What Goes Around Comes Around

Talk Smack and Get Smacked

Today General Stanley McChrystal tendered his resignation after it was revealed that he and his staff disparaged President Barack Obama and other administration officials  in an upcoming issue of Rolling Stone. McChrystal’s indiscretion was roundly condemned by Democrat and Republican alike in a rare show of bipartisan outrage. There are select conservative bloggers who would like to make this about the substance of McChrystal’s remarks but Obama made the basic issue clear in his speech today.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=stanley+mcchrystal&iid=8781204″ src=”http://view3.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8781204/army-gen-mcchrystal-briefs/army-gen-mcchrystal-briefs.jpg?size=500&imageId=8781204″ width=”234″ height=”319″ /]

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

My multiple responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief led me to this decision. First, I have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war, and to the democratic institutions that I’ve been elected to lead. I’ve got no greater honor than serving as Commander-in-Chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they are carrying out.

That includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. The strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted privates and to the general officer who commands them. That allows us to come together as one. That is part of the reason why America has the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.

via Text of Obama’s Remarks on McChrystal – Washington Wire – WSJ.

I challenge anyone who “wants his country back” to dispute Obama’s statement. He has based his decision on the very premise that prevents our government from becoming a military dictatorship, namely that the military is subordinate to civilian government and serves at their command. Disrespect for the chain of command must be punished whether the source of that disrespect is a lowly Private or a General.

As the well in the Gulf gushes out of control today, Obama desperately needs a fine moment. This was one of his finer moments.

Time the Avenger

Sometimes it takes generations for wrongs to be set right, for justice to be done, even poetic justice. Such was the case yesterday when Tim Scott won the Republican nomination for Representative from the first district in South Carolina. What was special about Scott’s victory? For starters, he is black so if he wins in November he will be the first black Republican to go to the House since 2003. But the real cherry on the sundae is the opponent he beat. Paul Thurmond.

Who is Paul Thurmond you ask. Paul is the son of the late Strom Thurmond. Yes, the Strom Thurmond, a vile racist who “mellowed” in his old age and whose 100th birthday was celebrated in the Senate with a now infamous tribute from Trent Lott who talked about what a better country we would have today if Thurmond had won his 1948 bid for the Presidency.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=strom+thurmond&iid=4882518″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/4882518/senator-strom-thurmond/senator-strom-thurmond.jpg?size=500&imageId=4882518″ width=”234″ height=”177″ /]

Even if I resided in South Carolina, I probably would not be voting for Mr. Scott but my hat goes off to him. I sincerely hope ole Strom is looking down from heaven witnessing the victory of the inferior “Negro”.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

622 thoughts on “What Goes Around Comes Around

  1. I would have to contend that the President acting as Commander-In-Chief is not a civillian. He is a military leader. So his actions as such are not as part of the Civilian government, but in his stewardship as the military commander.

    With that said, there is no dispute that the General should have resigned. You don’t speak about your superiors like that, even if you think they deserve it.

  2. “What Goes Around Comes Around Indeed.”

    It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq. ~VDH

    Three years ago, a man named Rutherford Lawson was party to a hatchet job on a man called David Petraeus – party referring to him as General BetrayUs.

    Brilliant choice by the President. He removes his hand-picked choice for someone he had no confidence in just 2 years ago.

    I’m just wondering if Rutherford will now offer apology to the ridiculed who is now called upon to save the bacon of President Barack Obama?

  3. Why would I challenge the result with McChrystal?

    The President could remove him at his pleasure even if he did not tender his resignation, and since he did tender his resignation, where is the victory here?

    Was the general stupid to give a candid interview, and allow his aides to shoot their mouths off? Absolutely.

    Did McChrystal apologize to the offended even before he was summoned? He did.

    Did he tender his resignation? Yes.

    Was it accepted? It was.

    Where is the big coup? Where is the almighty smackdown? An illusion, just like almost every other “great achievement” of this President.

    But at least it got the federal government’s still bumbling response to the Gulf Oil Leak off the front pages for 24 hours.

    Tomorrow, the general is gone, but the leak still continues.

  4. Rutherford, this is NOT one of Obama’s “finer” moments.

    This is a massively embarrassing moment: Like a coach who has lost control of the clubhouse, the star 1st basemen mocking him in the press.

    Now we have a new “coach” right before the big game.

    This sucks. And sucks bad. Do you understand that we are on the eve of a major offensive?

    Yes, Obama did the right thing. But, once again, you have a misguided boner for Obama.

    Dude, I sometimes find that you just don’t “get” stuff. I’m not trying to be insulting. Hell, we are in agreement when it comes what Obama had to do. But, I swear sometimes there is a major disconnect with you and real shit.

  5. Here is the difference between Rutherford and the Rabbit.

    I probably would have focused this blog entry on the great sacrifice and act of patriotism displayed by General P.

    Here is a guy who’s awesome success in Iraq was met with mocking disdain by the very President who now begs him to leave his family in Florida and to do it all over again.

    What a huge responsibility. What a great American.

  6. Rutherford, you are correct.

    I am amazed when I see some supposed “patriots” preening over McChrystal’s insubordination as if it is some kind of victory. It just goes to prove the point I have been making for months: To many people on the right, playing politics is a lot more important than the good of the country.

  7. In fact, I haven’t seen much preening?

    Do you get that this isn’t good. That having to fire a General on the eve of an offensive isn’t good?

  8. Rabbit – no that was not a reference to you. Some others we know, perhaps.

    A lot of the preening I have seen is on other blogs I have seen while surfing – not as much among this small circle of friends.

  9. Hippie,

    There’s no preening from me.

    If I anything I have written in this thread is untrue, by all means, correct me. If by preening you mean I may not be smoothing some ruffled feathers, let’s just say I’m watch a shuffling peacock plucked. 😉

    I know that it’s difficult to get your comeuppance, but for eight years, you lied, you patronized, you propagandized, you bitched, moaned, screamed, and whined about Bush. And now payback is hell.

    You had this coming my man. Pucker up.

  10. If he means you’re “preening, ” Tex, then count me as a preener too.

    I can’t just pretend the irony in all of this doesn’t exist. How could anyone?

  11. Not the worst post I’ve read here.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to label this a fine moment, but I do agree with the decisions.

    And I give kudos for acknowledging the Republican nominee for SC-1.

  12. but for eight years, you lied, you patronized, you propagandized, you bitched, moaned, screamed, and whined about Bush. And now payback is hell.

    Man, Tex, I must be really losing it. I don’t remember knowing you 8 years ago. My memory is that I “met” you a little less than a year ago…..

    The fact is that I defended Bush, openly, for the first several years of his Presidency. Doing so was certainly NOT politically correct as a member of a college faculty, and I caught some crap for it.

    So, for about the 5 billionth time, quit pretending like you know my positions on everything or how I was acting 8 years ago. You don’t know shit.

  13. Rabbit,

    The fact is, they can’t bring themselves to admit how embarrassed they are that they were sold a bill of goods. The feinting spells, the peeing in the pants at empty platitudes of hope and change, and yes we can. That is what passes for profundity in their circles. Millions of rubes believed in a huckster.

    Think about the irony of what they had us to believe. Obama is not a racist who sat 20 years in a racist church. Obama is brilliant but they won’t release his records. Inexperience doesn’t matter, being Obama had never run so much as a fruit stand.

    Perhaps the one that troubles me the most is this supposed brilliant student had time to write his own biography in his 2nd year of law school? What kind of an unknown pens his own autobiography in law school, and how did he get the time?

    The whole thing is a facade.

  14. The fact is that I defended Bush, openly, for the first several years of his Presidency. Doing so was certainly NOT politically correct as a member of a college faculty, and I caught some crap for it.

    What? After 9/11? 😆 Little Eichmann’s baby. That’s who you debate with.

    So I’m supposed to believe that PRESTO!, you had a personal epiphany that liberalism was the path of enlightenment magically sometime after the Iraq War? Shazzamm!

    Horseshit…I’ll bet money you were bitching about stolen elections in 2000. Once a rube, always a rube.

    How long has your blog existed? I want to check your record of moderation. My Gawd, you’re a more dishonest propagandist at your own blog than anything Rutherford posts, I’ve witnessed some beauties here.

  15. Man, what a day in sports! I’ve sat all day and watched some incredible results. Consider:

    (1) U.S. scores a goal in the 91st minute to win their first bracket since 1930.

    (2) Two guys at Wimbledon play 10 HOURS and are still playing, with the fifth set suspended because of darkness with the set score at 59-59! They’ve broken every men’s record at Wimbledon: length, aces, points, etc…

    The match started on Tuesday and will be completed on Thursday!

    (3) TCU is dead in the water at 7-3 in the eight inning against Florida St. in the NCAA baseball tournament and scores 8 runs with two outs.

    Unbelievable day in sports! 🙂

  16. “Like a coach who has lost control of the clubhouse….”

    “Actually, my analogy sucked. Now we have a new first basemen right before the big game.”

    If you insist on sports analogies, I prefer one in which the quarterback and three of his linemen get into a barroom brawl the night before the bowl game with fans of the opposing team. They are jailed and released on bail the next morning. The coach has to decide whether to kick the misbehaving players off the team or give up control of the team to forces of chaos.

    Any coach worth a damn boots the undisciplined players without hesitation. In the particular case of Coach Obama and McChrystal, Obama fortunately has a much better eligible quarterback (Petraeus) upstairs in the press box helping to call plays. There isn’t even a downside to the decision to fire McChrystal. Petraeus is the better man, and unlikely to allow a dysfunctional command atmosphere to exist as McChrystal obviously did.

    Any general officer who disrespects his chain of command and allows his staff to do the same should be honorable enough to resign before being asked. Clearly McChrystal had become an obstacle to be overcome and was no longer an asset to our military.

    One of Obama’s finer moments? Just for having the cajones to do what was obviously the right thing? I wouldn’t go that far. I heard some commenters today saying that Obama ought to let McChrystal off with just a “trip to the woodshed” because of McChrystal’s importance to the mission in Afghanistan. What a load of crap THAT was.

  17. Concerning the defeat in South Carolina of Paul Thurmond by black candidate Tim Scott:

    How times have changed.

    Rutherford, if you lived in SC you would probably be voting for the OTHER black candidate in that race – Democratic nominee Ben Frasier. But Scott is likely to win. That district hasn’t elected a Democrat in thirty years.

    Perhaps this race wasn’t so much a rejection of Thurmond as an overwhelming vote of confidence (69%) for Scott. After all, Scott was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

    Now, at long last, Republicans will have a black face to put in front of TV cameras in the hopes of changing their unfortunate image as the party of aging white men.

    (It’s too bad that Essie Mae Washington-Williams never had political ambitions. If she had, a daughter of Strom Thurmond AND a black candidate could have been wrapped up in a single package!)

  18. I just wondered – does South Carolina have open primaries?

    If so, might a number of black voters (who tend to vote Democratic, as we know) have crossed over and voted in the Republican primary – AGAINST someone named Thurmond?

  19. So I’m supposed to believe that PRESTO!, you had a personal epiphany that liberalism was the path of enlightenment magically sometime after the Iraq War? Shazzamm! Horseshit…I’ll bet money you were bitching about stolen elections in 2000. Once a rube, always a rube.

    Tex, you really fucking amaze me. I alternate at laughing at you and wanting to punch your lights out. Either way, you don’t know shit about me. You have this little cartoon of a stereotypical professor in your head and damn – you are going to be sure I fit that stereotype and you will go so far as to call me a I lira if I claim to be otherwise.

    Yes – I rooted for Bush in the 2000 election. I couldn’t stand either candidate, but I thought Bush to be the lesser of two douchebags. You seem to want to bet your money on just about everything these days – and I am very tempted to take you up on this one. The only evidence I will be able to offer is hearsay from people I knew 10 years ago. Give me a day or two – I will see if they remember our conversations. Assuming that I can do so, will you accept their testimony in support of my asertions.

    I can tell you almost to the day when I had my epiphany and rolled over from “independent” to “democrat.” It was in the spring of 2004 when the Bush administration started changing its tune – claiming that the invasion had never been about the WMDs in the first place. It is when I finally realized I had been used and lied to. I supported his invasion, at no small cost to myself. Yeah – it REALLY pissed me off when it finally became clear it had all been a fake from the start. Hell, even Bill O’Reilly admitted that we had all been suckered.

    — hp

  20. I would have to contend that the President acting as Commander-In-Chief is not a civillian

    Mr. Montague, welcome to the blog.

    I think you’ve missed something. The President is a civilian and it is exactly why he is Commander-in-Chief. It prevents the head of the country from being a true military leader …. it puts the military in ultimate check and control. The fact that Petraeus must be confirmed is further evidence that our civilian government controls our military and not the other way around.

  21. Three years ago, a man named Rutherford Lawson was party to a hatchet job on a man called David Petraeus – party referring to him as General BetrayUs.

    Oh please do prove that one Tex. I always take a risk when I challenge you guys to dip into the archives but I think I can safely say I have never besmirched General Petraeus.

    For that matter, right up until his recent ass-hattery, I was a supporter of McChrystal who seemed (at least on 60 Minutes) to believe that our presence in Afghanistan needed to be both humanitarian and military.

    I can see some of the irony of seeing Obama rely on Petraeus right now but here’s my logic … he’s relying on Petraeus for what he believes to be the right war. He opposed him for what he believed to be the wrong war. It says nothing about his respect for the soldier and everything about what he feels about the mission.

  22. I need to back off a bit on my statement of initial support of Stanley. Dude covered up friendly fire death of Pat Tillman. Not cool. Actually should have disqualified him for Afghan leadership assignment. But I maintain, his attitude toward Afghanistan was one I supported.

  23. I was a supporter of McChrystal who seemed (at least on 60 Minutes) to believe that our presence in Afghanistan needed to be both humanitarian and military.

    Well, duh. That is what the COIN strategy is all about.

    I can see some of the irony of seeing Obama rely on Petraeus right now but here’s my logic … he’s relying on Petraeus for what he believes to be the right war. He opposed him for what he believed to be the wrong war. It says nothing about his respect for the soldier and everything about what he feels about the mission.

    That’s not logic, its intellectual contortionism. Petraeus pioneered the strategy that we are trying to employ in Afghanistan now. He’s the same damn general that he was three years ago as is now. As a general, he doesn’t get the luxury of making a distinction of a right war or a wrong one. That’s for politicians who would choose to have no wars, but need to have one to keep from looking weak.

  24. The whole thing is a facade.

    You need to get out more man. You’re sounding more and more like Orly Taitz and that is NOT a good thing. Get some help before you start telling us that Obama is going to send little men to your house to implant chips in your head while you’re sleeping. 👿

  25. One of Obama’s finer moments? Just for having the cajones to do what was obviously the right thing? I wouldn’t go that far.

    Actually Gray, I need to explain that comment a bit. I really wasn’t thinking about the decision as one of Obama’s finer moments because I agree with you that it was the only thing he should have done.

    I was thinking more of the speech in the Rose Garden. I felt he framed the firing (ok acceptance of resignation … same thing) so precisely and so accurately that he left opponents of the decision with no ammo. Nothing personal, nothing political … simply proper punishment for insubordination.

    So I guess I’m saying I give him credit for his explanation.

  26. If she had, a daughter of Strom Thurmond AND a black candidate could have been wrapped up in a single package!

    Amen to that. You know I was reading an article about that today which went to great lengths to say that Strom’s financial support of Essie Mae never had a quid pro quo attached about her keeping her mouth shut. She just felt it would be best for both of them. The whole thing just adds to how much Thurmond sickens me.

  27. “Now, at long last, Republicans will have a black face to put in front of TV cameras in the hopes of changing their unfortunate image as the party of aging white men.”

    I guess Michael Steele isn’t black enough for you?

  28. That’s for politicians who would choose to have no wars, but need to have one to keep from looking weak.

    That’s about the truest thing I’ve heard you say in quite a while BiW. I’m not sure you really meant it though. 😉

    Petraeus pioneered a strategy in a country we had no business invading. Not his fault …. Bush and Cheney. Shame Bush and the Dick didn’t send Petraeus to work that strategy in Afghanistan from the giddy-up. Then maybe we wouldn’t be looking at a war that now dwarfs Vietnam. 😦

  29. That’s about the truest thing I’ve heard you say in quite a while BiW. I’m not sure you really meant it though.

    Oh, I meant it.

    If there had been a solid committment to this as the “right” war, there would not have been weeks of “considering” his hand-picked general’s request for what he needed to implement the stragtegy, and there would have been no grant of less than what was requested. If there had been a solid committment to this as the “right ” war, then his remarks the other day would have actually referred to victory as a goal rather than getting us to a place where AQ no longer threatened America and Americans.

    He needs Afghanistan to show that he’s tough, but he isn’t interested in actually winning it, or doing what is necessary to win it.

  30. I felt he framed the firing (ok acceptance of resignation … same thing)

    No, they aren’t the same thing. Firing includes a component of the subject leaving against their will. The aides’ comments, and the resignation were more of a signal of no confidence in the C-I-C than the resignation was an expression of the President’s will regarding McChrystal.

  31. Huck, Steele isn’t an elected official (unless you’re counting the “election” within the RNC.) Scott will be the first black Republican in the House since JC Watts.

    While I don’t “get” black Republicans, I am actually very happy to see them. I would love nothing more than to see GOPhers lose their stereotype of racism. That way we could get off the race discussion and stick to pure policy.

    (Oh yes, I know … people like me are the only ones stuck on the race discussion. I forgot … race really isn’t an issue in America anymore.)

    By the way, I’m shocked that no one yet has called me on the carpet for visiting the sins of the father (Strom) upon the son (Paul). Damn, you guys are off your game today. 😉 I guess seeing Obama behave like a Commander-in-Chief has really unnerved you. 😀

  32. would have actually referred to victory as a goal rather than getting us to a place where AQ no longer threatened America and Americans

    How is that not one and the same?

  33. Oh, you can’t be serious BiW. McChrystal resigned because he just didn’t want to work for Obama anymore? Then why didn’t he quit before shooting off his mouth to Rolling Stone?

    Stanley quit because it was the honorable way to go out, He knew he’d be fired otherwise.

  34. Hippie,

    I wish you would look me up and take a swing. I’ve been baiting libs for years straight to their face and never met one yet that had the nerve. I’ve made them cry, cuss me, walk off muttering, pull their hair – but never a swing.

    You see these pussies at these Tea Parties that get bullied when some punk walks up and punches them? They film them with their cell phones or cameras? Well, that ain’t me. 😉

    Out of curiosity. I suppose you’ll have another epiphany when and if we find WMD in Syria? Because I think you’re going to be eating your words sometime in the near future, and even then I can give ten legitimate reasons to remove Saddam.

    So the bottom line is, I don’t believe your story. You cover all the ignorant bases of the stereotypical lib – textbook. I think you’ve be enmeshed so long in academia, you actually believe your own indoctrination and baloney.

    At best, you were a irreligious moderate who contracted a major case of BDS.

  35. By the way, I’m shocked that no one yet has called me on the carpet for visiting the sins of the father (Strom) upon the son (Paul). Damn, you guys are off your game today. 😉 I guess seeing Obama behave like a Commander-in-Chief has really unnerved you.

    Why? Further proof the only people on this board hung up on race, the very thing you deny, is you libs – especially you.

  36. Rutherford,

    Deny this if you wish because you’ve looked stupid for seventeen months now, so there’s nothing to lose, but McChrystal was an Obama fan and a hand picked Barry boy.

    McChrystal determined Obama incompetent, ineffectual and weak – a danger to the very men he was supposed to lead.

    He turned on him, as so many have.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

    Obama is a facade, as I have thoroughly documented the last two days. An autobiography from a second year law student? Preposterous and a joke. The fix has been in for years, as somebody with a lot of bling and a lot of stroke has been grooming a puppet since college. Obama fit the bill.

    The fact they got an incredibly weak candidate to run against made it all the more possible.

    Wonderful article on PJM wondering if Obama ever wanted to really be President. There’s betting money he walks or suffers a breakdown before his term is over.

  37. “Huck, Steele isn’t an elected official (unless you’re counting the “election” within the RNC.) Scott will be the first black Republican in the House since JC Watts.”

    He didn’t say anything about being elected. He said a black face for the TV.

  38. I am amazed when I see some supposed “patriots” preening over McChrystal’s insubordination as if it is some kind of victory. It just goes to prove the point I have been making for months: To many people on the right, playing politics is a lot more important than the good of the country.” — HP

    Wow, is this a case of selective memory or what?

    From the last post:

    Comment #5- “Ok, I’ll bite on the insubordination and would probably agree that if the Obama WH wants to maintain control over the situation, then they’ll have to be proactive in this, which probably means that McCrystal won’t survive his summons.
    But what got them to this point?” — Gorilla

    Comment #99- “R, you’ll find that I didn’t defend McCrystal, though I don’t throw him under the bus either. I haven’t had time to resd the article yet, but from what I understand, the outrage right no is mostly from his aides, so who knows.” — Gorilla

    Comment #121 went into more detail, consistent with comments 5 and 99.

    Several other comments followed, some of which quoted the Rolling Stone article. What’s interesting, I never refer to McChrystal’s interview as a victory, in fact, my commentary is quite the opposite.

    You know what else is interesting, neither you (HP) or R or any other liberal on this blog addressed ANY of the comments I made.

