Patterico's Pontifications

1/27/2010

Responses to Obama’s State of the Union Address (Updated)

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 9:07 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

From Justice Alito — “Not true”:

From Chris Matthews — “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour”:

— DRJ

UPDATE — I don’t have video but here’s one more response from Boston University Journalism Professor and Hoover Institute Research Fellow Robert Zelnick:

“Finally, the president appeased his more liberal supporters by asking Congress to repeal the “Dont ask, don’t tell” arrangement-passed early in the first Clinton term-which prohibits declared gays and lesbians from serving in the armed forces. The cluster of senior brass sitting close to the podium failed to applaud and looked collectively at their leader as one might a vistor from a foreign planet.”

223 Responses to “Responses to Obama’s State of the Union Address (Updated)”

  1. Just imagine what was going through the mind of the Solicitor General while this was happening?
    I think her life just got a lot more complicated.

    AD - RtR/OS! (8b1c67)

  2. That clip of Alito is the most awesome thing ever. Thanks to DRJ for publishing it. I was going to myself but was pleased to see she already had.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  3. Temple of Mut has The I-ME-MY count of SOTU……

    Who had “152 personal references” in the office pool?

    Looking Glass (103d60)

  4. He forgot he was black because he’s light-skinned with no Negro accent.

    Harry Reid (24fc2b)

  5. Not entirely sure but it looks like he was mouthing “not true”.
    would have been awesome to see him jump up and say “You lie!” just kidding

    voiceofreason2 (ec9a68)

  6. I would comment but it wouldn’t be fair since I refuse to listen to whatever lies and BS that miserable son of a bitch Obama has to say. Tomorrow I’ll tell you what I really think.

    MikeD (c83900)

  7. The Matthews clip made me think of the character in Apocalypse now who followed Sheen around talking about how awesome Kurtz was. (Dennis Hopper I think)

    voiceofreason2 (ec9a68)

  8. What’s wrong with two lawyers disagreeing over case law?

    I wouldn’t mind seeing Alito and the President discuss this in a Merlot summit.

    Also, I know only 750,000 people in a nation of 300 million watch Chris Matthews, but can someone get him professional help?

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  9. “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour”

    As if it weren’t disgusting enough when this was just a man-crush. Matthews is now officially a living first-aid device to induce vomiting.

    At this rate, it won’t be long before Matthews gets a position as a White House intern. A few positions, in fact.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  10. Why is everything always about race with Democrats?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  11. Very good point. What Matthews said wasn’t just lovey-dovey; it was racist. Race wouldn’t have been an issue if the speaker had been one of the Clintons. Obama did something that made Matthews swoon, so Matthews forgot that Obama is black. Meaning that Obama’s being black is a bit of an impediment to Matthews’s feelings for him. It’s just like when your significant other writes you a beautiful love letter, and it makes you forget what you don’t like about that person.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  12. If he forgot Obama was black for an hour, but the State of the Union was an hour and 10 minutes long…

    Did 10 minutes of the speech really drive home how black the man is? I is confused…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  13. ag80,

    What’s wrong isn’t that they disagree, of course. It’s that Obama is calling for a room full of his pals in congress to jeer the Court. It’s amazingly unpresidential. He can’t appeal this ruling, however, by calling for Chuck Schumer to clap and “find a way” around the law.

    What’s amazing is that Justice Kennedy is probably the most sensitive to this kind of crap, and he’s the author of this ruling, and he’s also the judge who Obama’s arguments will usually be tailored to convince.

    So, also what’s wrong is that Obama is simply making a strategic mistake. Now the Court will have a reason to show Obama that there really is a separation of power. This is awesome. Unlike the mistakes with the economy, Obama’s bullshit could actually do a lot of good.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  14. Comment by Ag80 — 1/27/2010 @ 9:44 pm

    If 750K people are watching Chris Mathews, just who is it that needs professional help?
    And, do we have that many psychiatrists?

    AD - RtR/OS! (8b1c67)

  15. I watch MSNBC all the time. I bet half the people watching it are conservatives who need harder core red meat that FNC delivers. MSNBC is probably the best argument against liberals since Air America blew up.

    “You’re a racist teabagger for driving a truck” “I forgot he was black!”

    It’s a total parody.

    It must really yank their chains that Rush is getting to 24 million folks and they aren’t even getting to 1 million. Fox News is competing for most popular cable channel (against USA), and MSNBC is happy to beat CNN half the time.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. I updated the post with another response regarding DADT.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  17. That was one of the most partisan, most lie-filled, least Presidential SOTU that I have ever seen.

    JD (3399c0)

  18. The State of the Union address before an immediate audience really is a new invention in a country of only 240 years or so.

    I also know that Jackson defied the Supreme Court and FDR attempted to pack it through ill-thought legislation.

    But a modern, sitting President to openly ridicule the decision of an empowered check-and-balance branch of the federal government is not only astonishing, it is breath-taking. Especially in a world where information is instantaneous.

    It will be ignored. But just imagine if a Republican had done so in this day.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  19. i dont really get what the deal is with gays in the military, goldwater had it right. I dont see any indication that being gay makes killing people any harder so let em do their part and tell osama hey we’re gay and we’re giving your buddies hellfire enemas we think it’s hilarious. But anyway good job barack you just antagonized a supreme court that has already shown much inclination to deliver major rulings you don’t like. Could the holy grail be attained and boumediene and hamdan partially or wholly reversed? That would be insane but with the way barack has apparently decided to egg on every center of power in this country he doesn’t totally control into a fight, the backlash might just go that far (in the legal world). Biggest question for obama now is will the hand of fate through some great event thrust upon him give him a chance to save his presidency or will he get beat like mcgovern. Course mcgovern didnt even have a shot to get kicked out.

    chaos (7c068a)

  20. If chaos was coherent, a response might be appropriate

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  21. “But just imagine if a Republican had done so in this day.

    Comment by Ag80 ”

    You said a mouthful there. Hell, look at the scorn Alito is getting for his very subtle move. Compared to Obama summoning them to be lied about and jeered by hundreds?

    But if Bush had done this to a Gitmo case? It would have been quite the reaction.

    Chaos, it’s hard to follow your post, but gays in the military is a really interesting topic. I don’t mind if gays serve, so long as fraternization inside units is strictly prohibited, and soldiers are able to feel comfortable in tight quarters. I think those are valid concerns that deserve some careful planning.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  22. Lack of paragraph capability and and unwillingness to go through the dumb dance needed to create commas, (sometimes), on what I’m using are too bad for you. You just have to use your brain.

    chaos (7c068a)

  23. Where are Mikey and LT to admit how f@cking wrong they were?

    JD (3399c0)

  24. that wasnt for dustin but there would be much less jumping if i could make this phone enter paragraph breaks correctly dumb old pos.

    chaos (7c068a)

  25. It was fabulous. Alito looked like such a tool. SCOTUS is not above criticism. They screwed the historical pooch on this decision, and they should be reminded of it.

    Frequently. Even after they’re long gone, the Robert’s court will be held up as the ultimate corruption of a politicized and stacked SCOTUS, second only to the Dred Scott decision in that regard.

    Oh and you say WHO IS THIS PERSON, THIS OBAMA PERSON WHO WOULD DARE…blah..blah..blah…

    That would be Barack Obama, President of the United States.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  26. So, let’s try to figure this out, Assclown. BECAUSE he’s the POTUS it’s alright for him to shit-talk the SCOTUS during the SOTU speech?

    And isn’t it convenient that someone who would argue in favor of gay marriage by pointing out how decades-old laws barring interracial marriage were overturned — by the SCOTUS — now calls for honoring the tradition of 100 years of law. One might almost call that a “conservative” position.

    How does one reconcile being “progressive” with wanting to maintain the status quo?

    Icy Texan (3ae7ac)

  27. What Alito did was just fine. What was he supposed to do, just sit there while Mr. Obama scolded him like a misbehaving schoolboy? Shit! He should’ve stood up and head-butted Schumer

    Icy Texan (3ae7ac)

  28. McCain/Feingold should never have been deemed constitutional.
    Bush made a big mistake by not using his veto pen. SCOTUS is
    finally making the constitutionally correct move.

    Krusher (ceb4ea)

  29. Okay, on to Chrissie “the all-purpose tool” Matthews. Apparently, this asshole has been searching — since February of ’08 — for a way to so ultimately top his “I felt this thrill going up my leg” comment, that forevermore 2010 will be remembered as the year he said “I forgot he was black tonight”. Amazing, isn’t it, how Obama is so completely “post-racial” that Matthews CAN’T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT’S RACE?

    Icy Texan (3ae7ac)

  30. I wonder if Obama bothered to let them know that would be coming in the speech.

    voiceofreason2 (ec9a68)

  31. #25.– Olbermann, go to bed and quit making blog comments while stoned.

    M. Scott Eiland (c552ec)

  32. “But a modern, sitting President to openly ridicule the decision of an empowered check-and-balance branch of the federal government is not only astonishing, it is breath-taking. Especially in a world where information is instantaneous.”

    He seemed to be doing that to congress quite a bit too.

    “From Justice Alito — “Not true”:”

    Looks like a good time to look up Obama’s speech on the Alito nomination.

    imdw (490521)

  33. Why, by the way, is Obama expressly asking for DADT to be repealed NOW and not a year ago?

    Giant recession and Scott Brown? OH LOOK GAYS!

    Mitch (e40959)

  34. The latest Court of Appeals ruling, narrows the scope of Boumedienne, and any further actions will
    only make it less effective, Al Shehri and Al Harbi,
    notably were released after Hamdan, as was Al Rubbaish, the rival to Aulaqi on the Yemeni circuit

    ian cormac (413164)

  35. #30

    His call for this is going to make it that much harder for the blue dogs to go back to their constituents.
    I don’t really see anything wrong with letting openly gay people serve in the military but that is quite a cultural shift for the military and if implemented the military needs a couple of years to get ready for such a change.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-fall-as-fast-as-Nixon-Republicans-in-1974-82731837.html

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_answer_for_america_more_of_1IboSZ3t6WFW12qZnpv10J

    have interesting reactions to Obama’s SOTU.

    voiceofreason2 (c9795e)

  36. Who’da thunk we’d see, from AP via MSn.com, proof that Joe Wilson was not only right.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35112718/ns/politics-white_house/

    Matador (176445)

  37. Hey, Obama has been quick to action.

    Already this morning, he can proudly announce that Congress has banned foreign corporations from running election ads.

    (The fact that this was true before his speech is of no consequence)

    Neo (7830e6)

  38. One can only imagine the firestorm if a conservative newsie/journalist made the Chris Matthews comment.

    It would automatically be assumed the person was a racist and for the past year had never been able to shake the ‘troubling, disturbing’ fact that our president is black…. the spin would be endless.

