This entry was posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:19 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.
U.S. citizen al-Awlaki was killed in a strike by U.S. jets and drones on his convoy. I’m pleased as punch with that, but Liberals who demand DNA evidence for a jaywalking conviction must have some misgivings about Obama having this guy killed with a stoke of his pen — the judge and jury.
Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million.”
My hat’s off to Obama on the War on Terror or what ever he chooses to call it. Can’t think of anything significant a Republican would have done better. I really don’t think Laura he much wanted that Nobel Prize. Saw it for what it was, a way to try to lock him into a proscribed behavior. Just that some of his action just don’t fly with the Libs.
It’s interesting that the same people who objected (in large part correctly) to warrantless privacy invasions of US citizens, think it’s just perfectly fine to murder a US citizen, without judge, jury, or even a trial. Listen in on a phone call? Impeachable offense! Kill a US citizen without a trial? Rah Rah do it again!
I didn’t go along with those who objected to the UBL killing. I had no problem with it. But killing a US citizen, without any sort of trial or due process, basically based on the content of his speech? I’m really amazed how many people are fine with that.
The real problem for Obama when it comes to things like this (the al-Awlaki killing) isn’t going to be “pressure from fellow Liberals.” While he’ll get some heat from the Michael Moore types, that’s not really going to generate any significant threat to Obama, the electorate, or his poll numbers.
The problem will come from a pure public relations standpoint, and won’t be a “problem” per se, but instead will be a collective “nothing.” Obama and many Democrats (not all, but many) have been downplaying the threat from AQ and terrorism for years now. The issue was seen as a Republican issue, so they ran with the “Republicans are trying to scare you,” and “Alleged terrorists are mothers and fathers too,” and “The threat isn’t as imminent as the right has said,” talking point.
Fine, I personally disagree with those points, but that was the strategy. However, what it now means is that the public has been conditioned to shrug their shoulders, and say, “Well, they didn’t think it was such a big deal a year/month/week ago… why should I care about this now?” They have created a feeling of apathy towards international terrorism, which means they won’t be able to reap any of the rewards when a high-profile terrorist is killed or captured. In short, they’ve shot themselves in the foot on this issue.
I’d be surprised if Obama gets a significant bump in his numbers as a result, and if any bump can be sustained for more than a few days.
Kill em all, ask questions later. My problem with Bush was always the “let’s go to the wrong country and start a war while Bin Laden gets away” thing. When it comes to the surgical targeting of bad guys, I don’t have a liberal bone in my body about it. Die m*****f*****s.
Mr. $, I more view this and similar killing issues as a war rather than a crime situation. A bit more freedom to take a logical though morally questionable course of action “in the field”.
I don’t recall you saying ‘kill ‘em all’ when the topic was Troy Davis. Oh wait, he received a trial by jury, and a series of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, every one of which dismissed the purported ‘recanting witnesses’ as smoke and mirrors. You seemed very opposed to this example of surgical targeting of a bad guy.
On the other hand, a citizen who’s never been proved to do anything more than express speech you don’t like, who’s never been charged with anything and has never had a trial…in that case you’re all for shredding the constitution and just assassinating him on the say-so of one man.
I know you won’t see the inconsistency in all this, but it’s there.
Larry, I understand that. But in a war, does the President have the right to order US citizens shot on sight? The Prez cannot assassinate enemy heads of state, but he can order US citizens killed? I don’t think that’s in the Constitution. But that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
$, I don’t think you ‘recall’ my comments about Troy Davis very well. I support the death penalty. My problem with his case was that death was voted on eyewitness-only testimony, which, as you surely know because of your background, is notoriously unreliable.
The war on terror is a completely different situation. Davis was convicted of killing one man, and was never perceived as a threat to anyone else. al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda, had ties to the Christmas bomber and Major Hasan, and used the internet to encourage the murder of non-Muslims.
as President I would have to weigh the probability of al-Awlaki inspiring another underwear bomber who might know how to work a cigarette lighter and be successful in the attack with that of an error that this U.S. citizen was not a terrorist. Even a cop will shoot to kill without reading rights when a subject is perceived as an immediate danger.
Just to put my two cents in, this guy was an American citizen and seems to me the constitution guarantees even creeps like him due process. Maybe Yemen could qualify as a “battle field” but I kinda doubt it. As much as I hate it, this one is over the line regardless of whether POTUS is Bush or Obama.
I think military intelligence has convinced the President these people ain’t going alive, and they’re gonna take their captors with them. When you’re dealing with an enemy who sees value in martyrdom, the best/safest choice is to do it for them.
