to repay the great favor to Rush.

Come on Democrats; since we already know who will be the Democratic Candidate, let us devote all of our spare time repaying Rush, by nominating Governor Palin.

You will feel better for having helped, because it is The Right Way To Go.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Seriosly folks - we are in uncharted waters here. A crisis in a Muslim country, our President might be a SECRET MUSLIM - and we do not know where his loyalties are.

This is SERIOUS If Obama blows this crisis, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I guess we could say the same thing about McDonalds or even Wal-Mart. They're probably not going to open a store in an area where there are no people.
----------------------------------------------------------
We could say that about McDonalds for sure. But the larger the employer, the less that is true. Really large projects are often, even usually, located in rural areas and they attract the people, and the satellite businesses.

And that includes government as well as private businesses. Look at where the large chip plants were built in Utah (I had a little house there for a while). Out in the boonies, I assure you.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Liam - actually, that's a great idea! I can crossover and vote for Palin in the GOP primary here. Or whoever ends up being the most ridiculous candidate left on the ballot by the time we have our primaries. You're right; there won't be any reason for me to vote in the Dem primary.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE IS SURE OF OBAMA'S LOYALTY


The Muslim Brotherhood could take over Egypt - and Obama's loyalty is on the line.


THIS IS THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO - the liberals (full of themselves) elect a Muslim to be President, and we are confronted with a crisis in the Middle East.

Obama then signals that he will accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt - which proceeds to turn Egypt into a TERRORIST STATE.


Which other countries are next???

Obama's dream of creating ECONOMIC CHAOS IN THE US is fulfilled - and OBAMA CAN IMPOSE EMERGENCY SOCIALIST POWERS.


Obama is poised for his move now. He knows he has only 2 years left - so Obama has to DO ALL THE DAMAGE HE CAN AS SOON AS HE CAN.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Liberals


ARE you happy that you elected a Muslim Black-Liberation-Theology Socialist-Pinko CREEP now?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If there ever was a test case for a communist country that should collapse, because of it;s social agenda, and lack of economic development; it is Cuba. America has embargoed that tiny impoverished country for decades, and yet the Castro Regime keeps on running like the battery bunny.

I am sorry Tao, to have to point out the obvious to you. You have been talking out of your Arse, and to double prove it to you, I offer you Robert Mugabe.

Invasions and occupations of foreign lands are what bring down Empires, and not what their economic policies are.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Really large projects are often, even usually, located in rural areas"

Yeah, exactly where the vacant land is.... lol

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 29, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

To those using Troll Blocker...you're missing RFR melt down right on this very thread.

I could laugh but when you really think about it...it's actually quite sad.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

Thanks for the kind words. I'll try not to let them go to my head.

Don't sanctify me yet, I can be just as guilty of snarking as anyone else. Sometimes, something strikes me as so funny and absurd, that I can't help but riff off it. Christine I-am-not-a witch being a notable example.

Sometimes I think what we lack on this blog is just honest questioning. What does someone really mean? What big picture point is the person trying to make? Many of us are actually intelligent and thoughtful and are trying to make a larger point, but fail to do so through inadequate writing skills. Just because we are momentarily inarticulate does not mean the larger point doesn't have value.

A lot of the arguments on this blog would evaporate if we took the time to truly understand what the other person is **trying** to say. We would often agree.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Liam - actually, that's a great idea! I can crossover and vote for Palin in the GOP primary here. Or whoever ends up being the most ridiculous candidate left on the ballot by the time we have our primaries. You're right; there won't be any reason for me to vote in the Dem primary.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:23 PM

................

I am going to go even further. I am going to work to get out the vote in some primary states, for Sarah.

I would not sleep at night, if I did not repay the act of kindness that Rush Limbaugh gave to we Democrats during our 2008 Primary season.

Come on Democrats. Say thank you Rush, by nominating Sarah Palin for the GOP.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

"Invasions and occupations of foreign lands are what bring down Empires, and not what their economic policies are."

Amen my Hibernian brother! Perhaps we could start with Greece and work our way forward. I suspect you'd see quite a variety of Empires that were built by nations with wildly varying governing and economic models.

We've seen Fascists, Nazis', Oligarchies,
Democracies...all build empires...but at the end of the day...it's the empires that drag them down. We currently have troops all around the world...we may be the first truly world wide empire. Are we collapsing of our own weight..or is it the usual culprit...a simple and potentially terminal case of hubris?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse


NO ONE IS SURE OF OBAMA'S LOYALTY


No One can trust Obama - he has lied so much and not kept his campaign promises. No one knows if he is a Muslim or not.

All we DO KNOW is Obama sided with the people who want to build a mosque at Ground Zero AND waited to announce that at the Ramadan dinner at the White House !?!


The Muslim Brotherhood could take over Egypt - and Obama's loyalty is on the line.

Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ??? OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

No one can trust Obama.

THIS IS THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO - the liberals (full of themselves) elect a Muslim to be President, and we are confronted with a crisis in the Middle East.

Obama then signals that he will accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt - which proceeds to turn Egypt into a TERRORIST STATE.


Which other countries are next???

Obama's dream of creating ECONOMIC CHAOS IN THE US is fulfilled - and OBAMA CAN IMPOSE EMERGENCY SOCIALIST POWERS.


Obama is poised for his move now. He knows he has only 2 years left - so Obama has to DO ALL THE DAMAGE HE CAN AS SOON AS HE CAN.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Liam - I hate to say it, but I disagree. Cuba is not an empire. It has managed to survive BECAUSE it is a small nation without expansionist ambitions.

FWIW, I never said the Soviet Union couldn't have survived with the type of government it had; I said it couldn't have survived as a superpower with the type of government it had. Certainly the USSR's foreign adventures provided some of the nails in the coffin, but even without spending on empire-building, the Soviets were falling further and further behind the free world economically, largely due to their aversion to allowing free flow of ideas and innovation. They could have survived as a nation, but not as a powerful one. China survived BECAUSE they did major tweaking of their model to the extent that one could truthfully say their form of government today (in how it actually operates) is not the same form of government they had in the 1970s.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

America would do well to take to heart the real reason that Russia lost it's empire. They got the tar kicked out of them, when they invaded and occupied Afghanistan, just like the USA did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 1:44 PM
=========================================

Hahahahahahaha. It would take the USA about three days to roll over any one of those countries and leave nothing in the streets and fields but black, charred bodies. The problem is that politicians start wars and then start worrying about what bedwetters like you are going to say if too many of the enemy get hurt. And the soldiers in the field end up paying the price for the lack of commitment to the mission.

Some of the past empires you're so keen to whine about understood one thing about war. If X is the number of the enemy, then when you start killing them, somewhere between the numbers 1 and X is a number at which you'll achieve peace through surrender or annihilation. Too immoral? Don't go to war. Who was it who made the post a few days ago that to have carpet bombed North Vietnam would have been too immoral? 55,000 Americans dead in an unnecessary war to which we were not fully committed to winning---now THAT is immoral. Saddam and his boys are dead, and their cronies have been turned over to their enemies. Osama Bin Laden is gone from Afghanistan. So now, we're doing what... I mean other than spending money and getting more Americans killed? Certainly not "getting the tar kicked out" of us. What a fool.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

How do you go from this?:

"btw: Why did the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics collapse? Enlighten us."

To where you're at: w/ Cuba and talking Arse and Mugabe.

Golly, Squire! I even was pullin' for daBears.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

To those using Troll Blocker...you're missing RFR melt down right on this very thread.

I could laugh but when you really think about it...it's actually quite sad.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:31 PM
......................

I never have used troll blocker, because I am capable of skipping over his demented ravings.

Some where in the Amazon Forests, a village is missing it's idiot!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

RUK wrote,

"@Jenn

Trust me. I've seen too many examples of you eviscerating poor Q.B."
======================================

Odd. I haven't seen a single one. Must have been a very long time ago.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

tao,

I'm curious whether Grannie Frannie is new to you or whether she's old hat.

Her primary tome with Cloward is as much of a memoir of their activism/academism as anything. Their schtick has always been the good old Marxian teaching that regular politics is for loser; you have to "take it to the streets." I recall they even strive to teach us that seemingly ordinary cimes like arson can be necessary political acts. That and the idea of causing crisis by overstressing demands for services. (No Beck didn't make that up.)

We started with that dreck in frosh US Gov. My commie profs loved it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

If your larger point is that without restraints, the U.S. military could annihilate any country it chooses, who would argue with that?

I think the argument revolves around restraints. What kind of restraints make sense? Assuming we don't want the radiation to circle back around to us, if for no other reason.

Are you arguing there should be no restraints? Honest question.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Odd. I haven't seen a single one."

You don't see a lot of things. Just like you conveniently didn't see my fairly detailed post about why the USSR collapsed. Though perhaps had you acknowledged it, it would have been admitting that you're a liar when you came back with trying to put in my mouth that I claimed Carter and Obama brought down the USSR. As usual, you're still a lying POS.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"...a simple and potentially terminal case of hubris?"

What! What about lead in the crockery, and St. Paul?

{{{plus St.PauliGirls}}}


Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead and read it; we'll wait for you to catch up - it's right upthread at 12:55 pm.

Jackass.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:15 PM
=======================================

I did read it. It's mostly gibberish.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar Once again you get off another impressive post at 2:31PM. lmsinca will be happy not to have to carry that crown of sainthood (before you get the big head notice small s sainthood lol) by herself.

I agree with your post and would add to it if I might. Another..I don't wish to call it a problem...characteristic of this blog is that we all come here for different reasons. Some come to debate...they enjoy the mental gymnastics and "winning" the debate is all important..perhaps even an extension of their manhood or womanhood.

Others come to hurl what they believe to be clever and pithy insults and to demonstrate their wit...they fancy themselves as masters of snark.

Yet others like you and me come here for genuine discussion and the chance to learn something. And while my posts may not reflect it because if I might steal your words..."Many of us are actually intelligent and thoughtful and are trying to make a larger point, but fail to do so through inadequate writing skills. Just because we are momentarily inarticulate does not mean the larger point doesn't have value." I still am here to learn. And quite frankly I have learned on many subjects. People like you and others...far too many to list...have taught me a lot.

You don't have to give up snark 12Bar. It's readily apparent that you are not posting "hate" but simply observing what is humorous. I mean really..who did not laugh at "I am not a witch". From her few appearances I've seen on Bill Maher Christine O'Donnell did seem to have a nice sense of humor and someday, if not already, she too will probably smile at "I am not a witch".

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE IS SURE OF OBAMA'S LOYALTY


No One can trust Obama - he has lied so much and not kept his campaign promises. No one knows if he is a Muslim or not.

All we DO KNOW is Obama sided with the people who want to build a mosque at Ground Zero AND waited to announce that at the Ramadan dinner at the White House !?!


The Muslim Brotherhood could take over Egypt - and Obama's loyalty is on the line.

Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ??? OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

No one can trust Obama.

THIS IS THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO - the liberals (full of themselves) elect a Muslim to be President, and we are confronted with a crisis in the Middle East.

Obama then signals that he will accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt - which proceeds to turn Egypt into a TERRORIST STATE.


Which other countries are next???

Obama's dream of creating ECONOMIC CHAOS IN THE US is fulfilled - and OBAMA CAN IMPOSE EMERGENCY SOCIALIST POWERS.


Obama is poised for his move now. He knows he has only 2 years left - so Obama has to DO ALL THE DAMAGE HE CAN AS SOON AS HE CAN.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding,

Were you able to locate the DVD copy of Michael Collins.

Some words written by the leader of the 1916 rebellion.

The Rebel


I am come of the seed of the people, the people that sorrow,
That have no treasure but hope,
No riches laid up but a memory
Of an Ancient glory.
My mother bore me in bondage, in bondange my mother was born,
I am of the blood of serfs;
The children with whom I have played, the men and women with whom I have eaten,
Have had masters over them, have been under the lash of masters,
And, though gentle, have served churls;
The hands that have touched mine, the dear hands whose touch is so familiar to me,
Have worn shameful manacles, have been bitten at the wrist by manacles,
Have grown hard with the manacles and the taskwork of strangers,
I am flesh of the flesh of these lowly, I am bone of their bone,
I that have never submitted;
I that have a soul greater than the souls of my people's masters,
I that have vision and prophecy and the gift of fiery speech,
I that have spoken with God on the top of His holy hill.

And because I am of the people, I understand the people,
I am sorrowful with their sorrow, I am hungry with their desire:
My heart has been heavy with the grief of mothers,
My eyes have been wet with the tears of children.
I have yearned with wistful old men,
And laughed or cursed with young men;
Their shame is my shame, and I have reddened for it,
Reddened for that they have served, they who should be free,
Reddened for that they have gone in want, while others have been full,
Reddened for that they have walked in fear of lawyers and of their jailers
With their writs of summons and their handcuffs,
Men mean and cruel!
I could have borne stripes on my body rather than this shame of my people.

And now I speak, being full of vision;
I speak to my people, and I speak in my people's name to the masters of my people,
I say to my people that they are august, despite their chains,
That they are greater than those that hold them, and stronger and purer,
That they have but need of courage, and to call on the name of their God,
God the unforgetting, the dear God that loves the peoples
For whom He died naked, suffering shame.
And I say to my people's masters: Beware,
Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people,
Who shall take what ye would not give. Did ye think to conquer the people,
Or that Law is stronger than life and than men's desire to be free?
We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held,
Ye that have bullied and bribed, tyrants, hypocrites, liars!

Phádraig Mhic Phiarais (Patrick Pearse)

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I did read it. It's mostly gibberish."

Translation: "I can't understand any concept with more depth than 'Reagan did it'".

FWIW, no one else had a problem understanding it, and probably you didn't either. But since you can't formulate a cogent counterargument, you'll go with the fallback position of being a lying SOS.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Every have Michael Collins Whiskey???

I recommend it.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"Odd. I haven't seen a single one."

I have seen Jenn chasing her tail a few times.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Excellent article about Egypt and the U.S. role:

"As the Egyptian regime totters, the Obama administration has largely scrambled to stay one step ahead of the curve. It managed to put just the right amount of steadily increasing distance between it and the regime that has served as a pillar of American policy under eight U.S. presidents. The close US-Egyptian relationship is not popular in Egypt, but the fancy American footwork allowed the US to avoid becoming a prominent issue for the mushrooming crowds of demonstrators. Its statements have also likely helped communicate (if more evidence was needed -- and it should not have been) to an aloof Egyptian leadership how rapidly its position is crumbling.

But a couple days of carefully calibrating statements do not amount to a new policy. The United States has long-term issues at stake. And at this point almost any outcome is possible -- continued unrest, a gentle retirement for Mubarak when his term ends later this year, a broad-based transitional leadership, regime collapse, and even a return to stagnation. We need to make policy with an eye on the long-term without knowing what tomorrow will bring."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=42409

Posted by: wbgonne | January 29, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

@Liam

I like your idea but here in Florida we have closed primaries. That's not something which I approve. As a registered Independent I do not get to vote in either primary. Considering the current power of the two parties I feel I should be able to select one of the primaries in any election.