    A summit would be involved.

    Their career would be in serious jeopardy.

    Sensitivity training.

    etc., etc., etc.

    And that is the power of the D and/or R after one’s name.

    Dana (1e5ad4)


  39. I wonder if Obama bothered to let them know that would be coming in the speech.

    Comment by voiceofreason2 — 1/28/2010 @ 3:37 am

    Oh, I’m sure. He’s got such a reputation for being considerate.

    hahaha Seriously, just one more example of the passive-aggressive angry man that is our President. I mean, what a sucker punch.

    In addition to the anger, I think Obama’s lashing out. Don’t look at me flailing, in over my head, look over there, and over there! And Booooosshhh (coded language in first few grafs of speech).

    And lastly: IMO Chris Matthews is a straight-up racist and have thought so for some time. The tingle up the leg is a classic psych example of reaction formation.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  40. I watched the speech last night and many thoughts ran through my mind. I though about the issue of whether he would re-set like a Clinton, something that I certainly would be doing. Or would he keep hitting his head against the wall like a Carter, something I would not do as because to get there I would have had to be pragmatic. Well I was shocked to see the latter. But I also was happy because this will only push Obama lower in the polls.

    A jobs bill? I thought, “Woo, I cannot believe he’s giving a new name to Stimulus 2.0.”

    When it was all over, I said to myself, where’s the talk about Gitmo and the war on terror? My word, he’s dodging the war on terror.

    Oh yeah, my Mama taught me good manners so I was surprised about the slight against the U.S. Supreme Court, which sat in the first row. I bet they won’t come back next year.

    (A total of 15 references to self.)

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  41. I tried to come away with things I could agree with from the speech… The push to build more Nuclear Plants and allow more off-shore drilling were two things that I liked. Hopefully I was not missing something bigger in regards to those.

    Afeter 45 minutes I could take all the clapping, so I turned it off.

    My daughter asked me if the seats in Congress are so very uncomfortable as to cause the people to stand up so often.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  42. But then he talked up the Cap n Trade bill, which cancels any significant development of oil resources

    ian cormac (413164)

  43. btw, by the principle of expressio unius, um, hasn’t matthews confessed that the rest of the time he never forgets that a black person is black. he never sees beyond their race?

    you know, its not that matthews is bad to forget obama was black for an hour or so; its the fact he doesn’t forget that more often.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  44. Imagine if Hannity or Rush had said what Crissy Mathews said.

    JD (3399c0)

  45. #41 Corwin:

    The push to build more Nuclear Plants and allow more off-shore drilling were two things that I liked. Hopefully I was not missing something bigger in regards to those.

    Well,

    “Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy. “

    2005 SOTU Address.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  46. _________________________________

    Chris Matthews certainly is one of those of the leftwing who I think of when I muse that if 90% of black America were centrist to conservative instead of mindlessly liberal, that a good portion of white liberals would quickly lose their enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity. Moreover, a good portion of black liberals throughout the country would suddenly find themselves becoming “self-hating.”

    Mark (411533)

  47. “Chris Matthews certainly is one of those of the leftwing who I think of when I muse that if 90% of black America were centrist to conservative instead of mindlessly liberal, that a good portion of white liberals would quickly lose their enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity.”

    But would the right wing pick up on enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity? If not, better stay left.

    imdw (9af31a)

  48. Corwin, if you try to come away from an Obama speech with something you like, you will. Every time. He wants everyone to put their hopes on him.

    Sadly, we know for sure that he’s pretty bad at keeping his promises. I don’t believe he will reduce the deficit or build nuclear power. If he does, that’s nice even in the context of his demagoguery. But what has Obama done since the stimulus bill?

    And he doesn’t even take credit for the consequences of that… the only thing he’s done he credits to Bush when the going gets tough.

    Hope you get your nuke plants, though.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  49. the “right wing” thinks every man is equal with no regard for his skin color.

    That’s the kind of enthusiasm for civil rights I believe in. That’s why great civil rights leaders are usually conservatives and republicans. And civil rights leaders of the left are usually opportunist jerks who actually deeply care what your skin color is.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  50. But would the right wing pick up on enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity?

    You fucking idiot. How many times does it have to be explained to you that it is the right side of the political spectrum that enthuses over human rights?

    It’s the left that continues to find new excuses for denying individuals their rights in support of thugocracies.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  51. At this point, I really am trying to look for some positives. Otherwise, all I see is a very bleak future.

    Yes, I know he doesn’t keep promises. I know he will say anything to boost his ego; keep the fawning admirers happy; give the MSM something to trumpet.

    We’re on the verge of a total meltdown (no pun reference to nuclear plants intended). And most of the public still isn’t seeing it.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  52. “That’s the kind of enthusiasm for civil rights I believe in. That’s why great civil rights leaders are usually conservatives and republicans. And civil rights leaders of the left are usually opportunist jerks who actually deeply care what your skin color is.”

    Yeah looks like no.

    imdw (019915)

  53. But would the right wing pick up on enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity?

    Well, in no longer having to observe so much idiotic and ridiculous attempts to play games with civil rights and affirmative action — which has been the specialty of the left for several decades — the right would happily witness sanity and common sense enter a major facet of society. More importantly, if black America suddenly cast off a lot of simpleminded liberalism, it likely would no longer be stuck with self-destructive rationalizations (Hi, Jesse Jackson! Hi, Al Sharpton!) about failure, dysfunction and defeat (Hi, Jeremiah Wright!).

    The situation would be a win-win for the country, except for limousine liberals (white and black, etc) and ambulance-chasing lawyers.

    Mark (411533)

  54. I’m an MLK kinda guy. Of course, there are those who will redefine civil rights as whatever benefits the democrat party (the party that lynched thousands of republicans, white and black, over the years).

    To me, civil rights is not about race. Playing one race off the other is not civil rights at all. limited government has always been the most basic and central aspect of civil rights. That was the entire point from the beginning, with the constant warning that eventually someone would learn to use redistribution to play us off eachother for power.

    Nothing novel or genius about what I’m saying. This is obvious and old stuff that is well understood. If the racial composition of the world changes, it really doesn’t have any civil rights implications.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  55. “I’m an MLK kinda guy”

    Fascinating.

    imdw (019915)

  56. Mark, it will never cease to amaze me that most democrats didn’t mind Jeremiah Wright or even care to understand what it means to follow that man for 20 years, bring your kids there, etc.

    Obama is a deeply disturbed bigot if he is that devoted to Jeremiah Wright. It’s a sick thing. It’s so ugly, insane, and extreme. If Palin had even MET a white counterpart to Wright it would have been huge news. Rush so much as makes a joke about a black person and it’s huge news.

    This alone is a big argument for why democrats are totally unserious about their criticisms on race or social justice. It’s about money, and that’s it.

    I wouldn’t be able to sit in a room with Wright for 20 minutes, let alone 20 years. Anyone who does something like that for 20 years is a true psycho believer.

    Let’s not forget that imdw thinks Rush is an antisemite. They think conservative = racism and evil. It’s simplistic and stupid because there’s no other way for them to both value racial sanity and be a democrat without believing the GOP is guilty of ridiculous stuff. You can see that paranoia in imdws writings here. The GOP is some cartoon character to a lot of fools.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. I think today’s stock market shows a disappointment with Obama’s SOTU speech.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. Yeah looks like no.
    Comment by imdw — 1/28/2010 @ 8:57 am

    To which political party did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. belong?

    no one you know (196ed7)

  59. MLK, like me, was a registered republican. We believed that people should be judged by the content of their character.

    Like me, he didn’t care that Obama was black. I’m not Chris Matthews, and I could never work for Jimmy Carter, a true antisemite.

    To me, there’s no difference between Carter and Obama. I don’t care that one is white and one is black. I care that their content of character is hateful, paranoid, and truly contemptuous of the American Dream. No concept of the USA being a special place the world should aspire to.

    I know imdw is now totally backing off actually saying anything, and fishing with little stupid goads. That’s not important. What’s important is that the democrats keep making Obama about race, and the Republicans keep criticizing his character and his results and his policies. imdw will never realize what this means: that the republicans aren’t really this racist boogeyman.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  60. “Let’s not forget that imdw thinks Rush is an antisemite.”

    I’m just a pawn of the ADL!

    “I think today’s stock market shows a disappointment with Obama’s SOTU speech.”

    will it outperform the scott brown win? will it matter?

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (a8a894)

  61. I like diversity. A lot. The problem about some liberals with me is that diversity seemingly only means one thing to them: diversity of skin color. Diversity of politics or ideas doesn’t seem to register with many of them.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  62. noyk, the web was swallowing hard or something. I hadn’t seen your comment and wasn’t replying to it.

    It’s amazing that the democrats who fought MLK to his death think that they own him. Blacks aren’t supposed to leave the plantation?

    Al Gore sr, Bull Connor, and many other misguided democrats are somehow republicans in these people’s heads.

    I don’t even care. Imdw hasn’t actually made an argument in the last several comments. Just a smirky attempt to change the topic. Chris Matthews is an idiot, Obama lied about the Supreme court, and Obama is INCREDIBLY divisive of America.

    That was Obama’s central promise… the hope we can progress to some post partisan post racial world. It was such a lie. Obama supporters have no argument except to make the most disgusting insinuation imaginable. Like imdw, they think they can challenge those critical of Obama as racists. They think it’s actually obvious, when there’s no evidence of it at all. they use race and civil rights to win something that has nothing to do with equality.

    I think that’s so sad, and so typically democrat.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. Believe me my friend. The more I learn about MLK, the more I like him. And the more I wish that more and more republicans would be just like MLK.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (a8a894)

  64. They think conservative = racism and evil

    In reality, I don’t think anything has turned me off to what liberals are all about to a greater degree than studies indicating that a higher percentage of the left, compared with the right, actually is less generous when it comes to donating time, money and even blood, such as to the Red Cross. That’s why I believe the phrase “limousine liberal” sums up the reality of the situation quite succinctly, because it reflects the phoniness and foolishness of so many people on the left. BTW, one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of the simplemindedness and phoniness of limousine liberalism.

    Mark (411533)

  65. Obama lying in the SOTU about the Bush administration’s civil rights division record only contributes to your point, Mark.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. That was one of the most partisan, most lie-filled, least Presidential SOTU that I have ever seen.

    Have you already forgotten his first SOTU? That was nearly as brazen, even more arrogant, and an off – the – charts naricissistic preening that eclipsed even Clinton’s first SOTU.

    Dmac (539341)

  67. Dmac – Hence, the one of … 😉

    I will be in Chicago Sat nite, going to see the BoDeans at the Chicago Symphony Hall. Yay, me!