    He has based his decision on the very premise that prevents our government from becoming a military dictatorship, namely that the military is subordinate to civilian government and serves at their command. Disrespect for the chain of command must be punished whether the source of that disrespect is a lowly Private or a General.” – R

    Military dictatorship? Only a wee bit of hyperbole here…

    Where was the punishment? McChrystal resigned prior to the meeting, Obama accepted it. You’re reaching…

    Again, without defending McChrystal, Obama has attacked the messenger rather than address the message, which was that the Administration is incredibly fucked up on Afghanistan and not providing the support that the warfighter in theater needs or wants.

    I wrote this in comment #121 in reference to the London comment by McChrystal: “He was asked, and answered, a question about whether or not he would support a strategy that centers on drone strikes. He said no. I don’t imagine that you, or many other folks on this blog, understand strategic theory- military or otherwise. But to think that you could address insurgent issues with drone strikes smarts of Operation Linebacker and a McNamara approach to conflict. I think we all remember how that went. So tell me, what was insubordinate in that remark?

    Yes, the military serves at the Administration’s command, that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a question or two, from time to time, as to what the hell the Administration is thinking. What strikes me as most insulting about this from you R, is that I’ll bet dollars to donuts that if this had been Bush, your post would have revolved almost solely around the message instead of the ‘insubordination’. So really, a little integrity on your part would be nice.

  39. “Then maybe we wouldn’t be looking at a war that now dwarfs Vietnam. 😦 ” -Rutherford

    We lost 59,000 in Vietnam. Dwarfs?

  40. Gorilla,

    Old Hippie was threatening me. Going to put a beat down on me. 😆

    Did you ever think you’d live to see the day that Socialist Germany has to teach America the foibles of spending beyond her means? And the “Nobel Laureate” economist (cough, cough) Paul Krugman is reverting back to 1937 America to tell Merkel how wrong she is. 🙄 This is like reading material from the Twilight Zone.

    I may make a list of Paul Krugman’s record starting in 1982 to show what a fraud this goon is. Nobel Laureate – like Al Gore was a Nobel prize winner.

    America has sunk to such depths of stupidity under this regime, that even Europe is asking what the hell we are doing.

  41. The Perfect Lib: Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate Economist:

    Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.”

    “What Democrats believe,” Krugman says “is what textbook economics says”:

    But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

    Krugman scoffs: “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view–but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.”

    What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called “Macroeconomics”:

    Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

    So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl’s “bizarre point of view” is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

    😆 😆

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103720332317434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

    And we are supposed to take this regime as serious on economic policy with Former Enron advisers calling the shots?

  42. On the Seduction of the Liberal Agenda:
    The liberal agenda’s favors seduce the people a little at a time, always playing on their regressive longings to be indulged. Favor by favor, accompanied by the constant drumbeat of entitlement propaganda, the otherwise intelligent citizen is led to an increasingly erroneous conception of the proper role of government in a free society. Like a child molester, the liberal politician grooms his constituents until their natural cautions against yielding power in exchange for favors dissolves in reassurance.

    Under the creed of modern liberalism the individual citizen is not called to maturity but is instead invited to begin a second childhood. Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself. The liberal agenda requires him to remain in an artificial environment–the daycare program of the grandiose state–where he need not become an adult, take responsibility for his own welfare, nor cooperate with others to achieve what the state will give him for nothing. – Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

  43. “I guess Michael Steele isn’t black enough for you?”

    Point taken. But do you think that Michael Steele makes the Republican Party more credible as a party of diversity and openness to minorities?

    I don’t know what my answer is to my own question. The presence of Michael Steele as a GOP spokesman is one of life’s great mysteries. But I’m really, really glad he’s in that job, and I hope that he stays there for decades to come.

  44. “Now, at long last, Republicans will have a black face to put in front of TV cameras in the hopes of changing their unfortunate image as the party of aging white men.”

    Aging white men like Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. I think the Democratic party hates Indians. 🙂

    Aging white men like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Mary Fallin.

    Expect all of these people to come under attack (from the Big Tent of Libs).

  45. McChrystal determined Obama incompetent, ineffectual and weak – a danger to the very men he was supposed to lead. He turned on him, as so many have.

    If that were true, then McChrystal had a duty to resign his commission without being pushed. Then it would have been his option to to go public with his concerns. Like I said before, a general officer who can’t or won’t support his civilian commanders has no place in the military. Every military officer DOES swear an oath to support the Constitution, doesn’t he? If not, then we are in “Seven Days in May” territory.

    Even in my brief time and lowly station in the Army, I knew very well that you don’t talk trash about your chain of command without severe consequences. Why had McChrystal forgotten that? How COULD he have forgotten that?

    Insist if you wish that McChrystal “resigned.” The truth is that he was allowed to retain some remnant of dignity by being allowed to resign. Had he not resigned he would have been fired – and rightfully so.

    Does McChrystal still think that Obama is “weak”?

  46. Aging white men like Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. I think the Democratic party hates Indians. Aging white men like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Mary Fallin. Expect all of these people to come under attack (from the Big Tent of Libs).

    You betcha! Do you think that those people deserve a pass, just because they are “minorities”? That isn’t like you, Tex. 😀

  47. Gorilla, I wasn’t talking about you.” — HP

    You didn’t differentiate.

    You also continue to ignore the points made, along with Chin and the rest of the left around here…

  48. Does McChrystal still think that Obama is “weak”?

    I believe the answer to that would be a resounding yes, as does the majority of the military. You think that action took real bravery? 😆

  49. Au contraire,

    You betcha! Do you think that those people deserve a pass, just because they are “minorities”?

    No, I think those people are qualified. Say, unlike Maxine Waters.

  50. Obama now begging the man to save his bacon was criticizing him before. What happened? 😆 The Anointed One showing his “insight.”

    Barack Obama Questions Petraeus in September 2007

  51. Tex, fortunately the voters get to decide who is qualified. Not you.

    Of the four you named, only one is a sure winner – Haley.

    One is a sure loser – Fiorina. She is turning out to be as inept a candidate as she was a CEO. The McCain campaign had to stuff a sock in her mouth.

    Whitman and Fallin? We’ll see.

  52. Tex, fortunately the voters get to decide who is qualified. Not you.

    Well, actually Tex does get to vote for Fallin. I am absolutely sure she will get one vote. 🙂

    But your stupid talking points are irrelevant to your original charges. On your playing field, the goal posts don’t just move horizontally, but up and down the field randomly.

    Graychin said: “Now, at long last, Republicans will have a black face to put in front of TV cameras in the hopes of changing their unfortunate image as the party of aging white men.”

    Those I listed as candidates don’t appear to be angry white men sport. Am I missing something? Are you aware of something about those listed that we are not?

  53. Hippie,

    That reminds me. You know how you are always making charges of FOX News dishonesty? When you make those charges, do you just shuck this from memory?

  54. Tex’s quote of a paragraph from an economics textbook does not apply to the present situation in America.

    The paragraph is correct in normal economic times. It is obvious that overly generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits would give recipients an incentive to stay home and not look for work – in times when there are jobs available.

    Perhaps Tex hasn’t heard, but there aren’t enough jobs to go around in America today. There are more job-seekers than jobs. He seems to be implying (like Rand Paul) that jobless Americans should just get off their butts and find a job. 😕

    Continuing jobless benefits during a deep recession like this one is stimulative to the economy. Jobless people actually SPEND their unemployment benefits.

    Extending jobless benefits is also humane – something about which Tex cares nothing.

  55. do you just shuck this from memory?

    Here is what I wrote about it at the time, Tex. You will note that I don’t play the race card.

    http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/03/wake-up-everyone-right-or-left-must-condemn-this-behavior/

    What you are conveniently forgetting is that the guy with the gun was a member of the Faithful Word Baptist Church – the church at which the pastor had called for Obama’s death from the pulpit.

    I don’t care what the guy’s race was – he was there to intimidate people with a firearm. You seriously condone that?

  56. Graychin, 😆 😆

    It just kills you when your best laid plans have failed miserably, doesn’t it? Have I mentioned anywhere what my beliefs about employment benefits are? 😐 Looking, looking, looking.

    Tex’s quote of a paragraph from an economics textbook does not apply to the present situation in America.

    But…but….but….that’s not what Paul Krugman said in he and his wife’s monumental best seller: MacroEconomics

    Old heartless Tex was just quoting former Enron adviser Paul “Nobel Laureate” Krugman with his own words.

    Where are the goal posts now?

  57. I don’t care what the guy’s race was – he was there to intimidate people with a firearm. You seriously condone that?

    No, not in the least. I was simply pointing out how convenient you let propaganda slip on every network besides FAUX News. Looks to me like MSNBC might be a tinge biased, hey?

    Check out the Racial Madcow video. An even better example.

    All I’m pointing out are your glaring double standards. I’ve got lots of examples, if you would care to take a trip down memory lane of exactly what you have conveniently forgotten the past ten years.

  58. LOL Gray don’t you love this “resigned” spin coming from Tex etal. They know full well the dude chose the honorable way to avoid a public firing but they just can’t resist the spin. And the sad part is they don’t know how dumb, dumb, dumb it makes them sound. 😆

  59. Dwarfs?

    The Vietnam War was a Cold War military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955, to April 30, 1975 when Saigon fell.

    1956-1964 401
    1965 1,863
    1966 6,143
    1967 11,153
    1968 16,592
    1969 11,616
    1970 6,081
    1971 2,357
    1972 641
    1973 168
    1974-1998 1178 (identified MIA’s?)

  60. You also continue to ignore the points made, along with Chin and the rest of the left around here…

    The points are ignored G, because they divert from the crux which was McChrystal’s disrespect for the chain of command. That is the story … period … time to move on.

    I hate to tell you this G but you’re in the same category as Rachel Maddow. You want to make this firing an issue about how the war is being conducted. Guess what? So does Rachel. I paraphrase: “Obama had two decisions to make. First whether or not to dismiss McChrystal and second whether or not to make this an opportunity to reevaluate the strategy. He chose to make the first decision and not make the second one.”

    So you see, G, you are in good company. You both want to make a story about insubordination into an opportunity to criticize Obama … you from the right, and Maddow from the left.

    I guess the world is full of “rank propagandists”. 😀

  61. Hey Tex, I notice you left Sharron Angle out of your list of brilliant minority GOP candidates. Is she a bit too crackpot for even you? (By the way, you know a woman is a lame brain when she doesn’t even know how to spell her first name ROTFL … ok I take that back …. that’s her dumbass parent’s fault!!!)

  62. “McChrystal’s disrespect for the chain of command. That is the story … period … time to move on.”-Rutherford

    Actually, your not being up front with that.

    Go back and read your own blog.

    I’d say the crux of your story revolved around Obama’s shining moment.

    Now, you later clarified that by pointing out it was Obama’s awesome prose in firing General M that gave you the boner. (Like any rational person gives a shit)

    But a boner is a boner, just ask the chick who was assaulted by Al Gore.

    YOU made this about Obama, like you usually do.

    You can’t frame the story around how cool Obama is then be upset when people counter that fact.

    I will say it again. This was poor leadership by Obama. He picked a malcontent to run the war. And now, on the eve of an offensive, he has to fire the dude. It sucks.

  63. Rabbit, we can all use our definitions. Much of the time you cite we were sending in “military advisers”. The time-line I am using, which is being used in current media reports is 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin resolution) to 1973. Your 1974 – 1988 period is an especially egregious stretching of the truth.

  64. No it’s not. The deaths speak for themselves!!!

    Dude, my buddy just returned from Iraq…as a military advisory!

    Definitions my ass!

    The fucking deaths speak for themselves.

    It was ignorant thing to say and you are dead wrong.

  65. LOL Gray don’t you love this “resigned” spin coming from Tex etal. They know full well the dude chose the honorable way to avoid a public firing but they just can’t resist the spin. And the sad part is they don’t know how dumb, dumb, dumb it makes them sound.

    You know what I discovered with you long ago Rutherford? The most effective weapon in a debate with you is not to reason, or even engage, but to simply laugh at your ignorance.

    Do you really believe I care what Obama did with his his own hand picked general? Either way, your Anointed One looks the fool.

    I just want you to know how dumb both you and your Messiah look at this minute. The very man you guys criticized unmercifully three years ago, you are now completely dependent upon. This will become more obvious as time passes.

    If you had any sense (you don’t as indicated by virtually your entire blog), is just how dependent your whole life is on those you attempt to marginalize. You’re helpless. 😐

  66. Pre Gulf of Tonkin, more Americans died over there then the entire conflict in Afghanistan so far you boob!

  67. He picked a malcontent to run the war.

    I’m not sure we disagree on that Rabbit. That is not the argument of Tex and Gorilla. They are saying Obama didn’t let Stan run the war the way it should have been run.

  68. Rutherford, you’re making me jealous. Post #78 is all about YOU. Usually I manage to draw that kind of attention from Tex.

    What we have in common is that Tex would rather talk about us than about the issues that we discuss.

  69. Hey Tex, I notice you left Sharron Angle out of your list of brilliant minority GOP candidates. Is she a bit too crackpot for even you? (By the way, you know a woman is a lame brain when she doesn’t even know how to spell her first name ROTFL … ok I take that back …. that’s her dumbass parent’s fault!!!)

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

    What more needs to be said?

    So you like to make fun of names hey? Obamanique?

  70. It was ignorant thing to say and you are dead wrong.

    Nothing ignorant about it. I’m using a yardstick used by the media based on congressional permission to use force and peace accords signaling the end of hostilities. That is a reasonable delineation.

  71. “I’m not sure we disagree on that Rabbit. That is not the argument of Tex and Gorilla. They are saying Obama didn’t let Stan run the war the way it should gave been run.”-Rutherford

    I don’t know how the war should be run. Either do you. But there’s a good chance Stan didn’t get to run the war like Stan thought he should. And that concerns me.

    We don’t know the details.

    All we know is that this is obvious mismanagement of the war any way you look at.

    Again, your post should have been somber in nature, not glowing. Do you understand how much of a sycophant this makes you look?

  72. What we have in common is that Tex would rather talk about us than about the issues that we discuss.

    Paul Krugman is us? Obama is us? Butch Madcow is us? Angry White women of the Republican party is us? Indians is us? McChyrstal is us? Sharron Angle is us? Seduction of Liberal Agenda is us? Afghanistan is us?

    That’s just this morning…. 🙄

  73. Pre Gulf of Tonkin, more Americans died over there (Vietnam) then the entire conflict in Afghanistan so far you boob!

    Rabbit, your own statistics show 401 Vietnam casualties from 1956-1964.

    The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed on August 7, 1964. No doubt many of the 1964 casualties occurred after August 7.

    American casualties in Afghanistan recently passed 1,000.

    Watch who you’re calling a “boob.”

  74. “Nothing ignorant about it. I’m using a yardstick used by the media based on congressional permission to use force and peace accords signaling the end of hostilities. That is a reasonable delineation.”-Rutherford

    And I’m using the blood of Americans over a period of almost two decades.

    Bullets are bullets. Fathers putting sons in the ground, that’s war.

    Damn I would like to knock the school books out of your hands sometimes.

  75. Regarding 82 … ROTFL … Tex my old chum, if you knew me better you’d be surprised at what does not offend me. I am amazed at some of the preposterous names black parents come up with for their kids. So you can shift my “Sharron” insult back on me all you like, you’re preaching to the choir.

    I even have a long standing joke about it that I’ve been telling my family for years. I have a theory that black women suffer from an affliction called BPPD (Black Postpartum Dementia) which causes them, at the time of birth to scream out indecipherable exclamations such as SHANEQUA!!!!!. Invariably she is surrounded by tight-ass white doctors who upon hearing this, declare “I think she just named the child Shanequa.” Then the poor woman is too embarrassed to change the kids name to Jane or Mary. 🙂

  76. This morning I heard someone ask a really good question about Afghanistan:

    “What is our objective in Afghanistan, and how will we know when we have achieved it?” The “experts” being interviewed had no answers.

    Petraeus is probably smarter than a one-trick pony. To the extent that the “surge” made things better in Iraq, the same may not be true in Afghanistan.

    We’ll see.

  77. I fucked up. I always thought the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was in ’66.

    This is what happens when you were born in ’73 I guess.

    I am a boob. I’m going to give my self a charlie horse.

    Pow!!!!!!

    Damn, that hurt.

    I really did it too.

    ________________________________________________

    59,000 died. I am sticking to my guns on that. When people start forgetting that and what the means to real people, it’s time for Dead Rabbit to force Rutherford on a school field trip. Sure, half of Rabbit’s info would be wrong while on tour….dates…etc…..but I would punch Rutherford in the shoulder every time he forgets to wrap his mind around what real sacrifice in war is all about.

    “Dawrfs” my Dawrfed Polish dick!

  78. The Liberal Mind (consider the truth of this one paragraph). Outstanding!

    The liberal agenda is the liberal neurosis made manifest. It is not a rational program for the organization of human action. It is instead an irrational conglomeration of neurotic defenses which the modern liberal uses for his mental and emotional equilibrium. By attacking the sovereignty of the individual and the institutions essential to ordered liberty, the agenda attacks the very foundations of a free society. In fact, modern liberalism does not seek authentic freedom, despite its historical association with that ideal, nor does it foster the individual’s growth to competence. It does not promote the virtues of individual liberty: not self-reliance, responsibility, dependability or accountability; not cooperation by consent or initiative or industry; not high moral standards or caring or altruism. It does not seek a society of sovereign citizens, but fosters instead a society of allegedly victimized dependents under the custodial care of the state. In keeping with its origins in early childhood, the liberal agenda endorses self-indulgence through short-term hedonism and primitive impulse gratification. In keeping with its ethic of injustice collecting, the agenda seeks ever increasing government regulation to defeat alleged villains, and ever increasing levels of unearned compensation, reparation and restitution to compensate alleged victims. In keeping with its secular tradition, modern liberalism attacks the legitimacy of formal religion, dismisses its historical importance and denies its critical role in maintaining the nation’s moral integrity.

    Can any of you “progressives” dispute any of this? Just wondering. 😕

  79. Oh but Rutherford, I wasn’t posting that to offend. Just to demonstrate the “roots” of your charges about really obnoxious sounding and stupid names. 🙂

    Want to know my favorite “root name” of all time. From my mother’s friend in Louisiana, who taught for a time in the bayou.

    GA-NOR-E-A. Beautiful, isn’t it?

    Spelled: Gonorrhea. 🙂 Think the little girl might struggle?

  80. Except Harry’s well behind in the polls and will remain so. Go figure…Only a lib would brag about the safety of seats and be statistically behind in polling.

    😐

  81. I’ll tell you one of the problems with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct me if I’m wrong but in WWI and WWII didn’t we declare war on the enemy? That pretty much defines when the war starts. Every time we send the military into a country that has not directly threatened us, it’s kinda hard to define when the war really began. Is it when our first American returns in a body bag? Maybe so. I’m just using the currently accepted measurement of the Vietnam war.

    You no doubt, consider it liberal spin to make the Afghanistan conflict look worse than it is. Food for thought.

  82. Rabbit, as someone who was alive and conscious during the Vietnam era, it looks to me like pacifying Vietnam and bending the Viet Cong to our will was a cakewalk compared to whatever we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.

    Like Afghanistan, many Vietnamese opposed us for no other reason than that we were a foreign power on THEIR soil, bombing the shit out of civilians and defoliating the countryside. But a big difference between the eras is that with no draft, we don’t have an army of 500,000+ soldiers to put on the ground in Iraq and / or Afghanistan. So we resort to hiring expensive and out-of-control private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater to perform many military functions.

    When will we ever learn?

  83. Rabbit, Liberals share a common bond with the French.

    Consider their heritage:

    (1) The French Flag and accompanying White Bed Sheet.
    (2) French Rifle – never fired; only dropped once.

    There are some universal truths about small liberalism that will never change.

  84. Gray, you can see the confusion about our goals in Afghanistan right here in this very thread. Gorilla gets angry with Obama for saying our goal is for AQ to no longer be a threat to Americans. He wants Obama to say we want “victory”. I asked him why defeating AQ isn’t victory?

    I’ve said all along what we need to do is colonize Afghanistan. Completely overthrow Karzai’s government and declare Afghanistan a territory of the United States and then force it to be the democratic state we want it to be. 😉

  85. We won in Iraq (at least while Bush was President). 🙂

    So Gray, do you think that Obama’s demands to begin pulling out of Afghanistan in Summer 2011 might be doing anything to circumvent victory?

    Do you think that’s sound strategy?

    Do think maybe General Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama might lack a little sense in the strategery of military tactics?

    He told us Afghanistan was the “just war”. “What is our objective in Afghanistan, and how will we know when we have achieved it?” The “experts” being interviewed had no answers.”

    Shouldn’t the first expert be General Obama to explain it to us?

    Just a small thought.

  86. The Ape wants “victory”? Fine. We can all get behind that.

    Now tell me what “victory” looks like.

    Hell, we can’t even define who the enemy is, since there is no longer any AQ in Afghainstan.

    And there never was any AQ in Iraq until after our invasion.

  87. We won in Iraq (at least while Bush was President).

    We did? When? If we won, why did Obama inherit a bunch of combat troops still stationed there?

    …do you think that Obama’s demands to begin pulling out of Afghanistan in Summer 2011 might be doing anything to circumvent victory?

    I don’t know. It depends on what “victory” means, and frankly I don’t know. Do you? Does anyone?

    I confess – I don’t know why we are in Afghanistan, and I still don’t know why we were in Vietnam.

  88. Cakewalk, uh. I’ll go up to the American Legion today and ask the guys about the cakewalk.

    I’ll save you a trip. I don’t have a cute “cunt cap” to wear, but I was there. It was no cakewalk objectively speaking, but the mission in Afghanistan (whatever it may be) seems much more difficult and dangerous for the troops on the ground.