But to implement your plan Liam I would have to register as a Republican...that's just beyond the pale!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

You're right; there won't be any reason for me to vote in the Dem primary.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:23 PM
========================================

Or to vote at all for that matter. Unless your vote is more reasoned than usual.

Greg posted,
"Only 21 months until election day."

Gluttons for punishment. After the November butt-kicking, I wouldn't think you people would be so looking forward to another.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"I have seen Jenn chasing her tail a few times."

You also see "calls to violence" in the observations made by rather obscure old lady college professors. And there's no telling what else you see in the alternate reality you inhabit.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

qb,

I was in Boston when Silber tossed Ms. Piven out of BU. Remember it well.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama's SECRET PLAN


When Israel decided not to cooperate with Obama's plan to stop all the settlements on the West Bank -

And when Israel decided not to allow Obama to fly in and claim a massive victory by bringing a peace deal to the Middle East,


OBAMA WENT TO PLAN "T"

Obama decided to put a new terrorist state on Israel's border. Already, Obama and his leftist friends had contact with the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.

So, it is not too difficult to see that Obama is behing this uprising - secretly plotting to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt.

In fact, this is the very plan that is being reported in the Daily Telegraph of London, and Drudge has a link today.

Obama wants to bring change to the Middle East, and here it is - allow the Islamists to take control.


This will help Obama in his Socialist dreams in the United States, because the resulting economic chaos in the United States will help Obama seize more powers -

THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS TIME FOR AMERICAN TO HAVE A MUSLIM IN OFFICE.


Obama's loyalty HAS TO BE QUESTIONED.


Obama should resign immediately


Obama is helping to create the CHAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I am going to go even further. I am going to work to get out the vote in some primary states, for Sarah.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 2:32 PM
========================================

Let me help you out in this small way: Palin's name on the ballot will not be spelled ' B U C H A N A N '.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Terrorists hate us because of our Donut shops.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

wbG,

Thnx for Egypt link (good 2 turn this palinpiven puppy around).

Here's another:

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/29/obamas_handling_egypt_pretty_well

I'm hopeful he's right; Lynch is an experienced ME guy.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

from tao's link above:

"I completely understand why activists and those who desperately want the protestors to succeed would be frustrated --- anything short of Obama gripping the podium and shouting "Down With Mubarak!" probably would have disappointed them. But that wasn't going to happen, and shouldn't have."
-------------------------------------------

Subtlety, moderation, reason and caution. I like it so far. Of course, the President's approach still needs to succeed, and it's too early to know.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Are you arguing there should be no restraints? Honest question.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 2:45 PM
========================================

I wasn't really arguing for use of nuclear weapons, although Truman, rightly I thought, valued the lives of American soldiers more than those of the enemy. My point is that successful prosecution of wars requires not just military superiority but a certain ruthlessness for which we lack the appetite.

Relentlessness is not enough, because the American people run out of patience after a few years. The voters know that countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan are no match for us militarily, so they won't sit idly by indefinitely while we embark on idiotic counter-insurgencies to prop up crooked regimes. If we had a draft today, the politicians would be pissing all over themselves to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Their careers would depend on it.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Right Wing Chicken Hawks never learn.

Reality Check. Egypt belongs to the people of Egypt. It does not belong to the USA. It is up to the people of Egypt to determine their nation's destiny.

What do Right Wing Chicken Hawks want President Obama to do about it?

Do they want him to send in our military to prop up Mubarek, or to remove him? Is that what they want him to do? If so,then they should clearly say so. I bet the American people are just longing for to have our military bogged down in another Arab nation, and you know that all the rest of the Muslim nations will rush to shower our troops with all those flowers and candy that Dick Cheney's Halliburton did not deliver in time for all the welcoming rallies held by the people of Iraq.

Why not borrow a couple of trillion more, to sort things out with an invasion of Egypt.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

ruk, why not register with a party if you want to vote in a primary?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who has read enough of Grannie Frannie's work, her support for and advocacy of violence -- "disruption," riots, crime -- is not in dispute. There's a useful video clip of her response to a question about this at this link:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-guide-to-the-ideas-and-violent-rhetoric-of-frances-fox-piven/

She says our government is violent and kills people, and that while she has "considerable respect" for nonviolence, it is only for nonviolence as self-defense, and violence is appropriate if it's part of a strategy.

Read her work if you dare. What she wrote in the Nation is what she's written for decades -- "change" requires disruption, riots, violence. It's not only legitimate but the only effective kind of politics per Grannie Molotov.

So chew on that, Arfie.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

qb - what Piven may have said 45 years ago, or even yesterday, was not the issue. You pointed to a specific article she had written and claimed that she was calling for violence. She wasn't. You lied. End of story. There's no need to further debase yourself with more lies to cover up the initial one.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

FWIW, no one else had a problem understanding it, and probably you didn't either. But since you can't formulate a cogent counterargument, you'll go with the fallback position of being a lying SOS.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 2:51 PM
=========================================

I didn't say I couldn't understand it. I said it was gibberish. After all the time you spent on it, I suppose you figure I owe you the courtesy of taking apart your positions one piece at a time. But I've seen Quarterback do that, and you never seem to really appreciate it. I certainly don't want to get on your bad side and be insulted and called a "lying SOS" and all that. I made the mistake of assuming that you would realize the reference to memories of Carter and premonitions of Obama were just a way of dismissing your idiocy without further comment. For you to consider them lies, you must have taken them quite seriously. You really should work on your comprehension skills.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the words of Tea Party darlings with their "Second Amendment remedies".

Sharron Angle must love her.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

My point is that successful prosecution of wars requires not just military superiority but a certain ruthlessness for which we lack the appetite.
----------------------------------------
I don't disagree at all. Maybe wars, like abortion, should be rare since we do lack the will to entertain a scorched earth war. And we will always lack the will. Hasn't it always been thus, with all civilizations?

I'm glad to know that you are not espousing nuclear attacks. It's good to know we agree on something fundamental. Seems stupid to swing at the other guy, and knock both of us out.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

qb - It doesn't matter what Piven said 45 years ago or even yesterday for that matter. You referred to and cited a specific recent article in which you claimed she called for violence. She didn't. You lied. End of story. Don't make yourself look even more pathetic by trying to cover up the initial lie.

Just for the heck of it, why do you insist on trying to insult people by making up names for them? Do you think this makes any of your specious arguments look more reasonable? Like you seem to think that the key to winning an argument is to never admit when you are in error, even when the error is pointed out sitting right under your nose?

I guess so, if your highest aim is to impress other people who are dishonest, dull, or both. Though that seems like a pretty low bar to set for yourself. Soft bigotry of low expectations and all of that.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"You pointed to a specific article she had written and claimed that she was calling for violence. She wasn't. You lied. End of story. There's no need to further debase yourself with more lies to cover up the initial one."

Stop digging. Her words proving you the liar are posted above. People can read. It's the whole point of her editorial, you nitwit.


Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

@Liam Alas I haven't had time to yet search for Michael Collins.

Curious as to your opinion of Far and Away.
I thought Ron Howard did a decent job of telling a story through the fictional characters. Yea it was largely a vehicle for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman but I enjoyed it very much. My Paternal Great Grandparents probably made that same journey as the Cruise/Kidman characters...they simply stopped sooner in Cincinnati.

BTW Thanks for Patrick Pearse piece. Do you suppose there are Egyptians who at this very moment know exactly what Pearse was describing? Substitute Allah for God and it would work in Cairo just as well as it did in Ireland.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Good one, Tao. Another quote:

"What they do need, if they think about it, is for Obama to help broker an endgame from the top down --- to impose restraints on the Egyptian military's use of violence to repress protests, to force it to get the internet and mobile phones back online, to convince the military and others within the regime's inner circle to ease Mubarak out of power, and to try to ensure that whatever replaces Mubarak commits to a rapid and smooth transition to civilian, democratic rule. And that's what the administration is doing. The administration's public statements and private actions have to be understood as not only offering moral and rhetorical support to the protestors, or as throwing bones to the Washington echo chamber, but as working pragmatically to deliver a positive ending to a still extremely tense and fluid situation."

Is Yemen next? Iran? The Irananian regime may be gloating in public but I'll bet they're terrified. So the internet has had dramatic political significance, not in the U.S but in the ME. Internet revolutions. You never know what's going to happen.

I hope it all goes favorably for the U.S. If Obama can play this correctly maybe we won't end up being the Bad Guys as usual. In fact, it's possible that losing this important puppet regime may force the U.S. to adopt a more sensible and benign foreign policy. Israel, too.

Lots of possibilities if Mubarak falls.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 29, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget folks. It is never too early to start organizing local Dems For Sarah, chapters, in primary crossover states.


Take away STFR's Blog Bedazzler, and you end up with Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree at all. Maybe wars, like abortion, should be rare since we do lack the will to entertain a scorched earth war. And we will always lack the will. Hasn't it always been thus, with all civilizations?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 3:25 PM
======================================

I suppose it depends on how we define civilization. The Muslim extremists lack the capability, but I wouldn't argue that they lack the will. The tactics of Gandhi or Martin Luther King would have been much less effective against Nazi Germany.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Jenn,

Let's just say the obverse analog to: "An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece..." would have had Krugman rending his AND Bill Keller's garments.

Innocent people died at the hands of those spoiled nihilist scum in Athens.

Did Ms. Piven condemn that?

{{{she also said "targets"; OMf'nG!!}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD

"ruk, why not register with a party if you want to vote in a primary?"

I'll probably register as a Dem. I was one of those holdouts who didn't want either party to take my vote for granted. As I'm sure you're well aware DDAWD Indy's are the fastest growing registrants in our nation.

Still after watching what has happened this millennium and especially the past two years I realize I'll never cast another vote for the know nothing party.

I know it's hard to conceive DDAWD but there was a time when the R's actually had ideas...many of them good. They were not always the intellectually bankrupt crowd they are now. That is why I linked to and highlighted the R's 1956 Platform. They weren't always a bunch of crackpot demagogues who viewed people like "Joe the Plumber' as acceptable spokespeople, much less nominations like Angle, O'Donnell.
Sarah Palin would have never gotten out of Alaska in 1956!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Just for the heck of it, why do you insist on trying to insult people by making up names for them?"

I only give pet names to very special people who earn them with great diligence. As a veteran name caller, you ought not to be bothered.

Point out an error and I'll happily admit it. I just don't make them all the time like you do, because I don't let my ego drag me where the facts don't go.

You want to pretend that an editorial lamenting the lack of mass violence, hoping that mass violence breaks out, and saying we should all join it, isn't advocating it, and that this makes me a liar.

You're a real genius. You yap and yap and dish out the snark, call people cute names like buford, then get all hurt and sullen when your weak game falls apart. Too many people must have told you how smart you are. Snark isn't smart.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

On your recommendation, I saw Michael Collins. Great performances, except Julia what's her name, but easy enough to ignore her.

A great story. This is my heritage, down to my many great grandfather fleeing the noose in 1798 and ending up in Boston. I'm not a mackerel snapper for nothin'.

The story of the Irish struggle really resonates with me. I watch every film that I can find and struggle through books if I can. Me Irish blood, I guess.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Take away STFR's Blog Bedazzler, and you end up with Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:34 PM |
=========================================

Take away cao's brain and you end up with Liam-still.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Stop digging. Her words proving you the liar are posted above. People can read. It's the whole point of her editorial, you nitwit."

Exhibit A:

"And again, link for Piven "recently" calling for violent protests, or it didn't happen."

qb responds:

"How's this:

"An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees."


http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless

Angry and violent enough for ya?"


Posted by: quarterback1 | January 28, 2011 3:57 PM

I guess you're adopting the Palin approach now and claiming that words only mean what you say they mean. Someone observing that to get real action a protest here would have to look like the one in Greece is a call for violence.

It must hurt to be such a small man.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

@Liam Alas I haven't had time to yet search for Michael Collins.

Curious as to your opinion of Far and Away.
I thought Ron Howard did a decent job of telling a story through the fictional characters. Yea it was largely a vehicle for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman but I enjoyed it very much. My Paternal Great Grandparents probably made that same journey as the Cruise/Kidman characters...they simply stopped sooner in Cincinnati.

BTW Thanks for Patrick Pearse piece. Do you suppose there are Egyptians who at this very moment know exactly what Pearse was describing? Substitute Allah for God and it would work in Cairo just as well as it did in Ireland.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 3:30 PM |
.............

I hated every thing about Far And Away. The accents were atrocious, and it was more like a Disneyland version of Ireland that the reality of those days.

Yes, the reason why I posted the Pearse words, was because sooner or later a Patrick Pearse does emerge in every oppressed land. That is why empires crumble.

Think about the fact that when the British empire sat astride much of the world, a small Island nation, twenty miles from England rebelled, and forced them to leave most of the Island.

Imagine how much that contributed to the more distant British colonies taking heart and inspiration from the Irish Revolution.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD said: "I wonder what Palin's chances are now that FOX seems to have apparently stopped endlessly promoting the tea party.'

Yes, they have stopped that, haven't they? The current themes are their more traditional ones - constant narratives designed to degrade public opinion on a Dem administration and its personnel, to denigrate liberalism, to push the GOP further to the right, and to aid in Republican electoral victories. That's Aile's and Murdoch's game, obviously.

As the Tea Party theme has diminished in usefulness (and is now causing serious problems re extremism) they had to change direction. Going forward, they'll continue as I've noted above until a candidate is selected, then they'll be full-bore cheering squad regardless of who it is.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Only 21 months until de-election.

Den we can give de boot to Burraaaack de Terrible.

Bin Biden, too!

Posted by: battleground51 | January 29, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"Who is looting and why?

Al-Jazerra reports:

Ayman Mohyeldin reports that eyewitnesses have said "party thugs" associated with the Egyptian regime's Central Security Services - in plainclothes but bearing government-issued weapons - have been looting in Cairo. Ayman says the reports started off as isolated accounts but are now growing in number.

The Lede:

CNN's Cairo correspondent, Ben Wedeman, reports that some Egyptians have suggested President Hosni Mubarak's regime has withdrawn the police from the streets and ordered the military not to enforce law and order as an intentional ploy to sow chaos and create a situation in which the people will turn to the strongman to restore security."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/whos-looting.html

Entirely plausible.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

12BarBluesAgain

One trend I have noticed about what happens to most countries, after they have rebelled against their colonial masters;

The vast majority of them go through a long period of dictatorial home rule, right after they gain independence.

I pondered on why that should be, and I came to the conclusion that it is probably because the Colonial rulers left no space for indigenous moderate rulers to emerge, and only hardened, take no prisoners, zealots are left to lead revolutions.