    JD (431886)

  68. Gateway Pundit has a short clip of McCain, after Obama’s rant about the deficit he inherited, apparently saying, “Blame Bush…” to Lindsay Graham. They seem to be joking about Obama.

    What I want to know is what Nancy Pelosi is saying to Biden just before that. Just as the Dems are starting to yell and cheer for another attack on Republicans, she turns toward Biden with a cat-that-ate-the-canary look on her face and says something.

    Any lipreaders that can figure that out for us. It’s tough because her face doesn’t move much.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  69. Hey i have you all beat. i am not just an MLK kind of guy, i am a Thaddeus Stevens kind of guy. he was the father of the 14th A. he said that he hoped that “no distinction would be tolerated in this purified republica but what arose from merit and conduct.”

    Its almost the same thing as MLK’s i have a dream line, except it is more expansive when you think about it.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  70. 10.Why is everything always about race with Democrats?

    I think that is one of the sad and dangerous things of this presidency. On the whole the African-American majority embraced Obama, along with the racist Left, in some measure because of his being Black. Once they have thrown their lot in with him for that reasoning, to become critical of him is to some degree to be critical of themselves, and in general we don’t like that, especially if we don’t see the freedom in recognizing truth and reality. In the focus group discussion on Fox after the speech, the African-Americans who were directly asked an opinion were 100% behind Obama and wrote-off any apparent short comings to factors outside of Obama’s control. Even if one voted for Obama, to not recognize his dishonesty and the descrepancy between his promises and policies is being very poorly informed, willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, deceived, and/or deluded.

    I would even accept as healthy and rational a comment that says, “Yes, I know he’s gone back on his word, but they all do that”.

    don’t ask, don’t tell

    As with many things, I don’t know if he is serious about this or simply throwing it out to appease one of his constituencies for the moment

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  71. did this get lost in the spam filter? I had something like this posted. Lets retry:

    “MLK, like me, was a registered republican. We believed that people should be judged by the content of their character. Like me, he didn’t care that Obama was black. I’m not Chris Matthews, and I could never work for Jimmy Carter, a true antisemite.”

    MLK believed in a lot of things. The more I read about the guy, the more I like him. And the more I wish more republicans would be like MLK.

    imdw (6eb217)

  72. It’s tough because her face doesn’t move much.

    Comment by Gesundheit

    LOL

    “no distinction would be tolerated in this purified republica but what arose from merit and conduct.”

    Comment by A.W.

    That is a great expression that should be #1 on the GOP’s so-called 10 guidelines. I had never read that before, but it should be engraved in stone all over the country.

    Obama was supposed to be post racial, and every time a great opportunity to criticize him arrived, the democrats keep injecting race into the discussion. No doubt, they will find a way to make the GOP 2012 nominee into a racist. It isn’t hard to do if you are twisted enough.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  73. “That is a great expression that should be #1 on the GOP’s so-called 10 guidelines.”

    With a caveat for estate taxes. That’s the stuff of wealth redistribution. The stuff of MLK.

    imdw (97403b)

  74. And the more I wish more republicans would be like MLK.

    Hell, I just wish a Democrat would try it.

    I’d be satisfied that we’re making progress if just one did.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  75. This one is so serially disingenuous and dishonest it must be hard-wired into its genetic structure.

    JD (c15e93)

  76. Just cannot help lying, can you?

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  77. From now on, when the President speaks, I’m just going to pull out the nearest bottle of liquor and play drinking games, maybe a shot everytime he mentions the word “me” or “I”, or a shot whenever he insults someone, like the Supreme Court, truckdrivers, etc. On second thought, I don’t think I have room for that much booze.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  78. Aww, JD snuck one in on me. JD, consider yourself denounced for standing between one of my comments and a dyed in the wool racist asshole.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  79. EW1 – As Crissy showed us last night, the leftists never get past the color of the skin part. It is asking way too much of them to focus on the content of one’s character.

    JD (c15e93)

  80. #75 Rochf:

    On second thought, I don’t think I have room for that much booze.

    I got to warn, speaking as a former drinker on the professional circuit, that that much booze at once is almost always fatal, then. Not later.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  81. “Hell, I just wish a Democrat would try it.”

    Imagine a democrat, against racism, war and poverty. Just one. Then all republicans rushing to be just like that. What a world.

    imdw (7e3f85)

  82. Hell, I just wish a Democrat would try it.

    I’d be satisfied that we’re making progress if just one did.

    Comment by EW1(SG)

    Indeed. It’s not like MLK was a saint or perfect or right about everything. We don’t really give a shit about his opinion on global warming or evolution. MLK had a dream of the opposite of Obama style hate and Rev. Wright hate. MLK believed we should not care about race.

    That’s what he’s loved for. That’s what he gave us.

    It’s childish, but predictable, that imdw would be so disgusting as to search for some aspect of MLK that has nothing to do with this beautiful message he died for, and hold that up as what it means to honor MLK. Socialisms!

    No, that’s not important. We forget that aspect of MLK because it is not what matters. Content of character. Not dividing white against black like Chris Matthews and Rev Wright and Obama fans and imdw.

    imdw can’t call for redistribution on the force and value of his own arguments. Then again, he never seems to actually have an argument. Just strange shit like ‘that guy who admire for X also had Y, so you have to like Y’.

    Yeah, OK.

    My other thought is to imagine if Obama had two white parents but was otherwise identical to Obama today (I find this totally plausible). The GOP wouldn’t have treated him any differently. He isn’t ready to lead, his policies suck, etc etc.

    The democrats would have treated him completely differently. they would have noticed that he likes terrorists and has his kids brainwashed with ‘CIA made AIDS’. they would have noticed that zero executive experience would be a problem for a President.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  83. But then he talked up the Cap n Trade bill, which cancels any significant development of oil resources

    How much public support is there for cap-and-trade?

    But would the right wing pick up on enthusiasm for civil rights and diversity?

    Much of the right wing has enthusiasm for gun rights, which is a civil right.

    Michael Ejercito (526413)

  84. Rochf – If you are going to play that game, you should only do so in the lobby of the nearest Emergency Room, as that will be your inevitable destination.

    JD (c15e93)

  85. “Imagine a democrat, against racism, war and poverty. Just one. Then all republicans rushing to be just like that. What a world.”

    Lets also require that that democrat be organizing a union. And all republicans rushing to be like that.

    imdw (7e3f85)

  86. ____________________________________

    In the focus group discussion on Fox after the speech, the African-Americans who were directly asked an opinion were 100% behind Obama and wrote-off any apparent short comings to factors outside of Obama’s control.

    Why is such a high percentage of the black community so blindly and idiotically leftwing? Has all that liberalism made that part of the American populace significantly and truly happier, more stable, more successful, wealthier, less dysfunctional?

    A salute to one symptom of a community that is so lacking in common sense — so much into the biases typical of, for example, bratty, immature kids — so much into empty-headed liberalism:

    UPI, December 2008:

    Murder rates, while holding steady among white U.S. teenagers, have climbed steadily among black teenagers since 2000, a study indicates.

    A report co-authored by Northeastern University Criminal Justice Professor James Alan Fox also indicated the racial gap among teenage murder rates is growing, The New York Times reported Monday.

    The report indicated the main racial difference was among juveniles between 14 and 17 years old. In 2000, 539 white and 851 black juveniles in that age group committed murder, while in 2007, the number for whites, 547, had barely changed while that for blacks was 1,142, up 34 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  87. “Much of the right wing has enthusiasm for gun rights, which is a civil right.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito ”

    As is the 1st amendment, which had a recent victory.

    But to some people, civil rights = money for race.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. That is so dishonest of you, iamadickwad, on a fundamental level. Why must you leftists insist that conservatives are in favor of racism, war, and poverty? Would your world get sucked into the gaping maw of a black hole were you to learn that conservatives are not at all like the caricatures in your head?

    JD (c15e93)

  89. Imagine a democrat, against racism, war and poverty

    We already have a War on Poverty.

    It failed .

    Michael Ejercito (526413)

  90. “Why must you leftists insist that conservatives are in favor of racism, war, and poverty?”

    No I just wish registered republicans were against those things, just like MLK. Let’s go have a Poor People’s Campaign, right?

    imdw (7e3f85)

  91. Again, dishonest on a fundamental level. But that is what you are.

    JD (c15e93)

  92. No I just wish registered republicans were against those things…
    Comment by imdw — 1/28/2010 @ 10:38 am

    translation: “registered Republicans are for racism, war and poverty.”

    Did I read that wrong?

    no one you know (196ed7)

  93. “Again, dishonest on a fundamental level. But that is what you are.”

    Let me add, not just a union — a public sector union. MLK went to memphis to help sanitation workers organize, despite death threats, and was struck down and killed. His last mission was to help organize public sector workers. And he was a registered republican.

    So you see why I delight when the GOP tells me that they like MLK. Why I welcome them with open arms into the wonderful work of liberation.

    imdw (f8211e)

  94. noyk – Its douchenozzlery knows no bounds.

    JD (c15e93)

  95. Let’s go have a Poor People’s Campaign, right?

    Would that be similar to the War on Poverty campaign (and rhetoric) that began to flourish in the 1960s? The situation in which people of the left, to satisfy their mostly phony-baloney compassion and screwball guilt, loved to talk the talk but not walk the walk. The situation in which levels of poverty and dysfunction, particularly in urban America, not only didn’t lessen in severity, it actually worsened.

    People who preach kum-bah-wah politics are best symbolized by the large number of teachers throughout public schools in America, then and now, who while espousing the greatness of public schools, send their own precious children to either a private or parochial school.

    Mark (411533)

  96. Again, dishonest on a fundamental level. But that is what you are.

    Comment by JD

    A few weeks ago, JD said something like this and I didn’t take it to heart and tried to discuss issues with imdw. We all know how that went. I asked him to back up some ridiculous accusations about people doing all manner of horrible things. He never backs anything up and rarely has an argument. He’s fishing for reactions to turn threads into defenses of republicans. Instead of looking at what Obama has failed to do, we have to defend the GOP again.

    Even though it’s not that hard to defend the GOP, we’re playing defense. The discussion goes nowhere. It’s a very effective way to protect the holy democrat party from criticism, though. As JD says, it is dishonesty at the most basic level. It’s a tactic that wouldn’t be employed without thinking over and accepting that the democrats can’t withstand scrutiny.

    Watching the speech, it’s amazing how many times Obama brings up evil republicans. They aren’t in power, but have to defend themselves for everything today. Obama cannot point to how his leadership has helped us, because it hasn’t. Worse, he knows it and isn’t changing course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  97. I stand corrected–I will play my drinking game in the lobby of the nearest hospital where they can cart me off for treatment after the President spouts off “I” or “me” or “let me be clear” for the umpteenth time.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  98. Obama’s on TV now in Tampa, Florida, talking about himself. His topic is supposed to be about jobs and a high-speed rail line to Orlando. But, instead, like a moth to a flame, he’s gone back to his favorite subject: the life and adventures of Barack Obama.

    ropelight (f0c28e)

  99. Imagine a democrat, against racism, war and poverty. Just one.

    That’s the point, jackass.

