Idiots

I am trying to think of an area in the public sector that is more tyrannical, more rigid, and more myopic then education. I guess when you operate under the charge of child safety and instruction, any boneheaded ridiculous rule can be justified, after all, when children are involved you can never be too careful. Part and parcel of draconian regulations is the attitude that because the stakes are so high that parents will roll over and except any limitation of their sovereignty. Here is the latest batshit insane degree:

“Any instrument that looks like a weapon”, see, right here they have proven themselves not fit to even supervise hamsters. Hands do not look like weapons, not guns, not knives, not chainsaws, they look like hands. I can just imagine a kindergarten teacher looking up from her desk and seeing a 5 year old reach up to pick his nose ,”Oh my God, he is going to blow his brains out”, so she Jackie Chan barrel rolls and springs into action, grabbing the errant hand and wrestling it to the ground.

And notice the weasily reply from the school board official, not ,”Yeah, we are pretty embarrassed by this whole affair, what were we thinking?”, nope, it is the usual tap dance of justifying anything dopey because it is after all for the children.

Our education system is so effed up, where do you start fixing it?

Comments are closed.

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    If his last name were Remington or Thompson, would he have to change that, too?

    OT but I’ve been watching the Convention and I have to say that Nikki Haley and Ann Romney both did great jobs, along with Artur Davis.

    Thumb up 2

  2. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  3. repmom

    “OT but I’ve been watching the Convention and I have to say that Nikki Haley and Ann Romney both did great jobs, along with Artur Davis.”

    Chris Christie doing a great job of motivating the crowd.

    Where is Hal with his play by play reporting?

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  5. repmom

    Right, right, but what about the $79,430 worth of Federal subsidies?

    I don’t know. I didn’t read past Sullivan’s physical description of Christie. I’ll let the more intelligent here address that one.

    Sounded like they were talking about a completely different President. And planet.

    Than the one you know?

    So – list what they said that you disagreed with, and why. Be specific. Your opinion, not someone elses.

    Thumb up 4

  6. richtaylor365 *

    Right, right, but what about the $79,430 worth of Federal subsidies?

    What weak cheese you offer, aren’t you embarrassed? Those “farm Subsidies” ended back in 1999, yet 13 years later that Sullivan weazel offers it up like it is timely, and you bit like a large mouthed bass. Him and thousands of other farmers take the subsidies that is offered to them by the federal government, BFD, I suppose now you will bring up the fact that Romney took some tax deductions which are legal and because he did he wantingly defrauded the government.

    Sullivan is such a slimeball, here is just one of his idiotic statments:

    10.30 pm. What she and Mitt have is a “real marriage.” Who has a fake one, one wonders?

    No, dickhead, she was talking about fairy tale marriages and why some (insects like Sullivan) assume that they had a fairly tale type marriage, but she was explaining and telling the story of how they struggled early on and how they went through what all families go through, so yes, they had a “real marriage”.

    Honestly, sometimes you even try my patience, keep chanting these truisms:

    You did not build that
    The middle class is doing fine
    We tried their way, then we tried ours, and ours worked

    That should keep you busy for a while.

    Thumb up 8

  7. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  8. richtaylor365 *

    Embarassed for asking a question?

    Embarrassed for bringing up something as lame as that. The guy took some farm subsidy money a hundred years ago, money btw that was offered to ALL farmers (just like tax deductions) and you (by way of Sullivan) bring it up because he doesn’t show sufficient “gratitude” for what government gave him, pathetic.

    Right, “during the first five years of his business”.

    do you know that for a fact? Maybe Sullivan’s chart only starts in 1995, or maybe he did not take subsidies before then but still had his business going.

    You seem to be missing the point. The entire Convention appears to be built around a dishonest, out-of-context quote. But even then they can’t even use a good example??!

    The entire day was filled with good examples, were you watching at all?

    I try your patience because Andrew Sullivan questions what a ‘real marriage’ is?
    Sorry if I haven’t made this clear before, but I’m not Andrew Sullivan, and I’m not responsible for anything he says or writes, and I certainly don’t agree with everything he says or writes. How is any of that not ridicuously obvious?

    Yes, your MO. Look, it’s real simple, by providing links to Sullivan’s nonsense, don’t go thinking that you are providing the link solely to provoke dialogue, you align yourself with the links you provide. You have thrown Sullivan links out here enough times to provide sufficient evidence that you and he are simpatico on a number of issues. Doing that is fine, but when somebody whacks it for the nonsense that it is, don’t give us ,”Well, Sullivan said it, not me”.

    but I think it’s because you’re obviously angry.

    Angry at him, yes, because he is a pervayer of lies, did you see the example I provided? He knows damn well what she meant, but he is an insect.

    dickhead,

    Right back at you Rich.

