This entry was posted on December 18, 2009 at 8:18 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TRMS was really good last night. My favorite segment; the Jack Bauer tortures Santa E Christmas card.
The anti health care reform pray in was scary & funny at the same time. Kind of a PTL/ Jones town feel.
I also liked the Russian/ Pacific Island/ poop story.
Dylan Ratigan really went over the top on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz this morning when she couldn’t answer his question on health insurance company profits. It was an embarrassing performance and I hope he gets reprimanded by his bosses.
What is it with men and Wasserman-Schultz? She was on with that condescending moron, Duncan Hunter, on Hardball a while back. He talked to her like she ‘belonged in the kitchen’, and kept referring to Israel for no apparent reason. She’s Jewish.
My point, Red, is that the conversation had nothing to do with it. They were talking about torture, and he kept asking her if she supported Israel’s POW policies. In his psycho world, there may have been a tangential connection, but it was obviously a play on her ‘Jewishness’, and it was weird.
“They were talking about torture, and he kept asking her if she supported Israel’s POW policies.”
Joe: Israel is ‘alleged’ to torture prisoners. It was his way of putting a wedge between her anti torture position and her pro Israel position. It his tiny mind you can’t hold both positions at the same time.
Fritz, I know exactly what he was trying to do. He was using her Jewish heritage in a a patently offensive way. He also kept calling her ‘Debbie’, in a ‘should be in the kitchen’ kind of way. Utter boorishness.
Got to laugh out loud, Hunter sure ticked off a few thin skinned libs. They sure can dish it out (i.e. see Joes wise a*s remark to Boogie) but there a bunch of cry like babies when it is returned.
A certain word is coming to mind regarding the current political situation. I think it is “malaise”. Anybody old enough to remember Jimmy Carters administration and his cardigan sweater lectures to the” American people. They never learn, do they?
For once I agree with Dr. Dean, let’s hope Ben Nelson hangs tough and the folks in Copenhagen freeze their keisters off!
Joe: Sorry, I didn’t mean to question your knowledge of the subject. I only vaguely remember the encounter but I think the comments may have been aimed at Jewish voters in her district. as much as her personally. A comment on torturing Israel’s POWs (no matter how vague) could be used in future campaign ads against her.
1. Science is now politicized just like most news outlets. Left and right.
2. Obama really is a socialists/populist and probably proud of it. For now it’s still a free country so I’m ok with that.
3. The economic stimulus has done nothing but make government bigger and 800 billion the national debt. No new job growth. ( No help to you guys looking for work)
4. Deficits don’t matter to this administration. Talk to the contrary is cheap but spending is out of control and indisputable. Latest continuing resolution (this week) to keep the current government running is a 14% increase over last year when inflation is running about 1%
5. Government is now run on behalf of government employees. The new average federal salary is $ 30,000 greater than the average private sector salary.
6. The Copenhagen conference standing ovation and deafening applause for Hugo Chavez line about the evils and the need to destroy capitalism speaks volumes on what the true motives are for this movement.
Merry Christmas or happy holidays to everyone. Looks like it will be a white one here in VA. They are predicting 15 inches tonight and tomorrow. We’ve got a good supply of fire wood and a nice bottle of wine for a beautiful late fall wonderland weekend.
It’s got nothing to do with thick skin or “Jewish voters”. When a politician debating a Jewish politician about American foreign policy starts throwing Isreal into the eqaution, he’s directly playing on her heritage to obfuscate the conversation. I realize it’s old news now, but nobody commented when I brought it up at the time, so here we are. I’m not going to sit back and let people turn this into some bizarre defense of Isreal. I’m pretty sure Duncan Hunter and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are both ‘pro-Isreal’. It doesn’t change the fact that the guy was a jacka$$.
At least Dylan Ratigan – who was much less offensive – has the decency to apologize for his behavior.
Nothing new about that. Follow the money. Be it the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the power of the tobacco lobby over Congress for decades, or junk science about global cooling or global warming, it’s all about the transfer of wealth.
A “sceptic” is someone who has at least once been made a fool of by a con artist. So when the proposed solution – to an alleged problem so complicated that trusting “experts” is involved- is to transfer billions upon billions of dollars from regular folks to those who admittedly have some sort of stake in the matter, only those most naive wouldn’t stop to ask, “Wait. How exactly does that fix the problem?”
And to snare a few more they throw in the “and clean the environment.” A little bit, I suppose, but their proposals for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere do not necessarily equate with reduced pollution. Want to reduce air pollution? Emit less soot. How do you clean what’s already in the atmosphere? Do nothing, it precipitates, is filtered by natural means, and returns to the ground from which it came.
I’m not saying global warming isn’t happening. I don’t know enough to make that factual claim. But I know a con when I see one, and I see one in this movement now meeting in Copenhagen.
BW, I don’t know why I bother. Your fixation on Isreal, and who is ‘pro’ or ‘against’ it, completely ignores what I’m talking about. And for the record, a Jew with a different opinion of Isreal’s policies – or America’s policies towards it – than yours, does not qualify them as ‘self-hating’. Your opinions of my country’s policys differ from mine. Does that mean I should consider you a self-hating American?
Unlike this recent exchange, Senator McCain was the floor manager for his side of a time-measured debate. It is the role of the debate managers to agree or object, so Senator McCain’s objection back then is not equivalent to what Senator Franken, the presiding officer at the time, did.
From the Congressional Report Weekly, CNS Octomer 7-11, 2002:
” Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. Not on our time. If the Senator from West Virginia would like to yield the Senator time, I would be more than happy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Minnesota that he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.
— Mr Dayton’s remarks —
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes or whatever he needs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton’s name be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
It was a manufactured attack on John McCain by left-wing hacks just for the sake of attacking John McCain – and I’m no big fan of John McCain.
That exchange of October, 2002 is actually a demonstration of the comity that Sen. McCain alluded to:
“Will the Senator yield for a question? – Sen. Dayton, for whatever reason (and it happens all the time – may have been stuck in committee) didn’t get his name on Sen. Byrd’s list of senators wishing to speak in favour of the amendment. Sometimes the opposing side has unallocated time available and that parliamentary question is a way of asking, “John, can you fit me in on your side?” and McCain answered nicely that he couldn’t and the Sen. Byrd fits him in.