Moving to something less weighty, liberals awakened to a possible Chris Christie Presidential run have diverted their attention from Bachmann’s eyeballs to his girth. Saying things that would have been forbidden about, well Chas Bono. It didn’t work for Corzine and it won’t work now.
Farris, if you’regoing to insist on disagreeing with me no matter which side of the fence I land, you’re going to be hopping a lot of fences. I’m generally more liberal than not, but I’m far from an ideologue. Start hopping..
It’s true. Joe both supports and disagrees based on policy and platform. He’ll support things that help Democrats, and disagree with things that help Republicans. See?? He is able to support and disagree as needed!
And if you don’t believe him… you’re probably an idiot.
I guess al-Awlaki’s dad didn’t have standing so federal court dismissed his suit, but I’d feel better about the kill if the scumbag had been convicted of a crime, even if tried in absentia. There used to be a lot of, “Wanted Dead Or Alive” posters around, but I think those were all for convicts.
If you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist..Islamist..h0m0ph0be. Yes, you!
————————————————————————————
Read it, sign it, live it:
http://www.getmoneyout.com
————————————————————————————
You should follow @jaketapper. He’s funny as hell, and probably about to be fired if he doesn’t stop.
So I can’t donate to politicians or causes which reflect my interests, and only very wealthy people can run for office, because they’ll be the only ones who can afford to without donations.
I believe the idea would be to have severe limits on campaign finance from any source. The whole concept that you either have to receive millions, or contribute them yourself, to get elected is obscene.
So that means that all the women’s groups, the gay rights groups, and the homeless advocates (for example) can’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
So that means that all the women’s groups, the g@y rights groups, and the homeless advocates (for example) can’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
And you’re good with that?an’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
I hate your phone, but yes I’m good with that. There’s nothing to prevent people from supporting groups who support a specific candidate, but this mess where a politician is required to raise millions to win an election because the others are doing it is madness.
Money is needed to get their name and message to the people, to think that is possible without a lot of money is utterly ridiculous. The mass money donations from corporations need to change but anyone should have the opportunity to donate.
I don’t claim to have the specifics sorted out..I signed the petition because it’s a start. DR has been saying forever that as long as Big Money is at the heart of our political process, nothing will ever change. He’s right. Elected officials don’t represent you and me. They represent the highest bidder.
Then we should look for people who crusade against these methods and look to solely represent the people regardless of political affiliation. Too bad I can’t think of anyone like that.
I hate the, “It’s a start,” or “It’s better than nothing,” mentality.
Get it right, figure out the plan, then let’s talk.
Only in politics is something like this acceptable. Got get a pizza, and when you pay full price for a pie that’s missing a slice, say “Well, it’s a start, and better than nothing.” When you buy a car, and it only comes with three wheels, say “Well, its better than only having 2 wheels.”
No! Let’s do it right the first time. None of this, “We’ll fix it eventually,” BS.the plan, then let’s talk.
Only in politics is something like this acceptable. Got get a pizza, and when you pay full price for a pie that’s missing a slice, say “Well, it’s a start, and better than nothing.” When you buy a car, and it only comes with three wheels, say “Well, its better than only having 2 wheels.”
No! Let’s do it right the first time. None of this, “We’ll fix it eventually,” BS.
There are very strict limits on contributions in Canada. I believe individuals can only donate up to $1000 per year. I think corporate and union donations are banned but I can’t remember. Sounds good right?
Well, there’s a downside. We subsidize political parties. Not joking. I believe every vote is worth about $2 or $3. That’s in addition to other subsidies political parties receive.
Find a way to get big money out but just don’t go down our route.
Not sure it would work as expected but it isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. And it is a start… to a conversation/debate about getting to the most democratic way of choosing political office holders, assuming there is a fairer way than the current system.
The way we do it now is probably the fairest of any other method that’s been tried, but it’s certainly not perfect. Can’t hurt to talk about it.
joe, you’re actually one of the more agreeable, don’t-rely-so-much-on-the-mindless-namecalling libs I’ve met online, so it’s enjoyable to debate with you .
… and then, this:
“as long as Big Money is at the heart of our political process, nothing will ever change. He’s right.”
I think you’ve got it backwards: as long as government has the breadth and scope of power that it currently enjoys, money will, as they say, “find a way”. Make government less powerful and overlord-ish, and suddenly mega-bucks aren’t being spent because it’s no longer so important which political party holds the reigns.