  89. There is an economic study article in National Affairs that discusses Crisis Economics http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/crisis-economics. I referenced this article a couple threads ago, but I fear no one has paid it much attention. I bring it up again in light of the recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll-06232010.pdf, which isn’t particularly good for the administration of dems in general.

    Question 8b is important, critically so. It asks about voter priorities, showing that Job creation and economic growth (35%), the deficit and government spending (20%), and National security and terrorism (12%) top the list.

    Question 21 asked about satisfaction with the economy, to which respondents said:

    Very satisfied ……………………. 2%
    Somewhat satisfied ……………. 16%
    Somewhat dissatisfied ……….. 34%
    Very dissatisfied ………………… 48%

    Until the economy changes, Obama’s numbers will continue to fall.

    …The data in the Alesina-Ardagna study are mostly European; only a small portion comes from the United States. But the evidence leads to conclusions that are very similar to those from Mountford and Uhlig’s work using American data. These conclusions are also consistent with the work of Ramey and the Romers, which looked at the historical record to identify multipliers. There appears to be a growing body of evidence, then, suggesting that taxes may be a better tool for fiscal stimulus than conventional models have indicated.

    Why would that be? At this point, there is no clear-cut answer, but it is easy to come up with plausible conjectures. The most obvious candidate would be the supply-side effects of tax cuts. Tax rates, for instance, clearly influence work incentives. And economists who focus on supply-side incentives argue that Keynesians overestimate the importance of aggregate demand while underestimating the role that people’s willingness to work and invest plays in the performance of modern economies

    Those of us on the right have been arguing this for years.

    There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

    But let us go back to the economic study for a moment:

    …There is a case to be made for a broad-based payroll-tax cut that might have this effect, but a narrower tax cut for new hires suffers from some major flaws. The basic problem is that we do not know how to properly define — or enforce a definition of — a “new hire.” Presumably we do not want a business to hire Peter by firing Paul and to then call Peter a new hire; this would cause a great deal of inefficient churning in the labor force (not to mention a great deal of unpleasantness for all the Pauls)…

    This is, in essence, exactly what the Census Bureau has been doing and is a prime reason for the heavily distorted May hiring numbers.

  90. Ape, Obama’s most fervent supporters are dissatisfied with the state of the economy. I have no idea who is “very satisfied” with it. Goldman Sachs employees?

    I’m not impressed by your economist at National Affairs. Everyone knows that you get at least thirteen opinions from a dozen economists, and many good ones believe the opposite.

    And it isn’t necessary to flood the thread with long pastings from somewhere else. We can follow links and read.

  91. Until the economy changes, Obama’s numbers will continue to fall.

    Is that why Congressional Republicans are obstructing anything that might actually HELP the economy?

  92. Is that why Congressional Republicans are obstructing anything that might actually HELP the economy?

    What exactly are they obstructing that will heal the economy? It might help if the Dimocrats didn’t refuse to construct a budget for 2011. Wonderful performance there Gray. I noticed they skated from that responsibility too.

    I thought your Keynesian economic plan was sound? Something about less than 8.0% unemployment. Your record so far sucks. 😉

    P.S. – Using your inane measure of troops still stationed means we haven’t won WWII yet. If you’re right about no AQ being in Iraq, then Bush is a brilliant tactician. We killed a whole bunch of them on foreign soil and removed Saddam to boot. Drawing all those poor choir boys out of the weeds to be killed on Iraqi soil was a sheer stroke of genius. Of course, after 9/11 we never had a domestic terrorist attack either.

    What’s Bongo’s record? Four and counting?

  93. “Is that why Congressional Republicans are obstructing anything that might actually HELP the economy?”

    Since when have Republicans had the power to stop what Democrats wanted to do? Hell, even the lack of supermajority doesn’t stop anything.

    “I confess – I don’t know why we are in Afghanistan”

    We went looking for al Qaeda, and Afghanistan is where we found them. When we got there, we found that these bad boys known as the Taliban were pretty much running the show throughout the country. The Taliban want to rule Afghanistan with an Islamist fist. Al Qaeda wants to rule the world with an Islamist iron fist. The 2 work together in attempt to acheive their goals.

  94. “and I still don’t know why we were in Vietnam”

    To try and stop the spread of Communism.

  95. Using your inane measure of troops still stationed means we haven’t won WWII yet.

    There is no current combat in Germany or Japan of which I am aware. Can you say that about Iraq?

    We actually won WW II, and everybody knows the date of V-E Day. And of V-J Day.

    Troops remaining today in Germany had something to do with the Soviets and NATO. You should look that up. Why are they still there now that the Soviets have passed into history? I have no idea. At least Okinawa is useful to us as a naval base.

    If you’re right about no AQ being in Iraq, then Bush is a brilliant tactician.

    I am right – and there never were any AQ in Iraq until Bush invaded there. AQ went to Iraq to help repel the infidel invaders (us) – and used our invasion and stupidity (Abu Gharib, Guantanamo etc.) to gain lots of new recruits in the process.

    So It isn’t clear to me why that makes Bush a “brilliant tactician.” Based on but the Iraq fiasco, Bush is a world-class dumbass.

  96. “and I still don’t know why we were in Vietnam”

    To try and stop the spread of Communism.

    And how was that supposed to be vital to our national interests? Communism was an abject failure everywhere it was attempted.

  97. “So Gray, do you think that Obama’s demands to begin pulling out of Afghanistan in Summer 2011 might be doing anything to circumvent victory?”

    In all fairness, Tex, there is no gurantee that even 1 troop will leave Afghanistan at that time. Obama’s plan for Afghanistan has always connected a planned pullout to the circumstances on the ground. And if circumstances on the ground don’t warrant a pullout, we can assume they will stay as needed. That we still have troops in Iraq shows that the CinC is willing to spend some political capital doing what needs done in this area. I do stress “some.”

    I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one until I see a reason not to. I haven’t seen a good enough reason as yet.

  98. “And how was that supposed to be vital to our national interests?”

    Is the Cuban Missile Crisis a good enough example of why the spread of Communism was vital to US interests?

    “Communism was an abject failure everywhere it was attempted.”

    Not by 1965.

  99. to gain lots of new recruits in the process.

    Oh yes, choir boys turned jihadists. I forget the meme. 🙄 There’s some dumb asses around alright. Some entered Baghdad to get slaughtered. Others still remain here in the states.

    So It isn’t clear to me why that makes Bush a “brilliant tactician.” Based on but the Iraq fiasco, Bush is a world-class dumbass.

    And still far more successful as CIC than Bongo. I understand Noodle Arm’s hand picked general called him a “gorilla.” With friends like that, who needs enemies, hey Gray? 🙂

    You going to reset that date yet about domestic protection under Bongo?

  100. Combat troops not in Japan and Germany? No combat troops in either? I don’t suppose you or Hippie, who is always accusing me of bluffing, would like to make a wager on that would you?

  101. We went looking for al Qaeda, and Afghanistan is where we found them. When we got there, we found that these bad boys known as the Taliban were pretty much running the show throughout the country. The Taliban want to rule Afghanistan with an Islamist fist. Al Qaeda wants to rule the world with an Islamist iron fist. The 2 work together in attempt to acheive their goals.

    Huck, I would read up on all this if I were you. Before 2001 Al Qaeda took advantage of the chaos created by the Taliban in Afghanistan to set up a base of operations there. But as far as the two “working together” – not really. They have different objectives and even work at cross-purposes to each other much of the time.

    AQ is all but gone from Afghanistan, and the Taliban has little popular support there. At this stage, American presence there is both the solution to chaos – AND its cause. The original mission (going after Al Qaida) has long since been accomplished – except, of course, for capturing Osama bin Laden.

    So I still have no idea why we remain bogged down there. Your explanation lumping the Taliban and AQ together is not helpful.

  102. “It was no cakewalk objectively speaking, but the mission in Afghanistan (whatever it may be) seems much more difficult and dangerous for the troops on the ground.”

    Fair enough. But nothing’s is “dawrfed” by our current conflicts. We need to keep things in perspective.

    It is what it is. And there are a ton of reasons to question our role.

    Maybe I’m almost being P.C. police on this one, but, when you look at how many people lost their lives in Vietnam, both Rutherford’s and your (I don’t give a damn if you’re Rambo) statement are ludicrous to me.

    By the way, if you guys have so many problems with the war in Afghanistan, where are the blogs? Where are the comments? Where is the outrage? It seems to have evaporated since…I don’t know…..two Januaries ago?

    Odd thing is, I don’t really see too many waves being made by the environmentalists this summer either.

    The power of demagogue never ceases to amaze me.

    WHERE IS THE LEFT WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR CORE BELIEFS?

    Rutherford doesn’t even believe in the very basics of this war…what’s his post about????

    The President’s pontification was inspiring when he fired his own hand picked General.

    Can you at least see how this might be kind of laughable?

  103. “I asked him why defeating AQ isn’t victory?”

    Al Qaeda is a brand name as much as it is an organization. It is an ideal. As such, it will never be “defeated.”

    The war in Afghanistan is a war over human resources. Hearts and minds. The Taliban needs them in order to rule Afghanistan. Al Qaeda doesn’t “need” the Taliban, but wants them as part of its global caliphate. The 2 groups feed off each other.

    Victory in Afghanistan will come when the people of Afghanistan are able to fight off the efforts of the Taliban and/or al Qaeda to subjugate them. With the extreme tribalism of Afghanistan, that may or may not come through a central government. But it needs to come from somewhere.

  104. Combat troops not in Japan and Germany? No combat troops in either? I don’t suppose you or Hippie, who is always accusing me of bluffing, would like to make a wager on that would you?

    Tex, you stupid ass, I said “There is no current combat in Germany or Japan.” It’s at #112. Check it for yourself.

    And yes, I’ll put my money on that. 😀

  105. Odd thing is, I don’t really see too many waves being made by the environmentalists this summer either.

    Why do environmentalists need to make waves this summer. BP has done more to advance environmentalist issues this summer than environmentalists ever dreamed of.

    Why no anti-war protests on Iraq or Afghanistan? I don’t know. There should be. Many of us lefties still think of those wars as Bush’s messes left for Obama to clean up. It won’t be long until they become Obama’s wars if he doesn’t get us the hell out of both places.

  106. If I was up to President Rabbit I would pull all American troops out of EU nations. It’s time the thankless European pussies defend themselves.

  107. “Why no anti-war protests on Iraq or Afghanistan? I don’t know”-greychin

    Really? You “don’t know”?

    It’s been two years, he is the President. Man up. They are his wars.

  108. “Huck, I would read up on all this if I were you. Before 2001 Al Qaeda took advantage of the chaos created by the Taliban in Afghanistan to set up a base of operations there. But as far as the two “working together” – not really. They have different objectives and even work at cross-purposes to each other much of the time.”

    Actually, I have read up on this. Quite extensively, in fact. It is what I have studied for the last 1.5 years, and is part of the focus of my graduate research.

    So without sounding too cocky—I know what I am talking about.

    As I said, their objectives are different, in that the Taliban only wants to rule Afghanistan, while Al Qaeda wants to rule the world. But they do have a history of using each other to achieve their own goals. Mainly because Afghainstan is a part of the world.

    “AQ is all but gone from Afghanistan, and the Taliban has little popular support there.”

    And if we leave now this the country as is, those entities will return to fill the vaccuum. Afghanistan is not ready for us to leave yet.

    “So I still have no idea why we remain bogged down there. Your explanation lumping the Taliban and AQ together is not helpful.”

    You didn’t ask about why we are bogged down there. You asked why we went.

  109. Graychin, if you would like to read up on the strategies of AQ, and the ways they apply to Afghanistan and the Taliban, then I encourage you to read The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen. Kilcullen has served in many theaters, including Iraq and Afghanistan, as a counterinsurgency advisor. He was the senior advisor to patraeus in Iraq, and a chief counterterrorism strategist to the State Dept.

  110. Huck – I think we agree on why we went to Afghanistan. But there seems to be some uncertainty about why we are still there.

    I have some sincere and non-sarcastic question for you, since you have studied up on all this:

    Does the presence of American troops on Afghan soil help on hinder the process of making Afghanistan able to govern itself?

    Is Afghanistan governable from a central location? In the foreseeable future, can Afghanistan ever have an effective central government? Or will Afghanistan always be a collection of tribal territories that won’t submit to any central authority?

  111. Man…..I remember when Rutherford and the Rabbit used to get into some heated exchanges over Gitmo. Man, we would both get pissed off. Remember that, Rutherford?. All the passion?

    It’s weird how it doesn’t bother you anymore.

  112. Obama doesn’t need to close Gitmo anymore. Because nobody cares. It’s just not an issue.

    Sure, the outrage was phony to begin with. And sure, Obama lied about closing it.

    But who cares?

    Problem solved.

    Rutherford can sleep soundly at night now, his Obama action figure tucked in his armpit, and those Al Queda fucks can rot away in Gitmo. Win! Win!

    Obama may be a genius after all.

    Continue Bush policies while still having the Bush bashers make blogs about how nice you spoke the other day!

  113. Rabbit, Guantanamo bothers me a lot. The sooner we close it the better.

    I’m guessing that it was easier to round up suspects (or purchase them from warlords) and ship them to Guantanamo than it is to find someone to take them off our hands after all these years of our holding them there without charges.

    Just a hunch.

    At least we have stopped filling the damn place with random “detainees.”

  114. lol….yeah….I can feel your passion!

    I’ve been reading all your comments on this subject of late!

    ha ha…that damn President Bush!

    Read in Pre School Teacher Voice: Yeah. Good Job! You’re right…it’s hard to find a place for Al Queda terrorists taken from a theater of war.

    Kind of what we were saying back in the day.

    I guess there is some kind statue of limitations when it comes to you and you’re lefties giving a shit.

  115. Rabbit – just curious:

    I know that Obama promised to close Guantanamo, and it hasn’t happened yet. Are you just happy and gloating about that? Or do you think that something should be done differently? If so, what?

    Did you think that Guantanamo was a good idea in the first place? Do you still think so? What should be its future? Should the people there ever get trials? If not, why?

    No need to answer all of those – I just wonder where you’re coming from.

  116. Yeah, I do think Gitmo is a good idea.

    In fact, most of the problems over Gitmo wouldn’t exist if you and your kind were so good at shutting the fuck up like you are now!

    I’m not gloating at all.

    Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in the left and how shallow you guys really are.

    Your “core” beliefs are easily squashed.

    The things you guys wrote about in 2007, which are still completely unresolved, don’t come up anymore.

    I think you, Greychin, have the explaining to do on that….not the Rabbit.

  117. G-chin, you can’t figure out where Rabbitt is coming from? IT’S THE LEFTS FALSE CONVICTIONS ABOUT DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING!!!!!

  118. And how was that supposed to be vital to our national interests? Communism was an abject failure everywhere it was attempted.

    Its done a fair job at allowing petty tyrants to sell “equality” snake oil to the gullible and ended up killing millions of people. It met us in arms and subverted governments that were freindly to us. It put a smiley face on a God is dead philosophy, and demonstrated that a lifestyle based on the the primacy of humanity and humanity’s ability to define right and wrong can only ever lead to the enshrining of arbitrary law, in which man is only a cog in a machine, living a life that is ruled only by the exercise of raw power and the amassing of material wealth.

    Considering that a world ruled by humanistic principles will inevitably lead to human life without value or dignity other than its contributions to society, I’d say that such ideals put into practice are antithetical to every principal on which our nation was built. That makes it a threat.

  119. Tex, you stupid ass, I said “There is no current combat in Germany or Japan.” It’s at #112. Check it for yourself.

    Graychin, you pedantic numb nuts. I’m not sure you’re even lucid anymore. I’ve plucked your pubes so many times now, you’re grasping for straws to get back at me. I used “combat” soldiers because we were talking about the military and we were talking about “combat.”

    Here’s your comment verbatim in #103 imbecile:

    We did? When? If we won, why did Obama inherit a bunch of combat troops still stationed there?

    Do you see the word combat troops in your own statement dummy? You’ve been hanging around your toady Dawg too long. You’re out of your element now and fairing well. Dementia, or something.

    Wake the fuck up and get your head back in the game gramps.

  120. 25 Saudi Gitmo prisoners return to militancy

    Rabbit, it’s all the Americans fault. GITMO and all. 😐

    RIYADH (Reuters) – Around 25 former detainees from Guantanamo Bay camp returned to militancy after going through a rehabilitation programme for al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi security official said on Saturday.

    The United States have sent back around 120 Saudis from the detention camp at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, set up after the U.S. launched a “war on terror” following the September 11 attacks by mostly Saudi suicide hijackers sent by al Qaeda.

    Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, has put the returned prisoners along with other al Qaeda suspects through a rehabilitation programme which includes religious re-education by clerics and financial help to start a new life.

    ANOTHER SUCCESS FOR OBAMA!

  121. Some comments I agree with:
    dead rabbit #7
    Huck #15 and
    Gray #20.
    Some comments I saw I’d like to comment on:
    Gray # 22 SC open primary. Duh! Yes the primaries are open. Have you forgotten how you and others thought that a primary driver of Mr. Greenes victory?
    Rutherford #39 and post in general.
    You seriously think McChrystal resigned out of nobility or ease. It was a last defiant action taking termination away from the CiC.
    He should’ve been fired quickly,decisively. Obamadoesn’t have that in him,his Presidency speaks loudly to it.
    Grey 52. Steele has tried to achieve a roll out of black candidates. Sadly it appears Scott is the only one going all the way.
    Rutherford #73 You do realize Angle is still ahead of Reid right? ROTF on that!

    My only original comment “inspired” by this post is this.
    Does the Congressional Black Caucus have an obligation to reach out to Scott? Perhaps Scott will go the route of Watts but really….

  122. You do realize Angle is still ahead of Reid right?

    The key word here is “still.” The latest poll shows her ahead 48% to 41%, but she has slipped a bit from her post-victory bounce. Will voters grow to love Sharron as they get to know her better? We’ll see.

    It seems like only a couple of months ago that Reid had been written off for dead. What explains his comeback to viability?

  123. It seems like only a couple of months ago that Reid had been written off for dead. What explains his comeback to viability?

    No difference. Reid has been stuck around 40% for months. No big change. Besides, Bongo hasn’t made his arrival to guarantee the Reid death spiral yet! 😈

    Is Barack still a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one Harry?”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/obama-oil-spill.html

  124. Yeah still and as Harry ramps up his campaign it’ll move up and down. I also believe though that the lies told about Angle will only help her. Take the site scrub lie. You can still get a page covering the issues,including the controversial ones like the abolition of the Dept. of Education.
    http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/

  125. “Does the presence of American troops on Afghan soil help on hinder the process of making Afghanistan able to govern itself?”

    I believe at this point in time it is helpful, but only if we succeed in winning the hearts and minds of its tribal leaders. If we can sway the local leadership, they will sway the local people within their control. That will deny the Taliban and AQ the human resources needed to exist in Afghanistan.

    The people want to know they will be safe. And safety comes from siding with the side you think will win. If we can convince the Afghan people that we are in it to win it, we increase the possibility they will side with us. If they detect that we are weak in our resolve, they will side with the group they think will fill the vaccuum created when we leave.

    “Is Afghanistan governable from a central location?”

    I am not yet convinced of that. The tribal leaders are the key to governing Afghanistan. Any central government will have to include them to succeed, IMO.

    “Or will Afghanistan always be a collection of tribal territories that won’t submit to any central authority?”

    I think the question is whether or not those 2 things have to be mutually exclusive. The tribal leaders may be more receptive to central authority if they are allowed a stake in it.

    Also, submitting to a central authority has to do with that siding with the winning team I mentioned. And I am not yet convinced that Kabul is the home of the winning team.

    “Huck, I would also appreciate your comments on this article”

    I’ll give it a look over tomorrow’s coffee.

  126. “The time-line I am using, which is being used in current media reports is 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin resolution) to 1973.”

    1973 – 1964 = 9 years

    We invaded Iraq in 2003. This is now 2010.

    2010 – 2003 = 7 years.

    The duration we have spent in Iraq does not equal, let alone “dwarf” the duration we spent in Vietnam.

    Want to try for 3?

  127. So I went back and reread the comments and saw that Rutherford was speaking of Afghanistan not Iraq.

    I was wrong. My mistake, Rutherford.

  128. “Huck, I would also appreciate your comments on this article”

    #1) I disagree with the assessment of the article. Afghanistan is vital to America’s security because if it fails, it becomes a haven for groups who want to do us harm. History has proven that. Furthermore, AQ does still pose a threat to the United States. I can’t believe that is even being questioned.

    #2) I don’t have an opinion on that. The interaction between guerrilla movements and human resources are my thing. I would point out that our presence in Afghanistan would make for a nice hammer and anvil effect if Pakistan ever decides it wants to get serious about this. But I don’t really have an opinion on us staying in Afghanistan to protect Pakistan.

    #3) What is a viable state? Does a state have to be a western democracy to be viable? I think we need to think outside the box a bit when it comes to governing Afghanistan. If I had my way, we would secure the country to a point that its leaders could get together and work out a system of government that works for them. But that can’t happen as long as they don’t feel secure. And is probably a pipe dream anyway.

    #4) That is correct. On the other hand, turning our backs to AQ is also exactly what they want. And is when they are the most dangerous, as Bill Clinton has already proven.

    #5) This article doesn’t give me enough information. The pentagon says $1BB per year per 1k troops. Is that combat troops in the field? Support troops? All military personnel? Wars cost money. I do find it ironic that people point to government military spending during WWII as a big factor in getting us out of our economic rut, but don’t see government military spending during the War on terror as anything positive. What about all those jobs being saved?