    Why would you think I was calling you a dickhead when it was addressed to a statement made by Sullivan?

    Thumb up 7

  9. blameme

    Oh, and you just put Sullivan up for discussion….not that you actually agree with it. That is the last refuge of a weasel once the facts come out. “Oh, I am sure it is wrong, I mean I don’t agree with it, I just thought it interesting.”

    Bullshit. Quit throwing out links if you don’t agree with them or own them. You put this shit out there, don’t back off of it. You thought Sullivan had something hot and ran with it before you investigated it and it bit you in the ass.

    BTW, Sullivan is a piece of shit due to his fascination over Palin’s uterus. You using him is flat out pathetic.

    For the love of all that is Holy or associated with the FSM, own up to the fact that you are a lib and come from that angle. It’s ok. That will be respected.

    This BS of posting links for “discussion, even though you don’t “agree with them” and always coming from the left is ridiculous. You will not be listened to or even really debated until you are honest as to where you are coming from. It isn’t interesting, moves the debate nowhere and does not help you to convince anyone of your true beliefs so we can discuss them.

    Your disingenuous act is what bothers people here. I had tried to let most slide as sometimes you have good points, but enough is enough, even for me.

    Thumb up 10

  10. thelastdakrat

    For the love of all that is Holy or associated with the FSM, own up to the fact that you are a lib and come from that angle. It’s ok. That will be respected.

    CM is to liberalism as J. Edgar Hoover is to feather boas. He likes the soft, silky feel of it. He even tries it on occasionally and sneaks a peak at himself in the boudoir mirror, but he will never admit to it in public.

    /driveby snark

    Thumb up 8

  11. CM

    Embarrassed for bringing up something as lame as that. The guy took some farm subsidy money a hundred years ago, money btw that was offered to ALL farmers (just like tax deductions) and you (by way of Sullivan) bring it up because he doesn’t show sufficient “gratitude” for what government gave him, pathetic.

    The ‘gratitiude’ thing wasn’t as relevant as the fact that government has significantly helped people like this with their businesses. It’s a fact which isn’t just downplayed, but people get really angry at the very suggestion. Which is evidenced right here.

    do you know that for a fact? Maybe Sullivan’s chart only starts in 1995, or maybe he did not take subsidies before then but still had his business going.

    That’s a good point. If that wasn’t the start of the business, it would put paid to any argument about the government/system assisting in the formation of the business.

    The entire day was filled with good examples, were you watching at all?

    I didn’t watch all of it. I obviously missed those. THIS one doesn’t appear to be a good example of the narrative.

    Yes, your MO. Look, it’s real simple, by providing links to Sullivan’s nonsense, don’t go thinking that you are providing the link solely to provoke dialogue, you align yourself with the links you provide. You have thrown Sullivan links out here enough times to provide sufficient evidence that you and he are simpatico on a number of issues. Doing that is fine, but when somebody whacks it for the nonsense that it is, don’t give us ,”Well, Sullivan said it, not me”.

    No, sorry, don’t whack me for something I haven’t even quoted, let alone relied upon. That’s just dishonest. If we all did that it would descend into farce.

    Why would you think I was calling you a dickhead when it was addressed to a statement made by Sullivan?

    Why would you address a statement made by Sullivan, which I didn’t even quote, to me?
    As you seem to believe we’re interchangeable, it’s not a stretch to take the insult as meant for me.

    Honestly, I’m not sure why this has to turn so nasty so quickly about something so trivial. Why is everyone being so incredibly over-sensitive?

    Thank God we have you here to be unbiased CM. You’ve saved us all.

    Oh wow, you’re going to keep trolling like that are you. Classy.
    I never claimed to be unbiased. So you can line that up alongside your ‘You Didn’t Build That’ dishonesty.

    Oh, and you just put Sullivan up for discussion….not that you actually agree with it.

    I put up a single claim made by a reader of Sullivan’s blog. I made no comment about it. Rich makes the excellent point that it’s assumed that 2005 is when the business started.

    That is the last refuge of a weasel once the facts come out. “Oh, I am sure it is wrong, I mean I don’t agree with it, I just thought it interesting.”

    If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. I didn’t post it and then rant on about how it’s an example of this and that and how people of that politicial pursuasion are retards. Which is rampant on this blog. Have a bit of perspective.

    You put this shit out there, don’t back off of it. You thought Sullivan had something hot and ran with it before you investigated it and it bit you in the ass.

    We don’t know any more than was posted originally. So how the fuck has it bitten me in the ass?
    You’re pretending that other posters only post about stuff they know 100% everything about, which is patently untrue. Don’t be so blatantly hypocritical.

    BTW, Sullivan is a piece of shit due to his fascination over Palin’s uterus. You using him is flat out pathetic.