Anyway, once Sen. Dayton’s time expired he mistakenly asked the entire Senate for additional time instead of just asking Sen. Byrd, which is why McCain correctly objects. Sen. Byrd, of course, grants him whatever time he needs from his side.
I don’t like it when people who should know better pull snippets of history out of context in order to slam someone else.
“I don’t like it when people who should know better pull snippets of history out of context in order to slam someone else.”
I agree but because it’s done all the time by both liberals & conservatives I find it hard to get upset when it happens. Life’s too short.
“Rachel Maddow is reporting on John McCain refusing to grant another minute to an opponent on the Senate floor in 2002. Where is the outrage?”
Joe you should be outraged that Rachel the liar led you off a cliff and you made an untrue comparison.
Thanks Al for the fact checking. Too bad MSNBC can’t afford one or doesn’t care about facts.
L&J, I’m dissapointed that Rachel didn’t get the details, but outrage would be a bit much. Red Eye made the same mistake last night. Besides, I heard something about a memo sent to Democrats to stick to the time limits because of Christmas approaching. I think in the long run Franken’s actions, and McCain’s response, are both grandstanding, and much ado about nothing.
What I do find outrageous is the BWs calling Rachel “Mr. Maddow” because she’s a lesbian with short hair. I may have found that amusing…when I was 13. But that’s what I expect from people that think everyone who doesn’t see the world through their eyes, or live according to their rules, are ‘wrong’ or ‘biased’ or ‘self-hating’. Careful, BWs, the lesbo mob is outside your door.
Sen. Franken tried blaming his mistake on Sen. Reid’s instructions and I’m sure he has gotten or will get an earful in the Democratic Cloak Room for that. If true, it could potentially result in having the majority’s agenda in drowned in endless delays of parliamentarian rules, so I don’t believe Sen. Reid gave such a firm order.
In defence of Sen. Franken, it may be the fault of the Senate Parliamentarian, possibly for failing to realise there was a rookie acting as President who may not be familiar with the ways of the US Senate. As acting President Pro Tempore, it would have been proper for Mr. Franken to inquire, “Is there an objection?”
Had Sen. Byrd or the late Sen. Kennedy been on the floor during this exchange, I wouldn’t have been surprised to hear, “Parliamentary objection, Mr. President, and move for the ‘Ays and Nays’ on the distinguished senator from Connecticut’s request.”.
Snarky comments such as “Mr. Maddow” serve only to cancel out any reasonable arguments that person makes. We have a right to disagree with the lifestyle choices of others, but that doesn’t give us license to belittle them.
Ummm… that’s pretty much all that US Senators do when they speak on the senate floor. It’s also why we should be very careful not to elect (or even nominate) sitting senators of either party for POTUS.
The senate is like a bunch of chickens squabbling in the hen house. For our chief executive, though, we need less cackle, more eggs.
If Barack Obama had spent only four years as mayor of… oh, Oak Park, IL or some such place, today we’d be quibbling over the pros and cons of the surprisingly bi-partisan health care legislation he signed into law this past October.
I’ll look that up when I get a chance, fritz. As I pointed out above, the details make the difference and, generally, first-term junior senators aren’t usually the ones who object on unanimous consent requests unless they’re acting as floor leaders – which is an entirely different matter.
^Al: I’m sorry to say this but any really important bi-partisan legislation is not going to happen until there is a return to a moderate dominance in the Congress. We are moving in the opposite direction and it will be generations, if ever, before the tide turns. I’m afraid who is POTUS is or what experience he has will have little effect. Bush & Clinton were successful governors who were not great Presidents.
Regarding, all laws that govern us and general race, gender, religion, sexual preferences, I support total uncompromising unequivocal equal opportunity and treatment under the law. I cringe when I hear comments or see actions that undermine this sacred principal.
I’m a 30 year supporter of the original affirmative action programs that was meant to increase underrepresented minority participation in all aspects of the American dream by actively and proactively seeking “qualified” candidates to fill slots in all aspects society. Unfortunately the program has morphed too often into lowering standards and counterproductive reverse discriminations. Simply put two wrongs don’t make a right and that’s where I diverge from my liberal friends on this blog.
Looks like the Democrats have the 60 votes for some type of health care bill. In my memory there has never been more of a back room secret corrupt deal. There has not been even a hint of transparency and to this moment I cannot find a news article that lists specifically what is this bill and what the final cost estimates are.
Amazingly, Dailykos seems to have more info than our national news outlets. One thing that seems a positive is the report that Insurance companies will be allowed to sell national policies across state lines. Let’s hope there is no “but” in there. A but where they are required to cover all types of unwanted special interest Christmas gifts like sex change operations and the costs go through the roof. I’m not for against the example but I don’t think uninterested citizens should have to pay for them.
Finally I’m saddened by the way our law makers think nothing of favoring one group of citizens over another. The fact that Nebraska, Louisiana and Nevada citizens will not have to pay their share of the cost because the law subsidizes their states only while the other 47 states citizens pick up the tab is an outrage and an affront to the principal of equal justice under the law. The constitution is becoming more and more meaningless.
It’s the leadership of Congress who are to the left of moderate, but the majority of its members, collectively, still represent just right of centre.
President Obama campaigned heavily on health care reform so even the Republicans would like to facilitate that goal if they could. Unlike his more successful predecessors, this president didn’t submit his own version of the legislation for his key initiative to Congress, instead leaving its framework entirely up to congressional leaders. So there’s no surprise that it’s a heavily partisan package that will do little to advance affordable quality healthcare for Americans and can barely get the necessary votes of his own party.
A true leader would have recognised the shortcomings of this approach and would have worked for passage of a bill attractive to enough Republicans to offset the negative votes of those flanking his left. This would also have the political benefit of offering cover for himself and his party when the inevitable unintended consequences result, and it would have shined a positive light on his abilities. Instead, he’s a do-not-much dunderhead who talks a lot and has trouble pleasing anybody.