    Sorry if those aren’t the types of answers you were looking for.

  129. I’m not impressed by your economist at National Affairs. Everyone knows that you get at least thirteen opinions from a dozen economists, and many good ones believe the opposite.”—Chin

    Who gives a fuck about how impressed you are? Hell, you aren’t even qualified to discuss economic issues…

    Can you refute anything said? Based on your lazy (typical) and braindead (typical) post, you have no argument against what was pointed out.

    The crux was that tax relief far exceeds ‘stimulus’ spending when it comes to generating economic growth. It highlights how the last 18 months of economic policy have been abject failures.

    Case in point, once again, none of you on the left can actually argue point for point on the issues. I’ve come to expect that from you now- intellectual vacancy. You continue to shovel out the talking points, be damned that those talking points fail both logic and factual tests.

  130. Here’s an interesting premise for you McChrystal haters-

    Obama fired the one guy who was actually on board with his Afghan policy.

    Biden was against the strategy (which is justification enough to go forward with it) and Holbrooke and Eikenberry have both been undermining it.

    What is more than a little ironic about this is that Obama has appointed Bush’s general to save Afghanistan. Just three years ago, Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi- dems in general- were essentially calling Petraeus a liar and a failure.

    Just listent to MSNBC, CNN, et al, and what do we hear about Obama’s appointment of Petraeus? Brilliant! In fact, that is apparently the only adjective they have for Petraeus. So, why is he brilliant? Why will he save Afghanistan?

  131. I’m guessing that it was easier to round up suspects (or purchase them from warlords) and ship them to Guantanamo than it is to find someone to take them off our hands after all these years of our holding them there without charges.” — Chin

    Are you retarded?

  132. Does the presence of American troops on Afghan soil help o[r] hinder the process of making Afghanistan able to govern itself? ” – Chin

    Helps. There hasn’t been a functional Afghan army in decades and to expect one to materialize and function now without long term mentoring and aid is foolish. Likewise with the government, there hasn’t been a functional central government in decades and they need lots of help.

    Good governance isn’t inherent.

    Is Afghanistan governable from a central location? ” — Chin

    Yes and no. The infrastructure limitations of the country make communication and governance hard. Afghanistan could do what China is doing, which is bypass legacy comms infrastructure and go to advanced cellular tower structures as the usage of landlines diminish. The point is, they can take advantage of technology to grow faster than what other states could have previously, which inherent advances governability from a central government.

    In the foreseeable future, can Afghanistan ever have an effective central government? ” — Chin

    Of course they could.

    Or will Afghanistan always be a collection of tribal territories that won’t submit to any central authority?” — Chin

    As the central government strengthens, tribalism will diminish. The reason why tribalism is so strong is because there hasn’t been an effective central government.

  133. No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.” – Chris Dodd, Senator from CT and continued architect of failure…http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

    Dear, dear God, here we go again…

  134. That’s the brontosaur in the room all these liberals like Rutherford continue to ignore. Why would a hand chosen commander be bad mouthing this regime? Notice how none of them are talking about that obvious fact Gorilla?

    McChrystal wasn’t some George Bush appointee. This was a hard core social lib, who wouldn’t even allow FOX News to be shown in the office I understand. McChrystal is a Lib’s wet dream as leader, if you’re going to conduct a war – a proven soldier, military hero (they have so few), and proponent of abortion on demand. What’s not to love about the man if you’re a Lefty?

    The fact that all the major media outlets and typical bozos are calling this move by Obama “brilliant” is an indicator of just how desperate the Left has become to prop Obama up – they know he’s sinking into the abyss. It’s pathetic but great theater – I believe in the elitist circles, they like to call this Kabuki theater.

    Calling this move by Obama “brilliant” is like calling NASA “brilliant” during the Apollo 13 mission, when James Lovell said, “Houston, we have a problem.”

    Add to the fact that Obama has appointed the very General he, and Hillary Rotten, and Jolting Joe Biden, and the rest of the rotten apples slammed three years ago as basically incompetent, they have shown how disgraceful the Left was in the period of 2003-2008. They’ve really got their heads further in their asses than even I dreamed if they think this makes Obama look competent.

  135. Huck, I appreciate those thoughtful answers. You spent some time and effort on them, which was above and beyond anything required.

    Ape, not so much. And you should realize that since your M.O. is to make sweeping statements based on not much evidence, and then to ask “can you refute anything I said?” you aren’t going to get many takers – ever.

    For example – I say that the entire leadership of the Republican Party has been taken over by the Pods. Michael Steele (especially), Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mickey Cantor, the whole bunch are all “pod people.” Prove me wrong.! 😀

    Tex, who has called Obama’s firing of McChrystal “brilliant”? No one that I know of. Obama only did what he had to do – there was no other option. Rutherford has already clarified that his “finer moments” reference was to Obama’s remarks afterward.

    Who are you arguing with now? Your imaginary playmate? Your evil twin?

  136. Re 157, here’s a sweeping statement of colossal ignorance:

    I’m guessing that it was easier to round up suspects (or purchase them from warlords) and ship them to Guantanamo than it is to find someone to take them off our hands after all these years of our holding them there without charges.” — Chin

    I’d love a source for this assessment, especially since you’re going to now lecture us on specifics and sources…

  137. Who are you arguing with now? Your imaginary playmate? Your evil twin?

    Speaking of brilliant, do you think you could go grab your twin from the Two Useful Idiots Blog you created and he shares, and bring him back to the doghouse from which he came? I know you two are intimate, being you two were alone in conversation for so long stroking each other.

    Dawg is over the calling Alfie a “troll” on Alfie’s own blog. One good thing about Dawg, though. He actually makes Graychin look a little brighter. Not much, but a little. 🙂

  138. That was about more than the “The Runaway General.” It was a message to Obama’s entire team that it should function like his loyal, leak-free campaign. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38962_Page3.html#ixzz0rsH5hEnb

    Really, I’m sick and tired of ‘the campaign’. That’s all he’s got to everything: do you have executive experience…oh the campaign…, are you functionally running the war…. Oh the campaign. Get a grip…

    Here is the media yesterday on Petraeus and Afghanistan:
    On being “Commander in Chief”:

    WHIT AYRES: The President came out smelling like a rose today.

    WOLF BLITZER: He showed he is the Commander-in-Chief.

    MICHAEL SCHERER: Obama’s done very well at asserting himself as the Commander-in-Chief.

    BARRY MCCAFFREY: The good news is you’ve got a Commander-in-Chief that took decisive action.

    SGT. SCHULTZ: There’s no question who the boss is. It’s the Commander-in-Chief.

    Why all the effort? Could it be that there is a perception that he’s not assertive and in control? He’s never appeared to be in control of Afghanistan, and the BP situation has only exacerbated that perception. And I’m willint to argue that the content of the Rolling Stone article is what they were focused on countering- the fact that the article makes the Administration look like amateur hour.

    And on being “brilliant”:
    FRAN TOWNSEND: It was a brilliant and inspired move to look to General Petraeus.

    DAVID RODHAM GERGEN: I would rate this as one of the best decisions he’s made as president. He managed a brilliant choice in General Petraeus.

    BLITZER: A very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus.

    CHIP REID: It sounds like a pretty brilliant decision.

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: It seems like a brilliant choice.

    ERIN BILLINGS: Petraeus was a brilliant choice.

    CHUCK TODD: It’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the president.

    CHRIS MATTHEWS: The recruitment of General Petraeus for this new assignment is brilliant. It’s perfect.

    Wow, the talking points were sent early.

    Here’s a novel idea, why don’t you pay a little attention to the content of the article and think about it, because God and country has read it now and you’re going to have to overcome that…

  139. Have you folks ever stopped to think that people actually think the move was brilliant – that it isn’t merely a matter of talking points?

    You all seem very able to critique the choice. Perhaps you know of a better choice than Petraeus? Who might that be?

  140. Re: Ape at #164

    I’d love a source for this assessment, especially since you’re going to now lecture us on specifics and sources…

    For the source, just read the first two words of my statement that you quoted.

    Then prove me wrong! 😀

  141. Have you folks ever stopped to think that people actually think the move was brilliant – that it isn’t merely a matter of talking points?

    Actually, I have.

    The Runaway General’s main criticism seems to be that it was our civilians in theatre who were frustrating his efforts and mission. And they may have been doing exactly that.

    And once he was out of the picture, the President was free to tap Petraeus for the job, but that doesn’t mean he has to or wants to fix the problem. And if Petraeus fails because he doesn’t get what he asks for, or because our civilians in Afghanistan continue to undermine the militray’s plan and purpose, then the President has a ready-made excuse to embrace the failure, say that we gave it our best shot, and withdraw from the conflict. If he gets to have Petraeus discredited in the process, then he gets the cherry on top.

    Yeah, I considered it for a bit.

  142. Obama’s firing of McChrystal may seem “brilliant” to some morons (although not to anyone here) based on nothing more than their own low expectations for him.

    Anyone who thinks that firing McChrystal “brilliant” is an idiot. All that Obama did was his Constitutionally-mandated job as CIC.

    Just another day in the Oval Office.

    The only thing “brilliant” about choosing Petraeus as a replacement is that it promptly silenced all but the most insane of Obama’s critics. (If the shoe fits, wear it.)

    But I don’t think that was why Obama picked Petraeus to command the effort in Afghanistan. I think he tried to pick the best man for the job. With whatever faults Petraeus may have, and whatever past criticism he may have received, he’s probably the best man for the job. The “obvious” choice would have been McChrystal’s deputy commander, but at this point he is tainted by the same stink as McChrystal.

  143. …then the President has a ready-made excuse to embrace the failure, say that we gave it our best shot, and withdraw from the conflict. If he gets to have Petraeus discredited in the process, then he gets the cherry on top.

    BIC, what else would you expect from a president who wants to destroy the United States, allow it to be taken over by the Taliban, and turned into an Islamic republican run under Sharia law?

    Or something like that….

  144. So let it be known, Greychin doesn’t know shit—it’s all out of his ass.

    Thanks for clearing that up for us Chin. 😉

    Here’s is the irony in all of this: Petraeus recommended McChrystal for the gig. McChrystal worked for Petraeus in Iraq, this was Petraeus’s man in Afghanistan.

    BiW echo’s what I’ve been saying- read the God-damned article and see the points. We’ve already acknowledged that McChrystal was in the wrong, and we’ve moved on while you guys are still high-fiving each other on Obama’s moment of Commander-in-Chiefness.

    Here’s the point: Petraeus and McChrystal were on the same page strategywise. McChrystal’s staff arguments were that the Administration’s own civilians were undermining the entire strategy. Whether it’s Biden’s stupid comments, or Eikenberry’s undermining the Afghans, or Holbrooke just fucking the whole thing up.

    If Obama is serious about reinvigorating the Afghan strategy, he needs to ignore the bruise to his ego (which I think we can all honestly assess is why he acted so fast on this) and really question the civilian support to this right now.

  145. Here’s the point: Petraeus and McChrystal were on the same page strategywise. McChrystal’s staff arguments were that the Administration’s own civilians were undermining the entire strategy. Whether it’s Biden’s stupid comments, or Eikenberry’s undermining the Afghans, or Holbrooke just fucking the whole thing up.

    Bingo, and that is exactly what all of these “progressives” are sidestepping in addressing. Nobody from the Left has attempted to answer why McChrystal was frustrated. While Obama dithered and Jolting Joe was worth a gaffe a minute, men were being killed.

    Lame leadership from an equally lame President. It must be killing these weak libs to watch their heart and soul be an abject failure in every regard.

    Obama makes Jimmy Carter look strong.

  146. Nobody from the Left has attempted to answer why McChrystal was frustrated.

    I believe that Huck and I were discussing this extensively earlier in this thread – Huck more knowledgeably than me.

    This so-called war (actually, it’s classic “nation-building”) has been going on for over eight years. But since we chased the Taliban out of town and installed Karzai in a government that can’t even reach huge swaths of what may be ungovernable territory, there just hasn’t been much progress made. In eight long years!

    But Tex is sure that the frustration felt by McChrystal and his rowdy bunch is all the fault of Obama and his crew.

    Right. What else could it be?

  147. Obama’s firing of McChrystal may seem “brilliant” to some morons (although not to anyone here) based on nothing more than their own low expectations for him.

    Anyone who thinks that firing McChrystal “brilliant” is an idiot. All that Obama did was his Constitutionally-mandated job as CIC.

    That strong conviction from our resident High Poobah progressive might carry a little more weight if it weren’t for the very fact, that the same “idiots” and “morons” calling Obama “brilliant” in canning McChrystal and choosing Petraeus, weren’t the very same ones Mr. Progressive High Poobah wasn’t always using as his source for truth.

    MSNBC, PuffHo, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc…

    I guess the obvious still eludes him.

  148. If Obama is serious about reinvigorating the Afghan strategy, he needs to ignore the bruise to his ego (which I think we can all honestly assess is why he acted so fast on this) and really question the civilian support to this right now.

    Gorilla, I think it had to do with more than ego. It had to do with publically reminding everyone who is in charge. That isn’t an ego thing – that is about reminding people that there is a chain of command.

    I have seen some people suggest that Obama still didn’t act quickly enough – that he should have never allowed McChrystal even the opportunity to explain himself.

    I would certainly agree that we need to change what we are doing on the civilian level. I don’t claim to know how that should change – but clearly that has been part of the problem.

    Another part of the problem – one that a lot of people seem to be ignoring – is that we are working with a tribal culture. Our political influence in a tribal culture will be rarely go much beyond “what can you do for my tribe.” I know that one criticism of McChrystal was his desire to work with Karzai – whi is thge figurehead of the central government. To answer a question asked yesterday, I think that having a strong national government in Afghanistan is problematic. That relationship may have to change.

    Does this mean we should be out of Afghanistan? Absolutely not – I think is strategically crucial. But, clearly something in the strategy needs to shift.

  149. But since we chased the Taliban out of town and installed Karzai in a government that can’t even reach huge swaths of what may be ungovernable territory, there just hasn’t been much progress made. In eight long years!

    Gray – exactly what I was trying to say in my last post.

  150. But Tex is sure that the frustration felt by McChrystal and his rowdy bunch is all the fault of Obama and his crew.

    I can’t verify this, but I never heard rumor General Petraeus refer to his Commander-in-Chief as a Gorilla (or would that be chimp) when serving under George W. Bush. To call your boss a gorilla might be an indicator that your boss and his crew (V.P. Joe “Bite Me”) would play a large part in the frustration. Oh is gorilla and bite me now an indicator of endearment in progressive camps?

    Perhaps it is partially the guilt McChrystal feels in covering up the Pat Tillman friendly fire that you goons tried to lay at the feet of George Bush?

    It should come as no surprise the disgust and dishonesty of the cover up came from a progressive.

    You elected Obama. Be a man for once and own up to the problems you helped create and still carry forth with your inanity of electing in incompetent.

  151. We were working with a tribal culture in Iraq too, or has that little fact been forgotten?

    Oh, that’s right. The surge didn’t work, did it Commander Obama.

    🙄

  152. Tex, would you mind re-wording your first paragraph in #179? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

    I hope that no military man was referring to his CIC as “an800lbgorilla” – how much more insulting can you get? 😀

  153. That “tribal culture” in Iraq didn’t prevent the functioning of a strong central government under Saddam. Iraqis are used to a central government, everywhere in their country. Afghans have never experienced anything like that.

    That’s a swing and a miss for you.

  154. Graychin,

    For somebody who just called his prized sources of information for blog commentary “idiots” and “morons” in less than one comment in #171, I doubt it surprises anyone that you would not have the moxie to grasp #179 either.

    I assume you won’t any future problem with the continual reminder of who you once thought “moron” and “idiot” when you reference them? Please set that to memory so I don’t have to continually remind you of your inconsistency in application. It becomes so tedious, kind of like your “Jesus was there from the beginning” comment at Alfie’s the other day to attempt to duck out of a charge you made, then suddenly became uncomfortable.

    Your tenets and principles seem to shift when and if convenient, sometimes from one post to the next. Like Obama.

  155. Graychin, my knowledge of this stuff comes from study and books. Gorilla’s knowledge of this stuff comes from practice. It might be what I study, but it’s what he does (or at least did). You might not agree with his answers on the topic of insurgencies, but it is ignoring years of experience to discount them outright.

    “I believe that Huck and I were discussing this extensively earlier in this thread ”

    The stuff I said had nothing to do with my thoughts on McCrystal. I don’t know enough about him or his actions in Afghanistan to have an opinion.

    “But since we chased the Taliban out of town….”

    We have not chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We’ve only driven them from out in the open. If we turn out the lights, the roaches will come back out of their holes.

  156. I think Coach Gray’s swing and a miss just left the park, high over the center field wall.

    That “tribal culture” in Iraq didn’t prevent the functioning of a strong central government under Saddam.

    Now would that be that strong central government, where Saddam Obama gassed, bulldozed, raped, and killed about half a million of his own?

    See Coach, your memory is about as long as your squirrel sized pecker, because about the time Saddam was hanging by his neck, we had the Kurds demanded Kurdistan and threatening war with Turkey, the recalcitrant Shiite Muqtada Al-Sadr ducking in and out of Iran when he wasn’t killing Sunnis, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the AQ that wasn’t there by the way, killing about anything that moved not labeled Sunni. Strong central government indeed. 🙄

  157. Yes, Tex. That’s the “strong central government” I was referring to.

    Thanks for pointing out to everyone that Saddam was a bad guy, but it’s beside the point. Iraq DID have a strong central government with reach everywhere in the country. No strong central government has ever existed in Afghanistan.

    Kurds and Shiites are not “tribes.” The Kurds are a non-Arab ethnic group with a distinct language, and Shiites are a sect of Islam distinct from the majority Sunnis.

    We knew that you have trouble grasping a distinction between the concepts of “Arab” and “Islamic” – so it isn’t surprising that you have a hard time distinguishing a sect from a tribe.

  158. Huck:

    “I believe that Huck and I were discussing this extensively earlier in this thread ”

    The stuff I said had nothing to do with my thoughts on McCrystal.

    We were discussing the prospects for success in Afghanistan, which I believe are responsible for whatever frustration McChrystal felt.

    “But since we chased the Taliban out of town….”

    Yes, they are still lurking like roaches under the woodwork. I used the phrase “out of town” deliberately.

  159. gray #147 the lie is that it is still being echoed

    Alfie, I may not be getting your point here.

    It is TRUE that Sharron Angle’s website was scrubbed. On the day after the election, it was all gone except for a “contribute” button.

    It is STILL TRUE that her website was scrubbed after the election, even though they have added some content besides the “contribute” button since that time.

    Where is the lie?

  160. Wow Graychin,

    Your profound knowledge of Middle Eastern culture and history continue to amaze, including calling a brutal dictatorship a “centralized government.” Kind of like your profound knowledge of Christianity. One no longer wonders why you have no problem with the jackbooted thugs of Obama Inc.

    Kurds and Shiites are not “tribes.” The Kurds are a non-Arab ethnic group with a distinct language, and Shiites are a sect of Islam distinct from the majority Sunnis.

    The fact is that the semantics you use are irrelevant to the topic at hand, as is your misstatement of my supposed confusion between Arab and Islamic – my “Islamic” neighbor called you an uninformed dumb ass American by the way when I passed on your profound wisdom of Iran and Iraq. 😆 He said you should stick to “fishing” when I told him where you lived with your dollop of a quilting exec. Next time my pal “The Sphinx” comes into the room, we’ll ask him how right you are.

    I was pointing out that there was no centralized government in Iraq during the surge – it was chaos. To read you, one would be led to believe we had walked into Canada instead of Iraq.

    Don’t let Obama’s miserable failures in Afghanistan, where U.S. Soldier deaths more than doubled about the day President Noodle walked into CiC (a forgotten fact amongst the Graychin types), cloud your judgment this time when things turn to shiite. I wouldn’t want you beckoning back to “it’s Bush’s fault.”

  161. Uh – Alfie…

    I just visited sharronangle.com, and there is STILL nothing there.

    Check it for yourself. There is no content there whatsoever except an attack ad against Harry Reid. That much has been added since my last visit.

    Where is the lie?

  162. Tex: “semantics”?

    SEMANTICS? 😀

    Kurds will be very surprised to learn that they are a “tribe.”

    So will Shiites. Do Iranians belong to the “Shiite Tribe”?

  163. “We were discussing the prospects for success in Afghanistan, which I believe are responsible for whatever frustration McChrystal felt.”

    Perhaps, but I did not have him in mind when I was commenting so I don’t feel I was a part of a discussion about him.

    I really do recommend that book I made reference to above. It gives the man on the street a glimpse into the strategies we are using in Iraq and Afghanistan to address the insurgencies in those places. More important, it explains why we are using them. It is truely fascinating, and I think all interested in the topic would agree. I feel I know a lot more about what is going on over there after having read it and writing an unpublished critical book review on it.

  164. So will Shiites. Do Iranians belong to the “Shiite Tribe”?

    I don’t know. Do the Taliban of Afghanistan belong to the “Sunni Tribe?” Or is tribes? Because that is what you asking us to discount in one instance and favor in the other Coach Pragmatist.