I disagree. I don’t think cutting a little spending and ditching a few programs – which is realistically the extent to which government will ever be shrunk – will solve the ‘money in politics’ problem. The players will still crave power, and the money will continue to be spent to attain that power, or get attached to those who have it.
Realistically, we could do away with a couple federal departments and several agencies. The necessary regulatory functions that need to be kept can be folded into other departments. More importantly, set the spending trajectory for all departments downward, including defence. If necessary to achieve that end, consider eliminating one of the branches.
When liberals look the other way to Tea Party members being called “sons of bitches”, as has been the case on this very blog, they should not be surprised that their counterparts go looking for and labeling the mothers.
What goes around comes around, and is bad ALL around.
Damn, I forgot to comment on the part that was actually interesting, since “Andrew Breitbart as Jackass” is hardly news. He refers to Garofalo as “chronically irrelevant”. If she’s so freaking ‘irrelevant’, then why do I keep hearing about her? You think maybe the only reason that lightly-viewed left-wing programs have her on is because she has some bizarre magnetism for right-wing commentary? If she’s so ‘irrelevant’ then Ignore Her. Maybe she’ll seek some much-needed help.
When I was half-listening while doing my ER shift I was sure she called him “Herm”, but later while watching the same programme on the telly after reading posts here I clearly heard Sarah Palin call him “Herb”.
‘Herb’ is the better choice, in any case. It gives you the option of spice or Tarlek, but ‘Herm’ only gives you ‘Munster’. Yes, I’ve given this entirely too much thought.
Nice of Morning Joe to have given Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson a chance to show his heartfelt concern for Chris Christie’s health, being morbidly obese and all. If only Orson Wells and Cass Elliot had run for public office, Gene might have saved them. “Cass Cass — Don’t eat the ham sandwich!”
Enjoying tonight’s NBC Nightly News report wistfully trying to make the collection of Wall Street protesters into the birth of a liberal Tea Party that, “might carry over into the 2012 elections”. Thrilled by the attention of activists like Michael Moore and union leaders. Thrilled by a support protest of “about a hundred people in Portland, Oregon”.
September 30, 2011 at 6:58 am
How much you want to bet tonight’s Hannity & Hannity opens with, “This is a Fox News Alert. Anwar al-Awlaki …”?
I don’t recall Bill O’Reilly ever using the phrase. Hmmm.
September 30, 2011 at 7:46 am
Hannity is live and it seems like all the live shows on Fox start off with some form of alert regardless how old the news is.
September 30, 2011 at 8:07 am
Billo can’t do an alert because he doesn’t..wait for it..DO IT LIVE!
September 30, 2011 at 8:16 am
Shep never does “Fox News Alerts.” He must not like them because he has his own breaking news graphics.
September 30, 2011 at 8:27 am
U.S. citizen al-Awlaki was killed in a strike by U.S. jets and drones on his convoy. I’m pleased as punch with that, but Liberals who demand DNA evidence for a jaywalking conviction must have some misgivings about Obama having this guy killed with a stoke of his pen — the judge and jury.
September 30, 2011 at 8:33 am
Warren Buffett on Obama’s “Buffett Rule”
Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million.”
September 30, 2011 at 8:49 am
Shep does Fox News Urgent. I think it was Missy who pointed out that he seems to refuse Alerts.
September 30, 2011 at 8:49 am
#p2 RT @TomMcCammon: Obama’s the 1st Nobel Peace Prize winner to carry out extrajudicial killing of his one of his own citizens.
And he’s like “Ya want it back? Y’all know where to find me..”
September 30, 2011 at 8:53 am
Who’d a thunk it would be a lib president who would singlehandedly defeat terrorism one bad guy at a time.
September 30, 2011 at 9:18 am
My hat’s off to Obama on the War on Terror or what ever he chooses to call it. Can’t think of anything significant a Republican would have done better. I really don’t think Laura he much wanted that Nobel Prize. Saw it for what it was, a way to try to lock him into a proscribed behavior. Just that some of his action just don’t fly with the Libs.
September 30, 2011 at 9:29 am
It’s interesting that the same people who objected (in large part correctly) to warrantless privacy invasions of US citizens, think it’s just perfectly fine to murder a US citizen, without judge, jury, or even a trial. Listen in on a phone call? Impeachable offense! Kill a US citizen without a trial? Rah Rah do it again!
I didn’t go along with those who objected to the UBL killing. I had no problem with it. But killing a US citizen, without any sort of trial or due process, basically based on the content of his speech? I’m really amazed how many people are fine with that.