Those types of people are not capable of transforming into moderate consensus building national leaders.

That is why Egypt is in such a precarious position now. There is a leadership vacuum because Mubarek did not leave any space for moderates to emerge, and that of course left only the Mosques, and we know what that can lead to.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""Again, what exactly is your point? People who work for the government are no different from other people...they need and want goods and services, and so private businesses will arise in order to provide those goods and services.""

My point is that had it not been for the Manhattan Project (i.e. government spending), it is unlikely that the specific Spudnuts location mentioned by Ms. Palin would have been a successful small business, passed down from generation to generation for 60+ years. Maybe it would have been **in some other place** that had more people than cows before the government spent tons of money in the area, bringing, yes, jobs and infrastructure. However, she **chose** that particular location **as an example** of what "we" need. So, clearly, what "we" need is to figure out where the government is going to spend a ton of money, and set up our doughnut shop right nearby, if you want to use the example **she** provided.

The GOP version of this is to brib... er, hire lobbyists to ensure that the project gets built near the worthless real estate I already own, and then clean up... but I digress.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Of course we all know the answer, which is why responding to you and bsimon1 is merely a way to waste a few minutes. Neither of you are sending the government a dime more than you are required to by law, and you have no intention whatsoever of doing so. The "fair share" nonsense is merely a coded way of saying the government should take additional money from some OTHER taxpayer and use it to fund the programs you want to sponge from.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 1:13 PM

Yep ... I will pay the amount determined by the representstive government to be my fair share. This is not coercion ... it is how it works in this great country. Why is it that you people (to steal a fine line from John Kasich) use terms like "coerce" and "confiscate" to describe the taxes that we fine Americans understand are necessary to balance the budget?

I ask again Brigade, at what number are taxes not coercion? Or do you think you should be allowed to freeload off of the real Americans?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

That is why Egypt is in such a precarious position now. There is a leadership vacuum because Mubarek did not leave any space for moderates to emerge, and that of course left only the Mosques, and we know what that can lead to.
------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe what will happen, will be that another strongman will take over for a while.

I read that Sulieman is a U.S. proxy. Maybe that's the best that can be hoped for right now.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, as long as you persist in pushing the TeaParty it will be leadpipelocked into the nation's consciousness.

Mover/Shakeahhh!

Hey, remember those N'Awlins cops with the shopping carts of flat screens and bags of shoes at the Walmart?

Luv ya B! {{{honest}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie and DDAWD

The other night on Lawrence O'Donnell David Frum went even further than you two.

He stated unequivocally that the tea party is dead because Fox has decided to pull the plug as evidenced by their failure to carry the Bachmann response to the SOTU. Kind of funny to see MSNBC AND FOX make the same editorial call.

I think Frum is probably correct for many of the reasons already posted by you guys.
The GOP has been busy struggling, figuring out a way to put the tea party genie back in the bottle now that they've used them...and Fox is certainly an available mechanism. I mean really back in the day Fox was literally hosting and promoting tea party rallies as a network promotion.
They staged everything to the degree they even had producers tell the crowds when to react ie when they were on camera.

And so the question now is...if the Tea Party throws a party and nobody comes is it still a tea party?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Re Piven

1) A person no one here had ever heard of becomes a bete noir of the right's message machine.

2) Immediately, the people on the right begin to salivate in unison on command

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

yeah, ruk. I am registered Dem, but I don't hold allegiance to any party in particular. Obviously Dems have far better ideas. I'm also not white, Christian, rich, or stupid, so there's that.

But registering with a party doesn't oblige you to vote in any manner. It just gives you a voice in the primary.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

As Joe Biden's maternal grandfather said to him;

"Remember Joey, in America; it is always socialism for the Rich, and capitalism for the poor"

Hence the claims that repealing the Bush tax cuts for billionaires is "class warfare" but eliminating the minimum wage, and destroying people's pensions is just glorious capitalism, at it's best; or so claim The Oligarchs, and their Joe The Plumber type lick-spittles.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't know RU.

There are hundreds of local Tea Parties and there were thousands of rallies.

Fox wasn't at all of them.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

[wbgonne hopes: "I hope it all goes favorably for the U.S. If Obama can play this correctly maybe we won't end up being the Bad Guys as usual"]

"Hope" is not a plan. Hope in one hand, crap in the other, and see which fills up 1st. We need leadership and The Obamateur is clearly NOT up to the job.

I am pessimistic about the final outcome in Tunisia, Egypt and (especially) Yemen after watching Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” collapse this week– with the triumph of Iran’s Hezbollah.
=====
Lebanon: Hezbollahstan’s political triumph
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43298.html

“Despite being designated by the US and their allies as a terrorist organisation, Hezbollah has moved from strength to strength…”
=====
With Hezbollah’s coup in secular Lebanon last week– emboldened by geo-political impotence in the White House– Islamist subversives will now seize the initiative throughout the region.

Meanwhile, the useful idiots of the Left learn nothing from Jimmy Carter’s legacy-- the Iranian Revolution.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""Exactly. But you seem to think that, if the bakery had been located in Winston Salem, jp would/could have been making the same point but using RJR Tobacco instead of the government. That seems pretty unlikely based on his posts. Again, it seems to me that it was the government nature of the project, and not merely the size, that was important to him.""

Honey, **I** didn't choose that Spudnuts to make some (still elusive) point about "what America needs more of" -- Ms. Palin did. What I'm sure she didn't even consider is how successful a doughnut shop in the middle of nowhere with 300 people in the surrounding area would be -- which is what Richland, WA would likely **still** be without the Hanford site.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"There is a leadership vacuum because Mubarek did not leave any space for moderates to emerge, and that of course left only the Mosques, and we know what that can lead to."

Indeed. When I said that Mubarak's fall could lead in many possible directions, some of those roads are not at all in the U.S. interest (no matter how you see that interest). Interesting times.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 29, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The Obamateur SHOULD seize the initiative and arm-twist OPEC autocrats to immediately INCREASE oil output (lower oil prices, lower fuel/fertilizer costs) and (thus) REVERSE the disastrous food/commodity inflation.

But, The Obamateur won’t. Instead, he’ll hand-wring and lose the initiative to the Islamists– and reap a real bloodbath.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe what will happen, will be that another strongman will take over for a while.

I read that Sulieman is a U.S. proxy. Maybe that's the best that can be hoped for right now.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:02 PM

.....................

America needs to find a way to stop playing the proxy game in other nations. It always ends up with the opressed revolting against their Dictators, and also against the USA for having propped up those repressive regimes.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"1) A person no one here had ever heard of becomes a bete noir of the right's message machine."

Nope. Though she's eminently forgettable.

She (& Zinn, IIRC) kicked up quite the ruckus in Boston in the early '80's. She caught alot of media, especially the Globe.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"It must hurt to be such a small man."

Haha you are such a sorry spectable. You just keep re-proving your miserable failure.

Piven advocates violence. She believes in Marxist class struggle, and the necessity of vioence. That's what her editorial says.

Just say you don't agree with her. You'll feel better.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

@jprestonian,

Could you clarify your answer? When you say that large government employers attact and support donut shops, do you limit that to "government" employers? What do you think about large **private** employers?

Obviously, not in the case of the Richland Spudnut shop, where the facts seem to have already been established, but as it applies to donut shops everywhere.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

So, according to Palin, all Castro needs to do, to make the Cuban economy thrive, is to let people open more donut shops. Good to know.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: ""Could you clarify your answer? When you say that large government employers attact and support donut shops, do you limit that to "government" employers? What do you think about large private employers?""

Any large employer would do as an example, certainly. Which to me makes it all the more puzzling that Ms. Palin chose one so dependent on government largesse to make whatever (still elusive) point she was trying to make.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""However, she chose that particular location as an example of what "we" need. So, clearly, what "we" need is to figure out where the government is going to spend a ton of money, and set up our doughnut shop right nearby, if you want to use the example she provided.""

So, to be clear, it is your belief that the only thing that makes Palin's example one worth extolling is the fact that is was established near a sight of government spending, right? That is, the only thing that one can take away from the success of the place was that it serviced government employees? Not that it serviced a community established by a large employer of any type. Or that its success was a function of the hard work of the owners and employees no matter what community it was servicing. The only characteristic that could possibly be relevant is that it was established near a source of government employment. Is that right?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

RE FOX, who knows? They might want to exhume the tea party in 2012 to go after people like Scott Brown. I don't know how much they actually believe the hype. After all, tea party candidates did really poorly in November. They might try to get more electable candidates. It's going to be a tough challenge given that Obama will be on the ballot. However, it's also one of the more vulnerable Dem fields in the Senate since we are seeing the 2006 wave up for reelection.

But who knows if FOX will go for the electability strategy. Just look at how rabid the Conservatives on here were in defending Palin. So unless you think that all the Conservatives on here independently came to the conclusion that Palin was correct about everything she said and everything she will ever say, it's pretty indicative that FOX still loves her, meaning they aren't necessarily going to support candidates with a chance of winning.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Of course if you take a real close look at the Palin half term in Alaska, she relied heavily on Washington largesse also. Alaska got back far more from DC, than it sent there, and she also pushed through a huge increase on Oil Revenues, even thought the state was running an annual budget surplus and had no state income tax.

She shook down the oil companies for billions, in order to mail out free money to all the residents. That bought her a lot of popularity.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Which to me makes it all the more puzzling that Ms. Palin chose one so dependent on government largesse to make whatever (still elusive) point she was trying to make.
------------------------------------------------------------
It's just my guess that Mrs. Palin is impatient and not a very deep thinker. She comes up with an idea, applies it to an example that is recent in her experience, doesn't think it all the way through, doesn't consult with anyone who does think it all the way through, and voila. You have a certain Spudnut shop being given as an example of what you can do without government.

This isn't that different from the bear skin rug hanging on the wall in her video, while she claimed that she would never kill a bear for cosmetic reasons.

It's actually pretty comical when you think of it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@ru
Frum is now an unwelcome voice for the majority of people on the right (Limbaugh recently coined "Frumicide" to describe conservatives who were hurting the movement).

What Frum is, of course, is a fairly traditional conservative who would be quite perfectly aligned with the conservativism of Buckley.

But that's no longer nearly extreme enough for the movement. So he's unwelcome and his observations disregarded and invalidated.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""So, to be clear, it is your belief that the only thing that makes Palin's example one worth extolling is the fact that is was established near a sight of government spending, right?""

No, my belief is that Ms. Palin once again screwed the pooch in picking an example. I am certain there are many other examples she could have used to illustrate the supremacy of capitalism completely divorced from spending on public works, but this was most definitely not one of them.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"RE FOX, who knows? They might want to exhume the tea party in 2012 to go after people like Scott Brown. I don't know how much they actually believe the hype."

I think Brown is exceedingly strong and cannot be successfully challenged on his Right. Which is unfortunate for the Democrats because that lets Brown display his "Centrism" by throwing an occasional bone to sanity.

The Tea Party and Sarah Palin were useful idiots for the Right. But what happens when the idiots are no longer useful?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 29, 2011 4:34 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Any large employer would do as an example, certainly. ""

So why, then, do you assume that the only characteristic relevant to Palin's example is the fact that it was near a government employer?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I think we are all defined by our contradictions. We believe in freedom and we believe in law. We want healthcare but we don't want to pay for it. We want to destroy unions, but we want the promise that unions have delivered. We want safety from violence, but we believe in everyone packing heat.

It's just that Mrs. Palin's contradictions are more obvious. She hardly makes a comment that doesn't imbed some internal contradiction, while she blithely trips on oblivious to the contradictions. I don't dislike Mrs. Palin. In fact, I feel like I almost know her. But, she does make me nervous.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""So why, then, do you assume that the only characteristic relevant to Palin's example is the fact that it was near a government employer?""

Again -- **she** chose the example -- not me!!!!

The fact that she chose **this** one is, to me, hilarious.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Palin-derangement has become the all-purpose binky for Leftist angst in these turbulent times.

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) economics of oil/commodity price inflation has completely enflamed The Middle East-- while The Obamateur fiddles.

But when all else fails, Leftists can always wallow in the crap and urine of their hate for Mrs. Palin.

[12BarBluesAgain sneered: "It's actually pretty comical when you think of it."]

*tragi-comic*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I think I have figured out why Palin chose a Donut shop to use as an example of how to restore American greatness.

She is fixated on being against Michelle Obama's campaign to reduce obesity in school kids. She even whined on her reality show about how Michelle Obama was trying to take away people's deserts.

Therefore; Sarah is just pushing for more Donut shops, as part of her Pro Childhood Obesity campaign.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"What Frum is, of course, is a fairly traditional conservative who would be quite perfectly aligned with the conservativism of Buckley."

He is, however, Canadian. So, there's that, of course.

And nothing is ever quite perfectly aligned.

{{{well, perhaps a Shelby AC Cobra}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""I am certain there are many other examples she could have used to illustrate the supremacy of capitalism completely divorced from spending on public works but this was most definitely not one of them.""

So, again just to be clear, it is your belief that a private business providing a service to private citizens many of whom earn their living working for the government is not a good example of capitalism at work? Does that mean that, by definition, no government employee can ever be said to be engaged in capitalist activity when they purchase something if they do so with income earned from the government?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"So, to be clear, it is your belief that the only thing that makes Palin's example one worth extolling is the fact that is was established near a sight of government spending, right? That is, the only thing that one can take away from the success of the place was that it serviced government employees? Not that it serviced a community established by a large employer of any type. Or that its success was a function of the hard work of the owners and employees no matter what community it was servicing. The only characteristic that could possibly be relevant is that it was established near a source of government employment. Is that right?"

Don't blame us. You people are the ones categorically opposed to government spending. It's a large part of the story and just because you want to pretend it's not doesn't make it so. We never said hard work plays no role and so we don't debate it. You people are the one who believe government spending has never helped anyone ever. All we are doing is pointing out how stupid and simplistic your point of view is. Now why would you have a problem with us calling you stupid and simple minded??

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

She is fixated on being against Michelle Obama's campaign to reduce obesity in school kids. She even whined on her reality show about how Michelle Obama was trying to take away people's deserts.
---------------------------------------------
I think this is a good example of not taking the argument to the big picture idea. Most people think that childhood obesity is a bad thing. I'll bet that even Mrs. Palin does not advocate 120 lb five year olds with diabetes. Now, if someone thinks that Mrs. Palin actually promotes childhood obesity, or think that there is no demonstrated problem, let me know and I will retract this entire post.

We can argue how to best influence kids to be active and slimmer. Government in or out of it, etc. That's tactical, not strategic.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:49 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""So, again just to be clear, it is your belief that a private business providing a service to private citizens many of whom earn their living working for the government is not a good example of capitalism at work?""