    I’ve heard about that. I missed it all, I only started checking in there about a year ago. Haven’t really seen anything Palin in that time.
    What’s this fascination all the time over who is making an argument, as opposed to the substance of what is being said?

    For the love of all that is Holy or associated with the FSM, own up to the fact that you are a lib and come from that angle. It’s ok. That will be respected.

    I am clearly on the left. But certainly far closer to the centre than the extreme. When have I ever disputed that?
    That’s another fascination I don’t get – the requirement to place yourself in a tight box, which then determines how you’re allowed to discuss anything. That just sounds stupid to me. What’s the point?

    This BS of posting links for “discussion, even though you don’t “agree with them”

    Fuckking hell man, I said “I certainly don’t agree with everything he says or writes” not “I’m going to post up stuff from Sullivan that I disagree with, just for discussion”. Very different.

    You will not be listened to or even really debated until you are honest as to where you are coming from.

    Clearly people don’t even bother actually understanding what I’ve posted anyway. You’ve just given yet another example.
    And again, this whole “you have to be partisan” bullshit is a good example of why the state of your politics is where it is. “You have to strongly believe in something, just for the sake of it” WTF? Ridiculous.

    It isn’t interesting, moves the debate nowhere and does not help you to convince anyone of your true beliefs so we can discuss them.

    Sorry, I don’t try to force everything through a partisan filter. I try hard to do the opposite.

    My true belief is that the whole GOP convention appears to be built around a dishonest, out-of-context quote. That’s as cynical as showing the debt on stage, even though by 2019 apparently half of it comes from Bush tax cuts and Bush wars.

    I’ve seen virtually zero evidence that anyone here is remotely interested in discussing anyone’s true beliefs but their own.

    Your disingenuous act is what bothers people here. I had tried to let most slide as sometimes you have good points, but enough is enough, even for me.

    Right, so you’ve decided to be dishonest and hypocritical too. Great. Congrats then.

    Thumb up 0

  12. blameme

    Thanks. I am glad you at least stated you are left. Now, if you could sometimes post from non-bullshit places like Sullivan’s bs site, then you would get more credit.

    Step 1: Admit your angle
    Step 2: Search out sources that are know to be fact based and use them instead of Sullivan etc.
    (the reason why is because the source DOES matter – why can’t you understand that? Would you link to a creationist site to argue against evolution? Of course not, it would be bullshit. ANything that comes from that site is tainted by the source itself. This is not hard).
    Step 3. Sometimes, hell, once a year, come prepared with your own thoughts instead of tons of links from other bullshit sites (see step 2).
    Step 4. Lastly, and this may be hard for you, try to point out the dishonesty of the liberal side of American politics. I have read where you said the internet is littered with your thoughts on this – would love to see them or read them. Hell, do it HERE.
    Step 5. Use sources that the right or this blog in general find reliable – again, constantly using left sites is a Dkos move. Show us you read more that left red meat.
    Step 6. Watch and reap the benefits of doing the above and be a poster that isn’t shit on by every other poster here. We will read what you have to say and debate on the merits, instead of the source, the angle or the tone.

    You’re welcome.

    Thumb up 2

  13. richtaylor365 *

    The ‘gratitiude’ thing wasn’t as relevant as the fact that government has significantly helped people like this with their businesses. It’s a fact which isn’t just downplayed, but people get really angry at the very suggestion. Which is evidenced right here.

    It certainly was relevant to Sullivan, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it, but he did. And whether Sakata was “significantly helped”, how do you know? He got some farm subsidy money from 1995 to 1999 (a large portion of that was disaster compensation for which he pays insurance for) and you just assume that it was significant help. Do you know the size of his business or how much money his farms make? If Romney took a tax deduction for his business expenses even though he makes millions would you assume this deduction was “Significant”?

    No, sorry, don’t whack me for something I haven’t even quoted, let alone relied upon. That’s just dishonest. If we all did that it would descend into farce.

    What is farcical is you throwing Sullivan out there, twice, then when it gets whacked and ridiculed for being weak cheese, we get the faux indignance. As stated before, when you align yourself with pigs, don’t squawk when some mud gets on you. Sullivan thought Sakata did not exhibit a “sense of gratitude or humility” for being blessed with this farm subsidy money, and you brought it up twice, which is evidence to any rational person that YOU thought there was something “there”, there wasn’t.

    Why would you address a statement made by Sullivan, which I didn’t even quote, to me?

    I didn’t, why are you having such a hard time following along? Let’s recap:

    I called Sullivan a slimeball, and offered up a statement by him (not you), here is the statement:

    10.30 pm. What she and Mitt have is a “real marriage.” Who has a fake one, one wonders?

    Then right after that I call him a dickhead and give my reasons why his (not your) statement is a red herring and insulting.