    I can’t.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  100. “Would that be similar to the War on Poverty campaign (and rhetoric) that began to flourish in the 1960s?”

    You can look up what the Poor People’s Campaign was. MLK, registered republican, helped to organize it.

    imdw (9af31a)

  101. #80 Michael Ejercito:

    Much of the right wing has enthusiasm for gun rights, which is a civil right.

    Wrong.

    The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right.

    As such, it was considered an unalienable right by the Framers of the Constitution, and much of the “right wing” still thinks that right is an important right to be preserved.

    For everyone.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  102. Rochf – If you are going to do that, the lobby of this place might be an even more appropriate place to do so.

    http://www.prairie-center.com/

    imdw – Why do you hate black people?

    JD (c15e93)

  103. So you see why I delight when the GOP tells me that they like MLK. Why I welcome them with open arms into the wonderful work of liberation.

    Comment by imdw — 1/28/2010 @ 10:47 am

    Am very glad you believe in liberation. Some of us want to be clear about what, exactly, that means when speaking of political topics.

    For example: does welfare for people who are able to work keep them dependent with just a bare sufficiency teaser of money, or does it keep them from the liberation of being able to work and make a lot more than just the teaser?

    Another example: does supporting legal abortion on demand truly free women, who by and large don’t want abortions but feel “I have no other choice” or would additional help to have children actually be more freeing?

    Not to mention the killing of unborn children itself – no question on whether or not they’re liberated by abortion.

    Et cetera. Sometimes simply saying agreeable words like “liberation” is a bit too simplistic and we need to look at what it actually means in day to day effects of policies.

    This BTW, in my opinion anyway, is what quite a few (not all) liberals do. They pick something that sounds good and seems compassionate (let’s give everyone help, choice, hope, change, liberation) without looking at the actual effects and whether they actually accomplish good instead of making the advocate of the policy feel good about themselves.

    A perfect example: a number of liberals (to whom I spoke personally so am not misrepresenting them) who knew of Obama’s inexperience but said outright that they thought it’d be a good thing for America to have an African American president and so voted for him. I said, sure it would, but what effect would electing THIS African American have? They didn’t want to hear it. At least they didn’t call me racist. Which is more than I can say for some other liberals in the media who tag all conservatives as “teabagging [sic] racists”.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  104. #94–maybe I’ll go to Orlando and play the drinking game. Looks like Obama will be providing plenty of opportunity in all of his upcoming speeches. Next thing you know, he’ll be telling us to put on a sweater like Jimmy CArter back in the day.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  105. LOL, imdw is still saying the lesson from MLK wasn’t to let go of race and treat people for content of character.

    He’s actually attempting to correct us. To imdw, the lesson is some redistribution crap. What a sham. There’s no way he seriously means it. That is so radical and disgusting.

    EW1, why can’t fundamental human rights also be part of civil rights? I think it’s fair to say that gun rights are civil rights too. My right to protect my family is, of course, mine no matter what the laws say, so I agree with you too.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. You can look up what the Poor People’s Campaign was.

    It was not a program to give free handouts to a bunch of parasites who would rather do drugs than work.

    It was a program to get people working so that they can use their talents not only to enrich themselves, but to enrich others.

    Pretty different from the War on Poverty, eh?

    Michael Ejercito (526413)

  107. President Obama will go down in history as one that made a bad situation worse. It is unfortunate that we have to live through the debacle. I’d be happier with either Clinton or Carter; although Reagan would be my top choice to right the ship.

    And let me be clear, Bush II would be just one notch above Obama – given the last dozen presidents from which to choose.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  108. a number of liberals (to whom I spoke personally so am not misrepresenting them) who knew of Obama’s inexperience but said outright that they thought it’d be a good thing for America to have an African American president and so voted for him.

    Such liberals are full of BS when they claim that. If Obama had the ideology of, say, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, most of those same liberals would stick their finger down their throat and promote the idea that America was a society that still wouldn’t vote for a black guy running for the presidency.

    Mark (411533)

  109. #82:

    Lets also require that that democrat be organizing a union.

    #90

    MLK went to memphis to help sanitation workers organize

    Not just content to be dishonest, you have to be stupid as well. And demonstrate it for all the world to see.

    That great hero of the labor movement, when the labor movement was in fact working for human rights, Samuel Gompers, made no secret of the fact that he was in it for his own personal gain. Unfortunately, his example was to be what the labor eventually evolved into.

    MLK’s organization of sanitation workers, OTOH, was a clear cut example of protesting discrimination, since the sanitation workers being organized were predominately black, and being discriminated against by the very institutions that we expect to protect human rights today.

    Unfortunately, all they have really done is to institutionalize racism against different people than they did before.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  110. “LOL, imdw is still saying the lesson from MLK wasn’t to let go of race and treat people for content of character.”

    I’m saying you’re a tokenizing fool if you thing someone like MLK had only “the” (singular) lesson for y’all. He taught us a lot of lessons.

    “That is so radical and disgusting.”

    How familiar are you with MLK? I’d say radical is a fair assessment of him. But clearly not disgusting.

    Let’s also not forget he was a registered republican, and that’s not tokenism. It’s substantive!

    “It was a program to get people working so that they can use their talents not only to enrich themselves, but to enrich others.

    Pretty different from the War on Poverty, eh?”

    Sure. Lets have it!

    imdw (843a5f)

  111. #94 Rochf:

    I will play my drinking game in the lobby of the nearest hospital

    If I was you, I’d make that the lobby of the Emergency Department at that nearest hospital. Just to be safe(r).

    😉

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  112. #102 Dustin:

    why can’t fundamental human rights also be part of civil rights? I think it’s fair to say that gun rights are civil rights too. My right to protect my family is, of course, mine no matter what the laws say, so I agree with you too.

    Dustin, the difference is in the phrase “no matter what the laws say.”

    A human right is an unalienable right that you possess no matter what the law says. A civil right, however, is a right that you possess because of what the law says.

    In application, it would be nice if human rights were enshrined in the law, so that the set of human rights is a foundation of, but also a subset of civil rights.

    But that isn’t always the case. As illustrated by JFPO’s video No Guns For Negroes, legislation and regulation have been used, even here in this country, to deprive our own citizens of their human rights.

    As another quick and dirty example, children in this country have human rights, like the rights to life and liberty, but because of their minority, haven’t yet acquired the civil right of voting.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  113. #107 Rochf

    Make sure it is an ER that is staffed by adequate personel, you wouldn’t want to be ignored passed out in the lobby. In other words, a medical center that has enough patients that are not covered by Medicaid (a first approximation of a national health care system).

    [Note: this is in no way a negative comment on those who work in such hospitals trying to give the best care possible. The people are to commended, those behind the systemic problems are not to be]. (Amazing how complicated this sub-thread has become.)

    Maybe you should just make it one sip of beer every other time.

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  114. Sure. Lets have it!

    Comment by imdw

    Did you have something to say about the State of the Union Speech and Matthews or Alito’s reactions?

    No? You want to talk about how Republicans are evil? Oh. Fascinating.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  115. #102 Dustin: I should also point out that even now, the people most often deprived of the human right to bear arms are those most in need of being able to do so: disproportionately lower income blacks in the inner cities, like Wash, DC. for example.

    As one Metro officer of my acquaintance told me, one way to cut down crime in DC would be to make DC a “shall issue” jurisdiction, where the city issues firearms to the grandmas around town now caring for their grandchildren at home.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  116. “No? You want to talk about how Republicans are evil? Oh. Fascinating.”

    MLK was a republican. He wasn’t evil. But you know that already, since you’re so familiar with the man.

    imdw (c5488f)

  117. EW1, you are so right. In fact, blacks stopping democrat klansmen is among the most glorious examples of our 2nd Amendment’s value.

    The senate had a reaction to Obama’s SOTU.

    Obama complained about how he inherited this horrible deficit that he voted for as Senator. Now, on a thursday when news are covering the speech and other things, the Senate voted to increase the debt ceiling.

    Did they listen to Obama’s words on cutting the deficit? Or did they listen to Obama’s promises to spend spend spend?

    The vote was 60/40. Amazingly, every single democrat wanted to increase the debt limit and every single republican did not.

    The democrats can talk all day about how they inherited a deficit, but here’s what they do with power: increase the debt limit. Borrow more money that our grandkids will have to pay for. By 2019, 90% of GDP. Eventually, when it collapses, no doubt the democrats will have another speech about how it isn’t their fault. They will want you to remember the democrats words yesterday and not their actions today.

    Obama and the democrats complained that Bush “cut” funds for many programs, often when he simply refused an increase. Then, they voted on a budget they now blame on others. Obama doesn’t want to be held responsible for the very few votes he actually made in his very short career. That’s my response to the state of the union. imdw’s response is some random demonization of some random republicans.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  118. I asked imdw what he thought of the SOTU, and his reaction was #116.

    I think he might not be winning this argument. And it might be driving him crazy. I have never seen someone so easily trolled into froth. Sure, he gets a lot of reactions, but he sets out to. All the GOP has to do is exist, and that’s more than poor fragile imdw can endure.

    The Congress was controlled by democrats since 2006, and blame Bush for bills the democrats had full control over. They and imdw are in synch. If all you ever do is blame things on Republicans, you never have to get to the debate on the democrats.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  119. “What Alito did was just fine. What was he supposed to do, just sit there while Mr. Obama scolded him like a misbehaving schoolboy? Shit! He should’ve stood up and head-butted Schumer.”

    – Icy Texan

    That… is a badass, awesome comment. I applaud you, sir.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  120. […] it on Bush”). Howard Fineman on MSNBC talked Mouth Mount Rushmore for Obama. We ignore these distractions – what matters is jobs, good paying long-term employment private sector career […]

    State Of The Union: IPad Versus IPoo — Hillary Is 44 (655ad4)

  121. The bottom line is that the Democrats had an entire year during which they possessed a filibuster-proof majority of all of Congress.

    And they could not get their highest priority legislation passed.

    An entire year.

    [fixed the html. –Stashiu]

    SPQR (b8ef0f)

  122. Hell, SPQR, they have had Congress since ’06. I love how they ignore their own complicity in the EVIL prior deficits, which have since been dwarfed by the Dems and Barcky’s deficits, in that they passed the budgets and voted for them. Barcky did so as a Senator, yet now wants the rhetorical cover of blaming someone else.