    Do you know something that Global Security doesn’t Coach. Here, let me quote from their source: In Iraq, the Kurds have traditionally been organized on a tribal basis.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-iraq.htm

    Would you like to throw up another mushball for me Coach? 🙂

  165. Oh, this is too good and too easy. Coach? HEY COACH?

    From Wikipedia Coach Dumbass: Read it an weep:

    Many Iraqis identify more or less strongly with a tribe (العشيرة’ashira), and some feel a stronger loyalty to their clans or tribes than to any national government. Thirty of the 150 or so identifiable tribes in Iraq are the most influential. Tribes are grouped into federations (qabila). Below the level of the tribe, there are the clan (الفخذfukhdh), the house (البيتbeit) and the extended family (الخمسkhams).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_tribes_in_Iraq

    How many more sources do you need Coach? I’ve got about fifty of them stating in the heading GRAYCHIN IS A DUMB SHIT. 🙂

  166. I thought this was funny:

    Soccer, the Left, & the Farce of Multiculturalism

    Soccer is the world’s most popular sport, which makes it the most multicultural of sports. From this it should follow that the multicultural movement here in America would strongly support soccer. But instead of embracing the sport of the “Other,” the movement has ignored sports, and while younger multiculturalists may be soccer fans, the older ones have generally clung to America’s own sports. Soccer in America has ended up being a sport for those in the middle or even on the right rather than for those on the left. The people who show up at soccer games include fraternity jocks, sorority girls and members of the military, none of whom are thought of as multiculturalist or open-minded by those on the left. This book is about sports in America and the rest of the world. The many topics it explores include soccer’s place in the world, a comparison of the sports environments in America and England, a critical examination of America’s sports, the history of prejudice against soccer in America, and the failure of many of America’s leftists to overcome that prejudice.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1452001383?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1452001383

    Now even I will admit this is piling on. 😆

  167. We were working with a tribal culture in Iraq too, or has that little fact been forgotten?

    There are many differences between the tribal cultures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    1) As others have pointed out, in Iraq there was a history of a strong central government. This is not to imply that it was a good government, but there was a history of central control. Afghanistan has never had such.

    2) Iraq is somewhat smaller geographically, but more importantly the terrain far less formidable. Tribal groups in Iraq really can’t vanish into the hills the way they can in Afghanistan.

    3) The Pakistan problem doesn’t exist in Iraq. The fact that parts of Pakistan have proven ungovernable gives the Taliban a base that (diplomatically) it is very hard for us to assail.

    4) Iraq is a relatively rich country, Afghanistan relatively poor. Iraqis have experienced some of the wealth of the western world and are tempted by it in ways that the average tribal member in Afghanistan is not.

    5) Religiously, residents of Afghanistan lean toward fundamentalism far more than in Iraq. To them, we are indeed the infidel, and working with us is far more problematic that it is for the more westernized citizens of Iraq.

    Again, I am not suggesting that we get out of Afghanistan. I do believe that the tribal culture presents complex issues that we have as of yet been unable to address.

  168. Poor Tex.

    Tribe, ethnicity, sect, Arab, Muslim, Kurd, Persian/Iranian, Shiite, Sunni, Pashtun… It’s all so CONFUSING to him.

    Much easier to refer to them all as towelheads and be done with it.

  169. Organizing on a tribal basis just means they are a collection of tribes, not a single tribe. Perhaps that is what you are saying, but it isn’t reading as such.

  170. Give it a break.

    Professional soccer would be exceptionally popular in America if the networks were able to break into the action with commercials every 5 minutes. The format doesn’t pay on TV, so networks don’t pursue it.

  171. Huck – I was implying that there are a collection of tribes – but I didn’t emphasize it. The fact that there are multiple tribes of course adds an additional layer of complexity. Because of tribal rivalries, whenever you do something for one tribe you become the enemy of a rival tribe.

  172. Tribe, ethnicity, sect, Arab, Muslim, Kurd, Persian/Iranian, Shiite, Sunni, Pashtun… It’s all so CONFUSING to him.

    Much easier to refer to them all as towelheads and be done with it.

    It hurts when you’ve received your comeuppance, doesn’t it Coach Gray? Tsk tsk. Would you like your ball back?

    I’m sorry. Better luck next time. Bring a smaller ball or a bigger bat. 😈

  173. Good point, HP.

    American football, basketball and baseball are ideally suited to the American way of television – advertising dollars driving the bus, with frequent commercial interruptions during timeouts and inning changes.

    The network moguls just haven’t yet figured out a good way to run commercials during the continuous action of soccer matches.

  174. Good point, HP.

    Actually, it is not, though I’m not defending the book. I thought the premise funny.

    Professional soccer would be exceptionally popular in America if the networks were able to break into the action with commercials every 5 minutes. The format doesn’t pay on TV, so networks don’t pursue it.

    ABC and ESPN are televising the world cup as we speak and will televise live and in their entirety 58 of the 64 matches. Soccer is to America what the Olympics are – popular enough to attract a large audience every four years. Gymnastics, track & field, swimming are all popular recreational sports that can be interrupted – and yet don’t deliver a large viewing audience. Hockey is not easily interrupted, yet has been highly successful.

    The North American Soccer League (NASL) was a professional soccer league with teams in the United States and Canada that operated from 1968 to 1984. Average attendance never did exceed 14,000 before filing bankruptcy. The new U.S. Major League Soccer averages about 16,000 and available for viewing on ABC each weekend.

    If the TV viewing audience were the biggest indicator of success and popularity, golf would not be a popular sport shared with Europeans. It is equally popular.

    The Four Majors in Golf Matches “Augusta, U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA all have restrictions on the number of commercial minutes viewed during a telecast – with Augusta only allowing 4 minutes per hour of interruption.

    Americans are saturated with sports and soccer ranks way down the list in professional interest.

  175. There are tribes in both the Shia sect of Islam as well as in the ethnic community of the Kurds.

    Tribalism is nothing more than feudalism, the stronger the government gets, the less tribalism you’ll see.

    What exactly are you trying to say Chin in 181?

  176. you see the link in 146?
    If you go to
    http://www.sharronangle.com/
    under the 100% bar there are tabs that say “Issues” and About Sharron.
    I’m not attacking your scrubbed I’m all about the continuing echoes as if it is still tg=hat way. It isn’t and hasn’t been for some time. It is a lie

  177. I think I’ve recapped this…. So the Taliban wasn’t a centralized government?
    @HP I agree with the points you make in #199.
    Perhaps I did miss something though.
    btw Soccer/intl. football SUCKS

  178. The tide turning in Afghanistan is ultimately up to the Afghans themselves.

    If we were to pull out now, I would not consider this a military defeat anymore than I consider Vietnam a military defeat. I would consider that like the South Vietnamese, Afghans failed themselves. Our military has performed more than admirably, just like they did in Iraq.

    I have little doubt our military could turn the Taliban into meat in a matter of days. But as long as the Taliban can crawl back into the general populace without restraint, as long as their “government” corrupt and I believe Karzai is, as long as our military constrained by rules of engagement and held to standards of conduct not conducive to real engagement, I too question as to maybe it is time to reevaluate our strategy for being there.

    I don’t blame our military for being frustrated. When a people apparently are not willing to help themselves, then I begin to question why should we jeopardize one soldier for civilization’s sake.

    I’m reminded of the line from the movie Full Metal Jacket when they asked Animal Mother about his Vietnam strategy:

    Well, if you ask me, uh, we’re shooting the wrong gooks.

  179. This so-called war (actually, it’s classic “nation-building”) has been going on for over eight years. But since we chased the Taliban out of town and installed Karzai in a government that can’t even reach huge swaths of what may be ungovernable territory, there just hasn’t been much progress made. In eight long years!” — Chin

    You know, it really does amaze me at the ignorance you so proudly proclaim. This premise that al-Qaida or the Taliban are not in Afghanistan, where do you get these silly ideas from? I can tell you, as someone who hunts al-Qaida, that they are indeed in Afghanistan.

    I’ve spent a lot time doing this. I’ve been to the gulf more times than I can really count, in places that test the limits of most men. I’ve briefed Petraeus and Odierno and have been in briefs with McChrystal. I’ve worked with the state department in war zones and I kno how the National Security Team interacts with the theater commanders. You can brush me off all you like, it won’t change the facts, and the longer you gnore the facts, the longer the problem exists. Just like you’re denial that there is something wrong politically with Obama or the dems- ignorance is bliss and I can’t wait to see your losing ass on November 3rd…

  180. Rutherford,

    Why are you amazed? I said that months ago right here some place. If we aren’t going to allow the military to kick ass, then there is no need to have the finest soldiers in the world acting as target practice to appease President Tojo Bongo’s hideous nature.

    MaObama has got too many faults to list, not the least of which is profound ineptness concerning anything of importance and malignant narcissism, but I give him high marks for Predator activity.

    I said the same thing during the Iraq War. Perhaps they should make Tex General? I can guarantee you our first concern wouldn’t be civilian casualties but making the poor, dumb bastards die for their country.

    I consider Patton a personal hero and have practically memorized the opening speech. Perhaps you can see why I never considered “politics” as a possible alternative to medicine? 🙂

  181. Hey Gorilla,

    Forgetting the personalities for the minute, and being you’ve got practical experience where I’m just voicing an opinion from afar, what policies would you suggest changing Afghanistan?

    It’s easy for arm chair quarterbacks like me that get information filtered by media who generally can’t find their cheeks with both hands to say we should do this, or we should do that.

    But I can’t honestly say I have a real clue because I’m not there and damn sure am no expert. I read a lot by Michael Yon, who I think is pretty good, but that’s not the same as having real world experience.

    I’d be curious to hear what you think we ought to do. Is the problem the civilians, fear, apathy on behalf of Afghans, lack of cooperation in Pakistan, lack of troops, terrain? I am sure this situation far more complicated than what we hear.

    If you get the time, let me know. I’d appreciate the info.

  182. If anyone is interested in a fictional account of what is going on in the region I would love to recommend Michael Gruber’s recent book The Good Son.

    It is an intellectual thriller that also provides a fascinating portrayal of the political, religious, and military complexity in the region.

  183. Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

    And to think somebody told me once Conservatism is dead for a generation or more and the election of Obama proved it. Something about all the young people…and all the immigrants.

    Facts say otherwise:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx

    The only thing getting “more liberal” are Democrats, and apparently 80% of Americans think that a losing proposition.

  184. I can guarantee you our first concern wouldn’t be civilian casualties but making the poor, dumb bastards die for their country.

    I don’t think that Tex “gets” the whole counter-insurgency thing. Patton’s philosophy was effective in WW II where there was a clearly defined enemy and a FRONT, but we haven’t fought that kind of war since Korea. That was SIXTY years ago.

    I have listened for forty years now to a chorus of dumbasses who think that we could have “won” in Vietnam if we hadn’t “held back the military” – again, not getting the concept of counter-insurgency. Actually, Vietnam was an earlier version of the way Huck described Afghanistan @ #120: “The war in Afghanistan is a war over human resources. Hearts and minds.” And you don’t win “hearts and minds” by making bystanders (the “poor dumb bastards”), die for their country.

    I guess we could have killed every living thing in both North and South Vietnam in order to “defeat Communism,” but somehow that wouldn’t have felt like “victory” to me. Maybe it would to some of those dumbasses I mentioned. Who would have called that a “victory”? Tex?

    I’m asking a question here: has there ever in human history been a successful “counter-insurgency” operation? (The jury isn’t even close to coming back on Iraq, by the way.)

    People whose knowledge of war comes mostly from Hollywood should, for the most part, just shut the fuck up about it.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19850919&id=ybcwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7093,946082

  185. Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

    Where were all those “conservatives” hiding in November 2008?

    Self-assigned labels mean absolutely nothing. Repeat – Absolutely Nothing!

    For example, I label myself as a fiscal conservative because I believe that Americans should cough up enough in taxes to pay for all of the ridiculous spending that we demand from Washington. Congresscritters don’t cut spending because they know, deep down, that it would infuriate their constituents. Those hypocrites will whine about the deficit, but pee in their pants at the prospect of actually voting to cut anything. But of course they brag about all the pork they bring home while decrying government spending.

    So who is the real “conservative” – Congressional Republicans? Or me? 😀

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/23/farmer-democrats-parasites-subsidies/

  186. Sorry for little interaction today …. busy finding ways to make money. 🙂

    Ehhh …

    Of course, after 9/11 we never had a domestic terrorist attack either.

    Ohhhh Gray and HP how did you let that nugget from Tex slip by?

    Hey Tex, can you spell anthrax and shoe bomber? At least you didn’t lay the Dana Perino egg of saying there was never any terrorist attack under Bush. 🙄

  187. Hey Tex, can you spell anthrax and shoe bomber?

    Anthrax asshole?

    Believe we determined that to be a disgruntled loon not affiliated with Al-Queda. Or did I miss something? Let me guess Ted Kaczynski was also an Al-Queda plant?

    As far as Richard Reid, you got me. I had forgotten about the old shoe bomber. Of course, we also defined him as a radical Islamist and fortunately, he wasn’t as successful as say Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan, who Bongo still can’t bring himself to Islamist.

    I hope you made enough to sell your house or at least by a Wii unit so you can pretend to be Green Day at 49. 🙄

  188. Labels may mean nothing but trends do. You’re in the minority sport by a large margin. You, like your Messiah, completely misread the message of 2008. Now you will pay for it.

    I label myself as a fiscal conservative because I believe that Americans should cough up enough in taxes to pay for all of the ridiculous spending that we demand from Washington.

    Here’s where the hypocrisy literally bleeds from the Left. Graychin, you’re a fiscal Conservative only in the sense you no longer have any skin in the game. That also makes you a major league hypocrite. It’s clowns like you demanding more spending, from health care to more entitlements. It’s not going to cost you a dime.

  189. Your history sucks Graychin. Nothing new with that.

    Patton’s philosophy was effective in WW II where there was a clearly defined enemy and a FRONT, but we haven’t fought that kind of war since Korea. That was SIXTY years ago.

    Wonder what you would call Desert Storm? Looked like a pretty clearly defined enemy to me and a very clearly defined front called the Kuwaiti border.

    As far as your expertise about fighting war, I would guess it about on par as you arguing with Gorilla about Afghanistan and counter terrorism, or you explaining to Rabbit the failures of Detroit. Never mind both of them were there and lived it. 🙄

    The Patton reference was a joke that you’re too dimwitted to understand. Remember, it is me that has called the Iraqi War an unbelievable win, because we not only won the war rather easily – but won the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. It was your ilk that called Iraq an “unwinnable” war. Guess you missed somewhere, but I am sure even Rutherford will back me on this one.

    I’m sure those exact words from me are on this very blog somewhere in the historical record.

  190. I begrudgingly had to get a new cell phone. I qualified for a blackberry for 50 bucks.

    I want to take this thing and throw it through my fucking window.

    Totally counter intuitive, the internet slow as hell…..whats the fucking point????

    EEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

  191. Graychin,

    So I can more thoroughly refute your Vietnam reasoning, you being the expert and all (cough, cough), can you give me the reasons “we lost” again? I think if I understand your mumbled response, I’ve got a few quotes from those in the know who actually managed in the field I’d like to lay on you before we put this to rest.

    I’ve read quite a bit on this and would dearly love to add “your profound commentary” to my personal repertoire. 😈

  192. Oh, and Graychin. One more question if you would be so good as to explain this apparent inconsistency in your post.

    You said: Self-assigned labels mean absolutely nothing. Repeat – Absolutely Nothing!

    But the challenge on your own blog reads:

    The blog authors are unapologetic progressives, but we welcome participation from intelligent, conservative commenters…The well-informed and razor-sharp progressive minds in residence here look forward to engaging with you.

    I’m not sure why you think self-assigned labels mean absolutely nothing? 🙂

    So if I were to ask you the same question Gallup as the respondents, what would your response be?

    Would you describe your political views to be:
    [Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Very Liberal]

  193. Oh, I’ve got so much to add and it’s time to get to bed.

    First Graychin, I noticed you fell strangely silent about the “tribe reference” earlier today. Cat got your tongue?

    And second, though I would like Gorilla’s opinion about this, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with you that our purposes in Iraq parallel our original purposes in Afghanistan, and I believe that is part of our confusion. It has apparently evolved into “nation building” in Afghanistan.

    But that is only my opinion.

  194. Hey Green Day,

    Contrary to Graychin’s expertise on I don’t think that Tex “gets” the whole counter-insurgency thing, looks like the father of a fallen agrees with me. I’m sure Graychin still right, of course (cough cough). But I don’t think he gets the idea of “war.”

    Pretty damn good article from nine months ago (credit to Nice Deb):

    The changes General McChrystal wants to institute change the very foundation of the operation from destruction of the forces that would do harm to the United States of America to one of safeguarding the Afghan civilian population at all cost. The General has become so mired in the complexities generated by the mission that he has forgotten mission itself. He said he no longer wants to concentrate on chasing and killing the enemy (kinetics), but instead wants to concentrate on building relationships with Afghan population?! Not only does this distract our forces from the core mission but it actually places at risk the possibility of success.

    Read the rest…

    http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2009/10/mcchrystals-folly-we-have-been.html

  195. I hope you made enough to sell your house or at least by a Wii unit so you can pretend to be Green Day at 49.

    Hey I’ve got news for you. Only two things keep us young …. having a young one around the house and THE ROCK AND ROLL. So chuckle at my Green Day aspirations all you like … these two things are the only two things keeping us from just being a deteriorating bag of bones.

    By the way, thanks to the Rabbit for the far out JUNIP song. I never heard of them. From prior postings I can tell you the Rabbit has way cool musical taste!

    P.S. Tex doesn’t the phrase “make enough to sell your house” strike you as funny? Not that I’m arguing with you … I had a condo in the late 80’s early 90’s during another housing bust and I could not afford to sell that thing for awhile. When I finally did I lost about $30,000.00. Fortunately the sale of my next home went MUCH better leaving me cocky enough to buy the albatross I have now. Well at least it’s an albatross I can call home (for the time being) . 🙂

  196. Tex said: Bongo

    I have been meaning to ask this for a while.

    Tex, you have lots of nicknames for President Obama – but “Bongo” is indeed one of your favorites. I am curious what has inspired the “Bongo” nickname?

    — hp

  197. You seriously think McChrystal resigned out of nobility or ease. It was a last defiant action taking termination away from the CiC.

    First Alfie, I’m not sure I said anything about nobility but yes Stan’s choice was the honorable way to go.

    You can spin this until you’re blue in the face. McChrystal was summoned to the White House immediately after the news broke. IMMEDIATELY. There was no delay. Stan was supposed to video into the meeting, not be there in person. But he was told, be there in person. I assure you, his ass was fried right off the bat and he knew it.

    Also another “meme” I’ve seen promoted in this thread is that Stan should have a right to voice dissent publicly. That he simply (for example in London) just answered questions that were put to him. Ehhhhh, no. Stan was not a politician. His public answers to questions should be “I am here to execute the Commander in Chief’s policy.” Done. … period …. end of story. What he really thinks of the policy is not for public consumption … it’s between him and his superiors.

    I can think of three people off the top of my head on this board who actually served: Rabbit, Gorilla and Graychin. Which of you gentlemen would like to recount for me the number of times you talked smack about a superior to outsiders and got away with it?

  198. people point to government military spending during WWII as a big factor in getting us out of our economic rut

    But Huck, isn’t that because we went into manufacturing overdrive to support the war (in the case of WW II)? What manufacturing overdrive have we gone into for the past 9 years? None that I can think of.

  199. Obama fired the one guy who was actually on board with his Afghan policy.

    If Stan was on board, he should not have dissed the President in public. Real simple. You support your allies. Then again when you have a Rolling Stone reporter with you while you knock back few brewskies there is no telling what will come out of your mouth. Truth is Gorilla, Stan acted like he wanted to be fired. He probably had had enough. And yes, it probably was because too many independent players were gumming sh*t up … like Eikenberry and Holbrooke.

    Also, if I’m not mistaken, Petraeus was co-architect of the current strategy. It isn’t entirely Stan’s. One reason I haven’t opined in detail on the RS article is I haven’t yet read the whole thing. What you still fail to understand Gorilla is not whether Stan was justified in his beliefs …. he had no business saying it in public. If you don’t like the protocol of the armed forces, get the hell out. Otherwise, play by the rules. You, of all people, know that is true.

  200. As the central government strengthens, tribalism will diminish. The reason why tribalism is so strong is because there hasn’t been an effective central government.

    What an embarrassingly simplistic analysis. Tribalism isn’t some intellectual deficiency that can be taught away. It is a deep-rooted culture characterized I might surmise by an antipathy for central government. So what makes an effective central government, Gorilla? One that can intimidate its way into a control posture?

    The only thing from what I’ve heard that gives us a sliver of a chance in Afghanistan is that many of the people there don’t like the Taliban …. but if the Taliban is the best game in town, they’ll accept it. Our alternative to the Taliban … Karzai and his drug lord brother.

  201. I source almost everything I say, contrary to you fuck head.

    Again, prove me wrong by showing a sweeping generalization that I don’t back up with something…

    G, source your amateur hour comment about tribalism. 😉

  202. If Obama is serious about reinvigorating the Afghan strategy, he needs to ignore the bruise to his ego (which I think we can all honestly assess is why he acted so fast on this) and really question the civilian support to this right now.

    Gorilla, take note of the following excerpt from Obama’s remarks:

    I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm’s way, and to our country.

    That was directed at the national security team which includes Eikenberry and Holbrooke. He is telling the whole bunch of them, civilian and military alike, to get their act together.

  203. To call your boss a gorilla might be an indicator that your boss and his crew (V.P. Joe “Bite Me”) would play a large part in the frustration.

    Or it could mean you’re a f*cking racist. Do you really want to go there? I’ve been holding off deliberately on the potential racial aspects of this disrespect because I didn’t want to muddy the argument but I see a disturbing pattern in this country of people in high places not understanding that Obama is the f*cking President and he deserves a modicum of respect.