    I think if you re read my 11:30 pm comment, you will feel a bit silly that you made that mistake.

    Honestly, I’m not sure why this has to turn so nasty so quickly about something so trivial. Why is everyone being so incredibly over-sensitive?

    My “nastiness” was directed right at Sullivan, too bad you could not see that. I realize he has difficulty wrt to women but his attack on Ann Romney I thought was over the top, and since he specializes in over the top baseless innuendo type journalism I should have expected as much and let it slide more. But he really is a douchebag, and when you throw crap out there, like inferring that Sakata is a hypocrite for heralding small businesses and achievement all the while sucking on government’s tit (Sullivan’s caricature) I thought was low, weasily, and a crass way of demeaning the entire message.

    No, I don’t think you are a slimeball or a dickhead, but dude, when you post stuff from a guy that is attacking a woman with weak shit like this:

    10.33 pm. Is Ann Romney suggesting that the Obamas are bad parents?

    10.30 pm. What she and Mitt have is a “real marriage.” Who has a fake one, one wonders?

    You gotta expect some blowback.

    Thumb up 1

  14. CM

    Thanks. I am glad you at least stated you are left.

    I’ve said it before. However it just means that I’ll naturally be associated with the nuts on the left. In this place people seem to have a very very difficult time differentiating between reasonable people on the left and unreasonable people on the left. It’s always “the left are fucking morons”.

    Now, if you could sometimes post from non-bullshit places like Sullivan’s bs site, then you would get more credit.

    Ok. But again, an argument is argument. Facts are either facts or they’re not. It doesn’t matter where the argument froms from. Facts are facts no matter where they are repeated. So, again, I don’t really see what the issue is, and nobody else seems to be able to explain it either.

    Step 1: Admit your angle

    Why does everything need to have an angle? That’s just limiting your ability to consider things rationally and on it’s merits. Why on earth would you want to do that?

    Step 2: Search out sources that are know to be fact based and use them instead of Sullivan etc. (the reason why is because the source DOES matter – why can’t you understand that? Would you link to a creationist site to argue against evolution? Of course not, it would be bullshit. ANything that comes from that site is tainted by the source itself. This is not hard).

    You’re right, it’s not hard. Opinion is opinion, fact is fact. Irrespective of where it comes from. I’ve lost count of the number of times right-wing blogs or similar are usd here and nobody ever blinks an eye in terms of whether they are credible, or the information is reliable. So why the obvious double-standard?

    Step 3. Sometimes, hell, once a year, come prepared with your own thoughts instead of tons of links from other bullshit sites (see step 2).

    I’ve often put my own thoughts up, don’t be so ridiculously dishonest man. I got taken to task for adding my opinion on abortion just the other day. And I still don’t understand by supporting an opinion with fact is a bad thing. It should be a good thing. Oftentimes I’m linking to show why something someone else said appears to be wrong. Again just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Step 4. Lastly, and this may be hard for you, try to point out the dishonesty of the liberal side of American politics.

    That would be just repeating what you guys are saying. What would be the point of that? How would that further the discussion?

    I have read where you said the internet is littered with your thoughts on this – would love to see them or read them. Hell, do it HERE.

    I don’t think that’s what I said at all.

    Step 5. Use sources that the right or this blog in general find reliable – again, constantly using left sites is a Dkos move. Show us you read more that left red meat.

    What happened to ‘lastly’?! ;-)
    I’ve been down this ‘right-wing accepted list of sources’ road before at MW forums. It essentially means not being able to post anything that’s in disagreement with the right-wing political narrative. And again, double-standards much???!

    Step 6. Watch and reap the benefits of doing the above and be a poster that isn’t shit on by every other poster here. We will read what you have to say and debate on the merits, instead of the source, the angle or the tone.

    “Watch and reap the benefits of just agreeing with the narratives and not picking up on the obvious errors and inaccuracies”.
    No thanks, that would be dishonest, not to mention pointless.
    The majority of time I’m “shit on” I can easily point out why it’s based on making shit up, or is just personal abuse for the sake of it. I don’t take it personally, people really seem to need someone to “shit on”.

    You’re welcome.

    Thanks.

    Thumb up 0

  15. richtaylor365 *

    My true belief is that the whole GOP convention appears to be built around a dishonest, out-of-context quote.

    I think it was pure genius. Sure, we can go back and forth about what he meant by that statement and context, yadda yadda, and from my own perspective, I think he meant what you guys say he meant, but here is the genius part; 1) The great communicator, who uses his verbal skills to slay dragons and make the lions sleep with the lambs, he was pretty clumsy with his delivery and botched the message, and 2) Everyone knows it pisses off Obama and his minions every time it is mentioned because they know he botched the delivery, something a man with his skills and alacrity never does, so when people say ,”Yes, I did build that” and the convention uses the message of “We Built It”, not only does it stand for a principal, (that of self reliance and achievement) but it also brings ridicule to their god and savior.