No -- it's an excellent example. As you say, government workers need haircuts and doughnuts, too. It just strikes me as funny that Ms. Palin used this particular business as an example, just as it strikes me as funny when all these bootstrapped John Galts claim they sprang forth from the head of Zeus, with no externalities intervening to their favor.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

12BB,

Just thought of it. How's your puppy?!

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"I think I have figured out why Palin chose a Donut shop to use as an example of how to restore American greatness.

She is fixated on being against Michelle Obama's campaign to reduce obesity in school kids. She even whined on her reality show about how Michelle Obama was trying to take away people's deserts.

Therefore; Sarah is just pushing for more Donut shops, as part of her Pro Childhood Obesity campaign."

Plus it was what she ate while on her beat guarding the Alaska/Russian border

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'd certainly have to say based on experience that I agree with Piven's view; though I'm not sure it would look like what happened in Greece, I am convinced that the only way poor, working, and increasingly, middle-class people are going to get government to address their needs and put them above the desires of a tiny and extremely wealthy minority is through mass demonstration or strikes. That should be obvious to anyone with eyes and ears; here we've got a Marxist-Socialist President, the most Liberal of Liberals EVAH, and what do we get? Bailouts for banks and big corporations pretty much pass with ease; meanwhile homeowners who were victims of predators are allowed to sink. Unemployment is at 10% but that's not a big enough deal that we should spend any money on it - the layabouts should be grateful they get unemployment, and that will likely not get extended again regardless of what the unemployment rate is for at least the next couple of years.

If the majority of us are having such a hard time and still the concern and resources of government continue to be focused on those who least need or deserve help, it is hard to imagine what, short of mass protests or other large-scale collective action, will change its focus.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

12bar. It was snark. I was lampooning Sarah for the position she put herself in by telling The Big Lie, against Michelle Obama. It ended up making Palin sound like she was against healthy nutrional guidelines for children.

Hell, even the Pentagon had already complained about how obesity was becoming a huge problem, because they were having to reject so many enlistees, because of they being grossly overweight.

Despite all that being out there, Palin still had to try and paint The First Lady as someone who was going to confiscate all deserts.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Just thought of it. How's your puppy?!
-----------------------------------
Two puppies. I'm gonna regret this, I know. Actually I still don't have them but will by mid month. I hear my 3 year old grandson has been throwing them around. What a pill.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""...just as it strikes me as funny when all these bootstrapped John Galts claim they sprang forth from the head of Zeus, with no externalities intervening to their favor.""

Who are you talking about?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

12bar. It was snark.
------------------------------------------
I know. My comment wasn't aimed at you whatsoever.

I just used the "argument" between Mrs. Palin and Mrs. Obama as an example of a nonargument if the issue was understood at the highest level. People can always bicker when they keep it low, you know, "you said this" and "you said that". If people got to the higher level, of what people mean, an awful lot of disagreement would simply be at the tactical level.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, in a chapter, covering his college years, Rand Pauls tells of how Aqua Budda gave him a book to read, titled: Atlas Drugged.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""Who are you talking about?""

Those who speak of a top marginal income tax rate of 35% being "theft," in general -- not that you have ever said this.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

12BB,

Excellent!

re.: 3-yr old...snort ;>) ain't it da truth.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Have a good evening all.

Shenandoah like you have never heard it sung before. Give it a listen. America is suffering from a lot of cultural amnesia these days, and the younger generations are not getting exposed to much of their musical heritage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVzwmJGHthY

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

She might be eminently forgettable, but not in the world of radicals and especially university radicals.

We always here around here that conservatives "don't know what socialism is," and "don't know what Marxism is," blah blah. But the the usual suspects here have no familiarity with Piven (and Cloward) who've in fact been leading neo-Marxist academics and activists since the 1960s and were almost certainly studied by their hero President BO.

We also hear all the time about scary right-wing conspiracies and shadowy intellectual and propoganda movements of the CoC and allies, Koch brothers holding secret seminars to disseminate right-wing ideas, and the Federalist Society (can't forget that one!), all laying ideological groundwork to steal America from its rightful owners.

But here we have folks on the left who deny that the FF Pivens of the academic world have anything to do with leftist politics and activism. Quite extraordinary levels of denial and cognitive dissonance at work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD said: "But who knows if FOX will go for the electability strategy. Just look at how rabid the Conservatives on here were in defending Palin. So unless you think that all the Conservatives on here independently came to the conclusion that Palin was correct about everything she said and everything she will ever say, it's pretty indicative that FOX still loves her, meaning they aren't necessarily going to support candidates with a chance of winning."

The defense by our crew here is partisan knee-jerk response (along with buying in to the "female victim unfairly attacked" narrative that's been pushed since day one as a pre-emptive defense against what strategists knew was coming given her failings and the 'grizzly mama' strategy).

Fox supported every "tea party" candidate because they were pushing a rebranding of the party/molvement. Some losses were inevitable and unimportant given the larger goal.

And Fox cannot do a reversal on Sarah (or other extremist persons) because they appeal to and count on the same base. What they can do (and I'd argue are doing) is to allow her profile to diminish while forwarding the profile of someone more electable.

Bachmann, for example, is a hot Fox commodity. But that they didn't carry her response tells us what they are up to and that is 2012 viability.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 5:13 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Those who speak of a top marginal income tax rate of 35% being "theft," in general -- not that you have ever said this.""

So anyone who thinks that marginal rates greater than 35% are unjust is necessarily a "john galt" who thinks that they their success comes "with no externalities intervening to their favor." Really?

At what marginal rate is a regular old non-john galt type allowed to object that the rate is unjust?

I think that the only just income tax is a flat tax, regardless of what level it is set at. Am I a John Galt type?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""I think that the only just income tax is a flat tax, regardless of what level it is set at. Am I a John Galt type?""

No; you're the type of guy who thinks his $1 million home should only have a (maximum!) insurance premium 4x that of the guy who owns a $250K home.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

What they can do (and I'd argue are doing) is to allow her profile to diminish while forwarding the profile of someone more electable.

Bachmann, for example, is a hot Fox commodity. But that they didn't carry her response tells us what they are up to and that is 2012 viability.
------------------------------------------------------
Implied in your post is that Fox is not pushing either Palin or Bachmann. When they start pushing someone, who will that be, do you think?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"What Frum is, of course, is a fairly traditional conservative who would be quite perfectly aligned with the conservativism of Buckley.

But that's no longer nearly extreme enough for the movement. So he's unwelcome and his observations disregarded and invalidated."

What is is with this guy and this current rage of the left to rehabilitate and idolize WFB -- and to move him to the left only a couple years since his passing. They want to tell us that WFB, were he alive and hale, would surely be aligned with the conservative deserters and against . . . well apparently against the very folks like Rich Lowry he hand picked to carry on his flagship. And against his friend Rush Limbaugh.

How silly can you be bernie? I've probably read just about every word of WFB's published in the past 30 years and much that preceded. It's just plain silly to argue that he'd find "today's" right too far right.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

@tao

"There are hundreds of local Tea Parties and there were thousands of rallies.

Fox wasn't at all of them."

No but they literally produced, promoted, and covered the largest. Without Faux News pimping for them and actually helping them organize there would have been rallies as you suggest...after all it was Ron Paul who led to the tea parties not Faux...but nobody gave a crap..nobody paid attention..until Faux got with the program.
And they will fade just as quickly because as one of their golden boys Marco Rubio suggested when he declined joining their caucus...the movement has been co-opted by DC pols.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"But the the usual suspects here have no familiarity with Piven (and Cloward) who've in fact been leading neo-Marxist academics and activists since the 1960s..."

A smarter man would infer from that fact that Piven (and Cloward) can't have that much influence on the left if hardly anyone has ever heard of them.

Like I said, a smarter man.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"But the the usual suspects here have no familiarity with Piven (and Cloward) who've in fact been leading neo-Marxist academics and activists since the 1960s..."

A smarter man would infer from that fact that Piven (and Cloward) can't have that much influence on the left if hardly anyone has ever heard of them.

Like I said, a smarter man.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""No; you're the type of guy who thinks his $1 million home should only have a (maximum!) insurance premium 4x that of the guy who owns a $250K home.""

Ceteris paribus, yes.

You didn't asnwer my other question.

I'll be back in a few hours.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I posited they other day, that the Supreme Court ruling to allow Fat Cats to remain anonymous, when they give to organizations such as Rove and The Chamber Of Con Artists, may have already changed how Republicans will pick their nominee.

There is a strong likelyhood that The Oligarchs will convey to Rove, Chamber,etc which candidate they want their laundered money to be spent on.

In other words; the Supreme Court has probably turned back the clock to the days when candidates were selected in smoke filled rooms, and the primary voters were at best rubber stamps.

That would explain why no viable candidates have yet declared that they are in.

The more money The Oligarchs give to Rove.... the less financial support individual candidates will receive.

Follow The laundered money, and you will probably uncover who is the consensus candidate of The Oligarchs. If it is not Mitt, then he is probably the only one with enough money of his own, and name recognition to stay in the contest, against the chosen one.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""You didn't asnwer my other question.""

Yeah; might have missed it.

However, in the case of Palin v Obama SOTU, only one question really matters: WTF was she talking about, Re: Spudnuts, Richland, WA?

We've settled that one. She screwed the pooch, and that is, as they say, that.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

smarter man would infer from that fact that Piven (and Cloward) can't have that much influence on the left if hardly anyone has ever heard of them.

Like I said, a smarter man.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 5:28 PM |

.......................

I never heard of them until today on Plumline, so they have never influenced me. Reading the Right Wing comments about them, it strikes me more like those Rabid Right Wingers are trying to turn those relatively obscure people into a couple of Campus Willie Hortons.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The more money The Oligarchs give to Rove.... the less financial support individual candidates will receive.
------------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting premise. What's the next piece of evidence you would look for to validate your premise? What would have to happen to make you say you were wrong? Just testing the underlying assumptions of your premise, I'm not telegraphing doubt. Just curiousity.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 29, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

However, if you are rich enough to complain about being in the top marginal U.S. tax bracket, I have to point out that this is not the U.S.S.R. -- you are free to leave here for any country that will take you, at any time. Renounce your citizenship, and become a citizen of whatever tax haven that will have your rich a$$.

If you don't like the terms of the social compact, you have enough money to go somewhere more to your liking, and I urge you to do so, in such cases.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Liam - As I said yesterday, Frances Fox Piven is Ward Churchill 2.0.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"A smarter man would infer from that fact that Piven (and Cloward) can't have that much influence on the left if hardly anyone has ever heard of them."

A birdbrain might infer that. What I infer from the fact that you and others like rukidding are unfamiliar with Piven is that you are ignorant. As someone said, the fact that you are ignorant doesn't make everyone else ignorant.

I note you left off the part of my statement noting that BO most likely studied Piven, and no doubt so did many of his compatriots. Then there's the obvious fact that the genesis of the whole discussion was her recent editorial in the Nation, the flaship publication of the left. But I suppose nobody reads that.

You can think whatever you want about the scope of her influence. What are facts are that she advocates mass violence and that she's been influential on the academic left for over thirty years.

It's remarkable that you lefties are forever conducting what passes for intellectual archeology of conservatives, and are forever railing about the intellectual shallowness of Glenn Beck. And yet Beck and Stanley Kurtz have accurately brought to public attention the influence of a figure like Piven on a generation or more of leftists who've come through the universiities, and you Plumline liberals claim it's a fraud because YOU aren't familiar with her.

You're ignorant. That's all I infer from your ignorance, and all that logically can be inferred.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

12Bar.

We already know that none of the viable candidates have yet raised very much money, and compared to the last three campaigns, they are already much later in getting started. That might be, because the big donors that used to give to individual candidates have stopped doing so.

They saw huge returns for the money they laundered through Rove etc, in the last election. So they might have viewed that as good result on a pilot project, and may very well go all in with the money launderers this time.

After all, if they could pick the Republican that would be the most likely to deliver for them, it would make a lot more sense to spend almost all your contributions on that candidate, instead of having to cover all bets.

I saw one straw in the wind, in the past few days. Mike Pence was being talked up as a suitable Presidential nominee. Then the Republican Governors started pushing him to not run, but to instead run for Gov. of Indiana, which he later announced is what he is going to do. However, before he made that announcement; Dick Armey went on a very vocal campaign touting the presidential merits of Pence, and even called him "the second coming of Ronald Reagan".

I think Pence was one of the chosen, that the laundered money crowd found acceptable, and that is why Armey pushed so hard to persuade Pence to seek the Presidential nomination.

It is just a theory of mine, but I will be watching to see if fewer and fewer candidates actually run, and if Rove Armey, etc, start touting a certain name or two.

Worth watching for.

The Supreme Court has made it acceptable for secret money to make a big secret purchase of a politician, without the donors leaving their fingerprints at the scene of the crime.

So how can they resist doing so? It is their dream come true.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"I never heard of them until today on Plumline, so they have never influenced me."

It's a pretty good bet that they influenced folks like rioters at the WTO and that GOP convention.

But then, this is just quibbling over details, because you liberals have been arguing that violent rhetoric begets vilent acts, and she just published an editorial in the leading lefty publication urging mass violence. That was the whole point of the discussion.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"If you don't like the terms of the social compact, you have enough money to go somewhere more to your liking, and I urge you to do so, in such cases."

You also have enough to stay and change the social compact.

Son, I'm sorry but we're gonna hafta send you down. If you work hard maybe ThinkProgress will pick up your option...there's a Double-A assignment in Fresno, then you got a shot at a HuffPo after waivers.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

@12 bar - re who will Fox push?

Prior to the selection of a candidate, I'm not sure. But Ailes isn't a lone agent. He'll be strategizing with other establishment people and it will depend on some consensus, rough or more particular, that they arrive at. In the interim, they'll try to leave all doors open. My wager is Huckabee but I wouldn't wager much on it.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Yep ... I will pay the amount determined by the representstive government to be my fair share. This is not coercion ...

I ask again Brigade, at what number are taxes not coercion? Or do you think you should be allowed to freeload off of the real Americans?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 4:00 PM
==========================================

"Coercian: force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force."

A government? You're probably right. But just to find out, don't pay your taxes for a few years and see if the government tries to use force to gain your compliance.
Oh, but wait, are you a member of the infamous 47%? No wonder you don't think coercion is involved. Does that make you a freeloader?

Write this down and remember it: at any number above 0 there is coercion. Since we both agree that a representative government has determined our fair share and we are both paying it (at least I am), you should probably stop quibbling with me and focus on your liberal friends, like bsimon1, who are continually complaining that people aren't paying their fair share.

If you know someone who isn't paying the fair shair, call the IRS.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

U-Minn: Obama LEAST Smart Since FDR
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/01/keeping_it_simple_oba...

"President Obama now has the LOWEST average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president — with his 8.5 grade level falling just below the 8.6 score recorded by George H.W. Bush during his presidency."