    Joe Wilson
    Joe Barton (what is it with “Joe”s?)
    Stanley McChrystal

    👿

  204. We were working with a tribal culture in Iraq too, or has that little fact been forgotten?

    And Iraq is still f*cked. Give me a break. How many suicide bombers have we Americans had to worry about lately? Iraqis still can’t go about their daily business without some idiot blowing himself up.

    Yeah, I know …. mission accomplished. 😐

    P.S. Thanks to Tex …. I had not seen the “neutral” emoticon before. Nice find.

  205. “But since we chased the Taliban out of town….”

    We have not chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We’ve only driven them from out in the open. If we turn out the lights, the roaches will come back out of their holes.

    This exchange makes no sense. It applies to AQ not the Taliban. The Taliban were and still are very much out in the open.

  206. He said he no longer wants to concentrate on chasing and killing the enemy (kinetics), but instead wants to concentrate on building relationships with Afghan population?!

    This is exactly what I used to like about McChrystal. So do I now understand you to say, Tex, that McChrystal was wrong in his strategy? Should Petraeus abandon COIN?

  207. She just needed to find the right self-centered-world-revolves-around-me-sociopathic-asshole …

    Rabbit, she found Al’s hug a bit long. ROTFLMAO …. didn’t she watch the Dem 2000 convention? Just ask Tipper … he’s a long hugger. 😉

    Now I know this is a terrible stereotype but she sounds way too articulate to be a masseuse. His “pubic crest region”??? I think she is a GOP plant. 😀

  208. Miracle of miracles. I think Graychin and I have found common ground.

    I too enjoyed Clint Webb…the most honest politician I ever heard. 🙂

  209. “Obama is the f*cking President and he deserves a modicum of respect”

    You mean the president should be respected by people in the government? When did that change happen?

    (My guess is Nov. 4, 2008.)

    Were you outraged when Senator Joe Biden screamed on TV about President Bush’s “bullshit”?

    Were you outraged when Nancy Pelosi got on TV and proclaimed President George Bush to be “a total failure”?

    Were you outraged when Harry Reid got on TV and proclaimed President Bush to be “dangerously incompetent”?

    Were you outraged when Senator Obama got on TV talking about President Bush’s “catastrophic failure of leadership”?

    Time to end the pity party and come back to reality. Hearing shit is part of the job. Suck it up.

  210. Tex, seriously, the article on the response is very disturbing. There appear to be competing renditions of how and when we have accepted help but I said at the outset of this disaster that our failure to accept foreign help was due to our typical foolish pride. I stand by that original assessment. This doesn’t lie simply at Obama’s feet (as you would like to think) but is deeply ingrained in American society …. self sufficiency, independence, etc.

    We’ve also got two other factions who under normal circumstances are perfectly fine but according to the article failed to bend their standards to meet the pending catastrophe. One was the environmentalists whose 99.9% purity standard is praiseworthy on an average day, but ridiculous when faced with this crisis. Similarly, the unions who must watch out for their workers on an average day should have recognized that this situation called for an exception.

    What the article points to, Tex, is the failure of many folks to think outside the box. I know you’d like to lay all that on Obama but the problem is more systemic than that. I maintain that Bush would have had the sympathy of even the lefties if he hadn’t had that frat-boy moment with Michael Brown.

  211. LOL Rabbit … starting to like the B-berry a bit more eh? Takes a little getting used to (my wife has one) but in the end it is better than an everyday cell phone. I’ve made the occasional comment to this blog from my iPhone. Comes in very handy.

  212. OK Huck … you’ve got me there, at least somewhat. I really didn’t remember Bush getting that much abuse from elected officials but you’ve pointed out some good examples. I still say nothing done to Bush rivals Joe Wilson yelling “you lie.”

  213. What the article points to, Tex, is the failure of many folks to think outside the box.

    No, what the failure points to is that your burgeoning Bongo government that you want more of is systemic failure at every level – catering to unions and retrofitting American equipment being a rather glaring payoff. Wait until they start managing health care – you haven’t seen f*cked up yet.

    I maintain that Bush would have had the sympathy of even the lefties if he hadn’t had that frat-boy moment with Michael Brown

    What a bald-faced lie and utter bullshit. You’re worst yet. There was never a second they didn’t go looking for blood shortly after 9/11, once you were sure your asses were safe behind better men.

    What goes around, comes around. Remember?

  214. Tex said: your burgeoning Bongo government

    Tex, I asked this yesterday, but maybe you missed it.

    You have many nicknames for our President – but Bongo seems to be a favorite.

    Can you explain the origins of that nickname?

  215. Graychin,

    Considering Jindal’s performance against BONGO’s vis-a-vis the cleanup, I would think in Jindal’s case what comes around, goes around. 🙂

    Hippie,

    Can you explain the origins of that nickname?

    It’s racist. Isn’t that what you want to hear and read into my pet name for BONGO? 😈

    I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with Chicago politics.

  216. ” I still say nothing done to Bush rivals Joe Wilson yelling “you lie.””

    The examples I gave are much much worse. Because Joe Wilson was publically humiliated, called out by congress via congressional resolution, and issued an aplogy that was accepted.

    Did any of those people I mentioned get publically humiliated for their open disrespect? No.

    Did any of those people I mentioned hear about their open disrespect from congress? No.

    Did any of those people I mentioned even bother to apologize for their open disrespect? No.

    If only Bush had been black. Then we could have just blamed it all on racism.

  217. Hippie, interesting article even if it was from Frank Rich.

    I was struck by two things. One, it is obvious to even the most left of leftists that Bongo is clueless concerning foreign policy, even if Rich nor you would ever admit that. Afghanistan is a disaster because Lefties refuse to understand their enemy. In their zeal to be politically correct to try and support their supposed “fairness”, they don’t understand what Muslims respect. Israelis do – you could stand to learn from them.

    Second, this article was the clearest confirmation of what Bernie Goldberg says of liberalism. You never leave your comfort zone – its a herd mentality one point of critical thought copied throughout the leftist circles; whether it be out of insecurity like Racial Madcow or Keith Olbermann, or out of elitism like Frank Rich and the New York Times. Your thinking is narrow and stale. All of you are cut out of a cookie cutter mold, chanting the same meme.

    Doubt me, read an article by Charles Krauthammer and read how many times he makes reference to Bill O’Reilly, or Politico, or Real Clear Politics, or Matt Drudge. You’ll note where Rich quoted his material from? All slanted leftist propagandist. In fact, Rutherford comes about as close to original thought on occasion from the Left as anybody I’ve read – perhaps that is what keeps me coming back.

    ————————

    An interesting thing happened this week that has mostly gone unnoticed. Dave Weigel, the supposed Conservative blogger for the WaPO, was discovered to be a poseur. The man is hard core leftist hack and behind the scenes was stating some incredibly vile things about Conservatives amongst his progressive cronies. He got caught and the comments went viral. It didn’t surprise any of us from the right – we all ready knew that. Weigel resigned when caught on Ezra Klein’s Journolist, and promptly found himself at PuffHO. Surprise, surprise.

    But what it did reflect upon perusing Klein’s blog, where only leftists were admitted, was a sharing of talking points, common themes, messages for the day.

    It makes your side look incredibly weak and ordinary.

  218. Re: Dave Weigel –

    Can a reporter who is a critic of a movement cover it fairly?

    Can a reporter who is an admirer of a movement cover it fairly?

    Must a good journalist a person who has no opinions of his own?

    Are there any journalists, anywhere, who have no opinions of their own?

    Is it possible for a journalist who actually has his own opinions to be a “fair and balanced” reporter?

  219. The “Conservative” blogger Dave Weigel behind the scenes. This is what the Washington Post provided to appeal more to “their Conservative” readers and cover “Conservative issues.” No, I kid you not. 🙂

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/13846861@N00/3437081360

    Perhaps you people from the Left can see why I’m not particularly interested in finding “common ground” with anyone from the Left anymore.

  220. Graychin, you should apply for Ombudsman assistant at WaPO. I mean, you would be perfect. Not that we from the right wouldn’t roll our eyes at you anymore than we do their current omsbudsman, but nonetheless, you would be in honored leftist company. 😉

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2010/06/blogger_loses_job_post_loses_s.html

    See, that is why I like and respect Rutherford so much more than you Graychin. Don’t hide behind posturing with the flippancy. Admit yourself as hardcore lib and relish it, live it, preach it like you do advertise on your own blog. There is absolutely nothing pragmatic about your approach or your opinions. There is no need to pretend otherwise here.

  221. Mea culpa. I’ve got in “s” in ombudsman that doesn’t belong there. I have always struggled with that word for some reason. 😳

  222. Yes, a journalist can have his own opinion, but he needs to leave it out of his work.

    Let’s say a cat crosses the street and gets eaten by a dog.

    Good journalism: “A cat crossed the street, today, and was eaten by a dog.”

    Bad journalism: “A cat foolishly crossed the street today and was eaten by a dog.”

    “Foolishly” is an opinion that doesn’t add to the truth, and even adds questions for the critical thinker. It turns news into commentary.

    For instance, if the cat didn’t see the dog, his crossing wouldn’t be foolish. The journalist doesn’t give the reader enough information for him to decide if the cat was foolish. Instead, he just tells the reader the cat was foolish.

    See the difference?

  223. I was struck by this paragraph from the Post’s ombudsman:

    Instead of just a replacement, The Post might consider two: one conservative with a Klein-like ideological bent, and another who can cover the conservative movement in the role of a truly neutral reporter.

    It seems that the whole of American society, even the WAPO, has adopted the new-agey belief that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that any opinion – no matter how silly – is as good as any other. And that all opinions deserve equal time!

    Even though there was no credible allegation that Weigel’s writing was unfair or unbalanced, his private opinions (dug up and posted by Tucker Carlson, who may have biases of his own) have rendered Weigel unfit for journalistic duty.

    Is ALL of our political discourse going to descend to the level of Crossfire? Must EVERY talk show guest, no matter how sensible, be “balanced” by some nut who disagrees?

    The Washington Post used to be a great newspaper. Those days are gone – probably forever.

  224. Even though there was no credible allegation that Weigel’s writing was unfair or unbalanced

    Would that credibility include Dave Weigel calling the obviously agitated Congressman Bob Etheridge’s holding of a student a “hug” not less than two weeks ago? Oh yes – objective.

    🙄

  225. Rather than taking Tex’s word for what Weigel said, here is what he REALLY said:

    “Who are you?” asked Etheridge, grabbing one of the cameras and pointing it down — a move more typically seen from Hollywood bodyguards than congressmen. The second camera rolled as Etheridge, irritated, held the wrist of the first cameraman, then pulled the student to his side and grabbed him in a hug.

    “We’re just here for a project, sir,” said one of the students.

    “I have a right to know who you are,” Etheridge said.

    “I’m just a student, sir,” said one of the students.

    It went on and on, with the grappled student asking to be let go, until he broke free and Etheridge left.

    When Weigel said “hug,” does it sound like an “embrace” not that you have read the context? It sounds pretty objective to me. Weigel portrays Etheridge as the ass that he is.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/who_tmzd_rep_bob_etheridge.html

  226. Graychin,

    Here’s the bottom line. The WaPO, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweak, etc… have leaned far left for years. There was never a Conservative network or right leaning publication of note during that period after WWII – late 80s except the WSJ.

    For years, the Left controlled the dissemination of information in this country coming from Washington. Half the country knew Walter Cronkite was a pinko and secularist (he proved that later), but that was the only choice. You got Uncle Walty for news, or nothing. CNN started out okay, but was sullied with leftist bent of Turner soon thereafter.

    It was Limbaugh first who exploited AM radio with a different message, and the rest is history. FOX News and Drudge followed about 5-7 years after and now the playing field is more even. You can’t play Pravda like you did for 40 years, and short of the 1st Amendment, guys like you wouldn’t have been any different than Khrushchev – rank propagandists with your typical bullying message. The problem for you is, you can’t get away with it anymore. Your lies are now challenged, your facts checked, your propaganda dissected and laughed at.

    You guys haven’t dealt well with being challenged and neither have your networks, papers, and rags, almost all which are falling precipitously off the cliff. The WSJ is the only paper of record that hasn’t lost a great deal of its readership – and in fact, with the net has become more popular.

    Those liberal entities listed above signed their death warrant in the run up to the 2008 elections. The mask came off and they didn’t even the hide the conspicuous fact they were in the tank for Dimocrats, and literally made fools of themselves in their support of THE CHOSEN ONE. I frankly am a little surprised an educated man like you wasn’t ashamed of the whitewash. There was a time I actually thought more of educated liberals, but you’re as blind as the rubes.

    All of you have sold your souls for a failure and now you’re stuck. I understand you fighting to the last breath to keep Obama pumped, like the trumped up charges of racism and unfairness, but so far, Obama has proven himself unfit, poorly read, and ineffectual. There is little which he can hang his hat, and the only accomplish of note (health care) is wildly unpopular. Your only hope really is that the bumbling Republican party continues to shoot themselves in the foot – which they are apt to do.

    But the truth is, now we are provided with two sets of varying opinions, and the people are choosing. May the best ideology win.

  227. When Weigel said “hug,” does it sound like an “embrace” not that you have read the context? It sounds pretty objective to me. Weigel portrays Etheridge as the ass that he is.

    Oh, I read it the day it came out. In fact, Weigel was pretty light on Etheridge. See, this is where I find you dishonest and blind.

    Grabbed him, held him, overpowered him, bullied him.

    Sorry, but a hug implies “friendly manner”. Only pure bias would find that word “hug” apt to describe Etheridge’s actions. Funny how pedantic you can be one minute, and how forgiving the next.

    Again, a poseur have been caught with his pants down. You try to portray yourself as “pragmatic” Graychin when you’re anything but. You and Hippie have your own unique style, but your M.O. is to find something, anything that would embarrass and embellish it in the worst possible light. That is your blog. Not that there is anything wrong with that. 🙂

    At least that’s what you tell me.

  228. “Is ALL of our political discourse going to descend to the level of Crossfire? Must EVERY talk show guest, no matter how sensible, be “balanced” by some nut who disagrees?”

    Crossfire was the best show in the history of CNN.

  229. I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with Chicago politics.

    No Tex – not looking for any answer in particular – just curious.

    I give up – what is the connection to Chicago politics? It doesn’t ring a bell for me – and all I get on google is references to the “Bongo Room” restaurant. Did something political happen there or something?

  230. Tex said: Here’s the bottom line. The WaPO, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweak, etc… have leaned far left for years. There was never a Conservative network or right leaning publication of note during that period after WWII

    ummm…. U.S. New and World Report? That is certainly the one that was to be found in the conservative household of my youth….

  231. There was never a Conservative network or right leaning publication of note during that period after WWII

    Oh my –

    U.S. News?

    The Washington Times? (OK – it’s run by the Moonies.)

    The Chicago Tribune? (“Dewey Defeats Truman” – but Col. McCormick was a conservative old cuss.)

    The Wall Street Journal?

  232. I’ll leave Hippie guessing. He’s always looking for the racist slant.

    But it really ought to be easy to guess if you consider the current scandal.

    Graychin, 😆 Dependent on the deaf, dumb and blind, hey?

    Looks like it will.

    If you consider the ghetto, gangs, and urban warfare to be the best ideology. You consider Tijuana or Saigon a hot vacation spot too, hey? Like I said before, if you’re depending on pandering the votes wtih other people’s money, I don’t see that going on too much longer. 🙂

  233. Chicago Tribune? 😆 Surely you jest? Who? Clarence Page?

    Boy, you guys are really stretching it. U.S. News and World Report? 😆

    I’m surprised you didn’t list People Magazine in there somewhere.

    Face it boys, you’re losing on every front. See you in November.

  234. CNN. Relatively unbiased? 😆 You bozos are great! 😈

    Clinton News Network – I guess that’s less biased than NBC I suppose.

  235. I’ll leave Hippie guessing. He’s always looking for the racist slant.

    Where did I mention racism, Tex? You are always accusing me of playing the race card – and I did nothing like that here. I just asked a question.

    You mention so many scandals I am having trouble figuring out which one you might be referring to. Probably the biggest ongoing Chicago-area scandal involves Blago. Is that it? If so, I still don’t get the “bongo” connection.

  236. Crossfire was the best show in the history of CNN.

    Sadly, that isn’t saying much.

    😆 You know me. I’m always fond of telling Hippie and Rutherford I think they would have a great future on MSNBC, if MSNBC had a future.

    CNN’s last great moment was Bernard Shaw getting caught in the crossfire and ducking under a table. Remember that great moderate Peter Arnett? Now there’s some fair and balanced journalism that Graychin and Hippie would like us to remember.
    He’s right in line – for treason.

    I’m still shaking my head Graychin found Etheridge’s “hug” a hug and my picture of Dave “Pimples” Weigel objective.

    Nothing to see there – move along.

    P.S. – Hippie, on two different occasions you’ve slandered me as racist, including on your own blog when I used the word “brotha” in jest. My kind of “progressive” – actively dreaming up ways to be offended and “call racist”. Academia personified.

    My Pet Name for Barack is racist. 😉

  237. It seems that the whole of American society, even the WAPO, has adopted the new-agey belief that there is no such thing as objective reality,

    You never cease to amaze me. Prolly isn’t good for me to admit that, but this typed in your hand? I’m amazed.

  238. Tex said: Remember that great moderate Peter Arnett?

    My best memory of Peter Arnett was on a snowy night in January 1991. I was driving home from Chicago in a rental car after my flight had been canceled. As I drove, I listened to Arnett on the radio, reporting as the first bombs fell on Baghdad.

    Say what you like, but it was compelling journalism.

  239. It was compelling journalism. But that was 1991 before Operation Tailwind (Arnett was caught lying) and playing journalist for Iraqi TV and Baghdad Bob while we were at war. He even pissed Clinton off for his acts of treason. He was fired by everybody, including National Geographic, when even the communists of the Dimocratic party were forced to abandon his treachery.

    He’s a traitor and a pinko – hopefully some jihadi will lop his head off. But I can see why you would like him. 😉

  240. Comment of the Day:

    A reason for the “wealth or income gap”: Smart people keep on doing things that are smart and make them money while stupid people keep on doing things that are stupid and keep them from achieving.

    People who get an education, stay off of drugs, apply themselves, and save and wisely invest their earnings do a lot better than people who drop out of school, become substance abusers, and buy fancy cars and houses that they can’t afford, only to lose them.

    We don’t have an income gap. We have a stupid gap. Guess which group voted for Obama?

    😆

  241. Tex said: People who get an education, stay off of drugs, apply themselves, and save and wisely invest their earnings do a lot better than people who drop out of school, become substance abusers, and buy fancy cars and houses that they can’t afford, only to lose them.

    Probably true, as stated.

    I am curious, though. Does everybody in the country have equal access to good education? Does geography make it any easier for some people to stay off drugs than others? Is it easier to apply yourself if you have role models, and if so are good role models (outside the family) easier to find in some locations than others? Is it easier to save and wisely invest if you are earning a living wage? Are you more likely to earn a living wage if your parents themselves earned a living wage and hence provided you with certain advantages?

    Yeah – it is all about stupid.

  242. “Agreed Huck – and it is one reason that I have long maintained that CNN is relatively unbiased.”

    Then I guess you can scratch that reason from your list, because CNN cancelled Crossfire years ago.

    Of course, Fox had Hannity and Colmes until Holmes quit the team. Is there some reason a 1-hour show on CNN made the entire network “unbiased” in your opinion, while similar 1-hour programming on Fox News didn’t?

  243. “I realized I had been lied to and used in the runup to the Iraq invasion.”-hippieprof

    To think you are such an educated man that spews such craziness is mind boggling.

    You are in league with holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and “birthers”.

    I’ve heard you say you were lied to several times, now.

    Do you realize that this accusation belies a serious lack of common sense?

    It’s simple. Do you really think Bush (and all the others that would have to be in on this conspiracy) would lie to the public and the UN about WMD KNOWING he would get caught in a few months?

    If Bush is so dastardly, why not keep the elaborate conspiracy going and plant WMD?

    Do understand that multiple intelligence agencies around the globe thought there was WMD?

    Do understand that SH pretended like he had WMD?

    Your a psychology guy, correct?’

    Ultimately, you just can’t stand the fact that when it comes down to it, the government/military/clandestine agencies don’t know everything, can you. That ultimately, hippieprof is sometimes alone in the dark, the warm and wet teet only a confused man behind the curtains. After all, your massive source of comfort can’t be that wrong, that would imply a lack of omnipotence. Thus, they lied to you. And that makes you feel better. So much safer that way, isn’t?

    Look man, I have a lot of reservations about both wars. I’m not sold. I will have to wait for tides of time like everyone else to see how it shakes out.

    In fact, I. I will take it a step farther. I think positioning the invasion solely on WMD was a massive blunder. We had the right to invade with out concrete evidence of WMD. Bush may have ultimately hand cuffed us when it comes to the real threat, Iran.

    But for shit’s sake man, drop the lisping lie stuff.

  244. DR….

    It is late and I don’t have a full response now, but you do remember that some evidence surfaced in the last few years suggesting that George Tenet had in fact informed Bush that Saddam had no WMDs. Here is one article to that effect:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd

    What also bothers me were the attempts to re-write history after the fact – claiming that it “was never about the WMDs”

    There were also cynical statements by Wolfowitz, remarking that using WMDs as a justification for war was purely bureaucratic….

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html

  245. Once again it is past my bed time …but since you guys were talking Crossfire earlier I just had to remind you of this classic clip where Jon Stewart put in an appearance …. and basically delivered the show its death blow. It was canceled soon thereafter. One highlight, when ole Jon calls Tucker Carlson a “dick”. 😀 Enjoy!