September 30, 2011 at 9:30 am
The real problem for Obama when it comes to things like this (the al-Awlaki killing) isn’t going to be “pressure from fellow Liberals.” While he’ll get some heat from the Michael Moore types, that’s not really going to generate any significant threat to Obama, the electorate, or his poll numbers.
The problem will come from a pure public relations standpoint, and won’t be a “problem” per se, but instead will be a collective “nothing.” Obama and many Democrats (not all, but many) have been downplaying the threat from AQ and terrorism for years now. The issue was seen as a Republican issue, so they ran with the “Republicans are trying to scare you,” and “Alleged terrorists are mothers and fathers too,” and “The threat isn’t as imminent as the right has said,” talking point.
Fine, I personally disagree with those points, but that was the strategy. However, what it now means is that the public has been conditioned to shrug their shoulders, and say, “Well, they didn’t think it was such a big deal a year/month/week ago… why should I care about this now?” They have created a feeling of apathy towards international terrorism, which means they won’t be able to reap any of the rewards when a high-profile terrorist is killed or captured. In short, they’ve shot themselves in the foot on this issue.
I’d be surprised if Obama gets a significant bump in his numbers as a result, and if any bump can be sustained for more than a few days.
September 30, 2011 at 9:33 am
Kill em all, ask questions later. My problem with Bush was always the “let’s go to the wrong country and start a war while Bin Laden gets away” thing. When it comes to the surgical targeting of bad guys, I don’t have a liberal bone in my body about it. Die m*****f*****s.
September 30, 2011 at 9:43 am
Mr. $, I more view this and similar killing issues as a war rather than a crime situation. A bit more freedom to take a logical though morally questionable course of action “in the field”.
September 30, 2011 at 9:44 am
I don’t recall you saying ‘kill ‘em all’ when the topic was Troy Davis. Oh wait, he received a trial by jury, and a series of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, every one of which dismissed the purported ‘recanting witnesses’ as smoke and mirrors. You seemed very opposed to this example of surgical targeting of a bad guy.
On the other hand, a citizen who’s never been proved to do anything more than express speech you don’t like, who’s never been charged with anything and has never had a trial…in that case you’re all for shredding the constitution and just assassinating him on the say-so of one man.
I know you won’t see the inconsistency in all this, but it’s there.
September 30, 2011 at 9:45 am
Larry, I understand that. But in a war, does the President have the right to order US citizens shot on sight? The Prez cannot assassinate enemy heads of state, but he can order US citizens killed? I don’t think that’s in the Constitution. But that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
September 30, 2011 at 10:00 am
$, I don’t think you ‘recall’ my comments about Troy Davis very well. I support the death penalty. My problem with his case was that death was voted on eyewitness-only testimony, which, as you surely know because of your background, is notoriously unreliable.
The war on terror is a completely different situation. Davis was convicted of killing one man, and was never perceived as a threat to anyone else. al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda, had ties to the Christmas bomber and Major Hasan, and used the internet to encourage the murder of non-Muslims.
September 30, 2011 at 10:10 am
as President I would have to weigh the probability of al-Awlaki inspiring another underwear bomber who might know how to work a cigarette lighter and be successful in the attack with that of an error that this U.S. citizen was not a terrorist. Even a cop will shoot to kill without reading rights when a subject is perceived as an immediate danger.
September 30, 2011 at 10:40 am
Just to put my two cents in, this guy was an American citizen and seems to me the constitution guarantees even creeps like him due process. Maybe Yemen could qualify as a “battle field” but I kinda doubt it. As much as I hate it, this one is over the line regardless of whether POTUS is Bush or Obama.
September 30, 2011 at 10:55 am
I think military intelligence has convinced the President these people ain’t going alive, and they’re gonna take their captors with them. When you’re dealing with an enemy who sees value in martyrdom, the best/safest choice is to do it for them.
September 30, 2011 at 10:56 am
Moving to something less weighty, liberals awakened to a possible Chris Christie Presidential run have diverted their attention from Bachmann’s eyeballs to his girth. Saying things that would have been forbidden about, well Chas Bono. It didn’t work for Corzine and it won’t work now.
September 30, 2011 at 11:09 am
Moving to something less weighty
I confess..that’s funny.
September 30, 2011 at 11:47 am
Obama’s the 1st Nobel Peace Prize winner to carry out extrajudicial killing of his one of his own citizens.
Yassir Arafat disagrees.