    That’s as cynical as showing the debt on stage

    Another great idea, and one btw that I mentioned right here a few months back. This is Obama’s debt, no way around that, rational people know he owns it, and the days of blaming Bush are long gone. Obama would like to hide from the fact that he maxed out the credit cards and has nothing to show for it. He would like to hide from the fact that on days he should be meeting with his jobs/budget council, he is out playing golf. He would like to hide from the fact that his signature legislation, Obama-care, will end up costing exponentially more over the years then he promised the folks.

    But yeah, he can always hide behind the unprovable what if’s ,”Sure we are bankrupt now, but it would have been much worse without the stimulus and the quantitative easing.”

    Thumb up 3

  16. blameme

    Ok. I hope you can see I am making an honest effort. But, if you want to keep doing what you are doing with zero return…more power to you.

    I think it’s a waste.

    Anyway, you often say you use links as they state what you think better than you can. I doubt that. If anything, it hurts your viewpoint. Especially using links from sites that you know we think are bullshit.

    I wouldn’t want you to link to a palm readers site just because she/he has a decent opinion on tax rates.

    Throw us a bone man – pick neutral sites. You know it matters. We have said so. If you know that, and you know it matters and you are trying to get a point across why do you use those sites anyway. Seems like a losing battle to me.

    If you think all of that was snark above, I meant it in true earnest. I hate that every day this board is full of the same shit. I am seriously thinking of just dropping the whole damn site.

    Thumb up 1

  17. salinger

    This is Obama’s debt, no way around that, rational people know he owns it, and the days of blaming Bush are long gone

    You know – this stuff would hold a hell of a lot more water for me if the majority of this debt had not been run up by Reagan – Bush and Bush. Seems the Republican Party is all for fiscal restraint except when they are in power. Obama may have put us atop a big pile of shit – but that pile was raised to 80% of its height by the three guys I mentioned.

    Even the fiscal responsibility poster boy Ryan voted for the $700 billion bank bailout, the auto bailout, the biggest Medicare expansion in U.S. history (unfunded) , a massive highway bill that included the “Bridge to Nowhere” and other big-ticket priorities when George W. Bush was president

    If the Republicans stay true to precedent set by their last three presidents they will double the increase of the national debt.. Wasn’t it Cheney who said Reagan proved the debt didn’t matter?

    Why should I believe this incarnation have now found religion?

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    It certainly was relevant to Sullivan, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it, but he did.

    Well it wasn’t significant to me. The whole day (I thought it was Convention, I now understand it was the day) was built on “We Built That”. You can place ‘gratitude’ with ‘acknowledgment’ as far as I’m concerned.
    Ok, from now on I’ll just steal and re-phrase. So long as you don’t go looking for where I steal it from and accuse me of plagerism. Deal?

    And whether Sakata was “significantly helped”, how do you know? He got some farm subsidy money from 1995 to 1999 (a large portion of that was disaster compensation for which he pays insurance for) and you just assume that it was significant help. Do you know the size of his business or how much money his farms make? If Romney took a tax deduction for his business expenses even though he makes millions would you assume this deduction was “Significant”?

    That’s the system, it’s designed to help build success.
    To answer your questions though. No, I don’t know how ‘significant’ that money was (I would assume to an average size business $80K over 5 years is a significant help). That’s probably always going to be a subjective assessment though. Same as with Romney’s tax deductions. The point is that these are in place to try and facilitate success. I’m not saying people need to bow down and thank the government for an hour a day, but it seems rather dubious to pretend this stuff never happens.

    What is farcical is you throwing Sullivan out there, twice, then when it gets whacked and ridiculed for being weak cheese, we get the faux indignance. As stated before, when you align yourself with pigs, don’t squawk when some mud gets on you. Sullivan thought Sakata did not exhibit a “sense of gratitude or humility” for being blessed with this farm subsidy money, and you brought it up twice, which is evidence to any rational person that YOU thought there was something “there”, there wasn’t.

    Twice? Not sure where the second example is.
    Again this came from a reader, not Sullivan himself.

    There wasn’t? So you’re having a go at me for a lack of information (when the company was formed, whether $80K is ‘significant’, but you’ve decided, based on that same lack of information, that there isn’t anything? Double-standard much?
    When you next quote from something I’ll make sure I go through and attribute anything else I can find to you. No, actually I won’t. That would be childish and lame and a waste of everybody’s time.

    I didn’t, why are you having such a hard time following along?