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, I never heard of Zinn or Chomsky or Alinsky or Gramsci, until that article this morning in the Scotia Pennysaver.

Hey, speaking of Alinsky, this is what's happening in community org across the Hudson from tao:

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Two-Democrats-indicted-in-Troy-ballot-scam-case-982948.php#page-2

Where could thy have learned how to do that?

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

*Linky Repair*

U-Minn: Obama LEAST Smart Since FDR
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/01/keeping_it_simple_obama_record.php

"President Obama now has the LOWEST average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president — with his 8.5 grade level falling just below the 8.6 score recorded by George H.W. Bush during his presidency."

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

tao9: ""You also have enough to stay and change the social compact.""

Feel free to try that, also.

My personal perspective is that things aren't going to change until the personal expenditures by the top 2% in the U.S. for personal security exceed 55% of "income," but that day **will** come, make no mistake.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 29, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Tao, for a guy who reads so much, you sure comment more like a Palin clone, than a well read rational person.

Come to think of it, I bet you can see Sarah's Donut Industrial Complex from your house; you betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"...That has left the United States military to try to navigate a peaceful outcome and remain close to an important ally. One fear is the possibility that, despite the Egyptian Army’s seemingly passive stance on Saturday, the soldiers will begin firing on the protesters — an action that would probably be seen as leading to an end to the army’s legitimacy.

“If they shoot on the crowd, they could win tomorrow, and then there will be a revolt that will sweep them away,” said Bruce O. Riedel, an expert on the Middle East and Asia at the Brookings Institution, who predicts that in any event, Mr. Mubarak will step down.

A possible successor — and a sign of how closely the military is intertwined with the ruling party — is Omar Suleiman, head of intelligence, who state media said had been sworn in as the new vice president. Mr. Suleiman is considered Mr. Mubarak’s closest confidant and a hard-liner, although Obama administration officials say they consider him someone they can work with. In meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, they say, he has shown substance and an ability to deliver on promises.

Mr. Riedel, who was an Egypt analyst at the C.I.A. when President Anwar el-Sadat was assassinated in 1981 and has since tracked the rise of Islamic extremism in that country, said that the Egyptian military would be a critical player in any deal to remove Mr. Mubarak from power..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30military.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Armed Hamas Invades Egypt
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110129-red-alert-hamas-and-muslim-brotherhood

Hamas’ armed intervention in Egypt is an alarming development, although a predictable one. It is worth pointing out that Hamas is not merely colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

RELATED: US Marines on standby
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/28/marines-ready-for-egypt-rescue-mission/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The concentration of wealth at the very top is the biggest danger to the survivable of the USA as an economic powerhouse.

We just went through the worst economic meltdown since the great depression, and we saw what the Oligarchs did, to pull us out of it. They did nothing. Absolutely nothing They sat on their money, including their Bush Tax Cuts, and waited until the government stimulus funding primed the consumer demand.

Of course those self same consumers, are the ones who are going to have to pay back the money we borrowed, via bond sales to those very same greedy bastards, who would not spend any of their money to jump start the economy.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Edit:

he concentration of wealth at the very top is the biggest danger to the survival of the USA, as an economic powerhouse.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE CAN TRUST OBAMA

Obama has lied so much, and failed to keep his word on so many of his campaign promises.

One has to question the loyalty of Obama - WHOSE side is Obama on?

Is Obama on the American People's side 100% ??? OR is Obama willing to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt - because Obama has his own personal views - SEPARATE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Seriosly folks - we are in uncharted waters here. A crisis in a Muslim county, our President might be a SECRET MUSLIM - and we do not know where his loyalties are.

This is SERIOUS If Obama blows this crisis, he should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.


A Middle East crisis is too important to be handled by an unqualified and inexperience person like Obama. Something the liberals never thought about when they decided to force Obama on the rest of the country - "acting out" on their anger over the Florida recount and the Iraq War (which the Senate democrats voted for.)

So, NOW the nation is locked into a CRISIS with an unqualified person. Are you happy now, liberals? I hope you are. Because we are lucky we get out of this one OK.

AND who knows, Obama may feel more loyalty to his Muslim brothers than to the American People in THIS CRISIS.

Liberals, you happy now ???


.
.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

You can think whatever you want about the scope of her influence. What are facts are that she advocates mass violence and that she's been influential on the academic left for over thirty years.

Fortunately, we don't have to "think whatever (we) want about the scope of her influence" because most of even the most politically engaged people on the left have never heard of her. Hard to have influence with people who don't know you exist.

What are facts are that she advocates mass violence and that she's been influential on the academic left for over thirty years.

Again, what we come down to is you're butthurt because someone who has a different opinion than yours exercised their first amendment rights to say things you don't agree with. We get that. But that doesn't make her "influentual" with most or even many on the left. She's a fairly obscure college professor. You can hardly point to her as a leading light in leftist thought given that hardly anyone has ever heard of her. Though you'll no doubt continue trying to f*** that chicken.


Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

KaddafiDefendaEst

Here is an part of that article:

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza.

Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

Security forces in plainclothes are engaged in destroying public property in order to give the impression that many protesters represent a public menace. The MB is meanwhile forming people’s committees to protect public property and also to coordinate demonstrators’ activities, including supplying them with food, beverages and first aid.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Here's the thing Liam, I am a fairly well read, passably rational guy. I also have a deep appreciation for comedy (which actually comes from a healthy spirituality, believe it or not).

The use of mockery here is more fun lately for me, rather than engaging rote-ideology barkers. Tried that for awhile and got called a POS, racist, bigot, dope...you know, all the usual reactions here from the leftys.

You all fear Palin, you guys always trash those you fear, the template for that tactical trashing (though y'all don't even know it) was written by the Pivens of this age.

When its aped it's funny to someone who's read your playbook a long time ago. A play book you think you came up with by your individual bitter selves...that's even funnier.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"because most of even the most politically engaged people on the left have never heard of her."

(a) your unsupported belief, based solely on your own ignorance, (b) non sequitur.

"Again, what we come down to is you're butthurt because someone who has a different opinion than yours exercised their first amendment rights to say things you don't agree with."

Going with that diversion again, huh? Pretty tired. You denied this person has advocated violence. She did. Since then you've just flailed around for some way to save face. You goofed. Get over it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

what we come down to is you're butthurt because someone who has a different opinion than yours exercised their first amendment rights to say things you don't agree with.

__________________


Jenn - RIGHT back at you.

sure sounds like just about every comment you have made on this blog over the past 10 months.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Hezbollah swallowed Lebanon last week.

Hamas is preparing to devour Egypt.

What is The Obamateur prepared to do?

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Q: What's The Obamateur's next move?

A: Retreat!

*US Marines on standby*
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/28/marines-ready-for-egypt-rescue-mission/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of diversion, we've already established that the article in question - the one YOU pointed to with a claim that it was a call for violence - was a set of OBSERVATIONS, not calls to action.

Secondly, "influentual" means that people know who you are and have accepted your ideas. You can't have influence if people have never heard of you or what you advocate. In Piven's case, a good 99% or more of Americans have (or had, before Beck's need for a new bogeyman brought her to their attention) never heard of her or what she believes. Perhaps Piven is influentual with the subset of people who agree with her ideas who are within the exceedingly small number of people who even know who she is. Not exactly an MLK or a John Kennedy or even a Gloria Steinem in other words.

Whatever. Keep f***ing that chicken.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

KADDAFI


According to some British newspapers, Obama actually wants to turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.


Obama's Middle East policy has failed.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, our economy is headed for a Jimmy Carter-like ride.


Thank you liberals for giving us such an unqualified dude.


If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, Obama MUST RESIGN IMMEDIATELY OR FACE PROTESTS IN THE STREETS.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Kaddafi

If these revolts continue in the Middle East, Obama better KEEP our troops in Iraq - that is going to be the ONLY PLACE we can get oil from.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama-CodePink-Weathermen orchestrate Mubarak's overthrow
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2011/01/29/did-muslim-brotherhood-learn-day-of-rage-egypt-protest-tactics-from-obama-allies-bill-ayers-and-code-pink/

"Obama funder and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, accompanied by Obama’s Hyde Park friends and neighbors (the former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn) organized an inside-outside game of political theater to bring pressure on the Mubarak regime to allow the aid for Hamas to be delivered though Egyptian checkpoints.

"On one hand, Evans and Code Pink lobbied Mubarak’s wife for assistance, as well as the U.S. embassy in Cairo. On the other hand, the group led hundreds of Western leftists in challenging the Egyptian government with boisterous street protests.

"Code Pink was not shy about its support for Hamas. The group bragged that Hamas terrorists guaranteed their safety in Gaza.

"At the same time, Code Pink had also allied itself with the Muslim Brotherhood. Code Pink took out banner ads on the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English language Web site asking jihadis to “join us in cleansing our country” of so-called war criminals which included former President George W. Bush and wife Laura.

"The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt and is widely considered to be the father of the modern Islamic terrorist movement.

"It is telling that the protests Friday in Egypt were dubbed by the Muslim Brotherhood, a “day of rage.”

The Brotherhood said its members will demonstrate “with all the national Egyptian forces, the Egyptian people, so that this coming Friday [today] will be the general day of rage for the Egyptian nation.”

“Days of Rage” is what the Weathermen called their violent, riotous protests in Chicago in 1969.

"The question is begged: What have Obama’s allies Ayers, Dohrn and Code Pink taught the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-Mubarak organizations in Egypt about using protests, riots and the modern social media to coordinate their actions to undermine the Mubarak regime?"

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Q: What's The Obamateur's next move?

A: Retreat!"

Merely following Reagan's model.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, I bet you can see Sarah's Donut Industrial Complex from your house; you betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:11 PM
=========================================

And from your seedy room above the tavern, you and Ruby can writhe to the blinking of the neon sign outside.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Israel originally built up the small fledgling Hamas movement, to counter the PLO. Israel sought to play the divide and conquer strategy.

Now the baby monster they suckled, has grown up, and scares the hell out of them.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

[JennOfArk spat: "Keep f***ing that chicken."]

Jenn stays civil, as usual.

*stay classy*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"You all fear Palin, you guys always trash those you fear"

Do you people not know ANYTHING? Since when do you sit around making fun of something that scares you?

Really, you don't have to stop listening to Sean Hannity. But maybe you might want to only absorb 95% of what he tells you.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Kaddafi

That is incredible - Obama's friends have been secretly seeking to undermine Egypt over the Hamas situation in Gaza


Here is the quote


After much internal struggle, a group of about eighty activists crossed into Gaza on Wednesday. They met up with Palestinian activists at the Israeli border where they were addressed via the cellphone of an Israeli Knesset Member, Talab El-Sana, by Hamas ‘Prime Minister’ Ismail Haniyeh.

Haniyeh told the crowd, “We have managed to overcome the occupation plans and we will surely meet at the al-Aqsa Mosque and in Jerusalem, which will remain Arab and Islamic.”

As noted by the blog Mystical Politics, there was no mention by Haniyeh of Code Pink’s delivery of humanitarian aid or the plight of the people in Gaza.

When Code Pink last visited Hamas in June, they were given a letter addressed to President Obama from Hamas.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Whatever. Keep f***ing that chicken.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 6:44 PM
=====================================

Direct your request to Liam, and he'll ask you to bend over. Ruby's out doing what he's home doing without.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Now the baby monster they suckled, has grown up, and scares the hell out of them.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 6:58 PM
=========================================

That's what your parents said.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

This Kaddafi freak sure must be on some crazy mushrooms. Now he is seeing a Code Pink Muslim Brotherhood, in his hallucinations.

Wait until he starts seeing the axis of Al Qaeda and Emily's List. He will have to be admitted alongside Charlie Sheen.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"we've already established that the article in question - the one YOU pointed to with a claim that it was a call for violence - was a set of OBSERVATIONS, not calls to action."

We've established that this is the fiction to which you cling. Anyone who isn't invested in your fiction would read the column and laugh of your wishful "reading." Why don't you go read a bit about FFP. She's always been very open about the fact that her writings and "academic" activities are part and parcel of activism and advocacy.

"In Piven's case, a good 99% or more of Americans have (or had, before Beck's need for a new bogeyman brought her to their attention) never heard of her or what she believes."

We'll have to keep that standard in mind for the future. Stuff that's taught in leading colleges and universities isn't influential and so isn't consequential, because not enough people have heard of it. Got it.

Let's see, surely 99% of people have never heard of Leo Strauss. But our own bernie is forever warning of his pernicious influence through a small group of pernicious neocons with wicked designs on our dear country. Obama has said Reinhold Niebuhr influenced him, but I doubt more than 1% have heard of him either.

To think, you started down this whole "but she's not influential" alley to change the subject.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade as usual is above engaging in a discussion of ideas, though not above simply throwing around insults.

What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse he is? How sad and impotent.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade as usual is above engaging in a discussion of ideas, though not above simply throwing around insults.

What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse he is? How sad and impotent.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

[Liam drooled: "Israel originally built up the small fledgling Hamas movement"]

Hamas is merely the Gaza office of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neat trick for Israel to invent the Muslim Brotherhood all the way back in 1928!

*Beware Zionist time-machines!*

[Take your Haldol, Liam.]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama really doesn't know what he is doing in the Middle East.

NOW we hear reports that Obama's leftist friends have been in the center of this Hama - Gaza - situation for a long time now.

WOW - Obama is in real trouble this time.


LIBERALS - are you happy now?


OR are you waiting to be happy when you COMPLETELY DESTROY THE US ECONOMY ???


,

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Jenn,

Like I said earlier, Brigade is just STRF without his blog bedazzler.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

qb - bwak bwak bwak BUKAW!!!

Really man, it's just indecent.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Liam drooled: "Code Pink Muslim Brotherhood, in his hallucinations"]

It doesn't take "imagination" to examine the cited EVIDENCE of Code Pink collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates.
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2011/01/29/did-muslim-brotherhood-learn-day-of-rage-egypt-protest-tactics-from-obama-allies-bill-ayers-and-code-pink/

Liam's inability to address the cited EVIDENCE demonstrates his (usual) intellectual bankruptcy.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

/dismissed

Take your Haldol, Liam.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Whatever. Keep f***ing that chicken.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 6:44 PM
=====================================


Brigade as usual is above engaging in a discussion of ideas, though not above simply throwing around insults.

What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse he is? How sad and impotent.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse
_________________________________________

Couldn't make this stuff up. JennOfArf is self-parody.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:
"What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse she is?"

You'll see one next time you apply your wrinkle cream.

"How sad and impotent."

Your bitter half? Put a sack over your head and give him some Vi*gra. That should solve both problems.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse he is? How sad and impotent.