  246. HP I love you man but don’t you know that certain URL’s will get an immediate guffaw from Tex and his like minded fellows? Now admittedly your comment was directed at Rabbit who might not be so quick to dismiss Salon.com. But I assure you, Tex saw that URL and without clicking it, peed in his pants with laughter.

    I got the same reaction quoting Rolling Stone … that is until they started criticizing Obama … then suddenly Gorilla became a fan of the mag. 🙂

    It’s an interesting conundrum isn’t it? We quote from publications that tell the truth and get laughed at by folks who frequent publications that tell lies (F O X “news”).

  247. Oh one last comment on commentary shows. Is it just me or did Fox News do a “talent hunt” for the three dumbest people in the country to host Fox and Friends. Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade. Kilmeade thinks it is intelligent analysis to compare the time it took Obama to appoint Petraeus to the time it is taking to stop the oil leak.

    I don’t have the time or patience to go find one of Doocy’s dumbass remarks but they are out there.

    And then there is Gretchen Carlson who actually said her job was as difficult as that of the President of the United States. She makes Mika Brzezinski look like a Professor of quantum physics. My wife read somewhere that Gretchen is a Stanford graduate. In fact, there are some who say she is just acting on Fox. I actually hope so … but I kinda doubt it. I think she is the rare dim bulb that got through 4 years at the West Coast Ivy League institution.

  248. Yeah, we know Rutherford. Everybody on FOX is stupid.

    Anybody that writes for Salon Magazine and is left and performs on MSNBC brilliant. Kind of like Rachel Maddow’s comment about “think how much more difficult it would be drilling in Alaska!!! in the cold!!!”, or finding out Keith Olbermann’s Ivy League education he openly bragged about was from the Ag School. We’re not hearing Keith brag much anymore.

    You have good reason to hate Carlson. Not only is she a Stanford Graduate, but Valedictorian of her high school class, Miss America, and a virtuoso violinist. I can see where somebody of your immense caliber would call her stupid. 🙄
    ———————-

    It was good to read Rabbit put Hippie in his place. Hippie’s dishonesty goes beyond propaganda. The fact that Hippie wants us to believe he made this quantum leap from pseudo Republican to social Marxist over WMD in Iraq is such glaring baloney, I was hoping somebody else had taken notice. If true, it tells me about the depth of Hippie’s principles as they wave with the wind.

    Kind of like Hippie’s “story” on his blog of Pravda where he told about all the Kentucky rednecks and their barbecue, were all the business men and restaurant owners bad mouth the successful “angelic black man” who pays taxes. The superior moral authority story, replete with all the stereo types white libs love to talk about in their inner circles.

    Well, here’s my story Hippie. You think about this next time you make your tacit suggestion of my racism asshole. You too Graychin in your exclusively white neighborhood.

    I’ve never told you this Rutherford I don’t believe.

    Mr. Tex the was for a time a “Big Brother” in the Big Brothers, Big Sisters program. That ended about seven years ago.

    Hippie, would like to guess what color of skin my little brother’s was? You know, how all of Conservative, Christian white men are deep down George Wallace “nigger hatin'” types wanting to revert to the good, old days of Jim Crow? Well, as you may have guessed by now “J” was black as the ace of spades.

    I’ve also worked on Habitat Humanity Homes where those poor, dumb black faces I wish to repress and supposedly hate parked their asses to live in home with a little sweat equity from your’s truly.

    So next time either you or your equally ignorant brother Graychin want to make tacit accusation of how “liberals” are morally and racially pure, while white “Conservative, business types” like myself are closet racist bigots, perhaps you ought to get off your ass and grab a tool, or walk into a fatherless black kid’s home on your own dime and your own time to help, instead of pretending what a “huge difference” you’ve made in other lives. I didn’t have to get paid “to make a difference.”

    I would love to see each of you put that bold talk into a little more action before you “educate” me next time about the Left’s angelic behavior and intellectual capacity for deep thoughts. 😉

  249. I can hardly wait for the whitewash today like we watched with Edward Kennedy as the Left fawns over Robert Byrd’s sordid past. The narrative struggle should be a site to behold.

    MSNBC and CNN had this for the record:

    A former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Byrd later became a champion of civil rights. He has also been a staunch supporter of his home state’s coal industry and more recently has spoken out about environmental and safety issues.

    I can well imagine Professor Hippie and Graychin’s reaction to a man of Byrd’s background if he just had happened to have had an “R” behind his title.

    However, the fact that Byrd happened to be a Democrat excuses all ills, all sins, all historical grievances. 😐

  250. HP I love you man but don’t you know that certain URL’s will get an immediate guffaw from Tex and his like minded fellows?

    Yeah – I know – but it was late and it was the first link I found. I have read that story elsewhere too – but I assume that any such source will be rejected.

    It is insidious, isn’t it? Basically, any information coming from the “liberal media” is rejected automatically – essentially making conservative positions unassailable.

    I do think it is funny that Tex had exactly the reaction you predicted. When someone calls me out with such a prediction I generally prefer to act differently and defy the prediction….

    — hp

  251. The fact that Hippie wants us to believe he made this quantum leap from pseudo Republican to social Marxist over WMD in Iraq is such glaring baloney, I was hoping somebody else had taken notice. If true, it tells me about the depth of Hippie’s principles as they wave with the wind.

    Tex, I know you have sworn off my blog – and that is no big deal to me – but I have been doing quite a bit of reflection about this and have been writing it down over there. The first two of three parts are there, under ” Confessions of a former conservative”

    No – it wasn’t overnight – the move from conservative to liberal took over 40 years. The WMDs in Iraq were simply the last straw.

    Of course, the fact that you and Elric and others still try to call me a Marxist is amazingly silly. On balance my views are left of center – but not particularly far left.

  252. Mr. Tex the was for a time a “Big Brother”

    Thank you for sharing that, Tex. In all sincerity, that is an honorable thing.

    To be honest, I don’t ever remember calling you out as a racist. I don’t remember the “brotha” incident you claim. I did make the claim that you can’t predict future criminal behavior of a potential renter on the basis of their race alone – and I hold by that statement. Believing that you can do so doesn’t make you a racist – though it is an example of prejudice (i.e. – you have pre-judged)

    As far as the piece on my blog featuring Kentucky rednecks talking about Rand Paul – as I told you before, everything word I put in their mouths I have heard from people in my own family. Remember, half of my family hails from the deep south. You may not like it when invoke stereotypes of racist southerners – but it is stuff I have heard personally, out of the mouths of family members.

  253. Tex is very critical and judgmental this morning about Sen. Byrd’s behavior of over sixty years ago.

    Tex, do you believe in redemption? In forgiveness of sin after repentance?

    Obviously not.

  254. “Not only is she (Gretchen Carlson) a Stanford Graduate, but Valedictorian of her high school class, Miss America, and a virtuoso violinist.”

    And she said that her job is as difficult as being the President.

    “Stupid is as stupid does.” – Mrs. Gump

  255. The video of Jon Stewart eviscerating the “dick” Tucker Carlson in particular and Crossfire in general is one of the most watched online videos of all time. Truly a classic, if you’ve never seen it. I think that even Tucker Carlson fans and Crossfire fans might enjoy it.

    Most “news” organizations hire on-air talent. Unless and until Gretchen Carlson performs an on-air violin solo, she will bring no “talent” to her program. She manages to keep her educational achievements well-hidden.

    Unless, of course, you count Carlson’s looks as “talent.” The Faux News babes have lots of that kind of “talent.” Otherwise – not so much.

    But it’s all about ratings, so what else should we expect? A woman with both good looks and intelligence might be too threatening to the Faux News demographic.

  256. Tex, if I can just muster the intellectual fortitude, I am very interested in writing an article contrasting Republican racist Strom Thurmond and Democratic racist Robert Byrd. I honestly don’t know enough about Byrd to support Gray’s supposition of redemption. Both men had VERY distasteful phases in their past.

    Stay tuned … I can’t promise anything because I’ve got a lot of business stuff going on right now but I may take a shot at it. FWIW I think you may be right that Byrd’s KKK past will get a footnote mention in the media today whereas if he were a Republican it might get more coverage.

  257. As for Gretchen Carlson … her Stanford pedigree leads me to one of two conclusions. Either she is a Stanford anomaly who got in brainless and got out brainless or the Fox performance is simply an act to rake in the money. It would delight me to no end if Gretchen was a closet liberal who goes on TV everyday to spoof idiots like Palin and Bachmann …. then she collects her check and goes home and laughs her ass off.

  258. “Tex is very critical and judgmental this morning about Sen. Byrd’s behavior of over sixty years ago.

    Tex, do you believe in redemption? In forgiveness of sin after repentance?

    Obviously not.”

    Really, did you believe in redemption when you threw Trent Lott under the bus for recognizing Strum Thurmond? Or how about when Chris Dodd did the same for Byrd.

    Wasn’t Thurman a redeemed soul, having turned away from segregation lone ago? At least he didn’t lynch anyone…

    Here’s a fact you’ll choose to ignore- the KKK was formed by the dem party. Look it up…

    I’m at Busch Gardens, chillen… We’ll chat later…

  259. Really, did you believe in redemption when you threw Trent Lott under the bus for recognizing Strum Thurmond?

    I do believe in redemption, and repentance, and forgiveness. But Tex Taylor obviously does not.

    It isn’t for me to judge whether Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott had repented of their past racism – but if they did, they hid it well.

    I didn’t have anything to do with throwing Trent Lott and his bad toupee under any bus. His fellow Republicans did that.

  260. Here’s a fact you’ll choose to ignore- the KKK was formed by the dem party. Look it up…

    Every sentient being in America knows that.

    But politicians of that ilk followed Strom Thrumond into the Republican Party in droves because of all that troublesome Civil Rights legislation. (The repentant Robert Byrd remained a Democrat.

    Among today’s (thankfully rare) Klansmen, you won’t find very many Democrats.

  261. For the record, I cannot unambiguously mourn Robert Byrd. I remain disturbed by his past. Not only was he a KKK member, but he was a leading opponent of the civil rights act. He personally filibustered for 14 hours.

    Yes – he may have had a change of heart in later life – but I have always suspected it was political.

  262. For what it’s worth, NPR’s reporting this morning on Byrd’s death made very prominent mention of Byrd’s KKK participation.

    It also mentioned his filibuster and vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and played a tape of his 2001 use of the term “white nigger.”

    What? NPR? I thought that was just a leftist propaganda source!

  263. Tigre, as I said earlier, Gretchen makes Mika look like a nuclear physicist. I’m not saying Mika is the brightest bulb in the drawer but she would never compare her job to POTUS.

  264. Hippie, I read Chapter 1 and 2 of your autobiography. I even read the predictable comments out of curiosity. While an interesting read, there was nothing surprising or new contained within the content, besides I learned that Newton’s Laws are now questioned. That would be news to most physicists, of which I was only partially trained. In fact, Newton’s second law is probably the most famous equation of them all (F = ma), though probably not as well known as E=mc2.

    Your own story is a common theme, one that I’m intimately familiar, and one that I prepared my own children for before they left for college. I’ve heard all the stereotypes that you, Rutherford and Graychin espouse here daily about your opponents, and have read them and heard them a thousand times before. It’s routine in leftist circles, as are the daily talking points. I’m sure I have provided little new as well concerning politic. We’re each well armed.

    If we are to assume life revolves around what man thinks, or what man feels, or what man would like to believe with no absolutes, believing he and he alone is the maker of destiny, it is much simpler to adopt your mindset. I understand its appeal and the corresponding lifestyle that follows. Even that “Christian dogma” you disregard says as much.

    As I have stated before, there is one immutable truth that separates us concerning anything of importance. I’ve noted that Graychin is also using my observation – in support of his own argument. That is, the question of do all opinions hold equal value, which then leads to to the inevitable conclusion at which we have arrived. There was nothing new under the sun according to Solomon – he’s right, of course. More Christian dogma.

    However, being I am older than you (which surprised me), its more difficult to be fooled with the sleight of hand. My former life is not so different than your own – my childhood dysfunctional, which in retrospect a blessing. But we have arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions, of which only one of us can ultimately be right – and the conclusion supersedes anything of political importance, market paradigms and how we vote. Those issues are secondary to basic tenets.

    I too experienced hypocrisy, but arrived at a very different conclusion than many of you did. I have witnessed your your “suggestions” for improvement in action and I have experienced the results; the destruction wrought by the “new tolerance”, the adoption of the liberal nanny state, the introduction of new age thinking in raising children, teaching children, nurturing children. I have seen the promises of rulings like Roe v. Wade with its assurances of every child would be wanted. I’ve been witness to the empty promises of providing unearned self-esteem where ribbons are handed to each child. I’ve watched godly traditions tank and be mocked, and virtually all social mores become acceptable. It is all but a given that homosexual marriage is inevitable. But that still won’t make it right or true. This is only history repeating itself and while it concerns me, I am assured in the confidence of that which must be.

    I’ve measured your assurances about “better” against the results. And in every regard, your methods have been in my estimation an abject failure. From raising children, to your schools, to parenting, to an engorged and ineffective bureaucracy for government. I sheltered my own for as long as I could and that is the best I could do.

    I can’t speak for the sins of your family – we’re all hypocrites in one way or another. I will be the first to admit attending a church will give you a sparking lesson in hypocrisy, sometimes idiocy, sometimes really bad doctrine, and feeds the myth of uneducated and unwashed masses. Bill Maher has a field day with it, and men like Graychin savor and quote it. That is to be expected when the purpose of the church is considered and is the result of man substituting God with man. I am aghast at what most churches have become and only attend a mass with my wife on occasion now that our nest is empty – and not being Catholic, I don’t participate to the fullest. While I can appreciate the mass, I am dumbfounded at the general biblical ignorance of the congregants and even some of the priests. Catholic church history is a poor substitute for the Word.

    There are still a few churches that provide true worship of beauty and truth, some of which I found by way of the internet, and those I relish. However, I also understand this fundamental truth – a church is for the broken; not the vain. I still consider myself one of the broken. If your measurement and your standard of God is to be derived from a church and/or its fallible people, then you will surely be disappointed or elated depending on what you seek – but you will arrive at a false conclusion too.

    It is overdue for me to shake the dust from my feet of a few of you. I’ve have even grown tired of teasing you about Bongo’s many failures. It’s a record of failure that has surprised even me, and I think it is my morbid curiosity that kept me here to see just how fair we can push this give and take. One of my many faults is I do indeed love the sting of battle – here or in the “meat world.” This routine of mine has become tedious, repetitious, unchallenging, and mundane. I need to get out of my rut.

    Nothing personal, but I find nothing about you or Graychin edifying. I am sure you feel the same. Lately, I’ve felt somewhat soiled by it, as if somebody or someone smarter is whispering in my ear, “Remove yourself from their midst.”

    So far, I haven’t been smart enough to take the good advice. 😉

  265. a church is for the broken; not the vain. I still consider myself one of the broken.

    “Broken” and “vain” are not mutually exclusive terms. 😀

  266. Graychin, I do find you a most distasteful individual – perhaps the worst I have read. I think that is why I looked you up. I wanted to confirm you were as nasty as I first perceived. You have more than fulfilled my hypothesis. But then, I always did like to climb into the hyena’s den to see if I could get out. Bad habit and one day I’ll get caught.

    Like I said, I have never read nor recognized one redeeming virtue about you, nor have I ever found one thing edifying about you. There are very few I have read that I could make that statement about. I stand by my “inherently evil” statement and find you uncommonly wicked, even amongst the lost. 😉

    But this statement is terribly wrong:

    Tex, do you believe in redemption? In forgiveness of sin after repentance? Obviously not.

    Knowing me as you do, I am dumbfounded how you can arrive at that conclusion. My very presence here is indicator that I am the ultimate believer in forgiveness of sin.

    But I am beginning to ponder the thought of continuing to stand in your presence and debate with a demon, I am mocking grace and tempting redemption in the process. After all, even the Archangel Michael simply said, “I rebuke you in the Lord’s Name.”

  267. “Broken” and “vain” are not mutually exclusive terms.

    Oh, you would be terribly wrong. Don’t let my foolishness lead you to believe otherwise. The fact I bothered to going looking for evil and found you, proves as much.

  268. Tex….

    Two quick points…. I can’t make a long response now.

    1) You know, you have it within you to be an eloquent writer. I mean that with all sincerity. What you wrote in 321 was wonderfully written and thought provoking. Why do you waste this gift by falling so often into petty name calling and angry rhetoric? You would be much more effective if you always wrote that way.

    2) Newton’s universe and Einstein’s universe are fundamentally different places, wouldn’t you say? As I said in one of the comments, to Newton space is a constant. To Einstein, it is not. That is a major difference – a difference that leads to fundamentally different predictions. So – yes – I would argue that Newton has been replaced by Einstein, and I suspect most physicists would say as much.

  269. After Tex’s earlier remarks about the not-yet-cold Robert Byrd, one could easily conclude that he does NOT believe in redemption, repentance, or forgiveness. He may mouth the platitudes, but if he really believes in such things he does a fine job of concealing it.

    Tex, your friends here will probably defend you – but by any objective standard you are a hateful asshole who demonstrates no signs of Christan love whatsoever. Saying that you believe, or hanging a Fox Mulder poster on your wall, doesn’t make it so.

    A person of your bitter sarcasm and gratuitous cruelty is a powerful argument against whatever version of Christianity you claim to believe in. If Christianity has changed your life in any meaningful way, it is hard to even imagine the repulsiveness of the pre-Christian Tex Taylor.

    My very presence here is indicator that I am the ultimate believer in forgiveness of sin.

    😀

    How so? Because you condescend to hang out with uniquely sinful people like me? Like I said, brokenness and vanity are not mutually exclusive. You show generous helpings of both.

    If you want to “shake the dust,” don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

  270. Well, I thank you for the compliment, but don’t hold your breath waiting for some fundamental change in persona. I only have a few of those in me on occasion when I debate with those I most specifically do not like, and the situation calls for real explanation. I have neither the time (cough, cough) nor the inclination (laziness) to do so with those I perceive (Graychin) to continually deserve the virtual slap in the face and kick to the balls.

    That is a major difference – a difference that leads to fundamentally different predictions. So – yes – I would argue that Newton has been replaced by Einstein, and I suspect most physicists would say as much.

    I would fundamentally disagree, and in fact, if the classes I have taken the last few years are indicator, Newton is the basis of all physics. While Einstein’s theory of relativity an incredible achievement, the fact that its application is applied as the exception to situations near the speed of light makes it unnecessary, except in cases of shall we say “relativity.” And as of yet, there are few exceptions where we test near the speed of light. For particle conductors, certainly. For approximation of mass and gravity, not unless we are debating with Fermi Labs.

    Your statement would be analogous to linear mathematics being superseded by calculus. One can not understand the latter, without first being able to apply the former, and the foundations of calculus rest on the foundations of basic mathematics.

  271. This just in:

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-to-4, that public colleges and universities may require religious organizations seeking recognition or funds as campus groups to comply with anti-bias rules.

    The ruling came in a lawsuit by the Christian Legal Society, which challenged the anti-bias rules of the Hastings College of Law of the University of California. The Hastings policy bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and the Christian Legal Society bars gay people from becoming members. Hastings has argued – with backing from many in public higher education – that state universities have an obligation to adhere to strict anti-bias rules. But the Christian Legal Society – with backing from many religious groups – has argued that forcing it to comply with anti-bias rules amounts to infringing on its First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

    I didn’t think this court had it in em’

    BiW – you out there? Thoughts?

  272. Dear Graychin,

    A person of your bitter sarcasm and gratuitous cruelty is a powerful argument against whatever version of Christianity you claim to believe in.

    No doubt – hence my statement to Hippie of questioning, “why do I as a pronounced Christian, continue to lower myself to Graychin’s level, and in fact continue to correspond with a demon from hell?” It’s a very valid point you make Lucifer, and one I have recently begin to contemplate again. However, note this. If you were to read me at say PJM, you would find when I believe myself in the presence of worthy foe seeking real debate instead of Obama’s sycophants of hope and change, say with a more worthy opponent, I conduct myself in a more professional fashion. You do indeed bring out the worst in me. Since I am incapable of raising you up, I sink like a lead weight when I invoke your model. Valid point and one I should more consider. 😉

    How so? Because you condescend to hang out with uniquely sinful people like me?

    Well, condescend wasn’t the exact word I would have used – tempting fate might be a more apt description, as I find you perhaps the poorest example of what I should strive to become.

    Like I said, brokenness and vanity are not mutually exclusive.

    And like I said, I disagree and would go further to state brokenness and vanity are not just mutually exclusive, but fundamentally opposed. Don’t let my weakness in inconsistency of message and big mouth fool you.

    You show generous helpings of both.

    Absolutely – hence the need for the only one that merits grace. That ain’t you, much as you might like to think.

  273. …public colleges and universities may require religious organizations seeking recognition or funds as campus groups to comply with anti-bias rules.

    Hippie – a “conservative” website that I visit believed that a 5-4 decision with the opposite outcome was already in the bank, and hoping for a 6-3 or even a 7-2 in their favor. Like you, I’m surprised that the Court had the balls (with due respect to Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg) to make the right “strike three” call on this case.

    No one would deny the homophobic bigots their right to associate and practice their religion freely. The Government doesn’t even (and shouldn’t) hassle the Westboro Baptist Church.

    But when they want university (i.e. State) support, they don’t deserve a pass on the basis of some overblown notion of their “freedom of religion.”

  274. brokenness and vanity are not just mutually exclusive, but fundamentally opposed.