If Barack Obama had spent only four years as mayor of… oh, Oak Park, IL or some such place, today we’d be quibbling over the pros and cons of the surprisingly bi-partisan health care legislation he signed into law this past October.
hahahahahaha….
Oooor… if he’d spent a few years as mayor of, say, Wasilla Alaska, we’d be quibbling over what President Biden was up to, President Obama having resigned last month in a snit.
Al: To a conservative like yourself most Republican Senators are just right of center and most Democratic Senators are on far left.
I of course hold the opposite opinion. In my world there are only two or three slightly right of center Republican Senators and none in the center. Most are very conservative and 6-8 are in John Birch land.
I think most Democrat Senators including the leadership are moderate to somewhat liberal. A few are conservative and two or three are far left.
The Senate & House ,for that matter, has been trending more and more to the extremes for over a decade; mostly due to redistricting in the case of the House and the influence of the Internet and lobbies etc. in the Senate.
Unfortunately I see this trend to extremism growing rather than shrinking and sadly Congress in the future will only be more partisan.
Not quite, fritz. Republicans and Democrats are just right of centre, with the Repubs a little more so. Then we have those who are farther out each way, with a few more farther-out Dems there right now then their right-side counterparts.
What we do hear that we didn’t so much a few years back is the noise from the way far left, who aren’t what we’d consider traditional liberals, and they make the Leibermans of the Senate appear conservative. At least Senator Sanders of Vermont is honest enough to call himself a Socialist.
^
And by “centre”, I mean the centre of the standard, two-dimensional political spectrum scale which is not a moving target. The mean average of Americans’ political philosophy is said to be just right of centre, while the European one is slightly left of centre.
Al, how can you say that the Democratics are right of center? What is right of center about kneejerk instincts to jack up taxes, take over 1/6 of the economy, want to have big govt micromanage everyone’s healthcare, trying to regulate everything they can, wanting to give constitutional rights to terrorists captured on foreign soil?
Al: Once again I have a different opinion based on my political leanings. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
You might find this site interesting. It’s relevant to our discussion. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
BW: I didn’t say all of them are, only the average. President Obama, of course, is left of centre, as is Speaker Pelosi. Those “instincts” are largely the result of what fritz points out, that is the widening distance between the two sides. What you see happening with the Health Care debate and even the first stimulus package, I believe, is a number of members of Congress not being true to their core beliefs. Many have been bought in one way or another.
fritz: I’m familiar with The Political Compass and I think it’s great. It’s too complicated and confusing, however, to use that more accurate scale in discussions among people who may not necessarily agree on the definition of “centre”. There are, after all, people who post on this blog who think President Bush is a “neocon”, which is silly.
Al, we respectfully disagree with you about the average Democratics being to the right of center, for the reasons stated above. Just look at what their Congress has been able to pass. Nothing right-leaning about any of it.
As for the “neocon” epithet, it’s often (but not always) used as some sort of code word for uppity Jew. Those who call Bush a neocon are just clueless, frothing-at-the-mouth types, but the ones who always seem to manage to name Jewish (and only Jewish) “neocons” usually have an agenda. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example of the latter.
As for the “neocon” epithet, it’s often (but not always) used as some sort of code word for uppity Jew. Those who call Bush a neocon are just clueless, frothing-at-the-mouth types, but the ones who always seem to manage to name Jewish (and only Jewish) “neocons” usually have an agenda. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example of the latter.
While there may be people who use the term as an epithet, ‘neocon’ has a specific meaning, as defined by neoconservatives themselves:
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’” His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”. Kristol’s son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
PNAC is the quintessential ‘neoconservative’ organization. Their goals are imposing our moral values aboard (or at least conservative American moral values), by increasing military and economic intervention in other nations’ affairs. The war in Iraq was the ultimate neocon experiment. PNAC was calling for military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein long before 9/11, which presented them with the perfect excuse to sell their little adventure to a stunned American public. Original signatories to the PNAC 1997 ‘statement of purpose’ included: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Any of those names sound familiar?
Neoconservative is used as a term to distinguish from ‘paleo-conservative’, characterized by isolationism, anti-intellectualism, anti-government populism and nativism. If you look up ‘paleo-conservatism’ in a dictionary, you will find a picture of Pat Buchanan (or at least, you should.) Neocons are ‘big-government’ conservatives who believe in using the government to advance conservative goals, so it’s not unreasonable to lump Bush in with them, in as much as he could be said to have a ‘governing philosophy’ other than doing what Dick Cheney told him. Dick Cheney is of course a neocon.
Just because Jewish conservatives tend to be neoconservative doesn’t mean all neocons are Jewish – since paleo-conservatism uses implied (or often overt) racism and anti-semitism to appeal to their core, it’s hardly surprising that jewish conservatives would be more comfortable embracing neoconservatism. Paleo-conservatism’s anti-intellectual, anti-science, fundamentalist Christian underpinnings make most ‘east coast elite’ conservatives far more likely to be neoconservative.
Nice quote (which, incidentally, only identifies a couple of Jews as neocons), but it doesn’t actually provide a definition of neoconservatism. Nor do you give the source.
Also, “neocon” has become a term that has a vague meaning that people apply it to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it’s true, or even makes sense. We’ve seen people apply the term to anti-abortion social conservatives, as well as to pro-choice conservatives. And no, our understanding is that it is not a form of “big gov” conservatism and has little or nothing to do with social issues, but it largely about national defense and foreign policy.
BW, ‘we’ (me, myself and I) think that any idiot who would refer to a lesbian as ‘Mr.’ on a message board is a moron. For the record, you knuckle-dragging neanderthals, I don’t expect you to support Miss Maddow’s sexual preferences; I do expect people to let her live her life without being harrassed about it. That’s bigotry. And I would appreciate it if you would specify which person in your little group of ‘boogiewoogie’ is using terms like ‘Mr. Maddow’ and ‘lesbo mob’. By the way, nice job turning ‘neo-con’ into an attack on Jews…like that makes any damn sense.