__________________

RIGHT back at you Jenn - sure sounds like you are talking about every comment you have made on these blogs in the past 10 months.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam - no, Brigade is worse. STRF is certifiable - that's clear. You have to pity the guy and realize that with him it's delusion coupled with OCD. He's a pain, but not really in control. Brigade is just a hateful person. He doesn't really even seem to have any deeply-held beliefs, just a desire to be a jerk to other people. He's animated by resentment and anger, and it's his choice to be a jerk. Much worse than being a victim of organic disease like STRF is.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

@tao
re we here are scared of Palin...

And Frum? And Krauthammer? And Barbara Bush? And George Will? Labash at the Weekly Standard, etc etc. All scared of Palin?

If you are merely trying to tease with that statement, fine. Not effective but what the hell.

If you actually believe the notion however, what on earth do you do with all the conservatives who agree with us?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Like I said earlier, Brigade is just STRF without his blog bedazzler.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:12 PM
=======================================

Like I said earlier, Liam-still is just caothien9 without his brain.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Liam

What happened? You don't have anyone to smear this weekend?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Liam - Brigade is just a hateful person. He doesn't really even seem to have any deeply-held beliefs . . . He's animated by resentment and anger

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:17 PM
==========================================

Now she's a psychiatrist as well as a mind-reader. Where's shrink2 when you really need him? And what makes it all the better, she's discussing her diagnosis with Liam-Still, yet never touching his irrational obsession with Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Powerful Hallucinogen causes Kaddafi to start seeing Muslim Brotherhood Code Pink Elephants. Move over Charlie Sheen. Kaddafi is coming to join you.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Just look at how rabid the Conservatives on here were in defending Palin

==

"That's a reflex action"
-- Ashe (Ian Holm) "Alien" (Scott 1979)

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Jenn

Have you said anything of substance on this blog -

All you seem to do is harass people.


What is up with that?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Tao has gone completely around the bend. I inform everyone that I am going to work the primaries to try and get Palin nominated, and he concludes that means I am scared of her.

And he claims that he has a sense of humor because of his deep spirituality. Well, I guess that proves that George Carlin had no sense of humor, since he said that religion is a form of mental illness. Of course it is. How else can one explain someone buying into stone age fairy tales, created by lice infested, burlap clad ignoramuses.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

[Liam drooled: "Move over Charlie Sheen."]

Liam doesn't need CodePinko Martin Sheen's permission to examine the cited EVIDENCE of Code Pink collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates.
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2011/01/29/did-muslim-brotherhood-learn-day-of-rage-egypt-protest-tactics-from-obama-allies-bill-ayers-and-code-pink/

Liam's inability to address the cited EVIDENCE demonstrates his (usual) intellectual bankruptcy.

Grade: F- (miserable failure)

/dismissed

Take your Haldol, Liam.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArf reliably shows up slinging insults and putdowns and ends up whimpering about the meanies who aren't nice to her.

Go have a good cry and think about why this pattern keeps repeating itself in your life.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Watch out Kaddafi. The Muslim Brotherhood of Code Pink Elephants are going to stomp you.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

The motives of the Leftist “progressive” allies of Hamas are evil, and ought to be so recognized by people of good faith. Their reasoning sounds insane because it is-- and they are.

For a more scholarly discussion of the phenomenon, read “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left” @
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X

Don't be an apologist for Muslim Brotherhood affiliates your whole life, Liam.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone imagine Josh Marshall or Greg Sargent or David Frum landing in this thread and having any desire at all to partake?

Come on, guys.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

This is Glenn Beck responding on the radio to Chris Matthews "balloon head" description of Bachmann...

""You sir, are a balloon head that was taught by a balloon head and all you did because you're a balloon head was sit in your stupid balloon head Ivy League classroom and be indoctrinated by a balloon head and never ever used your balloon head to ask an intelligent question of the balloon head in the tweed jacket! You self-sanctimonious, self-important balloon head, America has had enough. Do your own homework."

Do we want our discourse here to match Glenn Beck?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

What kind of a person trolls comments boards just looking for opportunities to show everyone what an arse he is? How sad and impotent.

_____________________


So, Jenn, how in the world does this not apply to yourself???


Have you said one thing positive, on a topic, on a substantive topic which wasn't attacking someone else.


You are harassing other people, and that is against the terms of service. You are probably breaking the law as well.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

""You sir, are a balloon head that was taught by a balloon head and all you did because you're a balloon head was sit in your stupid balloon head Ivy League classroom and be indoctrinated by a balloon head and never ever used your balloon head to ask an intelligent question of the balloon head in the tweed jacket! You self-sanctimonious, self-important balloon head, America has had enough. Do your own homework."

Do we want our discourse here to match Glenn Beck?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:38 PM
========================================

Sounds remarkably like DDAWD.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

bernie - they don't want any of those guys to partake. Or really anyone. Just like children who think the way to get attention is to act out.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 29, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama should resign IMMEDIATELY. It is clear he is way over his head.

Obama is encouraging the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD - this is clearly against US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.


We have reached the point at which Obama's Muslim sympathies PREVENT HIM FROM EXERCISING HIS DUTIES TO THE UNITED STATES.


Obama MUST RESIGN IMMEDIATELY


Obama must step aside and allow someone whose loyalty is NOT UNDER QUESTION to lead. Obama has to GET OUT.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham: "Can anyone imagine Josh Marshall or Greg Sargent or David Frum landing in this thread and having any desire at all to partake?"]

I think they're all still chewing the carpet and muttering over academia's latest conclusion.

U-Minn: Obama LEAST Smart Since FDR
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/01/keeping_it_simple_obama_record.php

"President Obama now has the LOWEST average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president — with his 8.5 grade level falling just below the 8.6 score recorded by George H.W. Bush during his presidency."

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

[JennOfArk spat: "Keep f***ing that chicken."]

Jenn acts out, as usual.

*stay classy*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Is balloon head just another way of calling Bachmann an airhead? I had never heard of anyone calling someone a balloon head before I saw the online reports of Chris Matthews having said it.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Do we want our discourse here to match Glenn Beck?"

Sadly, I hadn't heard Matthews had called Bachmann a balloon head. Should we gather that Beck is nevertheless the villain because he responded by using "balloon head" more times?

If so, then what is the standard we should follow? Jenn should only say "F*** that chicken" once? And only call us jerks and bufords once? Rukidding should only call Palin a "harpy shrew witch" once?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 29, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Can we just stop personally attacking other people on this blog

And concentrate on the major issue here: How horrible a job Obama has done in the Middle East over the past two years.

And how Obama should take personal responsibility for his own failures there. If Egypt's government falls, this is a serious blow, and Obama should take responsibility.


When people fail like this in the private sector, they resign.

There is NO REASON the same standard should not be applied to Obama. Obama failed to do what he said he was going to do in the Middle East. That is grounds for firing. Obama should leave office as soon as possible.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn @ 7:17

Spot-on, I only wonder why anyone would read either. I'd only add that Brigade is shockingly immature. If I had to guess based on his emotional maturity I'd say he's exactly fifteen years old, and seeing a shrink three times a week.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

You are right QB.

Rukidding should apologize to all harpies, shrews, and Christine O' Donnell.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Liam

That comment really added to the discussion. Are you brain-dead?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Jenn said: "bernie - they don't want any of those guys to partake. Or really anyone. Just like children who think the way to get attention is to act out."

Then let's not play that game too. If a rational or compelling point is made, we can address it. If we read or learn something interesting, we can note it here. Otherwise, ignoring seems the proper course of action.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't billionaire progressive George Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against ObaMao's summary execution of (un-Mirandized!) civilians by Reaper drone airstrikes in Pakistan?

Afterall, Obama's targeting tactics are clearly more "violent" than Mubarak's secret police beatings.

Obama's policy to use Reaper drones to target (un-Mirandized!) civilians has increased markedly without a peep. Get busy, Leftists.

Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until Obama either releases his birth certificate or ends his Reaper drone madness.

Rage against the machine, progressives!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

This just in;

President Obama says that he has heard STRF's calls for him to leave office immediately, and he will do so, because, as he put it, since I have lost the support of STRF, I can not go on.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 29, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I think that's it: Most of the liberals are brain-dead.

They can not think for themselves. All they do is repeat the same ridiculous and silly rhetoric which the Obama people email to them.

Liberals fail to THINK AHEAD. It is that simple. Liberals refuse to think two or three moves down the road, when the economic consequences of their policies usually swing around to hit them in the side of their heads.


Tonight the US government is stuck with Obama - his loyalty to the American People and their interests is under question.


The liberals DID THIS to our nation - they forced an unqualified person on us, and NOW there is a crisis. And we should be concerned. This country needs real leadership, not this dude Obama who may or may not be a Muslim, and whose loyalties may or may not be with the American People.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh noes! More *Obama Doctrine* success:

Al-Qaeda Leader Admits Drone Strikes Wreak Havoc
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/al-qaida-leader-admits-facing-pressure-u

"A purported al-Qaida leader in Pakistan says the terror network is losing territory and fighters amid a U.S. drone strike campaign, according to an audio message monitored by a U.S. organization that tracks militant propaganda..."

*Miranda-despiser-in-Chief*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Good Christ how does anyone read this thing without Troll Hunter? It's a SEWER!

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Code Pink and Muslim Brotherhood wear "Together We THRIVE!" T-shirts
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/01/11/obama-ally-code-pink-invites-muslim-brotherhood-join-us-in-cleansing-our-country/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Spot-on, I only wonder why anyone would read either. I'd only add that Brigade is shockingly immature. If I had to guess based on his emotional maturity I'd say he's exactly fifteen years old, and seeing a shrink three times a week.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 7:54 PM
=========================================

If he really believed that, he'd be trying to lure me to a park some dark night.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't billionaire progressive George Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against ObaMao's summary execution of (un-Mirandized!) Somali teens at sea?

Afterall, Obama's sniper tactics were clearly more "violent" than Mubarak's secret police beatings.

The anniversary of Obama's sniper fire on (un-Mirandized!) Somali teens at sea is this April. Get busy, Leftists.

Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until Obama either releases his birth certificate or resigns in disgrace.

Rage against the machine, progressives!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Why...?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Liam

These protests all over the Middle East represent a complete failure of Obama's policies.

Do you remember the election - when the Obama people promised us if the country elected a black man, peace would come to the Middle East???

Do you remember all the promises made in 2008 ???


Obama's foreign policy has been nothing but a failure.

Our position is worse now than at any time under Bush. At least under Bush, the people in the Middle East were concerned they might get invaded, or bombed. No one is afraid of the WUSS OBAMA.


The reports out of London that Obama has been secretly encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the government of Egypt are HORRIFYING. No American President should be playing these kinds of games with Islamic terrorist organizations.

It appears that is what Obama has done.


Obama has to resign - IF OBAMA HAS ACTED AGAINST US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Is Soros out of punch and pie?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:17 PM | Report abuse

*crickets chirp*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Liam

These protests all over the Middle East represent a complete failure of Obama's policies.

Do you remember the election - when the Obama people promised us if the country elected a black man, peace would come to the Middle East???

Do you remember all the promises made in 2008 ???


Obama's foreign policy has been nothing but a failure.

Our position is worse now than at any time under Bush. At least under Bush, the people in the Middle East were concerned they might get invaded, or bombed. No one is afraid of the WUSS OBAMA.


The reports out of London that Obama has been secretly encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the government of Egypt are HORRIFYING. No American President should be playing these kinds of games with Islamic terrorist organizations.

It appears that is what Obama has done.


Obama has to resign - IF OBAMA HAS ACTED AGAINST US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Under the heading of "politicians that scare me", I have Jack Kingston.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027759.php

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""However, in the case of Palin v Obama SOTU, only one question really matters: WTF was she talking about,""

I think mark said it well yesterday.

""We've settled that one.""

Well, I thought we had. You agreed it was an excellent example of capitalism at work, so not at all sure how she “screwed the pooch”.

""However, if you are rich enough to complain about being in the top marginal U.S. tax bracket..."""

You don't have to be rich to think that at some point taxation becomes unjust.

""I have to point out that this is not the U.S.S.R. -- you are free to leave here for any country that will take you, at any time.""

As tao pointed out to you, I also am free to complain about the top marginal rate and try to get it changed. As I pointed out to you the other day, the irony of a lib issuing a “love it or leave it” ultimatum is palpable.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Hezbollah swallowed Lebanon last week.

Hamas is preparing to devour Egypt.

What is The Obamateur prepared to do?

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 29, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""And Frum? And Krauthammer? And Barbara Bush? And George Will? Labash at the Weekly Standard, etc etc. All scared of Palin?""

Probably not, but they don't obsess over her every utterance (or, in your case, even her non-utterances), do they?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"Prior to the selection of a candidate, I'm not sure. But Ailes isn't a lone agent. He'll be strategizing with other establishment people and it will depend on some consensus, rough or more particular, that they arrive at. In the interim, they'll try to leave all doors open. My wager is Huckabee but I wouldn't wager much on it."

Bernie, or anybody really, who are the real string pullers on the right?  Who are the top 5 say, that can determine the rightwing candidate.  Also, how much power is concentrated in these "oligarchs?"  is there any power that citizens have?  Or are we completely controlled?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 29, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to be rich to think that at some point taxation becomes unjust.

==

Well under Eisenhower the wealthiest paid top rates of 91% and thecou try thrived. Where was the injustice?

I don't see any issue in a tax code that deliberately discourages the concentration of wealth. That concentration is inimical to democracy.

And how exactly do you have a dog in this fight? Don't insult my intelligence by claiming you're deeply concerned about the morality of taxation. You're just reciting GOP favoritism, and against your self-interest.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

yeah, the whole framing of the tax debate as an issue of fairness or justness is moronic. You think it's just for Republicans to take away food stamps or to end unemployment benefits? You think it's just for them to allow endless abuses by health insurance companies?

This talk of fairness for the upper class is just sick stuff by disgusting people. You think it's any coincidence that the same people who cry about death panels also feel no sense of injustice from people who are laid off and being made to struggle even more now?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 29, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Probably not, but they don't obsess over her every utterance (or, in your case, even her non-utterances), do they?

==

It's a weakness of ours. We have a real hard time letting a lie go unchallenged. Not so for conservatives, who couldn't get past the orange juice without at least one whopper.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse


And how exactly do you have a dog in this fight? Don't insult my intelligence by claiming you're deeply concerned about the morality of taxation. You're just reciting GOP favoritism, and against your self-interest.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 8:41 PM
=========================================

What intelligence? The one who has no dog in the fight, is the one living in the workers' paradise.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

"An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so."

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

The liberals DID THIS to our nation - they forced an unqualified person on us, and NOW there is a crisis. And we should be concerned. This country needs real leadership, not this dude Obama who may or may not be a Muslim, and whose loyalties may or may not be with the American People.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 9:16 PM | Report abuse

These protests all over the Middle East represent a complete failure of Obama's policies.