    JD (c15e93)

  123. MD in Philly–I guess a shot every other time would cut down on the intoxication–or I could just drink a shot when he insults the Supreme Court while the Justices are sitting there. Since, up to now, that’s never been done, maybe that’s safer.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  124. Yep, JD. The 2009 budget year got Obama’s 800 billion dollar faux stimulus pork stuffed into it – making it record breaking. That Obama wants to pretend that he had nothing to do with it shows his level of dishonesty pretty clear. 2010 budget year will be as bad, and worse than any of the Bush era budgets other than ’09. At present projections, the budget never gets as good as 7 of 8 Bush budgets again. Never.

    SPQR (b8ef0f)

  125. every single republican did not.

    That’s flat-out terrifying and is likely to cause me to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, in any federal legislative race until it changes.

    A vote to not extend the debt ceiling is basically a vote to shut the government down in a week or so when the ceiling gets hit.

    If that’s really what every single Republican in the Senate wants to do, then they should all be tossed out; shutting the government down while the legislature works out a long-term solution to the overspending problem is going to cause an immediate crisis in the lives of an enormous number of people.

    If it’s not what they want, then they are grandstanding for political purposes – casting a vote which doesn’t actually accord with their desires so that they can use the vote to blacken the name of their political opponents, which they can get away with because they know it will pass and so bear no responsibility to actually join in the act of governing.

    Either way, it’s a deeply, deeply irresponsible act.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  126. The bottom line is that the Democrats had an entire year during which they possessed a filibuster-proof majority of all of Congress.

    And they could not get their highest priority legislation passed.

    SPQR: the Democrats in Congress appear to be a bunch of inept fools.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  127. I believe that Obama is on the way to making Jimmy Carter look like a competent president.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  128. aphrael, you have a point. Republicans often want to spend a ton of money on all kinds of retarded crap too, and part of that is accepting a higher debt ceiling.

    But we’re way past that point. A government shut down is not some catastrophe… we are out of money. we are stealing from several generations down the road.

    We need to balance the budget. They should come up with a new budget right now that borrows nothing, and never increase the debt ceiling again.

    That’s what the nays are trying to say. Yeah, you have a point they are also grandstanding. the GOP deserves to be criticized for being simply less ridiculous on spending than the democrats.

    Even the worst GOP spending always came along with democrats whining that it was not enough spending. But that’s not much of an excuse.

    I support the vote to not increase the debt ceiling. And the reason is simple. The problems you are talking about: they are going to occur not matter what. Eventually, we are not going to be able to borrow more and our system will enter a new crisis. Whether we increase the debt ceiling and push the problem to the future, or we face reality today, the idea that there is a way to borrow our way out of this problem is an illusion.

    so false dichotomy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  129. Rochf – I also recommended a sip of beer rather than a shot- that way you will likely survive without needing to be put on a ventilator…

    The supreme court is a safer bet, maybe even too boring at this point. he is breaking new territory with that one.

    Buy some nice champagne and wait until you have a trifecta, a Representative, a Senator, and a Justice all speak out in protest during the same speech.

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  130. Of course, I’ve not even gotten to ridicule Obama’s brilliant plan to stimulate the economy …. trains.

    This guy has no game plan other than reinforcing failure.

    SPQR (b8ef0f)

  131. That’s flat-out terrifying and is likely to cause me to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, in any federal legislative race until it changes.

    A vote to not extend the debt ceiling is basically a vote to shut the government down in a week or so when the ceiling gets hit

    That’s awfully selective of you, Aphrael. Back in 2006, all the Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling. In fact, a Senator from Illinois at the time was quoted as saying:

    “Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

    Some chump (d97978)

  132. #125 aphrael:

    Either way, it’s a deeply, deeply irresponsible act.

    Baloney. It’s not an “either or” situation.

    To extend the debt limit far beyond what it is already is “a deeply, deeply irresponsible act.”

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  133. Alphrael, with respect to you, my friend, did you really mean this line?:

    If it’s not what they want, then they are grandstanding for political purposes – casting a vote which doesn’t actually accord with their desires so that they can use the vote to blacken the name of their political opponents, which they can get away with because they know it will pass and so bear no responsibility to actually join in the act of governing.

    I would list the many times that Democrats have done this in the last year … ( and Republicans too ) but I’d be writing for quite a few pages. A day has not passed in Washington for quite a few years that this did not occur.

    SPQR (b8ef0f)

  134. Some Chump, Obama was right.

    Aphrael probably didn’t know the democrats did that, or he would have voted for Republicans, consistent with his views.

    I think he has a strong point… the GOP and Democrats are hypocritical to spend a lot while noting we can’t spend that much. We are rapidly approaching a serious problem and need to increasing our debt. Sure, the increase is more rapid under Obama than Bush, but same logic applies.

    We need a balanced budget amendment.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  135. Aphrael (#125)

    Is shutting down government really what it means? I thought there were hundreds of Billions from the stimulus that were approved but still not deligated or spent.

    At this point the Dems in Congress are acting like enablers to a wayward teen- “I’ll cut down next week, but if I don’t get some booze now I’ll go into withdrawl, and you won’t want that”. After the 12th time of that (once a month), something else needs to happen.

    Perhaps it would cause a crisis, in which case I’ll have a little sympathy for your argument, but on the surface it sounds like you are simply going with Obama’s status quo of saying whatever d— thing that sounds good at the moment and then doing whatever else he really wants to do.

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  136. We don’t even need that, Dustin. All we have to do is limit spending increases to a fixed percentage of GDP growth each year. Eventually, the revenue from taxes will exceed the budget. In years when the GDP contracts, spending should be held constant.

    Here’s more on Debt Ceiling 2006

    Senator HARRY REID (Democrat, Nevada): We’re being asked to do what shouldn’t be asked of us, to increase the debt to almost nine trillion dollars. I hope everyone walking down to these desks today will understand what they’re doing, what they’re doing to our country. On this side of the aisle, we know

    Some chump (d97978)

  137. Some Chump, that’s a fair proposal. It’s probably more realistic than mine.

    Either way, we need to stop spending so much damn money.

    Both the GOP and the Democrats play this game, and it was kinda odd to see Aphrael say it’s scaring him into voting for democrats, but he probably didn’t know that Obama and Reid did this same thing. I sadly suspect the GOP would not have been 100% on this if they didn’t realize the bill was going to pass.

    Fact is, we need to spend less money. It’s amazing that nearly every Senator has, at some point, noted how horribly irresponsible it is to have a debt ceiling this high. You’d think they would be able to pass a budget that was a lot cheaper.

    Obama says he inherited a deficit and a mess that he actively took party in making. That’s sick, but par for the course in DC.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  138. I would list the many times that Democrats have done this in the last year … ( and Republicans too ) but I’d be writing for quite a few pages. A day has not passed in Washington for quite a few years that this did not occur.

    Of course it does. Politics appears to be all about grandstanding and not about serving the public.

    But that doesn’t mean I have to like it, and in this case I find it irritating.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  139. Some Chump: I suspect that you’ll find that the Democrats in 2006 railed against the debt ceiling increase and then voted for it as a necessary evil. That’s a bit different than voting against it.

    EW1(SG): did they vote to increase the debt ceiling “far beyond what it already is”? It looks like the vote was for $1.9 trillion, which is an inrease of about 15%.

    That said, I had assumed the increase was smaller than that – last time it was increased by an amount which basically kicked the can by just a month. The size of the increase does make the Republican vote more understandable.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  140. aphrael, but you said this was encouraging you to vote for democrats. Don’t you admit that’s unfair?

    In fact, while it’s not logically impossible to say a debt ceiling for 9 trillion is OK and a debt ceiling of 14 trillion is not OK, it is patently impossible to do the converse, making Obama and Reid’s actions a bit more starkly grandstanding, and the GOP’s potentially a ‘enough is enough’ moment?

    Not that I really think the GOP deserves that much credit, but you did imply this vote compels you to vote democrat.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. Did you find it equally irritating when Teh One did it, aphrael?

    JD (c15e93)

  142. JD: I haven’t seen ‘Teh One’ fail to vote for something which was essential to the continuing operation of the government while relying on his opponents to ensure that it happened, so that he could then attack them for doing what was necessary.

    That’s the *specific* action I’m objecting to.

    Dustin: I think that it’s a disaster that we need this increase. On the other hand, voting against the increase is a vote to shut the government down when we hit the limit, which everyone knows we will do.

    Denouncing the increase while voting for it is hypocritical. Voting against the increase is, on the other hand, a vote to trigger an immediate crisis.

    It’s the vote to trigger an immediate crisis which bothers me and makes me unwilling to cast a vote which will hand more power to the people so voting.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  143. Aren’t you going to accuse Republicans as pedophiles again, sweetie? After all, you’ve covered all of your other slimy – ass basics. Go for the gold, asshat.

    Dmac (539341)

  144. aphrael, Obama made this exact nay vote on this exact issue. I don’t understand how you make the distinction. And you say he’s not grandstanding when he’s OK with a higher ceiling now. That’s impossible to understand.

    Perhaps you should give the GOP senators the same latitude you give to Obama.

    The sooner he stop the spending binge, the better. Now is the time to do it. Government shut downs aren’t the worst thing that could happen with this. I want to avoid that too, but it’s far from the worst consequence in play.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  145. Dmac: excuse me, who are you talking to in #143? Was that directed at me?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  146. “We need a balanced budget amendment.”

    Aw man memories of the early 90’s.

    imdw (603c39)

  147. That’s awfully selective of you, Aphrael. Back in 2006, all the Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling. In fact, a Senator from Illinois at the time was quoted as saying:

    “Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

    Did you miss this one, aphrael?

    JD (c15e93)

  148. Dmac: excuse me, who are you talking to in #143? Was that directed at me?

    NO, of course not – it was directed at imadoofus.

    Dmac (539341)

  149. “Dmac: excuse me, who are you talking to in #143? Was that directed at me?

    Comment by aphrael ”

    I don’t speak for dmac, but imdw was trolling this thread pretty hard core, and he indeed did lie about someone he disagreed with being a child rapist. That’s a likely explanation. If you haven’t ever called anyone a pedo (and your intelligent contributions make me suspect you aren’t that kind of psycho), then that’s probably what this is about.

    Indeed, imdw is a really psychotic person, who has made a lot of disturbing jokes and allegations.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  150. 139.Some Chump: I suspect that you’ll find that the Democrats in 2006 railed against the debt ceiling increase and then voted for it as a necessary evil. That’s a bit different than voting against it.

    No, aphrael, and if you had done some research (or even clicked the link I provided), you would have seen that ALL of the Democrats in the Senate voted against raising the debt ceiling.

    Ball’s back in your court.