We’re not the ones who attack Jews with the “neocon” smear, idiot. Your fellow left-wing freaks cornered the market on that, as well as other aspects of anti-semitism.
How you can accuse us of “harrassing” [sic] Maddow is beyond the understanding of any sane being. Please elaborate on just how we have “harrassed” [sic] her, especially proof of any contact we’ve ever had with her, since we are aware of none.
As usual, you’re long on obnoxious and offensive slanders, and short on knowledge and sense.
Maddow is more of a man than you’ll ever be, Joey. And that’s far more about you than her.
Fine with me if you want to take the term “harrass” literally, when you know damn well I’m calling you out for your stupid, juvenile, bigoted name-calling. I’d call you a right-wing whacko in return, but that would be an insult to right-wing whackos.
Also, “neocon” has become a term that has a vague meaning that people apply it to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it’s true, or even makes sense. We’ve seen people apply the term to anti-abortion social conservatives, as well as to pro-choice conservatives.
Then ‘people’ are morons who don’t know what it means – that doesn’t mean it no longer means anything.
And no, our understanding is that it is not a form of “big gov” conservatism and has little or nothing to do with social issues, but it largely about national defense and foreign policy.
Unclear, it means that the term has been so used and abused by people who try to make it be whatever group they wish to demonize, that many regular people out there (the ones who aren’t political junkies, as we suspect most if not all here of being) have no idea what it means. So yes, it’s pretty much been stripped of its meaning.
Got any citations (legitimate ones, of course) which show that neoconservatism is about social issues? And if so, on which side the neocons allegedly fall? As mentioned earlier, we’ve heard neocon-haters label them as both social conservatives AND left-leaning, depending on who they wish to demonize.
Very cute, Laural. We remember when that happened a few years ago.
That was even funnier than the local supermarket which featured a whole section of matzo boxes just before Passover, but all of them were marked “Not Kosher For Passover.”
Got any citations (legitimate ones, of course) which show that neoconservatism is about social issues?
I didn’t say it was about social issues – I said neoconservatives were comfortable with big government, and they are. You have to have a big federal government to do all that nation-building they advocate. They take sides in social issues by saying social issues aren’t the appropriate preserve of government, and in this, I agree with them.
As mentioned earlier, we’ve heard neocon-haters label them as both social conservatives AND left-leaning, depending on who they wish to demonize.
You’re going to have to point me to anyone labeling a social conservative a neo-con. And sorry, but just because people use a term wrong doesn’t change the meaning of the term, it just illustrates the ignorance of the person using the term wrong.
The one guy makes me think of balloon-animals, or something. You know that amusement-park thing called a ‘moonwalk’? Like a giant, enclosed, air mattress? How do you function outside a gym with arms like that? And do you go through life wearing shorts, out of necessity?
A little unfinished business: nobody gives a shyte how many neo-cons are Jewish. Their longstanding plan to invade the Middle East, and their subsequent ineptitude at it, is what people care about. Anti-semitism my arse.
Please don’t post a link of happy balloon-muscle people chasing each other around in the snow. Oh, I guess they’d “pose”, not chase. Still, don’t wanna see it.
December 18, 2009 at 8:43 am
TRMS was really good last night. My favorite segment; the Jack Bauer tortures Santa E Christmas card.
The anti health care reform pray in was scary & funny at the same time. Kind of a PTL/ Jones town feel.
I also liked the Russian/ Pacific Island/ poop story.
Dylan Ratigan really went over the top on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz this morning when she couldn’t answer his question on health insurance company profits. It was an embarrassing performance and I hope he gets reprimanded by his bosses.
December 18, 2009 at 9:44 am
What is it with men and Wasserman-Schultz? She was on with that condescending moron, Duncan Hunter, on Hardball a while back. He talked to her like she ‘belonged in the kitchen’, and kept referring to Israel for no apparent reason. She’s Jewish.
December 18, 2009 at 11:01 am
Duncan Sr. or Jr.? They’re both great.
I would assume that BECAUSE she’s Jewish & her party is so weak on supporting Israel would be the reasoning behind the Israel references.
December 18, 2009 at 11:07 am
My point, Red, is that the conversation had nothing to do with it. They were talking about torture, and he kept asking her if she supported Israel’s POW policies. In his psycho world, there may have been a tangential connection, but it was obviously a play on her ‘Jewishness’, and it was weird.
December 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm
We didn’t see that, but from our recollection, Hunter is quite pro-Israel.
December 18, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Hunter is quite pro-Israel.
And that painfully obvious conclusion contributes exactly what to the conversation?
December 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“They were talking about torture, and he kept asking her if she supported Israel’s POW policies.”
Joe: Israel is ‘alleged’ to torture prisoners. It was his way of putting a wedge between her anti torture position and her pro Israel position. It his tiny mind you can’t hold both positions at the same time.
December 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Fritz, I know exactly what he was trying to do. He was using her Jewish heritage in a a patently offensive way. He also kept calling her ‘Debbie’, in a ‘should be in the kitchen’ kind of way. Utter boorishness.
December 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Got to laugh out loud, Hunter sure ticked off a few thin skinned libs. They sure can dish it out (i.e. see Joes wise a*s remark to Boogie) but there a bunch of cry like babies when it is returned.
A certain word is coming to mind regarding the current political situation. I think it is “malaise”. Anybody old enough to remember Jimmy Carters administration and his cardigan sweater lectures to the” American people. They never learn, do they?
For once I agree with Dr. Dean, let’s hope Ben Nelson hangs tough and the folks in Copenhagen freeze their keisters off!
December 18, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Joe: Sorry, I didn’t mean to question your knowledge of the subject. I only vaguely remember the encounter but I think the comments may have been aimed at Jewish voters in her district. as much as her personally. A comment on torturing Israel’s POWs (no matter how vague) could be used in future campaign ads against her.
December 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm
A couple obvious truths are coming into focus
1. Science is now politicized just like most news outlets. Left and right.
2. Obama really is a socialists/populist and probably proud of it. For now it’s still a free country so I’m ok with that.