Do you remember the election - when the Obama people promised us if the country elected a black man, peace would come to the Middle East??? Do you remember all the promises made in 2008 ???


Obama's foreign policy has been nothing but a failure. Our position is worse now than at any time under Bush. At least under Bush, the people in the Middle East were concerned they might get invaded, or bombed. No one is afraid of the WUSS OBAMA.

The reports out of London that Obama has been secretly encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the government of Egypt are HORRIFYING. No American President should be playing these kinds of games with Islamic terrorist organizations.

It appears that is what Obama has done.


Obama has to resign - IF OBAMA HAS ACTED AGAINST US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

This represents a BETRAYAL OF US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS - it is the nightmare scenario that Obama's Muslim heritage is more important to him than our US National Security interests.


We need the democrats in the US Senate to STAND UP FOR THE US NATIONAL SECURITY NOW.

We need 20 democrats in the Senate to put COUNTRY AHEAD OF PARTISANSHIP and agree to remove Obama from office based on Obama's divided loyalties here, which should not be subject to question.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Eric Alterman on CNN's decision to carry Bachmann's SOTU response. Highly recommended reading...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/ta012711.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama should take personal responsibility for his own failures in the Middle East. If Egypt's government falls, this is a serious blow, and Obama should take responsibility.

When people fail like this in the private sector, they resign.

There is NO REASON the same standard should not be applied to Obama. Obama failed to do what he said he was going to do in the Middle East. That is grounds for firing. Obama should leave office as soon as possible.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 29, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

bern,

Frum, Krauthammer, Labash & Will are doubtful Ms. Palin is helpful at this point (Mrs. Bush was a bit beechy, of course).

They did not avail themselves of the, actually unprecendented, unspeakable vituperation directed en prog masse(& daily right here at lil ol' PL) at Ms. Palin.

In my post I identified the phenomenon as "tactical trashing."

That is a fact and that bespeaks fear, oh yes. And you enjoy it, which is a whole other Pivenesque pathology.

{{{exh. A: The ObstetricSage Kreskin of P'Town}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Write this down and remember it: at any number above 0 there is coercion. Since we both agree that a representative government has determined our fair share and we are both paying it (at least I am), you should probably stop quibbling with me and focus on your liberal friends, like bsimon1, who are continually complaining that people aren't paying their fair share.

If you know someone who isn't paying the fair shair, call the IRS.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 6:00 PM

You're right, we should stop quibbling. We agree that whatever tax level the government decides is "fair share" by definition and that people should quit complaining about "coercion" because taxes are coercion no matter what the level might be.

Fair enough?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.""

If you ever read her essay's or We The Living, Rand felt that, since you were forced to pay into those systems, you should use them to get out what you put in. Also, I think she more or less favored the Piven strategy of trying to Bankrupt the system, at which point we would learn or lesson. Piven (and Cloward) thought a "crashed system" would engender more Socialism, Rand thought the opposite. Just my two cents. Also, she was quite the sexual libertine. I thought you'd "dig" that, my brother. From another mother.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 29, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Liam,

I don't know where you got the idea I was responding to your "PrimaryVote4Palin" double switch gambit, or where I was responding to you at all other than your crack re: I'm a Palin clone.

I said "healthy" not "deep" spirituality; and Carlin was pretty funny but he wasn't no Dante.

What gives?

btw.: I thought Van had put a clampdown on all his music at YouTube? I could spend all Sunday there now.

Montreux '80:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5GMHzPeEyA&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=MLGxdCwVVULXe-Ln4mBoXvokN6VzEHKofO

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 10:09 PM | Report abuse

tao said: "They did not avail themselves of the, actually unprecendented, unspeakable vituperation directed en prog masse(& daily right here at lil ol' PL) at Ms. Palin."

Re-read Labash. And leaving aside "unspeakable" etc, so what? The point you don't address is the reasons these individuals reject Palin as fit for the office (or take Noonan's "excuse me but what they went for is political narrative bullsh*t"). You can be truthful enough here, I hope, to acknowledge that unfitness for the office is the complaint they each have and voiced?

"In my post I identified the phenomenon as "tactical trashing.""

Whose tactic? Krauthammer's? Trashing an opponent's reputation is de rigeur these days (John Kerry, Bush if you like). Again, what you need to address is why such conservatives hold the same notion that I and others hold (unfitness for office).

"That is a fact and that bespeaks fear, oh yes. And you enjoy it, which is a whole other Pivenesque pathology."

This is untenable. If rudeness and vituperation are the certain and unmistakable signs of a resident personal fear, then every conservative writing on this blog, every FOX or Limbaugh broadcast too is built upon such fear and pathology. What's the difference?

My rejection of her as a candidate is the same as Noonan's or Krauthammer's. My disdain for her prideful quest and her deluded self-image is the same as Labash's.

What "fear" I have is the same as if Joe the Plumber was the individual in question. Either individual is a preposterous choice for such a position and preposterous means seriously dangerous in such a position far above their capabilities.

But I have an additional fear as well and that relates to a political movement which would wish her there. That scares me. And if you assume that it doesn't scare Noonan or Krauthammer or Labash or Will or Frum as well, then we're on different planets, tao.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 29, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love this:

"Real Time" host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: "Do you believe in evolution?" Kingston not only said rejects the foundation of modern biology, he explained it this way: "I believe I came from God, not from a monkey." He added, "If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence."

Seriously, that's what he said.

Let's pause to appreciate the fact that it's the 21st century -- and Jack Kingston is a 10-term congressman who helps oversee federal funding on the Food and Drug Administration.

As part of the same discussion, former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell tried to ask Kingston about the overuse of antibiotics. The far-right congressman had no idea how the question related to evolution.

At one point, Kingston, sarcastically, turned to National Review's Will Cain, part of the same roundtable, and said, "Will, help me out anytime you want, buddy."

The assumption, of course, is that Cain, a conservative, must agree with the confused congressman about modern science. Cain responded, "I'm sorry, I believe in evolution."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027759.php

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Altermann from Bernie's link:

"Not to put too fine a point on this but the woman is clearly insane. She knows or admits less about American history than any decently educated fourth grader and is aggressive rather than embarrassed about her ignorance. (“We're not going to let anyone get away with saying the sky is blue.”)"

Speaking of aggressively ignorant people, Gail Collins says that Bachmann is the new Palin but wonders if before passing that torch we should get rid of the old one first.

At least Bachmann looks insane in every photograph, unlike Palin, who only looks insane in some of them.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Wow, nothing spells idiot like disbelieving evolution. Worth noting that evolution is more than a model for human descent on one planet .. evolution is a feature of the cosmos itself and is observed on every scale from the Planck length to clusters of supergalaxies.

In 2008 the GOP presidential primary candidates were asked if they accepted the theory. Anyone remember how many raised their hands?

Cue Brigade to point out that understanding biology isn't a vocational prerequisite for invading Muslim countries and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

You're right, we should stop quibbling. We agree that whatever tax level the government decides is "fair share" by definition and that people should quit complaining about "coercion" because taxes are coercion no matter what the level might be.

Fair enough?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 29, 2011 9:44 PM
=====================================

Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Cue Brigade to point out that understanding biology isn't a vocational prerequisite for invading Muslim countries and cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:32 PM
========================================

Nor, obviously, a prerequisite for being welcomed into a workers' paradise or bloviating on a blog. Now tell us everything you know about evolution.

That's it? Thought so.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"And leaving aside "unspeakable" etc, so what?"

"So what" is what I'm talking about exactly. It was so vile, so malicious, so often just fabricated. Hell with was, it is. Still.

But sorry B, the id-ridden zombies are unprecedented in their noxious stamina.

Don't hide behind unsuitability for office. I find her unsuitable for office.
But recent precedent does suggest that it is events, not necessarily suitability for office, that drives electoral cycles.

You know you yourself can conjure scenarios where Ms. Palin does indeed take on Obama and win.

It's fear. You're scared. And, forgive me, lacking in faith in the polity and the American people.


Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

This is untenable. If rudeness and vituperation are the certain and unmistakable signs of a resident personal fear, then every conservative writing on this blog, every FOX or Limbaugh broadcast too is built upon such fear and pathology. What's the difference?

==

Worth an underscore. Even the most polite of the conservative posters here descends to insult and goading at the drop of a hat. And not only on Plum Line, but everywhere they post.

Fifteen years on the web, years before that on dial-ups, and I've never seen one "conservative" who could martial a coherent argument or answer a challenge without insults, typically scatological and personal ones. It's really quite the phenomenon.

In fact conservatives who can originate text are so shockingly few that they all seem to be people paid to do just that, to the point that a mediocrity like George Will is regarded as some sort of intellectual.

Conservatism seems to have jumped the shark with Reagan. From a legitimate political syndrome to a membership club for assorted nasty-grimies

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of aggressively ignorant people, Gail Collins says that Bachmann is the new Palin but wonders if before passing that torch we should get rid of the old one first.

At least Bachmann looks insane in every photograph, unlike Palin, who only looks insane in some of them.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:22 PM
========================================

If people think attractive women like Bachmann and Palin look insane, can you imagine what the world must think of Maxine Waters, Coat-tail Clinton, or especially some old hide like Gail Collins? You'd learn more by reading Jackie Collins.

Posted by: Brigade | January 29, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

cao:

""Well under Eisenhower the wealthiest paid top rates of 91% and thecou try thrived. Where was the injustice?""

This is a fairly foolish formulation. Consider: “Under Eisenhower Jim Crow laws flourished and the country thrived. Where was the injustice?”

Obviously the existence of an injustice has nothing to do with whether or not the country was “thriving” while it was going on.

""Don't insult my intelligence…""

Now that would be a difficult thing to do.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 29, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

You know you yourself can conjure scenarios where Ms. Palin does indeed take on Obama and win.

==

I call troll.

Let's hear one of these scarios. But it has to be legitimate and not based on fantasies like birther junk.

Palin's unfitness is the irreversible belief of a majority of Americans. Her only way to the presidency is a coup.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Scott, if you were capable of an honest rebuttal you would have made one. Instead you post that junk. Yours is a dim mind indeed.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

We don't do coups.

And I was talking to Mr. Latham, a fellow I respect.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Hate to be the bearer Tao but my self-esteem doesn't live or die on the respect of a right wing troll on a blog.

I say you're blowing smoke. Palin has no legitimate path to the presidency.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow kiddies you guys are playing rough tonight. :-)

@Jenn

Like Cao I agree that you absolutely nailed STRF and Brigade in your 7:17PM. Although I might give Brigade a little more slack than you. Yes STRF is demonstrably sick as is evidenced from his posts and his treatment of fellow posters..and yes he needs help and we probably shouldn't make fun of him. Brigade does come to this blog to primarily hurl insults and try to impress us with his witty snark. And while I agree with your basic take Jenn I'm not sure we shouldn't pity Brigade the same as STRF. The symptoms are certainly different but imagine what kind of person get's their jollies from insulting others.
Scott...Q.B...and other righties as well as many of we on the left certainly hurl insults on occasion but it's not their raison d'etre. Yeah I often find Brigade boring and offensive but I'm no longer aggravated so much as saddened...again a person whose pleasure comes from making fun of others has some serious issues.

@tao

Brother I'm with Liam on this Palin thing. Fear? Have you seen her numbers lately? Bernie actually did a better job than me explaining that we don't fear Palin...we fear the fact that otherwise rational people would continue to defend an obviously unqualified person.
And as Bernie says...this is not just the left speaking...it's every thoughtful, non pandering person on the right as well...from Will..to Parker..to Noonan..to the vast majority of the campaign people who worked on the McCain/Palin campaign. How many officials in that campaign trashed Palin as being totally unfit for office...how many came out and supported her? Or were all those pundits and all those campaign officials lefties?

It's not fear Tao...our vituperous response..at least in my case...is the product of resentment. I resent having my intelligence insulted by putting up an obviously unqualified, incredibly divisive, person in front of this nation and then expect us to act as if she is a serious person. She's no! You know it! I know it!...all but the blindest partisans know it. Have a St. Pauli's Girl and just let it go.


Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Tao.....oops reacted to your earlier posts.

I see that since then you have agreed Palin is unqualified and perhaps are making the point that she is no different than say...Dan Quayle....OK...but I still don't buy your fear argument...two years ago YES...but again have you seen Palin's numbers? Her negatives are almost double her favorables.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Good posts from bernie and ruk on why we feel as we do about Palin.

I expect the lower orders to revere her, it's congruent with logic & nature for the swing shift at the meat packing plant to love her. Gibble gabble one of us. That's why she wears her ignorance like a war medal and uses the derision aimed at her from the educated on left and right to her advantage.

But when one meets someone who's actually educated and even a little smart who supports her, who claims she'd be a desirable leader, it *is* frightening, in a 1937 German Jew kind of way. It gives me a serious chill to think that even a few of my fellow citizens could be as nihilistic as that.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Well all continue the mud slinging. :-)

As for me it's tough tonight. I just came from one of the most incredible concerts.
The Florida Orchestra playing Tchaikovsky's Symphony #2 "Little Russian" was great. But after the intermission a musician named Jeffrey Multer was the soloist for Tchaikovsky's Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major. It was awesome!
When Tchaikovsky wrote that piece he originally asked the Tsar's leading violinist to debut it. That guy turned it down claiming it was too hard to play. It took 3 years before Tchaikovsky could find someone with the fortitude to try. After watching Multer tonight I can see why. What an amazing performance...the sight of a person and instrument melding together as one to produce such sounds....well I'm still flying on the wings of that man's efforts. Multer is internationally known and plays around the world but obviously can be heard more frequently in major markets like New York. If you appreciate a virtuoso violinist try and catch him.

And so being snark free I shall depart for some humor on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps they can give us something as entertaining as taking a politician word for word and making it a comedy...I can see Russia from my house tee hee...After all Michele Bachmann did give a response to the SOTU...some great material there.:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 29, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Uh, let's leave Dan Quayle out of it, please.

No I would not want him as President but the USA and the world would survive a Quayle presidency and I don't think either would survive Palin having access to nuclear weapons.

Even while the national punchline Quayle found time to help his kids with their homework and his concession speech in 1992 was a model of sportsmanship.

Next to Palin, Dan Quayle is a man of stature.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey, ruk. Tschaikovsky's 3rd, the Polish, is his best work in my opinion. For some reason the 2nd and 5th make no impression on me. As for the concerto you might check out the Milstein recording, it's old but probably on iTunes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

OK Liam, I'll play.

"...scatterbrained..."
"...moron..."

Where would you put Mrs. Palin on the continuum of intelligent eminences currently practising politics?

Is she North of Nelson? South of Shaheen?

My opinion is that perhaps 1% of them are even slightly more intelligent than the average fellow or gal you might work next to at the OldeBostonFin/Comm/FabShoppe that's been there 15-20 or so years and is making a decently good buck.