    Some chump (d97978)

  151. Oh, is this the problem? Yeah, Some Chump documented his point.

    Why is aphrael assuming the democrats would be so honorable about this? I think he’s thinking they are just a bit weaker and less effective as a force, and were convinced to support the GOP all the time on these things.

    Not in this case. They did exactly what the GOP did now, only they make the logically impossible claim that it’s not OK to have a lower debt ceiling then and OK to have a higher one now. Unanimously.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  152. That is a logically consistent claim, Dustin. You have to understand that their “principles” are situational, in this case, it was dependent on the party of the sitting President.

    JD (c15e93)

  153. Here’s more:

    Raising the debt ceiling is one of lawmakers’ least popular votes, and Democrats made sure Republicans who control Congress did the heavy lifting alone. The Senate approved raising the debt limit by $781 billion on a 52-48 vote. Three of 55 Republicans — Conrad Burns of Montana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Ensign of Nevada — sided with Democrats against it. Burns and Ensign are up for election in November. The House avoided a separate vote as a result of obscure rules that automatically sent the measure to the Senate as part of last year’s budget.

    Not a single Democrat in either chamber of Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling in 2006. How times have changed.

    Some chump (d97978)

  154. That is a logically consistent claim, Dustin. You have to understand that their “principles” are situational, in this case, it was dependent on the party of the sitting President.

    Comment by JD

    oooooh!

    Yeah, that’s true. Just like when Bill Clinton wanted to change the regime of Iraq in 1998, right? I am, sadly, kinda naive about it. I know you’re being sarcastic, but I really expect some of these senators (on both sides), to not be so partisan about this particular issue. it’s already a nearly unsolvable problem. They can’t really want this to be their legacy, can they? People will talk about these senators’ betrayal and greed and partisanship for centuries. That is probably all most of them will be remembered for.

    Quite rightly.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  155. What say you, aphrael?

    JD (c15e93)

  156. “No, that’s not important. We forget that aspect of MLK because it is not what matters. Content of character. ”

    Yes. So we forget the “content of character” of MLK. Nice work dude. Face it. MLK was a lefty radical that wanted a whole lot of things. And he was a registered republican.

    imdw (cd4b7a)

  157. imdw ignores the entire thread again to talk about racism?

    I am stunned. Oh, what’s that, imdw is lying about mlk to call him a radical leftist, in the hopes that he goads a lot of people to stop pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy of the democrat senate vote today? Color me shocked.

    Lying about MLK, that’s what imdw is doing today. As mentioned by others, he actually makes up fantasies about child rape and feels no shame or need to apologize or defend that conduct. So I guess lying about MLK is like a high point for him.

    MLK was a very Christian man, a very conservative man, with values and honor. He risked his life by fighting the democrats for many years. imdw knows how people honor MLK’s having the same view on race the GOP has today… the view that the democrats still fight to this day. That most central aspect of MLK shouldn’t be screwed with, but imdw has a problem with us talking about the SOTU or the Senate vote today.

    He needs to change the subject so badly. If this doesn’t work, he will probably try something worse.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. “imdw ignores the entire thread again to talk about racism?”

    Racism? Do you not understand what part of MLK’s work I’m talking about?

    “MLK was a very Christian man, a very conservative man, with values and honor. ”

    I know! A registered republican — that wanted government policies of minimum income and full employment! Next up you’ll find him talking about…..redistribution.

    But then you’ll ignore *that* content of his character. right?

    imdw (842182)

  159. Look, over there! Something shiny!

    You guys love racism, war, and poverty. iamadickwad told us so.

    JD (c15e93)

  160. “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stridently denounced abortion as a form of genocide. (Lifelines, Winter 1997, p.14 online)

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    —”I have a Dream,” Speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., August 28, 1963

    Why bother going on. This isn’t worth my time. I love that the democrats say it doesn’t matter that MLK was a republican, because blacks were all republicans back then. In other words, we shouldn’t grant one party superiority on racial matters if all blacks support one party. That’s a good point, I admit.

    Just shut up, imdw. You are wrong. This guy would be considered very conservative today, and you’re actually lying about an American hero… not even to make a point, but to distract a fucking thread on the State of the Union. I asked you what you thought of Obama’s speech, and this is your pathetic attempt to avoid discussing Obama’s failure.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  161. I’m trying to think of what would be so important that I would be willing to lie about Abraham Lincoln or MLK or someone like that.

    It would have to be damn important. like feeding my kids or something.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  162. #139 aphrael:

    It looks like the vote was for $1.9 trillion, which is an inrease of about 15%.

    As somebody who sought to maximize the use of every single taxpayer dollar that I was responsible for, I think 15% a GINORMOUS increase.

    And let’s not forget that Congress has adopted a number of subterfuges over the years that separate the actually operating appropriations from the sums that we are talking about.

    There is just no way that the government would “shutdown” if the debt ceiling were not raised. For one thing, it ain’t gonna cost as much to run the government this year as last, because the economy, like it or not, is contracting. So many costs are actually decreasing.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  163. MLK wanted EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — not FORCED EQUALITY! Those are two very different things, imaginary-monkey-dingleberry-wobbler.

    Icy Texan (0745f4)

  164. I’m going to start a war against poor racists

    Icy Texan (0745f4)

  165. EW1(SG): did they vote to increase the debt ceiling “far beyond what it already is”? It looks like the vote was for $1.9 trillion, which is an inrease of about 15%.

    Back in 2006, the Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling by about $800 billion, or roughly 10%.

    But that was different.

    Some chump (d97978)

  166. Thanks, Leviticus!

    Icy Texan (0745f4)

  167. “MLK wanted EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — not FORCED EQUALITY! Those are two very different things, imaginary-monkey-dingleberry-wobbler.”

    Hey whatever you want to call it. But you can’t deny he worked for guaranteed income and full employment policies. That he wanted a broader distribution of wealth.

    I mean, you can deny it. But you’d be wrong and ignorant to.

    So I think y’all know why I love hearing that “MLK was a republican.”

    imdw (6160de)

  168. You also love sticking your finger between you asscheeks, and then smelling it.

    JD (c15e93)

  169. #129–can you recommend a domestic champagne? I hate to give any support to the French while they’re dissing the US efforts in Haiti, even if they do produce some fine vintages.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  170. Say, imdw, do you have any opinion to offer about responses to Obama’s state of the union by Matthews of Alito? Or anything to say about the Senate vote today?

    What’s that? You think the GOP is racist? Oh? And Rush is an antisemite? Oh really? And you think Beck is a rapist? Oh? And you think the CIA invented AIDS? Really? and you think Bush let 9/11 happen?

    Oh. But do you have any views on this topic… the SOTU?

    No? you just want us to not talk about it? How peculiar.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  171. It’s interesting that the best attraction this troll has found to get lots of responses wasn’t to attack Rush or to lie about Beck. The new standby for imdw to get conservatives to stop talking about the actual topic is to attack MLK.

    That says a lot about conservatives.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  172. “Say, imdw, do you have any opinion to offer about responses to Obama’s state of the union by Matthews of Alito? Or anything to say about the Senate vote today?”

    I thought alito’s response was quite interesting. I was wondering why he was the only one of the majority to act that way. Maybe he was thinking of Obama’s speech on the nomination of Alito. I think matthews is in general kind of wacky and I don’t watch him. And what else is there to say about the senate vote? We’re in a recession and we need the limit to go up.

    “The new standby for imdw to get conservatives to stop talking about the actual topic is to attack MLK. ”

    Attack? You don’t see praise for the “content of his character”?

    imdw (05d41e)

  173. Catching up now that I’m out on bail for having a “listening device” near a Federal facility (just kidding)…
    IT…Head butting Chuckie would be very messy. First you have to pull his head out of his back-side…But, that was a keeper!…

    SPQR…The Dems have it down to a science in allowing members to cast meaningless votes for self-protection. The Assy Public Safety Cmte in CA has done this for years in shooting down tough law & order bills, but allowing their Dem members to vote Aye to look good for the rubes back in their purple districts…

    aphrael…Your concern over the continued operation of the Federal Government is not credible in light of the games that have been played over spending by all sides, but particularly the Leftists in Congress. Personally, with what you have written here on almost every issue you have commented upon, I doubt whether you would ever vote for a Republican, let alone a conservative of either Party.
    And, let’s just remember that when the votes were taken to authorize the massive spending bills of the last year (and including the first vote on TARP), there were very few, if any, GOP votes for these budget busters. Why would it be irresponsible for the GOP to vote not to raise the debt ceiling when they didn’t vote to authorize the causitive factor, the spending, in the first place – sounds to me that they are just being true to their principles.
    Nancy & Co. wanted this obscene increase in spending, now they have to live with the consequences.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  174. Comment by Rochf — 1/28/2010 @ 2:57 pm

    Korbel!

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  175. AD is right, the massive spending that Obama can’t take responsibility for actually didn’t get all this GOP support.

    Here’s what I would ask Aphrael.

    Imagine the GOP won on this today and the ceiling stayed in place… if the debt ceiling was reached (which it has been before), and the government shut down (not necessarily the case) and had to borrow much less, leading to a permanent adjustment in spending for the next forever, with the government borrowing much less money every year. Would that be worth the short term problems of a government shut down?

    Would finally getting the GOP and democrats to be closer to sustainability in spending justify the problems of a government shut down? I think it would. 50 years from now, the government shut down would look like a small price to pay. Practically a nothing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  176. AD – about Korbel … good CA Champagne … however, given Rochf’s specifcations, it probably doesn’t qualify, since the charge of brandy that makes the méthode champenoise work is actual France-French Cognac …

    On the upside, when you can find Korbel Brandy, it is that same Cognac, bottled under the Korbel name, yet actually good-quality cognac …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  177. Different question – who were the Senators from massachusetts at the SOTU ?

    Was Senator Brown there ? Or was it Senator Kirk ?

    And if Senator Brown wasn’t there, why was he not there ?

    Alasdair (d63108)

  178. Icy Texan: So, let’s try to figure this out, Assclown. BECAUSE he’s the POTUS it’s alright for him to shit-talk the SCOTUS during the SOTU speech?

    Separation of powers baby. That wasn’t shit-talk that was healthy disagreement. I know that’s a novel concept for a party used to being a monolithic rubber stamp for itself, but there you go.

    Someone needed to say it, it’s a foul ruling, anyway you slice it. You Federalist nationalists type will just have to take responsibility for it. Don’t get mad at Obama, get mad at the countless Supremes down the ages who will look at the Citizen’s United ruling and wonder how and why a Chief Justice who held such promise could put his name on such a poorly executed, sloppy, partisan, tawdry, activist, compromising ruling.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  179. Comment by Alasdair — 1/28/2010 @ 4:55 pm

    Well, he wanted an American champagne, and I’ve always thought that Korbel was the best; and considering the price, rivaling some of France’s best.
    Now, there is also Domaine Chandon, which is French-owned, but grown and produced in the Sonoma Valley of CA.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  180. Why do you and Teh One hate the 1st Amendment, Assbandit?