    Because at the same time you’re suggesting I’m dumb for not realising that you’re calling Sullivan (and not me) a dickhead, you’re saying “you align yourself with pigs, don’t squawk when some mud gets on you” and there is “sufficient evidence that you and he are simpatico on a number of issues”. So, as I say, it’s wasn’t a stretch. But you’ve cleared it up, I misintepreted who your ‘dickhead’ comment was directed to. Personally I wouldn’t question or criticise people talking about their own marriages in positive terms.

    But he really is a douchebag, and when you throw crap out there, like inferring that Sakata is a hypocrite for heralding small businesses and achievement all the while sucking on government’s tit (Sullivan’s caricature) I thought was low, weasily, and a crass way of demeaning the entire message.

    Sure, but can we not discuss it without the whole “aren’t you embarrassed” and “weak cheese” crap?

    My “nastiness” was directed right at Sullivan, too bad you could not see that.

    You:

    What weak cheese you offer, aren’t you embarrassed?

    you bit like a large mouthed bass

    Honestly, sometimes you even try my patience, keep chanting these truisms:

    You did not build that
    The middle class is doing fine
    We tried their way, then we tried ours, and ours worked

    That should keep you busy for a while.

    That was all nastiness clearly directed at me.

    You gotta expect some blowback.

    It’s just classic ‘playing the man and not the ball’.
    Again, I only wish I could apply the same standard at some of you guys. Maybe I should grit my teeth and do it for a little while and we’ll see what happens.

    Thumb up 0

  19. CM

    I think it was pure genius.

    I guess if you buy into it, it would.
    It would be like Democrats dedicating a whole day of their convention to “I like to fire people” or “I don’t care about the very poor.” Conventions are supposed to make political parties big. Day one of the Republican National Convention made the Republicans look petty.

    Sure, we can go back and forth about what he meant by that statement and context, yadda yadda, and from my own perspective, I think he meant what you guys say he meant,

    Right, so you’re on board with the huge dishonesty in taking it and making ads about it and dedicating a whole day of a campaign to it.
    That’s even more cynical.

    but here is the genius part; 1) The great communicator, who uses his verbal skills to slay dragons and make the lions sleep with the lambs, he was pretty clumsy with his delivery and botched the message, and

    Yep, but it only seems really clumsy because of what the GOP and their supporters have done with it. To me, the level of deceit far outweighs the cluminess of a small part of a speech which balanced the merits and importance of hard work with the greatness of a system which assists in turning that hard work into success. But yeah, that’s my opinion. It’s a very strong opinion, because I think it’s all so obvious. If the tables were turned, I have no doubt that you guys woud be absolutely enraged at the obvious lack of standards that results in a huge lie being used as a centrepiece.
    Partisanship in the US trumps all else though, it seems.

    2) Everyone knows it pisses off Obama and his minions every time it is mentioned because they know he botched the delivery, something a man with his skills and alacrity never does, so when people say ,”Yes, I did build that” and the convention uses the message of “We Built It”, not only does it stand for a principal, (that of self reliance and achievement) but it also brings ridicule to their god and savior.

    Well if that’s not petty and void of ideas I don’t know what is. A centrepiece of spite? That’s what it’s come to? ODS has permeated to the very top?
    This Republican Party has gone crazy. It wasn’t long ago they’re weren’t crazy.

    Another great idea, and one btw that I mentioned right here a few months back. This is Obama’s debt, no way around that, rational people know he owns it, and the days of blaming Bush are long gone. Obama would like to hide from the fact that he maxed out the credit cards and has nothing to show for it. He would like to hide from the fact that on days he should be meeting with his jobs/budget council, he is out playing golf. He would like to hide from the fact that his signature legislation, Obama-care, will end up costing exponentially more over the years then he promised the folks.

    But yeah, he can always hide behind the unprovable what if’s ,”Sure we are bankrupt now, but it would have been much worse without the stimulus and the quantitative easing.”

    Again, this seems to be such a hugely skewed assessment of what the debt actually contains. Look at the chart here.

    ….CBPP’s analysis showing that the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years. So, what about the public debt, which is basically the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses, over the nation’s entire history?

    The complementary chart, below, shows that the Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — including their associated interest costs — account for almost half of the projected public debt in 2019 (measured as a share of the economy) if we continue current policies.

    Altogether, the economic downturn, the measures enacted to combat it (including the 2009 Recovery Act), and the financial rescue legislation play a smaller role in the projected debt increase over the next decade. Public debt due to all other factors fell from over 30 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20 percent of GDP in 2019.

    We focus here on debt held by the public, which reflects funds that the federal government borrows in credit markets to finance deficits and other cash needs. That’s the proper measure on which to focus because it’s what really affects the economy. We compare it to GDP because stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio is a key test of fiscal sustainability.

    As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade. While we’d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment.