What say y'all?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RU,

Resentment can't begin to explain this. I "defend" Ms. Palin only in the sense that this has gone full humanity-rip.

I posted the above (goodnaturedly) upthread, no one has taken me up on it. That says something.

Posted by: tao9 | January 29, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Elliot Abrahms, ginner-up of false intel for the Iraq invasion, hastens to justify his existence and generate Bush apologia by casting the failing of the Egyptian state as a wonderful thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Go perform lingus on Netanyahu, Elliot.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

As for me it's tough tonight. I just came from one of the most incredible concerts.

==

Since this is an "open" thread and most everyone is dreaming of sugarplums, lemme tell you about the most incredible concert of my life. The Warsaw Phil performed at Purdue when I was there in 1973. On the program:

* Sheherazade

* The Bartók 2nd Piano Concerto

* Penderecki's "Threnody"

It was the Concerto that changed my life .. those open fifths in the Adagio went straight into my chromosomes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 29, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I posted the above (goodnaturedly) upthread, no one has taken me up on it. That says something.

==

Uh, dude, sometimes you think you're being obscurely witty when to most readers it seems more like you're hallucinating, and those posts don't get a lot of responses. If you want to take silence as meaning you overwhelmed everyone, take your place alongside RFR.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Scott, I'm ready and able to discuss the alleged injustice of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate anytime you're ready to drop the snark. I don't accept your comparison to Jim Crow. I think progressivity is justified both as moral toward the wealthy and in terms of national interest and also that the latter prevails even without the former.

I'm not interested in exchanging snark.

Your court <--- ball

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich notes that the Carter/Reagan roles are reversed in the SOTU, and much more:

"There was no drama to Obama’s address — just a unifying theme, at long last, as he reasserted the role of government in rebooting and rebuilding the country for a new century and putting Americans back to work. The president wisely left any theatrics to his adversaries, and, as always, they were happy to oblige.

This time we were spared a “You lie!” But once Obama segued into a rambling laundry list and the “prom night” bipartisan photo ops lost their comic novelty, the night’s storyline inevitably shifted to the reliable diva antics of Michele Bachmann, the founder of the House’s Tea Party Caucus. For all the Republican male establishment’s harrumphing, it couldn’t derail her plan to hijack the party’s designated State of the Union response with one of her own. More Katherine Harris than Sarah Palin, Bachmann is far more riveting television bait than Paul Ryan, the bland congressman officially assigned the Bobby Jindal memorial slot after the New Jersey governor Chris Christie was savvy enough to take a pass."

...

"Like virtually every other week since the shellacking, the State of the Union week was another salutary one for Obama. But the state of the union itself could yet be in the hands of radicals whose eagerness to see the president fail is outstripped only by their zeal to make an ideological point, even if it forces America into default."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30rich.html?ref=opinion

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 3:55 AM | Report abuse

Tao, can you tell me how to convey derision towards Palin? I no longer want people to think that I'm like cowering in fear. What is the proper way to do so? I always thought that making fun of her was the proper way to do so, but clearly I'm wrong.

What's the right way to do it?

Thanks!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 4:04 AM | Report abuse

Michelle Bachmann is the real Sarah Palin:

http://www.theroot.com/views/why-michele-bachmann-real-sarah-palin?wpisrc=xs_wp_0005

"Bachmann's SOTU rebuttal was oversimplified, unoriginal and earned her a "barely true" rating from PolitiFact. But she laid out plainly -- in a way Palin never has -- the core Tea Party platform: lower taxes, less government and no Obama."

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 5:29 AM | Report abuse

cao to SC at 10:55 pm:

""Yours is a dim mind indeed.""

cao to SC a mere 3 hours later:

""Scott, I'm ready and able to discuss...""

Now why in the world would you want to discuss anything with such a "dim mind"? Sorry, cao. Not to go all Bernie on you, but I'm not going to play Charlie Brown to your Lucy.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

"I resent having my intelligence insulted by putting up an obviously unqualified, incredibly divisive, person in front of this nation and then expect us to act as if she is a serious person."

We could plug any number of Democrats into that same formulation, including those in high office now.

"My rejection of her as a candidate is the same as Noonan's or Krauthammer's. My disdain for her prideful quest and her deluded self-image is the same as Labash's.

"What "fear" I have is the same as if Joe the Plumber was the individual in question. Either individual is a preposterous choice for such a position and preposterous means seriously dangerous in such a position far above their capabilities."

Welcome to the party, pal. There are many who feel quite the same way about Joe Biden, Al Gore and even Barack Obama and yet your unhinged and delusional party foisted them upon us.

But the unhingedness and obsession -- the only really correct word -- of the left as to Palin is quite beyond and different than anything before and simply can't be explained by anything you say.

Seriously, any party that considers Joe Biden in any way more intelligent or capable than Palin is not to be taken seriously itself.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Foreign Policy mag grades Obama:

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/20/grading_obama_the_progress_report_after_two_years?wpisrc=xs_wp_0003

He gets a solid B.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

@tao - Id? Frightened by her sexuality? As I said elsewhere, this formulation permits me to suggest something equally ridiculous - that the negative response of conservatives to Jane Fonda arose out of sexual fear. Or that the negative responses to Thatcher or Streisand arise out of such subliminal dynamics. It's a bs thesis that makes no sense.

Anyway, I've told you honestly what's going on. Use it or waste it.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

And Hyatt pulls in Elliot Abrams to discuss how neoconservative policy brought about the zest for throwing off an oppressive regime which neoconservatives loved to have in place and want to remain in place. The propaganda line was predictable and the WP editorial page one of the predictable stages for presentation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Joe Biden can read a book, and he can complete an elected term of office. More than one, in fact.

No, QB, there is nothing anyone on your miserable side can say in answer to Palin's resignation halfway through her only term of state office, to say nothing of her incoherent, babbling, unhinged justifications for doing so.

You think you an get away with using critique of Palin for another of those childish turnaround stunts? Wrong. First you have to get past that resignation of hers.

You're blocked there.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

I was gone the last couple of days and sort of breezed through yesterday's thread late last night. I admit I didn't read it in depth but I found it ironic that Francis Piven's piece in the Nation has provoked so much ire. Are the huge crowds of young people protesting a tyrannical leader and economic strangulation in Egypt neo-Marxists as well? Is the faction of the Tea Party that threatens 2nd Amendment remedies and taking back "their" country neo-Marxist, shhhhhhh don't tell them. And if the unemployed combine in numbers and take to the streets they must all be following Piven's marching orders. I never knew that activism and advocacy were unique to neo-Marxism. There, did I use the term enough to prove I'm one so I can be a member of that new club, neo-Marxists one and all?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Jim DeMent held the first Tea Party Caucs meeting. Gave hs welcome and started to leave. Someone mentioned they hadn't pledged allegiance to the flag.

So he came back and they pledged allegiance to the flag.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"Seriously, any party that considers Joe Biden in any way more intelligent or capable than Palin is not to be taken seriously itself."

Seriously indeed Q.B. It's "seriously" good that you are an attorney and do not work in human resources. I like you Q.B. but you have literally fallen off into the STRF/clawence/jake level of posting. Not your style...but your substance on Palin is simply making you look foolish.
Again do you suppose Karl Rove/George Will/Kathleen Parker/Peggy Noonan/virtually every top campaign official with the McCain/Palin 2008 effort...all leftists right...they would literally laugh at your last post Q.B.

Again keep you day job as attorney because with all due respect Q.B. you have next to no skills in determining qualified people to hire for a job..you'd suck at human resources.

Jeez...simply compare the C.V.'s You are becoming really close to as Cao correctly points out a freaking nihilist. You completely trash people's accomplishments, you avoid taking into consideration a person's lack of accomplishments and somehow come out in favor of the person with the weakest CV...the weakest record of public service...and when you included Joe the Plumber...really Q.B. check yourself dude...compare CV's here and take someone's actual accomplishments and make an argument for Palin. You're becoming absurd Q.B. and yes indeed you've picked the right word...it's getting really really hard for us to take you as a "serious" person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Thilly wabbit. Real Marxists don't o violent activism. They hold marches.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Are all class struggles neo-marxism in disguise? Is violence always associated with neo-marxism? Is income inequality, unemployment and a rise in cost of food, fuel and health care a reason to take to the streets and protest or is it always neo-marxism in disguise and simply a result of the agitating being done by an obscure 78 year old woman?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

For those interested in some very good reading as a perhaps more fruitful exercise than peeing on each other...

http://www.nybooks.com/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Jake clams to be an attorney too.

Imagine being a client and depending on the logical skill exhibited by QB or Jake to not go to jail.

(shudder)

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh Open Thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/sunday_open_thread_19.html

anyone who wants to move this morning's comments over to the new thread, go for it

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 30, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Books? Love a good book thread.

If anyone else loves physics, curl up with this:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/3527406018/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296397222&sr=1-3

The chapter on relativistic kinematics is a piece of heaven.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

@Cao

Thanks for the correction on Dan Quayle. You are correct that was a cheap shot to compare him to Palin...kinda like a Q.B. post. Indeed Quayle was no JFK as Benston correctly pointed out...but I appreciate you mentioning his good points...and he was no Sarah Palin.

That concert in Warsaw sounds awesome! I am nowhere near the classical music aficionado as you but I do enjoy great music of all descriptions. In fact when I was watching Jeffrey Multer finger the frets wildly during his solos I actually thought of Eric Clapton. Must be the residue of 10 years as a rock and roll radio announcer.

I feel as if I've been so blessed to have experienced sooooo many different careers, situations, places and people in my life.
But it seems you might have outdone me Cao. :-)

If you and your partner ever travel might I suggest St. Petersburg Florida. We look much more like a European city..say Monte Carlo than an American one. We have sidewalk cafes...last night on the way to the concert there were people enjoying their dinner out on the sidewalk overlooking Tampa Bay at the end of January. We have been designated as the leading mid size city in the U.S. for the arts edging out DDAWD's N'awlins...with all the respect I have for N.O.'s art scene that felt great. :-) The city also has a great vibe. We have a very vibrant gay community...and something that might please your partner...a very large community of Vietnamese expatriates. Again as I mentioned my brother in law has a Vietnamese wife that he met here, not in the service.

Anyway thanks for your Warsaw review...I especially love Sheherazade and enjoy Bartok as well. I've always wondered what it might be like to hear a concert or watch a ballet (I love ballet hate opera) in a European Capital with a long history of the "Arts".

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

So Glenn Beck and the Rabid Right are now going after 80 year old widows:

"Glenn Beck must have thought he had an easy mark when he targeted Frances Fox Piven. Let’s face it. On paper she’s a female widowed lefty academic now approaching eighty. Most of her life’s work has been focused on enfranchising the poor through welfare reform and voter registration. Surely Beck thought that nearly fifty broadcasts worth of inflammatory disinformation and hate-mongering about Piven and their inevitable result—hate mail, comments and phone calls that range from brutally nasty and paranoid to those that cross the line into the genuine death threat category—would shut her up.

But Beck was wrong. Yes, Piven finally called the New York State troopers last Friday, but that was only after a fresh wave of death threats. And some of her friends are reaching out to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the FBI to see if there’s anything they can do. (After all, those e-mailed death threats may be anonymous, but ISPs can be traced.) But she’s not shutting up or going away. And she sees right through Beck and his ilk."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158016/frances-fox-piven-way-tougher-glenn-beck

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Prag:

The Rabid Right's denial of evolution is only the warmup (ha!) for Global Warming Denial. That is the Big Enchilada because anthropogenic climate change destroys the entire Right Wing philosophy of every-man-for-himself. Once you stop respecting science, the Middle Ages are your destination.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Who could argue with this?

"AFA Blog: It's Not Genocide If God Tells You To Do It
Submitted by Kyle on January 13, 2011 - 1:57pm
Peter's last post about the American Family Association comparing their political enemies to the Amalekites reminded me of a post that showed up on the AFA's blog earlier this week arguing that when God's people completely wipe out their enemies for worshiping other gods, engaging in child sacrifice, and practicing intermarriage, it is entirely justified and cannot be considered "genocide" because the judgments of "God [are] not subject to our contemporary sensibilities":

Can the actions of the Israelites legitimately be called genocide?

The term “genocide” means a major action “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” Some twentieth-century examples are the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis and the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in 1994. Going by this definition alone, the destruction of the Canaanites would seem to have been genocide.

But there is a major difference. These twentieth-century examples were basically people killing people simply because they hated them and/or wanted their land. The Canaanites, by contrast, were destroyed at the direction of God and primarily because of their sin. Because of this, I think the term should be avoided. The completely negative connotations of “genocide” make it hard to look at the biblical events without a jaundiced eye.

One’s background theological beliefs make a big difference in how one sees this. If God was not behind the conquest of Canaan, then the Israelites were no different than the Nazis and the Hutus. However, once the biblical doctrines of God and of sin are taken into consideration, the background scenery changes and the picture looks very different. There is only one true God, and that God deserves all honor and worship. Furthermore, justice must respond to the moral failure of sin. The Canaanites were grossly sinful people who were given plenty of time by God to change their ways. They had passed the point of redeemability, and were ripe for judgment."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/afa-blog-its-not-genocide-if-god-tells-you-do-it

I'm going out on a limb here and presuming that liberals rate quite high on the Judgement-Ripeness-Index. I'd put us somewhere just beneath Muslim IRS agents but much above abortionist assassins.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama has to resign - IF OBAMA HAS ACTED AGAINST US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


This represents a BETRAYAL OF US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS - it is the nightmare scenario that Obama's Muslim heritage is more important to him than our US National Security interests.


We need the democrats in the US Senate to STAND UP FOR THE US NATIONAL SECURITY NOW.

We need 20 democrats in the Senate to put COUNTRY AHEAD OF PARTISANSHIP and agree to remove Obama from office based on Obama's divided loyalties here, which should not be subject to question.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

@ RainForestRising, 9:46 AM

Sir, what would you have us do (other than impeaching President Obama)? Are we to invade a sovereign country to quell a populist uprising against a repressive regime? I beg your pardon, but I believe that has not worked very well for us in the past.

What is your preferred plan of action?

Posted by: wiccan | January 30, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

lms,

Piven is not a neo-marxist because she supports violence. She is a neo-marxist because she is. That isn't in dispute. Go read her works if you doubt it. Marxism is an ideology that deems violence necessary and appropriate. Some neos have tried to remove it, and that is debatable, but you take the easy way out when you pretend Piven gets labelled a Marxist simply because she supports social violence.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Piven is not a neo-marxist because she supports violence. She is a neo-marxist because she is. That isn't in dispute. Go read her works if you doubt it. Marxism is an ideology that deems violence necessary and appropriate. Some neos have tried to remove it, and that is debatable, but you take the easy way out when you pretend Piven gets labelled a Marxist simply because she supports social violence.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company