    JD (c15e93)

  181. That pesky First Amendment is too important to be entrusted to the Great-Unwashed; its’ protections must be preserved for the exhalted who are able to appreciate them.
    BTW, got any cake?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  182. Assclown is the kind of person this country has been fighting for centuries. We usually win.

    Freedom won in Citizens United. Assclown can’t take it. It’s gotten under his skin that people can say whatever they want about Obama. He’s cheering how Obama can talk shit to the Court (even though even the NYT admits Obama was wrong and out of line), but he just can’t stand us private citizens being totally unrestricted in political speech. So unrestricted we can are free to associate in corporations and speak.

    It’s a shame, for him. Obama raised a lot of money from billionaires and crooks and foreigners (by turning off credit card validation for donations), and now he’s having to lie about foriegn company boogeymen.

    gues what, assclown, the author of that decision… the guy Obama was primarily disrespecting, was Justice Kennedy. He’s going to be around for a while and he saw first hand how critical it is that people be free to speak against Obama. He will have a hard time siding with Obama again.

    Way to go for your fearless leader being a rude jackass… he just helped the GOP immeasurably.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  183. So I think y’all know why I love hearing that “MLK was a republican.”

    Actually, we do.

    It’s ’cause you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  184. “…You Federalist nationalists type will just have to take responsibility for it….”

    First off, that is hilarious. Coming from someone who chooses to call himself “assclown.” Don’t you all want to see this person define “Federalist” without running off to Wikipedia?

    I smell sophomore politics major.

    “…a Chief Justice who held such promise could put his name on such a poorly executed, sloppy, partisan, tawdry, activist, compromising ruling…”

    Great. Let’s see you, Mr. Doody, do a legal analysis of the ruling. I mean, since you think it such an awful thing. Cite precent. Don’t plagiarize. Everyone here—especially folks with legal training—want to read your insightful, carefully researched comments. No fair using Mother Jones or Pacifica Radio as a source.

    You are such a poseur. Pfft! Go away, little troll. You aren’t simply boring, you are a sad little man, aren’t you?

    A bitter clinger to your Hope and Change, it seems!

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  185. Sure it does, EW1. The hole in the ground is where it drops a deuce, and its ass is its finger receptacle.

    JD (c15e93)

  186. How many people here have seen inside the personal offices of Supreme Court Justices?

    I haven’t seen the office of Sotomayor, Roberts, or Alito, but last time I was there I noticed that Kennedy’s office was dramatically different from the others.

    He sees himself as an institution. I don’t really like his attitude about things, but I get the impression his ego is wrapped up tightly in the pomp of his job in a way it isn’t (as much) for the others. I think he set himself up in that position of being the deciding vote.

    He likes being the decisive vote. And I think he takes it personally when the president calls on hundreds of congressmen to jeer the Court, in the same room. Of all the ruling to lose your bearing over, one Kennedy authored is particularly awful. On free speech, even.

    Perhaps these Justices are so calm and cool they won’t let this affect them in the future. Except Kennedy. I just don’t see how he doesn’t react the next time a major case appears.

    And there isn’t much Obama can do about it. If he replaces a Justice it’s going to be one of the liberals anyway. All Obama had to do was act like the President, and even that was above his paygrade.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  187. Caught the speech out at a local eatery. Dinner guests and assorted patrons were satisfied with the speech and the special– veal. All agreed little ‘change’ for the better has occurred over the past year and nothing ‘concrete’ has materialized on ‘Main Street’ as opposed to Wall Street, yet.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  188. Didn’t Kennedy write that opinion that you are gnashing your teeth about, assbandit?

    JD (c15e93)

  189. More fantasy from the serial fabulist.

    JD (c15e93)

  190. DCSCA, what restaurant plays that speech?

    Good grief that’s horrible atmosphere. Partisan politics and veal. Both full of fat and born of laziness.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  191. That’s flat-out terrifying and is likely to cause me to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, in any federal legislative race until it changes.

    aphrael, that is a change from what ? Come on.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  192. If they all agreed, which they didn’t since they do not exist, it helps explain you a little better. Nature vs nurture, and all that.

    JD (c15e93)

  193. I am still curious why this did not cause aphrael to rend his garments and flee the unserious Dems and Barcky (redundant) in 2006 when they did the exact same thing, for a much smaller figure, but has this type of reaction when the R’s do the same.

    JD (c15e93)

  194. Dustin, replace “veal” with “chicken wings.” It was a sports bar, not a place that serves veal, I would guess.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  195. Rochf-

    I have very little knowledge of champagne*, but for the beer-sipping I think I would find out (again) what the police officer from Boston drank at the WH beer summit, just for the symbolism. Or maybe something linked with the revolution like Sam Adams (though I’ve never tried it).

    *(I do know that there are things with the name “Rothschild” on them which are cheap imitations of the “real stuff”. Among all of the surprises we found in our old Victorian, an old unopened bottle with “Rothschild” was among them. We had transient hopes that it might off-set some of the not-so-pleasant surprises, like a leaking roof, but, alas, it was not to be).

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  196. Chicken wings >>>>>>>>>>>>> Veal

    I’m still curious as to what restaurant showed the SOTU with audio. That’s just amazing. I would actually love to visit such a place.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  197. Comment by Eric Blair — 1/28/2010 @ 6:00 pm

    DuckCrap would never patronize a SportsBar – it would be too intimidating.
    Even on ‘winks night!

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  198. Comment by MD in Philly — 1/28/2010 @ 6:11 pm

    Samuel Adams Lager is pretty good beer – we keep a supply in the cooler in the race trailor for end-of-the-day bench-racing. That and Fat Tire.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  199. There aren’t any, Dustin. He is, yet again, making something up. No only did they should it with audio, but they then had a community discussion about it, and were unanimous in their approval. Right.

    JD (c15e93)

  200. Did he really claim to be a SEAL or in the CIA, or was that just mocking him for making other stuff up?

    I guess at least he’s only lying about himself. That’s better than one troll in particular.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  201. Yes, he most certainly did, Dustin.

    JD (c15e93)

  202. I’ve updated the post to add Dustin’s link.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  203. Yes, he most certainly did, Dustin.

    Comment by JD

    DCSCA, some of your comments seem reasonable, even though I disagree with your views.

    Whatever you feel you need to compensate for to the extent that you’d pretend to be a heroic SEAL must be a damn miserable inadequacy. You probably should kill this internet persona.

    Good Lord.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  204. Dustin, at 144:

    I’m making a distinction between Obama’s actions as President and the actions of members of Congress; I have not seen him, as President, act in the irresponsible way that Republican members of Congress are acting with this vote.

    That said, you’re right that I should take into account his actions as a Senator. I made an incorrect assumption about the behavior of the Democrats during the Republican majority – their actions then were every bit as irresponsible as the actions of the Republicans were today.

    At the same time, I view your comment of “The sooner he stop the spending binge, the better. Now is the time to do it. Government shut downs aren’t the worst thing that could happen with this. I want to avoid that too, but it’s far from the worst consequence in play” as being somewhat nihilistic: you’re willing to risk a serious, potentially catastrophic crisis now because you think doing so will make things better tomorrow. My concern is that the resulting crisis might be so bad that a better tomorrow is rendered impossible … and that the cost of achieving it, even if it isn’t impossible, would be prohibitively high. I think balancing the budget tomorrow would trigger a recession that would make what we’ve seen in the last year look trivial.

    JD, at 147:

    yes, I missed that one. I was posting in the middle of dealing with a serious work crisis (which required me to wait, not doing anything important, until inputs came in and then act on those inputs immediately — meaning that reading and commenting on blogs was a reasonable thing to do while I was waiting, because it didn’t matter if I was interrupted, but also meaning that I wasn’t paying full attention to them, either).

    Dustin, at 149:

    thank you for the kind comments about just what kind of pyscho I am. :) I was tempted to respond with something about how I’m my own special kind of psycho, just like I’m my own special kind of snowflake. :)

    Seriously, though, I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone a pedophile, with the possible exception of Michael Jackson – but I’m sensitive to comments like that posted as immediate reactions to my comments.

    Some Chump, at 150:

    You’re right. I made an invalid assumption.

    The Democrats in 2006 were being irresponsible when they voted against the debt limit increase.

    JD, at 155:

    I say “I’m not here right now.” Or at least that’s what I said at 2.03. :)

    EW1(SG):

    For one thing, it ain’t gonna cost as much to run the government this year as last, because the economy, like it or not, is contracting

    Maybe. But revenue is decreasing, too. And countercylical costs are going up.

    I also disagree with your general point. Given that we’re close to the debt ceiling, and given that every day we spend more money than we take in, if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, at some point soon we’re going to hit it. The options for the government at that point are (a) dramatically cut spending to be taking in more than we’re spending, which may not be possible absent emergency congressional authorization, (b) violate the debt ceiling, watch our bond rating tank, and wait for someone to sue, or (c) shut the government down. Of those, the shutdown is the most likely.

    Some Chump, at 155:

    No, it wasn’t different. It was just as irresponsible.

    AD – Rtr/OS, at 173:

    I have voted for Republicans in the past. In 2000, I voted for Sen. McCain for President (California had an open Primary) and Tom Campbell (the Republican candidate running against Sen. Feinstein). I voted for Matt Fong in 2002 when he ran for Treasurer. I voted for Bruce McPherson for both Assembly and Senate several times. I voted for Tom McClintock the last time he ran for Controller.

    I have an intense dislike for social conservatives because I’m a married openly gay man and most social conservative politicians have a problem with the very concept of that. But even then, it’s not a complete bar – Rep. McClintock is a social conservative, but he would also make an ideal controller, and so I voted for him on that.

    Your concern over the continued operation of the Federal Government is not credible in light of the games that have been played over spending by all sides

    Pardon me if it seems to me that you are seeking to hold me responsible for games played by others. That seems unfair.

    Why would it be irresponsible for the GOP to vote not to raise the debt ceiling when they didn’t vote to authorize the causitive factor, the spending, in the first place

    Because voting against raising the debt ceiling is saying: “when we run against the ceiling, we have to stop borrowing”, and in an environment in which the operation of the government depends on spending more every day than we are taking in, that means triggering a crisis as soon as the limit is reached.

    sounds to me that they are just being true to their principles.

    Voting against the spending is one thing. Given that Congress has authorized the spending, voting against raising the debt limit is voting to cause a crisis. It’s putting their partisan interest above the interest of the nation.