3. The economic stimulus has done nothing but make government bigger and 800 billion the national debt. No new job growth. ( No help to you guys looking for work)
4. Deficits don’t matter to this administration. Talk to the contrary is cheap but spending is out of control and indisputable. Latest continuing resolution (this week) to keep the current government running is a 14% increase over last year when inflation is running about 1%
5. Government is now run on behalf of government employees. The new average federal salary is $ 30,000 greater than the average private sector salary.
6. The Copenhagen conference standing ovation and deafening applause for Hugo Chavez line about the evils and the need to destroy capitalism speaks volumes on what the true motives are for this movement.
Merry Christmas or happy holidays to everyone. Looks like it will be a white one here in VA. They are predicting 15 inches tonight and tomorrow. We’ve got a good supply of fire wood and a nice bottle of wine for a beautiful late fall wonderland weekend.
December 18, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It’s got nothing to do with thick skin or “Jewish voters”. When a politician debating a Jewish politician about American foreign policy starts throwing Isreal into the eqaution, he’s directly playing on her heritage to obfuscate the conversation. I realize it’s old news now, but nobody commented when I brought it up at the time, so here we are. I’m not going to sit back and let people turn this into some bizarre defense of Isreal. I’m pretty sure Duncan Hunter and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are both ‘pro-Isreal’. It doesn’t change the fact that the guy was a jacka$$.
At least Dylan Ratigan – who was much less offensive – has the decency to apologize for his behavior.
December 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm
An interesting thing is happening on The Ed Show. Ed Schultz and Markos Moulitsas are beating up on Chris Mathews.
December 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
- Politicised Science –
Nothing new about that. Follow the money. Be it the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the power of the tobacco lobby over Congress for decades, or junk science about global cooling or global warming, it’s all about the transfer of wealth.
A “sceptic” is someone who has at least once been made a fool of by a con artist. So when the proposed solution – to an alleged problem so complicated that trusting “experts” is involved- is to transfer billions upon billions of dollars from regular folks to those who admittedly have some sort of stake in the matter, only those most naive wouldn’t stop to ask, “Wait. How exactly does that fix the problem?”
And to snare a few more they throw in the “and clean the environment.” A little bit, I suppose, but their proposals for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere do not necessarily equate with reduced pollution. Want to reduce air pollution? Emit less soot. How do you clean what’s already in the atmosphere? Do nothing, it precipitates, is filtered by natural means, and returns to the ground from which it came.
I’m not saying global warming isn’t happening. I don’t know enough to make that factual claim. But I know a con when I see one, and I see one in this movement now meeting in Copenhagen.
December 18, 2009 at 3:54 pm
We know nothing of Debbie’s stance on Israel, so feel free to enlighten us, Joey, as to how pro-Israel she is.
There are quite a few self-hating Jews on the left, who are among the first and loudest to bash Israel, as well as Jews in general.
December 18, 2009 at 4:43 pm
BW, I don’t know why I bother. Your fixation on Isreal, and who is ‘pro’ or ‘against’ it, completely ignores what I’m talking about. And for the record, a Jew with a different opinion of Isreal’s policies – or America’s policies towards it – than yours, does not qualify them as ‘self-hating’. Your opinions of my country’s policys differ from mine. Does that mean I should consider you a self-hating American?
December 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Rachel Maddow is reporting on John McCain refusing to grant another minute to an opponent on the Senate floor in 2002. Where is the outrage?
December 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Unlike this recent exchange, Senator McCain was the floor manager for his side of a time-measured debate. It is the role of the debate managers to agree or object, so Senator McCain’s objection back then is not equivalent to what Senator Franken, the presiding officer at the time, did.
From the Congressional Report Weekly, CNS Octomer 7-11, 2002:
” Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. Not on our time. If the Senator from West Virginia would like to yield the Senator time, I would be more than happy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Minnesota that he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.
— Mr Dayton’s remarks —
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes or whatever he needs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton’s name be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
December 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Rachel Maddow needs to get her facts straight before reporting what she reads on partisan websites.
December 19, 2009 at 4:08 am
So much for Mr. Maddow being soooooo brilliant and wonderful.
December 19, 2009 at 7:37 am
It was a manufactured attack on John McCain by left-wing hacks just for the sake of attacking John McCain – and I’m no big fan of John McCain.
That exchange of October, 2002 is actually a demonstration of the comity that Sen. McCain alluded to:
“Will the Senator yield for a question? – Sen. Dayton, for whatever reason (and it happens all the time – may have been stuck in committee) didn’t get his name on Sen. Byrd’s list of senators wishing to speak in favour of the amendment. Sometimes the opposing side has unallocated time available and that parliamentary question is a way of asking, “John, can you fit me in on your side?” and McCain answered nicely that he couldn’t and the Sen. Byrd fits him in.
Once the President Pro Temp advises
December 19, 2009 at 7:44 am
How did that post? Weird.
Anyway, once Sen. Dayton’s time expired he mistakenly asked the entire Senate for additional time instead of just asking Sen. Byrd, which is why McCain correctly objects. Sen. Byrd, of course, grants him whatever time he needs from his side.
I don’t like it when people who should know better pull snippets of history out of context in order to slam someone else.
December 19, 2009 at 8:49 am
“I don’t like it when people who should know better pull snippets of history out of context in order to slam someone else.”
I agree but because it’s done all the time by both liberals & conservatives I find it hard to get upset when it happens. Life’s too short.
December 19, 2009 at 8:56 am
“Rachel Maddow is reporting on John McCain refusing to grant another minute to an opponent on the Senate floor in 2002. Where is the outrage?”
Joe you should be outraged that Rachel the liar led you off a cliff and you made an untrue comparison.
Thanks Al for the fact checking. Too bad MSNBC can’t afford one or doesn’t care about facts.
December 19, 2009 at 9:36 am
L&J, I’m dissapointed that Rachel didn’t get the details, but outrage would be a bit much. Red Eye made the same mistake last night. Besides, I heard something about a memo sent to Democrats to stick to the time limits because of Christmas approaching. I think in the long run Franken’s actions, and McCain’s response, are both grandstanding, and much ado about nothing.