“I think military intelligence has convinced the President these people ain’t going alive, and they’re gonna take their captors with them.”
Yes, because relying on military intelligence has never gotten us into trouble before!
September 30, 2011 at 11:56 am
Farris, if you’regoing to insist on disagreeing with me no matter which side of the fence I land, you’re going to be hopping a lot of fences. I’m generally more liberal than not, but I’m far from an ideologue. Start hopping..
September 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm
It’s true. Joe both supports and disagrees based on policy and platform. He’ll support things that help Democrats, and disagree with things that help Republicans. See?? He is able to support and disagree as needed!
And if you don’t believe him… you’re probably an idiot.
September 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Probably?
September 30, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Me, I’ll settle on idiot. Crazy-eyed snarky jackass takes a lot of maintenance.
September 30, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“And if you don’t believe him… you’re probably an idiot.”
And worse than Hitler.
September 30, 2011 at 1:26 pm
In fairness, I’ve never seen Joe say anyone is “worse than Hitler.”
“As bad as,” sure. But not “worse.”
September 30, 2011 at 1:30 pm
I guess al-Awlaki’s dad didn’t have standing so federal court dismissed his suit, but I’d feel better about the kill if the scumbag had been convicted of a crime, even if tried in absentia. There used to be a lot of, “Wanted Dead Or Alive” posters around, but I think those were all for convicts.
September 30, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“Worse than Hitler” = Red Eye reference
September 30, 2011 at 2:32 pm
If you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist..Islamist..h0m0ph0be. Yes, you!
————————————————————————————
Read it, sign it, live it:
http://www.getmoneyout.com
————————————————————————————
You should follow @jaketapper. He’s funny as hell, and probably about to be fired if he doesn’t stop.
September 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Joe.. that is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
So I can’t donate to politicians or causes which reflect my interests, and only very wealthy people can run for office, because they’ll be the only ones who can afford to without donations.
Dumb.
September 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I believe the idea would be to have severe limits on campaign finance from any source. The whole concept that you either have to receive millions, or contribute them yourself, to get elected is obscene.
September 30, 2011 at 2:55 pm
So that means that all the women’s groups, the gay rights groups, and the homeless advocates (for example) can’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
And you’re good with that?
September 30, 2011 at 2:56 pm
So that means that all the women’s groups, the g@y rights groups, and the homeless advocates (for example) can’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
And you’re good with that?an’t spend their money trying to elect a candidate who promises to help them, or who is more aligned with their cause?
And you’re good with that?
September 30, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I hate your phone, but yes I’m good with that. There’s nothing to prevent people from supporting groups who support a specific candidate, but this mess where a politician is required to raise millions to win an election because the others are doing it is madness.
September 30, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Money is needed to get their name and message to the people, to think that is possible without a lot of money is utterly ridiculous. The mass money donations from corporations need to change but anyone should have the opportunity to donate.
September 30, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I don’t claim to have the specifics sorted out..I signed the petition because it’s a start. DR has been saying forever that as long as Big Money is at the heart of our political process, nothing will ever change. He’s right. Elected officials don’t represent you and me. They represent the highest bidder.
September 30, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Then we should look for people who crusade against these methods and look to solely represent the people regardless of political affiliation. Too bad I can’t think of anyone like that.
September 30, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I hate the, “It’s a start,” or “It’s better than nothing,” mentality.
Get it right, figure out the plan, then let’s talk.
Only in politics is something like this acceptable. Got get a pizza, and when you pay full price for a pie that’s missing a slice, say “Well, it’s a start, and better than nothing.” When you buy a car, and it only comes with three wheels, say “Well, its better than only having 2 wheels.”
No! Let’s do it right the first time. None of this, “We’ll fix it eventually,” BS.the plan, then let’s talk.
Only in politics is something like this acceptable. Got get a pizza, and when you pay full price for a pie that’s missing a slice, say “Well, it’s a start, and better than nothing.” When you buy a car, and it only comes with three wheels, say “Well, its better than only having 2 wheels.”
No! Let’s do it right the first time. None of this, “We’ll fix it eventually,” BS.
September 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm
MOTOROLA… I WILL END YOU!
September 30, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I don’t agree with him on every issue, but he’s right about a lot. It’s effing ridiculous that he’s not in the debates.
September 30, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Oops.
http://www.buddyroemer.com/issues/
September 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“The start’s the thing, the song to sing”
POGO
September 30, 2011 at 4:34 pm
And another decent conversation comes to a crashing thud. Awesome, I need to get back to work anyway.