    Dustin, at 175:

    Would that be worth the short term problems of a government shut down?

    It depends on how long it took to get there. If we got there in a week, as in the ridiculous wish-fulfillment episode of the West Wing where Bartlett fixed the budget problem in a day, then yes.

    But my guess is, given how disfunctional Congress is, that it would take months to get there. And, additionally, given how dependant the economy is on government spending, if it were done overnight and not tapered down over 5-6 years, I think the result would be an economic tailspin which would be devastating.

    Dustin, at 185:

    I get the impression his ego is wrapped up tightly in the pomp of his job

    That’s … depressing. I don’t have the dislike for him that many of you do, but … being obsessed with the form and pomp of a job, instead of its substance, is somewhat pathetic in general.

    Mike K, at 190:

    It’s really impressive to me how doctrinaire you assume I am. I have voted for Republicans – many of them listed above. I have voted for Libertarians. I have voted for Greens. I haven’t voted for candidates from the American Independent Party, but on some level that’s hardly surprising.

    In this particular election I am likely to be torn. I’m not fond of Sen. Boxer, and I think voting against Mr. Bernanke’s reconfirmation was a dumb move. If Mrs. Fiorina were the Republican nominee, I would vote for Boxer – but polls show that it’s actually likely to be former Rep. Campbell, a Republican who I like and have voted for before.

    So the question for me is: does my dislike for her, and my liking for him, outweigh my reluctance to give the Republicans in the Senate more power right now?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  205. aphrael – I still don’t get the outright hostility you expressed for Republicans doing this, and how it would effect your voting patterns, in comparison to the reaction you had to the Dems having done so, which elicited a far more muted reaction.

    JD (c15e93)

  206. About Justice Kennedy, it is pretty depressing. His room is strangely decorated and though I never spoke with him directly (I’m not at all notable like that by any stretch), the impression is that he’s ‘A Big Deal’.

    anyway, that’s not my point. Some people who make it to the top of their profession get big heads. The point is that Obama probably knows that Kennedy is not a person to insult, and he really set back a lot of battles he hasn’t even gotten into yet. This is going to come back on him.

    But since he’s already gone beyond FDR in demonizing the court, perhaps he’ll just pack it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  207. The Democrats in 2006 were being irresponsible when they voted against the debt limit increase.

    Fair enough.

    My problem with this is that you claimed the action of the Republicans was reason to make you vote for a Democrat reflexively. But you were either unaware of what happened in 2006, or you did not remember it, because I’m pretty sure you haven’t been voting Republican reflexively since then.

    In short, you overreached on this one.

    Some chump (d97978)

  208. To put a finer point on it: Barbara Boxer voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. By your logic, you should not vote for her at all this year, no matter who her opponent is.

    Some chump (d97978)

  209. So the latest thing is people don’t think there can be a sports bar with a tv turned up to the state of the union. Ooookay.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  210. So the latest thing is people don’t think there can be a sports bar with a tv turned up to the state of the union.

    Uh, no, dumbass.

    Most people here don’t associate veal with sports bars.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  211. Comment by Assclown doodyheads — 1/28/2010 @ 5:03 pm

    Separation of powers baby.
    — What does this mean, Ass-crown? If Joe Biden happens to stop in at the SCOTUS, can Scalia stand up and announce on-the-record “every decision you’ve made as a part of this administration has only served to weaken the Constitution?

    That wasn’t shit-talk that was healthy disagreement. I know that’s a novel concept for a party used to being a monolithic rubber stamp for itself, but there you go.
    — What EXACTLY is “healthy” about scolding those that have been empowered to do this job? Sounds alot like ivory-tower pontificating, to me. Oh, and excuse me, but are you labeling ME a Republican? Sorry, Archie.

    Someone needed to say it, it’s a foul ruling, anyway you slice it.
    — Gee, it sounds so much scarier when you don’t go into any specifics!

    You Federalist nationalists type will just have to take responsibility for it.
    — Yeah, WE are the ones seeking to cede more power and control to the government. Have you requested that Ear Leader give up some power? return some control to the states?

    Don’t get mad at Obama, get mad at the countless Supremes down the ages who will look at the Citizen’s United ruling and wonder how and why a Chief Justice who held such promise could put his name on such a poorly executed, sloppy, partisan, tawdry, activist, compromising ruling.
    — Nice string of adjectives. Are they supposeed to come together and form anything resembling a coherent statement? or is just a different way of saying “I don’t like it”?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Icy Texan (2dde99)

  212. The thought of Obama and veal in the same sentence is now making me sick. I’m off to the liquor store or the medicine cabinet to see what will erase that from my mind.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  213. Some chump:
    Barbara Boxer voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. By your logic, you should not vote for her at all this year, no matter who her opponent is.

    Not so. That requires a subtle misreading of what I said, which was:

    likely to cause me to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, in any federal legislative race until it changes.

    In Boxer’s case, it’s changed since 2006. She voted to raise the debt ceiling last year, and this year. She may have on other occasions; those are the two I know about.

    In short, you overreached on this one.

    Probably, yes. I was having a terrible day yesterday and was therefore unusually likely to experience emotional overreactions … and correspondingly lacked the wisdom to refrain from posting them.

    That said, I think there is a difference between what the Democrats were doing in 2006 and what the Republicans are doing today: I think the Democrats in 2006 were being cheaply partisan trying to score points via a facade, whereas I think a significant percentage of the Republicans in 2010 actually believe it and would be willing to force the issue of government debt by simply not authorizing an expansion.

    So, for any given Republican, how can I tell if he’s someone who will continue to (in my view) act irresponsibly once the Republicans regain the majority (thereby triggering what I think would be a disastrous crisis), and how can I tell if he’s someone who will take the (I think more reasonable) course of acquiescing in the short term while continuing to fight in the medium- to long-term?

    The answer is: I can’t.

    And that makes me worried about every Republican today in a way that I wasn’t worried about every Democrat in 2006. Ironically enough, it’s because I was confident that they didn’t mean what they said when they were irresponsibly grandstanding, and I can’t tell which Republicans do.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  214. Incidentally, this is the mirror image of the question I imagine Dustin would ask: how can he tell which Republicans mean it when they say they oppose expanding the debt limit (and would continue to do that even if they were in power), and how can he tell which ones don’t?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  215. Yeah, that is a pickle Aphrael. No doubt about it. And when the GOP takes power again, we will probably be disappointed. I think we will see us approach the cliff more slowly, but until the TEA folks take over the GOP I have little confidence that we will actually become sustainable.

    But I personally see no hope at all with the democrats on spending. I have to work on the GOP because that’s, unfortunately, my best option.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  216. Comment by aphrael — 1/29/2010 @ 11:10 am

    Barbara Boxer voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. By your logic, you should not vote for her at all this year, no matter who her opponent is.
    Not so. That requires a subtle misreading of what I said, which was:
    “…likely to cause me to vote for the Democrat, whoever it is, in any federal legislative race until it changes.

    The only thing that changed is that when she voted against raising the debt ceiling, she was in the minority; and when she voted for raising the debt ceiling, she was in the majority.
    That is what is called partisanship, and you’re being as obtuse and dishonest as she is to ignore it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  217. AD – I think you missed the point I was making in my response to Dustin, and I resent the accusation of being dishonest.

    The reason that the Republican vote on this issue makes me reluctant to vote for them is that I am worried that, if they have the majority, they will continue to vote the same way, and I think that would be a disaster.

    If they retake the majority and change their vote, then they’re being crassly political and choosing to be irresponsible for the purpose of making cheap shots when in the minority while choosing to be responsible while in the majority. It’s contemptible, and unquestionably bad behavior, but it doesn’t leave me afraid that they will act irresponsibly while in power.

    That’s the situation with the Democrats. They were contemptible and irresponsible, but at least on this issue they’re not being irresponsible while in power. So there’s no reason to be afraid that they will be irresponsible with respect to the issue while they are in power.

    For the Republicans, however, it’s different. They’re being irresponsible. (It would be unfair to say they are being contemptible; I don’t have the information needed to make that judgment). I can’t tell if their actions now mean they will be irresponsible if they are returned to power. Maybe they will be, maybe they won’t be. The fact that I can’t tell makes me afraid to empower them.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  218. Anyone see Obama at the House GOP today? I thought it was a fantastic and really unprecedent happening in our culture. I wish more presidents had been doing this. And I hope it happens again. Though eventually it will end up just as staged as the debates.

    imdw (9af31a)

  219. #203- Nah. But you know the witty, reliably down-market-and-to-the-right-‘JD’ is endlessly entertaining.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  220. imdw – I just watched it …

    What makes you think it is so unprecedented ?

    OY, does that man NEED the TOTUS !

    He stood there and said that he is in favour of more nuclear power – amazing, ain’t it, how he keeps saying that and yet bupkis gets done about it ?

    He is, indeed a politician ! (And that’s *NOT* a compliment, in his case !)

    Alasdair (205079)

  221. That said, I think there is a difference between what the Democrats were doing in 2006 and what the Republicans are doing today: I think the Democrats in 2006 were being cheaply partisan trying to score points via a facade, whereas I think a significant percentage of the Republicans in 2010 actually believe it and would be willing to force the issue of government debt by simply not authorizing an expansion.

    I disagree. The Republicans today are doing the same thing the Democrats did in 2006, and for the same reason: they don’t want to help out a President of the opposite party, and they are content to let the other party take the blame for whatever happens. Both are cheaply partisan.

    For you to impute a motive to Republicans that you would not impute to Democrats when they both perform the same action in nearly identical circumstances is puzzling at best.

    In Boxer’s case, it’s changed since 2006.

    Sure, what’s changed is there is a Democrat in the Oval Office now. It’s not because of some road-to-Damascus insight on Boxer’s part.

    Some chump (d97978)

  222. BTW, if you think that the Democrats were being cheaply partisan while doing something completely irresponsible, why would you consider supporting a party that puts party politics above (a) the good of the country and (b) what it knows is the right thing to do?

    Again, this is highly selective of you, exonerating Democrats but vilifying Republicans for doing the exact same thing.

    Some chump (d97978)

  223. “What makes you think it is so unprecedented ?”

    To have the president and the opposition in a setting like this? When do we do that? We have surrogates debating on cable news. We have speeches and responses. We have highly stylized and somewhat stilted debate formats. This felt like a true unscripted town hall type of thing — two parties, nuanced talk, no teleprompter and not much speechwriting. We don’t really see that. Do we?

    “I disagree. The Republicans today are doing the same thing the Democrats did in 2006, and for the same reason: they don’t want to help out a President of the opposite party, and they are content to let the other party take the blame for whatever happens. Both are cheaply partisan.”

    If they were doing the same thing, there would be less cloture votes.

    imdw (00bfab)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6846 secs.