    Before anyone inevitably blows a gasket over the graph, I’m certainly allowing the possibility that it’s not accurate. I’d invite all comments about how and why it isn’t.

    But yeah, he can always hide behind the unprovable what if’s ,”Sure we are bankrupt now, but it would have been much worse without the stimulus and the quantitative easing.”

    He doesn’t have to ‘hide behind it’, and the US is not bankrupt. That’s what a large majority of the economists who have assessed it in detail have concluded. And nobody that I’ve seen has come up with a detailed account of what would have happened without the measures (i.e. how would unemployment not be much worse?). Even Friedman advocated Govt actions during times of crisis – i.e. quantitative easing (e.g. the Bank fof Japan buying government bonds on the open market).

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    Anyway, you often say you use links as they state what you think better than you can. I doubt that. If anything, it hurts your viewpoint. Especially using links from sites that you know we think are bullshit.

    That’s up to you. I’d rather do that then get into arguments about plagiarism. If people want to bitch about what the link is rather than discuss the issues involved, that’s their choice. It probably demonstrates what they’re most interested in. I could do the same but I don’t see the point.

    I wouldn’t want you to link to a palm readers site just because she/he has a decent opinion on tax rates.

    If the argument holds up to scutiny, who the fuck cares?
    On the other hand, if it’s an opinion and the person’s qualifications and experience and reputation give the opinion more weight, then it gives the opinion greater weight.

    Throw us a bone man – pick neutral sites. You know it matters. We have said so. If you know that, and you know it matters and you are trying to get a point across why do you use those sites anyway. Seems like a losing battle to me.

    LOL, what are these ‘neutral sites’? Given how much time and effort goes into demonstrating how the ‘MSM’ shills for Obama, they’re obviously all out (I asked Alex this and he confirmed it). Political blogs and other such websites (Salon, Slate, all the right-wing equivalents) are all out. What remains?

    If you think all of that was snark above, I meant it in true earnest. I hate that every day this board is full of the same shit. I am seriously thinking of just dropping the whole damn site.

    I hate it too. Look how horrible it got almost immediately when I posted some throw-away shit in this thread. As if that even remotely compares to a main blog post ranting on about how retarded everyone on the left is. Not that a comparison should even be relevant. I don’t see why this is so hard, I know it doesn’t have to be because I’ve been involved elsewhere where it wasn’t.
    I accept that your comments were sincere. I sincerely responded. I sincerely believe that coming from an angle on everything significantly clouds judgement. Sure, put something up that comes from an angle, and then dissect and analysis and assess it as neutrally as possible. Wouldn’t that be the most productive and most intelligent and most informative and less bitchy way to go about it?

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365 *

    I’m not saying people need to bow down and thank the government for an hour a day, but it seems rather dubious to pretend this stuff never happens.

    Who says it never happens? Clearly Sullivan threw that little factoid out there to diminish the message, and you ran with it. Both he and you assume that he needed this money in order to succeed, but you can’t prove that. Same thing could be said about Romney and his tax deductions, you could say it helped him become successful, but affording yourself of approved government benefits and deductions is NOT sucking on the government tit like Sullivan would have us believe. We don’t know if this amount was “significant” based on his profits of his business, refusing the money would be just stupid, but you would have to prove that that money was essential for his success, and you can’t.

    Twice? Not sure where the second example is.

    Here:

    One of the RNC’s “We Built That” profiles of American small-business owners includes a short spot with Sam Sakata, owner of Sakata Farms. Sakata is a plain-spoken, laconic guy who expresses disappointment with Obama but little vitriol. But one sentiment he never expresses? A sense of gratitude or humility for the $79,430 worth of Federal subsidies he received during the first five years of his business.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/live-blogging-tampa-day-one-kinda.html

    And here:

    Right, right, but what about the $79,430 worth of Federal subsidies?

    Twice

    There wasn’t? So you’re having a go at me for a lack of information (when the company was formed, whether $80K is ‘significant’, but you’ve decided, based on that same lack of information, that there isn’t anything? Double-standard much?

    My “go” at you had nothing to do with lack of information, but the inferences implied that Sakata is a hypocrite because he is on stage talking about his business and hard work, all the while accepting farm subsidies (which he had not done in the past 13 years anyway).

    Because at the same time you’re suggesting I’m dumb for not realising that you’re calling Sullivan (and not me) a dickhead, you’re saying “you align yourself with pigs, don’t squawk when some mud gets on you” and there is “sufficient evidence that you and he are simpatico on a number of issues”. So, as I say, it’s wasn’t a stretch.

    I think it was. If say I post something penned by Rush, then you isolate one of his quotes for a response, you quote him, then right after the quote you call him all kinds of awful names. Would it make sense that I think you are calling me those names? You missed this one, it’s OK to admit it.