What I do find outrageous is the BWs calling Rachel “Mr. Maddow” because she’s a lesbian with short hair. I may have found that amusing…when I was 13. But that’s what I expect from people that think everyone who doesn’t see the world through their eyes, or live according to their rules, are ‘wrong’ or ‘biased’ or ‘self-hating’. Careful, BWs, the lesbo mob is outside your door.
December 19, 2009 at 10:14 am
Sen. Franken tried blaming his mistake on Sen. Reid’s instructions and I’m sure he has gotten or will get an earful in the Democratic Cloak Room for that. If true, it could potentially result in having the majority’s agenda in drowned in endless delays of parliamentarian rules, so I don’t believe Sen. Reid gave such a firm order.
In defence of Sen. Franken, it may be the fault of the Senate Parliamentarian, possibly for failing to realise there was a rookie acting as President who may not be familiar with the ways of the US Senate. As acting President Pro Tempore, it would have been proper for Mr. Franken to inquire, “Is there an objection?”
Had Sen. Byrd or the late Sen. Kennedy been on the floor during this exchange, I wouldn’t have been surprised to hear, “Parliamentary objection, Mr. President, and move for the ‘Ays and Nays’ on the distinguished senator from Connecticut’s request.”.
Snarky comments such as “Mr. Maddow” serve only to cancel out any reasonable arguments that person makes. We have a right to disagree with the lifestyle choices of others, but that doesn’t give us license to belittle them.
December 19, 2009 at 10:30 am
- Grandstanding –
Ummm… that’s pretty much all that US Senators do when they speak on the senate floor. It’s also why we should be very careful not to elect (or even nominate) sitting senators of either party for POTUS.
The senate is like a bunch of chickens squabbling in the hen house. For our chief executive, though, we need less cackle, more eggs.
December 19, 2009 at 10:32 am
For our chief executive, though, we need less cackle, more eggs.
Less compromise, more leadership. He knows we won, right?
December 19, 2009 at 10:36 am
He knows we won, right?
He knows but has no experience executing.
December 19, 2009 at 10:39 am
Al; Senator Begich did the same thing to Senator Cornyn. It got no airplay (except for TRMS) because it wasn’t Lieberman & Franken.
December 19, 2009 at 10:43 am
If Barack Obama had spent only four years as mayor of… oh, Oak Park, IL or some such place, today we’d be quibbling over the pros and cons of the surprisingly bi-partisan health care legislation he signed into law this past October.
December 19, 2009 at 10:50 am
I’ll look that up when I get a chance, fritz. As I pointed out above, the details make the difference and, generally, first-term junior senators aren’t usually the ones who object on unanimous consent requests unless they’re acting as floor leaders – which is an entirely different matter.
December 19, 2009 at 11:07 am
^Al: I’m sorry to say this but any really important bi-partisan legislation is not going to happen until there is a return to a moderate dominance in the Congress. We are moving in the opposite direction and it will be generations, if ever, before the tide turns. I’m afraid who is POTUS is or what experience he has will have little effect. Bush & Clinton were successful governors who were not great Presidents.
December 19, 2009 at 11:20 am
Regarding, all laws that govern us and general race, gender, religion, sexual preferences, I support total uncompromising unequivocal equal opportunity and treatment under the law. I cringe when I hear comments or see actions that undermine this sacred principal.
I’m a 30 year supporter of the original affirmative action programs that was meant to increase underrepresented minority participation in all aspects of the American dream by actively and proactively seeking “qualified” candidates to fill slots in all aspects society. Unfortunately the program has morphed too often into lowering standards and counterproductive reverse discriminations. Simply put two wrongs don’t make a right and that’s where I diverge from my liberal friends on this blog.
Looks like the Democrats have the 60 votes for some type of health care bill. In my memory there has never been more of a back room secret corrupt deal. There has not been even a hint of transparency and to this moment I cannot find a news article that lists specifically what is this bill and what the final cost estimates are.
Amazingly, Dailykos seems to have more info than our national news outlets. One thing that seems a positive is the report that Insurance companies will be allowed to sell national policies across state lines. Let’s hope there is no “but” in there. A but where they are required to cover all types of unwanted special interest Christmas gifts like sex change operations and the costs go through the roof. I’m not for against the example but I don’t think uninterested citizens should have to pay for them.
Finally I’m saddened by the way our law makers think nothing of favoring one group of citizens over another. The fact that Nebraska, Louisiana and Nevada citizens will not have to pay their share of the cost because the law subsidizes their states only while the other 47 states citizens pick up the tab is an outrage and an affront to the principal of equal justice under the law. The constitution is becoming more and more meaningless.
December 19, 2009 at 11:38 am
We only use “Mr. Maddow” because we know it throws certain people here into a tizzy. The same ones who throw hissy fits over Democrat v. Democratic.
Some libs are just too easy targets.
December 19, 2009 at 12:32 pm
^
Copout. You use “Mr. Maddow” and “lesbo mob” because you’re bigots.
December 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm
-moderate dominance in the Congress-
It’s the leadership of Congress who are to the left of moderate, but the majority of its members, collectively, still represent just right of centre.
President Obama campaigned heavily on health care reform so even the Republicans would like to facilitate that goal if they could. Unlike his more successful predecessors, this president didn’t submit his own version of the legislation for his key initiative to Congress, instead leaving its framework entirely up to congressional leaders. So there’s no surprise that it’s a heavily partisan package that will do little to advance affordable quality healthcare for Americans and can barely get the necessary votes of his own party.
A true leader would have recognised the shortcomings of this approach and would have worked for passage of a bill attractive to enough Republicans to offset the negative votes of those flanking his left. This would also have the political benefit of offering cover for himself and his party when the inevitable unintended consequences result, and it would have shined a positive light on his abilities. Instead, he’s a do-not-much dunderhead who talks a lot and has trouble pleasing anybody.