September 30, 2011 at 4:43 pm
There are very strict limits on contributions in Canada. I believe individuals can only donate up to $1000 per year. I think corporate and union donations are banned but I can’t remember. Sounds good right?
Well, there’s a downside. We subsidize political parties. Not joking. I believe every vote is worth about $2 or $3. That’s in addition to other subsidies political parties receive.
Find a way to get big money out but just don’t go down our route.
September 30, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Not sure it would work as expected but it isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. And it is a start… to a conversation/debate about getting to the most democratic way of choosing political office holders, assuming there is a fairer way than the current system.
The way we do it now is probably the fairest of any other method that’s been tried, but it’s certainly not perfect. Can’t hurt to talk about it.
October 1, 2011 at 3:42 am
joe, you’re actually one of the more agreeable, don’t-rely-so-much-on-the-mindless-namecalling libs I’ve met online, so it’s enjoyable to debate with you .
… and then, this:
“as long as Big Money is at the heart of our political process, nothing will ever change. He’s right.”
I think you’ve got it backwards: as long as government has the breadth and scope of power that it currently enjoys, money will, as they say, “find a way”. Make government less powerful and overlord-ish, and suddenly mega-bucks aren’t being spent because it’s no longer so important which political party holds the reigns.
October 1, 2011 at 8:12 am
A most astute analysis.
October 1, 2011 at 9:22 am
I disagree. I don’t think cutting a little spending and ditching a few programs – which is realistically the extent to which government will ever be shrunk – will solve the ‘money in politics’ problem. The players will still crave power, and the money will continue to be spent to attain that power, or get attached to those who have it.
October 1, 2011 at 9:38 am
Realistically, we could do away with a couple federal departments and several agencies. The necessary regulatory functions that need to be kept can be folded into other departments. More importantly, set the spending trajectory for all departments downward, including defence. If necessary to achieve that end, consider eliminating one of the branches.
October 1, 2011 at 9:59 am
Air Force was a branch of the Army until after WW II. Bound to be a lot of bucks in the upper echelon of duplicated administrative overhead.
October 1, 2011 at 11:19 am
Even the author admits to sorta liking the guy. If he could tone-down the ‘raging jackass’-act, he might be useful.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-goes-on-tirade-against-bitch-nancy-pelosi-and-hollywood-sympathy-fck-janeane-garofalo/
October 1, 2011 at 11:36 am
When liberals look the other way to Tea Party members being called “sons of bitches”, as has been the case on this very blog, they should not be surprised that their counterparts go looking for and labeling the mothers.
What goes around comes around, and is bad ALL around.
October 1, 2011 at 11:45 am
Damn, I forgot to comment on the part that was actually interesting, since “Andrew Breitbart as Jackass” is hardly news. He refers to Garofalo as “chronically irrelevant”. If she’s so freaking ‘irrelevant’, then why do I keep hearing about her? You think maybe the only reason that lightly-viewed left-wing programs have her on is because she has some bizarre magnetism for right-wing commentary? If she’s so ‘irrelevant’ then Ignore Her. Maybe she’ll seek some much-needed help.
October 1, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Bill Maher says outrageous stuff, and I don’t care because he’s a FAMOUS comedian. Garafolo is neither famous, nor funny. Who. Cares.
October 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm
My expirience is that ignoring people rarely forces them to get help.
October 1, 2011 at 3:40 pm
When I was half-listening while doing my ER shift I was sure she called him “Herm”, but later while watching the same programme on the telly after reading posts here I clearly heard Sarah Palin call him “Herb”.
Now I’m confused:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-rates-the-competition-forgives-sarah-palin-in-jay-leno-interview/
October 1, 2011 at 3:45 pm
‘Herb’ is the better choice, in any case. It gives you the option of spice or Tarlek, but ‘Herm’ only gives you ‘Munster’. Yes, I’ve given this entirely too much thought.
October 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Nice of Morning Joe to have given Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson a chance to show his heartfelt concern for Chris Christie’s health, being morbidly obese and all. If only Orson Wells and Cass Elliot had run for public office, Gene might have saved them. “Cass Cass — Don’t eat the ham sandwich!”
October 1, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Enjoying tonight’s NBC Nightly News report wistfully trying to make the collection of Wall Street protesters into the birth of a liberal Tea Party that, “might carry over into the 2012 elections”. Thrilled by the attention of activists like Michael Moore and union leaders. Thrilled by a support protest of “about a hundred people in Portland, Oregon”.
Partying Partying, YEAH! Partying Partying.