    Personally I wouldn’t question or criticise people talking about their own marriages in positive terms.

    But he did, hence the nastiness displayed, which you assumed was directed at you.

    You:

    What weak cheese you offer, aren’t you embarrassed?

    you bit like a large mouthed bass

    Honestly, sometimes you even try my patience, keep chanting these truisms:

    You did not build that
    The middle class is doing fine
    We tried their way, then we tried ours, and ours worked

    That should keep you busy for a while.

    That was all nastiness clearly directed at me.

    You call that nasty? Wow. You have been called many things on this blog (not by me) but that stuff you posted was not nasty.

    It’s just classic ‘playing the man and not the ball’.

    Or, it’s a suggestion that if you are going to post stuff, be prepared to defend it.

    Thumb up 0

  22. richtaylor365 *

    Conventions are supposed to make political parties big.

    What’s bigger then “We Built That”? It’s the perfect embodiment of the American spirit, the rugged individualism message that you too can prosper and be successful. It’s a great message, and the fact that it tweaks the great communicator is icing on the cake.

    Right, so you’re on board with the huge dishonesty in taking it and making ads about it and dedicating a whole day of a campaign to it.

    Dishonesty in political ads, gee, how was that ride on the turnip truck? And why are assuming that this message “We Built It” has anything to do with Obama and his penchant for chewing on his shoe leather? It is a positive all American message. Please provide some evidence that this message is dishonest or a premeditated slight to Obama?

    If the tables were turned, I have no doubt that you guys woud be absolutely enraged at the obvious lack of standards that results in a huge lie being used as a centrepiece

    .

    Oh, you mean like distorting the Bain record, pushing grandma off a cliff, making up an imaginary war on women, painting Republicans as racists, bigots, homophobes and haters of the poor? Yeah, that would really tick me off.

    Well if that’s not petty and void of ideas I don’t know what is

    No void here, We Built That is not only positive but truly American, and a ringing endorsement of our free market system.

    This Republican Party has gone crazy.

    If you say so, but you are not really coming from an unbiased point of view, are you?

    Thumb up 1

  23. CM

    Oh, you mean like distorting the Bain record, pushing grandma off a cliff, making up an imaginary war on women, painting Republicans as racists, bigots, homophobes and haters of the poor? Yeah, that would really tick me off.

    Well why actively support the SAME gutter level shit then? Otherwise you’re no better, and have no right to be ticked off. Isn’t this why things continue to spiral downwards?
    As I said it would be like Democrats dedicating a whole day of their convention to “I like to fire people” or “I don’t care about the very poor.” Based on the GOP day, that would seem appropriate. Would it tick you off, or would you shake your head at the sheer ridiculousness of it?

    And why are assuming that this message “We Built It” has anything to do with Obama and his penchant for chewing on his shoe leather?

    WTF?!
    He made a grammatical error in a long speech. There is no room for misinterpretation in Obama’s summary statement, which is very clearly worded: “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

    It’s a great message, and the fact that it tweaks the great communicator is icing on the cake.

    Well it’s consistent with Obama’s message. Unless you distort that message.
    You questioned the extent to which that subsidy payment to the farm, and Romney’s tax deductables contribute, to their success. Was it ‘significant’? But at the same time do you acknowledge that Obama explicitly stated in the same taken-out-context paragraph that taxpayer-funded public support — education, infrastructure and research — “gave you some help” to succeed in business? ‘Some’ isn’t ‘significant’. Is it? Why is it ok to imply that he meant ‘significant’?

    Dishonesty in political ads, gee, how was that ride on the turnip truck?

    Wow, more unnecessary garbage tacked on. Class.
    This isn’t just a political advert, it’s a Convention. I thought they were meant to be a little more substantial.

    If you say so, but you are not really coming from an unbiased point of view, are you?

    It’s my opinion, and therefore it’s biased.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Accepted with pleasure. I need to do a better job of controlling my pushed buttons.

    Then I’ll try to do a better job of considering what I post before I post it.

    Thumb up 0

  25. balthazar

    Well why actively support the SAME gutter level shit then? Otherwise you’re no better, and have no right to be ticked off. Isn’t this why things continue to spiral downwards?

    So saying that businesses actually BUILT their business is the same as saying Republicans are throwing old people over cliffs, are all racist, women hating KKK members and want black people to drown while they party?

    Fuck you CM, and your hackery.

    Thumb up 3

  26. CM

    So saying that businesses actually BUILT their business is the same as saying Republicans are throwing old people over cliffs, are all racist, women hating KKK members and want black people to drown while they party?

    Fuck you CM, and your hackery.

    Wow, way to miss the entire point. What colour is the sky on your planet dude?

    Thumb up 0