December 19, 2009 at 3:33 pm
If Barack Obama had spent only four years as mayor of… oh, Oak Park, IL or some such place, today we’d be quibbling over the pros and cons of the surprisingly bi-partisan health care legislation he signed into law this past October.
hahahahahaha….
Oooor… if he’d spent a few years as mayor of, say, Wasilla Alaska, we’d be quibbling over what President Biden was up to, President Obama having resigned last month in a snit.
December 19, 2009 at 4:07 pm
^
An unclear reality in a galaxy far, far away…
December 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm
hey, you’re the one that started playing Alternate Realities – I’m just joining in.
December 19, 2009 at 4:57 pm
You have a reading comprehension problem?
December 19, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Al: To a conservative like yourself most Republican Senators are just right of center and most Democratic Senators are on far left.
I of course hold the opposite opinion. In my world there are only two or three slightly right of center Republican Senators and none in the center. Most are very conservative and 6-8 are in John Birch land.
I think most Democrat Senators including the leadership are moderate to somewhat liberal. A few are conservative and two or three are far left.
The Senate & House ,for that matter, has been trending more and more to the extremes for over a decade; mostly due to redistricting in the case of the House and the influence of the Internet and lobbies etc. in the Senate.
Unfortunately I see this trend to extremism growing rather than shrinking and sadly Congress in the future will only be more partisan.
December 19, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Not quite, fritz. Republicans and Democrats are just right of centre, with the Repubs a little more so. Then we have those who are farther out each way, with a few more farther-out Dems there right now then their right-side counterparts.
What we do hear that we didn’t so much a few years back is the noise from the way far left, who aren’t what we’d consider traditional liberals, and they make the Leibermans of the Senate appear conservative. At least Senator Sanders of Vermont is honest enough to call himself a Socialist.
But I agree with your trend evaluation.
December 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm
^
And by “centre”, I mean the centre of the standard, two-dimensional political spectrum scale which is not a moving target. The mean average of Americans’ political philosophy is said to be just right of centre, while the European one is slightly left of centre.
December 19, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Of course Joey would say that about people who don’t agree with him. Typical left-wing hypocritical idiot.
December 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Al, how can you say that the Democratics are right of center? What is right of center about kneejerk instincts to jack up taxes, take over 1/6 of the economy, want to have big govt micromanage everyone’s healthcare, trying to regulate everything they can, wanting to give constitutional rights to terrorists captured on foreign soil?
December 19, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Al: Once again I have a different opinion based on my political leanings. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
You might find this site interesting. It’s relevant to our discussion. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
December 19, 2009 at 6:22 pm
BW: I didn’t say all of them are, only the average. President Obama, of course, is left of centre, as is Speaker Pelosi. Those “instincts” are largely the result of what fritz points out, that is the widening distance between the two sides. What you see happening with the Health Care debate and even the first stimulus package, I believe, is a number of members of Congress not being true to their core beliefs. Many have been bought in one way or another.
fritz: I’m familiar with The Political Compass and I think it’s great. It’s too complicated and confusing, however, to use that more accurate scale in discussions among people who may not necessarily agree on the definition of “centre”. There are, after all, people who post on this blog who think President Bush is a “neocon”, which is silly.
December 19, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Al, we respectfully disagree with you about the average Democratics being to the right of center, for the reasons stated above. Just look at what their Congress has been able to pass. Nothing right-leaning about any of it.
As for the “neocon” epithet, it’s often (but not always) used as some sort of code word for uppity Jew. Those who call Bush a neocon are just clueless, frothing-at-the-mouth types, but the ones who always seem to manage to name Jewish (and only Jewish) “neocons” usually have an agenda. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example of the latter.
December 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm
As for the “neocon” epithet, it’s often (but not always) used as some sort of code word for uppity Jew. Those who call Bush a neocon are just clueless, frothing-at-the-mouth types, but the ones who always seem to manage to name Jewish (and only Jewish) “neocons” usually have an agenda. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example of the latter.
While there may be people who use the term as an epithet, ‘neocon’ has a specific meaning, as defined by neoconservatives themselves:
PNAC is the quintessential ‘neoconservative’ organization. Their goals are imposing our moral values aboard (or at least conservative American moral values), by increasing military and economic intervention in other nations’ affairs. The war in Iraq was the ultimate neocon experiment. PNAC was calling for military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein long before 9/11, which presented them with the perfect excuse to sell their little adventure to a stunned American public. Original signatories to the PNAC 1997 ‘statement of purpose’ included: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Any of those names sound familiar?
Neoconservative is used as a term to distinguish from ‘paleo-conservative’, characterized by isolationism, anti-intellectualism, anti-government populism and nativism. If you look up ‘paleo-conservatism’ in a dictionary, you will find a picture of Pat Buchanan (or at least, you should.) Neocons are ‘big-government’ conservatives who believe in using the government to advance conservative goals, so it’s not unreasonable to lump Bush in with them, in as much as he could be said to have a ‘governing philosophy’ other than doing what Dick Cheney told him. Dick Cheney is of course a neocon.
Just because Jewish conservatives tend to be neoconservative doesn’t mean all neocons are Jewish – since paleo-conservatism uses implied (or often overt) racism and anti-semitism to appeal to their core, it’s hardly surprising that jewish conservatives would be more comfortable embracing neoconservatism. Paleo-conservatism’s anti-intellectual, anti-science, fundamentalist Christian underpinnings make most ‘east coast elite’ conservatives far more likely to be neoconservative.
December 20, 2009 at 4:25 am
Nice quote (which, incidentally, only identifies a couple of Jews as neocons), but it doesn’t actually provide a definition of neoconservatism. Nor do you give the source.
Also, “neocon” has become a term that has a vague meaning that people apply it to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it’s true, or even makes sense. We’ve seen people apply the term to anti-abortion social conservatives, as well as to pro-choice conservatives. And no, our understanding is that it is not a form of “big gov” conservatism and has little or nothing to do with social issues, but it largely about national defense and foreign policy.
December 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm
BW, ‘we’ (me, myself and I) think that any idiot who would refer to a lesbian as ‘Mr.’ on a message board is a moron. For the record, you knuckle-dragging neanderthals, I don’t expect you to support Miss Maddow’s sexual preferences; I do expect people to let her live her life without being harrassed about it. That’s bigotry. And I would appreciate it if you would specify which person in your little group of ‘boogiewoogie’ is using terms like ‘Mr. Maddow’ and ‘lesbo mob’. By the way, nice job turning ‘neo-con’ into an attack on Jews…like that makes any damn sense.
December 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
We’re not the ones who attack Jews with the “neocon” smear, idiot. Your fellow left-wing freaks cornered the market on that, as well as other aspects of anti-semitism.
How you can accuse us of “harrassing” [sic] Maddow is beyond the understanding of any sane being. Please elaborate on just how we have “harrassed” [sic] her, especially proof of any contact we’ve ever had with her, since we are aware of none.
As usual, you’re long on obnoxious and offensive slanders, and short on knowledge and sense.
Maddow is more of a man than you’ll ever be, Joey. And that’s far more about you than her.
December 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Fine with me if you want to take the term “harrass” literally, when you know damn well I’m calling you out for your stupid, juvenile, bigoted name-calling. I’d call you a right-wing whacko in return, but that would be an insult to right-wing whackos.
December 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm
But you got me on the misspelling. We never could get that word right.
December 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Something for Laree and the Imus-lovers.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmFlMTQxZDcyODU2MjdhMDUwNDNiZjhhMDY0MGQyNjc=
December 20, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Also, “neocon” has become a term that has a vague meaning that people apply it to whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it’s true, or even makes sense. We’ve seen people apply the term to anti-abortion social conservatives, as well as to pro-choice conservatives.
Then ‘people’ are morons who don’t know what it means – that doesn’t mean it no longer means anything.
And no, our understanding is that it is not a form of “big gov” conservatism and has little or nothing to do with social issues, but it largely about national defense and foreign policy.
Then your understanding is wrong.
December 20, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Maddow is more of a man than you’ll ever be, Joey. And that’s far more about you than her.
Wow. that you can say that after this…
As usual, you’re long on obnoxious and offensive slanders, and short on knowledge and sense.
… is truly remarkable. But not in a good way.
December 20, 2009 at 3:42 pm
By the way, I love everybody. Just sayin..
December 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Holiday greetings for our ”neocon” friends…
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5515#more-5515
December 20, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Unclear, it means that the term has been so used and abused by people who try to make it be whatever group they wish to demonize, that many regular people out there (the ones who aren’t political junkies, as we suspect most if not all here of being) have no idea what it means. So yes, it’s pretty much been stripped of its meaning.
Got any citations (legitimate ones, of course) which show that neoconservatism is about social issues? And if so, on which side the neocons allegedly fall? As mentioned earlier, we’ve heard neocon-haters label them as both social conservatives AND left-leaning, depending on who they wish to demonize.
December 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Very cute, Laural. We remember when that happened a few years ago.
That was even funnier than the local supermarket which featured a whole section of matzo boxes just before Passover, but all of them were marked “Not Kosher For Passover.”
December 20, 2009 at 4:53 pm
More Surber. Obama claus.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/files/2009/12/omas.jpg
December 20, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I’m bored. Guess what I’ve been looking at.
http://www.monstrous.com/Monstrous_People/When_Bodybuilding_and_Steroids_Go_Too_Far.html
December 20, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Got any citations (legitimate ones, of course) which show that neoconservatism is about social issues?
I didn’t say it was about social issues – I said neoconservatives were comfortable with big government, and they are. You have to have a big federal government to do all that nation-building they advocate. They take sides in social issues by saying social issues aren’t the appropriate preserve of government, and in this, I agree with them.
As mentioned earlier, we’ve heard neocon-haters label them as both social conservatives AND left-leaning, depending on who they wish to demonize.
You’re going to have to point me to anyone labeling a social conservative a neo-con. And sorry, but just because people use a term wrong doesn’t change the meaning of the term, it just illustrates the ignorance of the person using the term wrong.
December 20, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I’m bored. Guess what I’ve been looking at
I never would have guessed. Oh, the things you do for entertainment, girlie.
December 20, 2009 at 5:41 pm
– entertainment –
Desperate times, desperate measures.
December 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I’m bored. Guess what I’ve been looking at.
Oh dear god. tell me those are photoshopped. Even if you have to lie. Please.
December 20, 2009 at 5:56 pm
The one guy makes me think of balloon-animals, or something. You know that amusement-park thing called a ‘moonwalk’? Like a giant, enclosed, air mattress? How do you function outside a gym with arms like that? And do you go through life wearing shorts, out of necessity?
December 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm
– wearing shorts, out of necessity? —
Like a pumped-up Richard Simmons?
December 20, 2009 at 6:09 pm
How do you fit in a car?
December 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Picture finding you’re seated next to one of those guys on a plane.
December 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I’m wondering how they can possibly manage… oh, n’ermind.
December 20, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Al, with all the steroids in their system, I doubt they could possibly do any n’ermind.
December 20, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Yeah, Al. It’s not that they, uh, shrink, they’re just less..visible…
December 20, 2009 at 7:08 pm
You’ve all gone bonkers.
December 20, 2009 at 7:11 pm
– You’ve all gone bonkers. –
…And we’re taking you with us.
December 20, 2009 at 7:16 pm
A little unfinished business: nobody gives a shyte how many neo-cons are Jewish. Their longstanding plan to invade the Middle East, and their subsequent ineptitude at it, is what people care about. Anti-semitism my arse.
December 20, 2009 at 7:20 pm
How does a 32-year-old woman die of natural causes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/brittany-murphy-dead-dies_n_398576.html
December 20, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Snow videos. Ignore the obligatory global-warming shot. Scroll down for Schnauzers in the Snow. Have any of us EVER been this happy?
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5560#more-5560
December 20, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Please don’t post a link of happy balloon-muscle people chasing each other around in the snow. Oh, I guess they’d “pose”, not chase. Still, don’t wanna see it.
December 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
– balloon-muscle people chasing each other around –
You’re a sick man. I’ll Google it.