    David Vitter. Ted Haggard. Richard Roberts. John Ensign. John Edwards.

    Both broken AND vain? You make the call.

  275. Both broken and vain?

    I will make the call. Nope.

    Vain, then possibly broken.

    And I can’t tell you how impressed I was that you got John Edwards name in there. Fairness abounds today, hey? I would have been really impressed if you had mentioned Al Gore, but you voted for him. 🙂

  276. Tex said: I would fundamentally disagree, and in fact, if the classes I have taken the last few years are indicator, Newton is the basis of all physics

    OK, I admit this is a silly tangent to be going off on – but hey – I like tangents.

    Tex – Relativity commonly serves as the archetypal example of a paradigm shift – and as I am sure you know paradigm shifts incorporate a complete re-conceptualization of the science. The only reason we are able to build bridges using Newtonian mechanics is that the differences between the systems are negligible when objects are close to being at rest. It doesn’t mean that Relativity somehow arises from Newton – it is just that the differences are small enough at this level that they don’t matter.

    Einstein certainly took his ideas to be a fundamental shift away from Newtonian mechanics. Take a look at his little “Relativity” book. It begins, in the first couple of chapters, with a discussion of the Newtonian coordinate system and the underlying view that space can be conceptualized in terms of a set of rigid coordinates. In a set of fixed coordinates, velocities can be added. (For example, a velocity bullet fired forward from a moving car will have the velocity of the car plus that of the bullet itself.) Einstein then demonstrates how empirical results (i.e., the Michelson–Morley experiment) do not support the summation of velocities predicted in a Newtonian universe. He goes on to describe his relativistic view of space, in which velocities do not sum.

    Are you claiming that a fundamental re-conceptualization of the nature of space and time is a mere addition to Newton? I would call it a refutation of Newton.

  277. Personally, at a State University, I believe it silly to have a formal ‘Christian’ Legal Association. My suggestion would to be simply disband the entire group, and move off campus. Let the homo have a club of one or a few. Secular school, state money, play by their nihilistic rules.

    At first this read like the Boy Scouts, but then I thought better of it. Not the same.

    But why is necessary for someone to mention their sexual orientation in a club? Why is it that homosexuals feel obliged to announce their sexual orientation upon arrival to anything? Aren’t you libs always fond of saying, “It is not anyone’s business but their own?”

    You win Graychin. Relish that you’ve won by fiat in the courts again. If you can actively support the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, I can certainly understand you cheerleading for stampeding over freedom of association.

    But truth about the perversion still marches on and there is nothing that can do to change that, even if all but four Americans disagree with you – your Judeo-Christian bigotry notwithstanding. 🙂

  278. Hippie,

    I would call it a refutation of Newton.

    Before I answer your question, will you permit me the liberty of testing your knowledge? I hate to do this to someone who only a few hours ago, left me a compliment.

    And before that, can I ask your formal education in Physics? Now I fully admit, my limits are 12 hours of physics and even though I got three “A”‘s, that hardly qualifies me for particle accelerator methodologies. But the Professor Emeritus of my fine university just turned over in his grave if you were indeed a physics student. I wish he were still here to pass that comment on, because as an older student, we teased each other about “senior” discounts.

    This isn’t to one up you, but anyone that makes a statement of refutation of Newton and considers themselves a student of physics, is in my book questionable. 🙂

    I’ll provide a source of liberal liking in a minute, but exactly how did you derive the conclusions Newton’s Laws had been refuted first?

    Because well, frankly that last statement of yours was pretty much bullshit, unless we are to discard the gravitational constant, which hasn’t really changed since Newton’s time.

  279. Are you guys REALLY arguing about whether Mika or Gretchen Carlson is the dumbest Dumb Bunny? 😀

    They’re both above the 90th percentile on he Stupid Scale. They’re both as dumb as a stump. Neither is worthy of anyone’s admiration. Let it go.

    You both watch too much television.

  280. They’re both above the 90th percentile on he Stupid Scale.

    Except somehow Gretchen was able to graduate Valedictorian of her graduating high school class. Now it’s been awhile, but I remember the graduating Valedictorian of my high school class a pretty smart cookie – real smart, in fact.

    What’s that make Barack?

  281. Tex – like I said before, quoting Mrs. Gump:

    “Stupid is as stupid does.”

    On that basis, Gretchen is as dumb as a stump.

    I know that you don’t think much of Barack’s (formerly “Bongo’s”) intelligence, but you’ve often been wrong before. Obama’s achievements in his short life far surpass those of the former Miss America – and also, I’m guessing, those of your high school valedictorian.

  282. G-chin, no I can’t let it go. The whole subject typifies the left’s “who can we call stupid” approach. You all ain’t that bright for sure. Look at Rutherford’s endorsement of Maddow’s simplistic oil independence paradigm. Oh, but she’s credentialed. . . Pfffft.

  283. Obama’s achievements in his short life far surpass those of the former Miss America – and also, I’m guessing, those of your high school valedictorian.

    For that matter, using your weighted scale, George Bush has accomplishments have surpassed Bongo’s, because G.W. was elected twice.

    But that doesn’t change the fact you have made another ignorant statement based on your wanting to be without fact, and in fact, are dissing as stupid somebody that is obviously far more intelligent and talented than the one making the charges of stupid.

    Beauty pageants are beauty pageants, I agree – but there is a talent factor which you haven’t demonstrated as of yet here, or on the T-World blog for that matter.

    And if we are going to start counting up wrongs between you and me, we can start here. In about eight weeks, hardly a day goes by that you aren’t challenged, and then disappear. In fact, you have been wrong here far more frequently than right, as indicated by this stupid statement you just made.

    Now I know that gamesmanship works on the Two Useful Idiots blog which you created and censor, but that doesn’t fly here sport.

  284. Tex said: Before I answer your question, will you permit me the liberty of testing your knowledge? I hate to do this to someone who only a few hours ago, left me a compliment.

    No problem. It looks like our respective training and grades in Physics are pretty much the same. Yours was probably a bit more recent. I do have two things that you may not. One, I read quite a bit of scientific writing as pleasure reading. Yeah – that earns me a Nerd label complete with capital “N.” This includes quite a bit of physics. Yeah – I can’t understand the primary sources – but there are some decent moderate-level secondary sources that I enjoy reading.

    Second, I am a student of the history and philosophy of science – and in that area I have some extensive coursework and again a lot of “pleasure” reading. Plus, I teach classes in the history of science.

    So – I do wish we could raise your old physics professor from the grave, because everything I have learned tells me that he would be rolling over based on what you say, not what I say.

    How has Newton been refuted?

    The simplest answer is the one I provided earlier – summation of velocities. Let me give a bit more detail.

    You are standing by the side of the road. A car passes you, moving at velocity A. At the very instant it passes you, the driver fires a bullet straight ahead. The bullet leaves the gun at velocity B, relative to the gun.

    How fast is the bullet moving relative to you?

    Newtonian mechanics would say the velocity of the bullet relative to you would be A + B. That is, it would be the velocity of the car plus the velocity of the bullet.

    Einstein would make a completely different prediction. The velocity of the bullet would not be a simple summation of its own velocity and that of the car – instead, it would require application of the Lorenz Transformation, which I am sure you encountered somewhere in your physics work. Here is a discussion of it (the link also includes a more detailed statement of what I am saying here):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

    Now, since neither the bullet nor the car is traveling near the speed of light, the predictions of Newton and the predictions of Einstein (via the Lorenz Transformation) would be very close to each other. However, if the driver of the car was turning on the headlights instead of firing a bullet, the differences in prediction would be substantial.

    When two systems make fundamentally different and irreconcilable predictions, I would say that the empirically verified one has refuted the other. If “refutes” is a problem word for you, I can just go with “makes fundamentally irreconcilable predictions verified by empirical results.”

  285. Rutherford said: “Mika is the brightest bulb in the drawer but she would never compare her job to POTUS.”

    Ehhhh no. You left out the “I’m not saying” that preceded “Mika is the brightest…”

    Let me spell it out for you again Tigre:

    “I’m not saying Mika is the brightest bulb in the drawer but…”

    Tigre, I’ve seen quoting out of context before but that was ridiculous.

  286. What’s that make Barack?

    Funny, I didn’t know Obama joined the Fox and Friends or Morning Joe crew. Wow, learn something new every day.

    By the way, Mika got her degree at Williams, a highly competitive small college in Massachusetts, just under the rung of Ivy League schools in terms of competitiveness. I turned down their admissions offer and attended Harvard instead. 😉

  287. Tex – I just discovered that Einstein’s Relativity (which is written on a layperson’s level) is available on google books. You will find it in the link below. The entirety of Part I is relevant to our discussion, but it really gets moving in Chapter 6 “The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities as Employed in Classical Mechanics.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gQ8LAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=relativity+einstein&hl=en&ei=tekoTN3hJJnqnQeamJipAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

  288. Gimme a break Rutherford. That was cut and paste slip and you (should) know it. Wasn’t that obvious to someone that went to Harvard?

  289. Yeah Huck, I saw the boys at The Hostages gloating over Peggy West. Ok so we can all agree, stupidity knows no political affiliation.

    Why don’t you de-lurk more often?

    We have gals, too. Very attractive and intelligent ones. 2 of them are honest-to-goodness rocket scientists.

  290. Yeah, Mika was another merit based admission, huh? Is this the one that admits her famil mocks her SAT scores?

  291. Actually, BiW, I finally stopped lurking after Peggy. Not that the post offended me, it didn’t. I just finally decided Hostages is not for me — two reasons:

    1) It really is a “family” and I have come too late to the table to have any hope of even marginally fitting in (the reaction to my friendly offering of a Honeymooners video was a case in point.)

    2) The noise to signal ratio is just too high for me. For every civil commenter like you or PajamaMama, there appear to be ten real uncivil ones. My perception of course.

    With time at a premium something had to go and Hostages was it.

  292. 1) It really is a “family” and I have come too late to the table to have any hope of even marginally fitting in (the reaction to my friendly offering of a Honeymooners video was a case in point.)

    Yes, it is a family, but you’re wrong about coming late. We have several “new” additions.

    2) The noise to signal ratio is just too high for me. For every civil commenter like you or PajamaMama, there appear to be ten real uncivil ones. My perception of course.

    That I can understand. It isn’t for everyone. I have invited people before who could never really get the swing of it, but we have only ever banned one person, and he most definately was “family” in the sense of the word as applies to the H/H2. When you’re in a room where 30 or so people are talking, it can be difficult to keep up, and being family, it is all elbows and knees sometimes. I once likened it to a group of drinking buddies, many of whom have never met in person, who show up at the same place to trade insults.

    With time at a premium something had to go and Hostages was it.

  293. Hippie,

    Well, one thing I am sure of Hippie besides that you are wrong and terribly confused about “Christian dogma.” Since I knew Dr. Brown, grew close to him and played teaching assistant for a semester, and you did not; since he also moonlighted as Astronomy Professor while teaching physics; I am absolutely sure the one thing Dr. Brown would not have said is, “That Newton’s science had been refuted.” Classic physics is never “refuted” unless proven wrong.

    In fact, Dr. Brown’s history would probably have indicated you as some kind of quack and called your explanation above and your grounded “philosophy of science” something you just cut and pasted off a web site. I’m afraid Dr. Brown didn’t have a great deal of respect either for what he called pseudo-sciences like psychology and sociology. Believe he coined those as classes for people “bad at math” which I thought so funny, I set to memory for my own personal repertoire.

    For example, Dr. Brown once made the statement for our class that it should be illegal for a student to take one philosophy class, for they would find themselves severely screwed up thereafter, if they took it seriously. 🙂

    Saying how advantageous it is for you to be a “philosopher of science” is akin to psychology instructors teaching molecular biology – not worth a damn in my book and meaningless jargon. You can stop with the patronizing act now.

    To show how you are either your philosophy misread, or the website wrong where you cut and pasted from, Einstein was not influenced directly by Michelson-Morley, but by certain equations regarding electromagnetic theory and light waves. **

    What you call refuted, I believe Dr. Brown would have called “contained within”, being Newton’s equations are contained within the relativistic equations of Einstein. In fact, there is little that Newtons three basic equations of force and motion can not answer accurately, unless your experiment calls for measuring something approaching the speed of light. For example, the universal gravitational constant of Newton is still used 400 years later and always referenced in every physics text book. You can take a look at the formula and see that clearly. G= …

    Relativity is a wonderful theorem for particles moving at or near the speed of light, and it gave us the principles leading to the discover of nuclear fission which I am not discounting obviously. So while your example above is accurate, your premise is wrong. To say that Newton has been refuted, is like saying Edward Jenner’s small pox vaccine has been refuted. We have improved the means of delivery, the method of accuracy, and even genetically created the ability to deliver via a vector, but the basic principles of immunity remain the same.

    ** – Physics, 5th edition, Douglas C. Giancoli; Prentice Hall, pg. 799,

  294. The theorem of the addition of relative velocities in classical mechanics vs. relativity has always driven me nuts.

    If we get a proton moving clockwise around the particle accelerator at 75% of the speed of light, and we get another proton going counter-clockwise at 75% of the speed of light, how fast will they be moving relative to each other when they collide?

    I know, I know – at less than the speed of light, because of Einstein’s equations and the frame of reference of the protons. I have read Einstein’s book (and others) several times, and I still don’t get it. Not really.

  295. Graychin, I suspect you are thinking like most of us in a linear fashion. Put on your calculus hat for a minute and think about how acceleration works.

    For example,

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

  296. HOLY F*CKING COW

    You guys are making my head explode. Dag I make one offhand comment about Gretchen making Mika look like a rocket scientist and now all of you are proving that you’re rocket scientists!

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    How tall is the f*cking building? Besides, completely irrelevant question. First bullet puts dent in the sidewalk, second bullet hits Tex between the eyes at which point he falls off the building.

    Question … how many seconds after the second bullet is fired does Tex hit the ground? And is this dependent on Tex’s obesity at the time of the incident? 😆

  297. How tall is the f*cking building?

    Why does it matter? Here’s a hint: It doesn’t dumbass. 😈

    how many seconds after the second bullet is fired does Tex hit the ground?

    Then you need to know the height of the building. 🙂 And if Tex is successful at pushing Rutherford off first so that he can land on him upon impact.

  298. And if Tex is successful at pushing Rutherford off first so that he can land on him upon impact.

    My bony ass would not break your fall. If anything you would just sustain further injuries. 😀

  299. at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    Ok, now seriously for one second …. are you looking for an answer like “midway” or “two thirds up”? Otherwise the height of the building most certainly matters. If the building is 50 feet high, the bullets sure ain’t gonna meet at 55 feet.

  300. “Yes, it is a family, but you’re wrong about coming late. We have several “new” additions”

    I’ve been going over there lately, but I find the commenters kind of scarey…lol.

    “You guys are making my head explode.”

    I hear ya, Rutherford. I have been skipping over that discussion as if it were the ever-repeating Sunday school debates.

  301. Ok, now seriously for one second …. are you looking for an answer like “midway” or “two thirds up”? Otherwise the height of the building most certainly matters.

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet? Make the building a 100′ tall, if you want to talk absolutes – but I’m looking for a fraction.

    My bony ass would not break your fall. If anything you would just sustain further injuries.

    Who said anything about landing on your bony ass? I’m aiming for your fat head. I expect to bounce like a rubber ball upon impact.

  302. Saying how advantageous it is for you to be a “philosopher of science” is akin to psychology instructors teaching molecular biology – not worth a damn in my book and meaningless jargon. You can stop with the patronizing act now

    Tex, who is being patronizing? You are being downright insulting – not that you haven’t thrown insults at me before, but this is crazy. When are you going to get it through your head that I have just as many semester hours in science courses as you do, and that my grades are just as good as well. I know just as much science as you do. Sorry of that is hard for you to accept.

    Bad at math? For what it is worth, I scored 780 on the math portion of the GRE, I teach statistics, and my research specialty is quantitative analysis. But, damn – Tex thinks he knows everything about everybody based on his preconceived stereotypes. He must be right.

    Concerning relativity and classical mechanics – sorry guy – you are just plain wrong.

    Lets talk special cases.

    As you admit, all of the predictions of classical mechanics can be derived from relativity.

    The opposite is not true. All predictions of relativity cannot be predicted from classical mechanics.

    In addition, relativity arrives at the predictions by way of an entirely different set of base assumptions.

    So which is the special case of which?

    The answer is simple: classical mechanics is a special case of relativity – a case that hold only when bodies are at rest. You seem to be claiming the opposite – that somehow relativity is the special case. Sorry – you are just wrong.

    To show how you are either your philosophy misread, or the website wrong where you cut and pasted from, Einstein was not influenced directly by Michelson-Morley, but by certain equations regarding electromagnetic theory and light waves. **

    Again, the cut and paste comment is an insult. I wrote my earlier post without bothering to look for references, then added the references afterward because I assumed you would have liked to have seen some.

    But, hey, guess what – you are right, Tex. The original 1905 paper was based on Maxwellian electromagnetic theory. I did indeed know that. However, in the Relativity book I mentioned and linked – published in 1921 – he derives relativity on the basis of summation of velocity and Michelson-Morley. If you actually read the link I provided you would know that.

    I suspect we will need to appeal to authority here. Your Professor Brown is apparently unavailable, and most of our physicists are probably off doing research at other universities over the summer, but I will certainly ask them for their opinions as soon as they return. My office is about 50 feet from theirs, so it won’t be much trouble in the fall.

    Just so I am sure that I am fair to you, how would you like me to phrase the question. I was thinking of something like:

    “Does the theory of relativity refute classical mechanics?”

    Will that work for you?

  303. If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    Hmmmm…. that sounds like a question that requires a definition of “simultaneous” doesn’t it.

    Tex, I will tell you what. Why don’t you give us the definition of simultaneous from classical physics, and then show how it is essentially the same definition as found in relativity – since of course all of classical mechanics is consistent with relativity.

  304. When are you going to get it through your head that I have just as many semester hours in science courses as you do, and that my grades are just as good as well. I know just as much science as you do. Sorry of that is hard for you to accept.

    Not to begrudge your brilliance, but how in the world would you know? 🙂

    Since you’re math and science wizard, why don’t you answer my question from above to Graychin without assistance from you physicists buddies for starters?

    That shouldn’t be too hard for somebody that scored a 780 on the GRE.

  305. Since I know you’re here Hippie, I’ll wait for your response to my question.

    It’s relatively straight forward. And to prove your question you asked me is rhetoric, I’ll solve my problem for you in the classical sense of physics, using only Newtonian physics to do so.

  306. Tex, I actually answered your question with another (admittedly snide) question in in 371.

    BTW – what the hell does this have to do with Christian Dogma? You raise that in 355.

  307. Um, #371 is me responding to you. Am I missing something?

    I mean, that is a basic physics problem of acceleration. Any first year cadet can answer that one. So, where’s the answer?

  308. Tex, I don’t have acceleration constants memorized, and I am leaving to take my kid to track in 5 minutes and don’t have time to look for it. I can set the problem up, though.

    The velocity of the bullet going down is its initial velocity plus acceleration due to gravity – which of course varies with time

    The velocity of the bullet going up is its initial velocity minus the acceleration due to gravity. which again varies with time.

    So, it is a standard rate-time-distance problem with the additional influence of gravity. It would take me another 10 minutes or so to solve – I haven’t solved such a problem in 30 years or so. But, it is hardly difficult.

  309. If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    I love puzzles like this, but I don’t think that we have enough information about the initial conditions.

    The dropped bullet accelerates as it falls at 32’/sec/sec. The bullet fired from the rifle decelerates at the same rate – but what is that bullet’s initial velocity? Is it a high-powered sniper rifle, or a pellet gun which probably won’t even reach the top of the building, and may even be falling back to earth by the time it encounters the dropped bullet?

    The height of the building also matters, whether it’s two stories or the Empire State Building. If it’s a tall building, the bullet will reach a terminal velocity at which gravity’s acceleration is equal to the deceleration provided by air resistance.

    Tex, I give up on the problem as stated. But I think I recall enough of high school physics and even calculus to come up with an answer if we know all of the initial conditions.

    (By the way, the science of Newton is sufficient to answer this problem. But the answer will be inexact by a tiny, tiny amount due to the effects of relativity on these bodies in relative motion. Does that make Newton’s science “wrong,” or merely incomplete? I’ll let you guys continue to duke that one out.)

  310. Gray said: (By the way, the science of Newton is sufficient to answer this problem. But the answer will be inexact by a tiny, tiny amount due to the effects of relativity on these bodies in relative motion. Does that make Newton’s science “wrong,” or merely incomplete? I’ll let you guys continue to duke that one out.)

    Obviously, I would say wrong – but close enough that you can build buildings and make rifles and bullets based on it. Semiconductors, not so much…..

  311. Graychin,

    You’re a lot closer to the right plane than Hippie’s “relativity of simultaneity”. What a load of academic horse shit. 😆 The tiny, tiny amount you speak would be so infinitesimal to be not worth mentioning, which gets us back to why Hippies claim Newton was refuted is bunk. The theory of relativity is really this simple – it shed information about light in a vacuum. Newtons equations are contained with Einsteins own theory.

    You’ve got all the information you need. The height of the building is irrelevant. I’ll simplify and tell you not to worry about terminal velocity, initial velocity dropped, or resistance because in theory, you never hit terminal velocity – in this problem, this is strictly academia, and there is no resistance.. Just assume 32ft/sec/sec or make it simple and use 10m/sec/sec like I do. You actually don’t need an absolute. I was just trying to get you to think back what acceleration looks like in a displacement graph.

    This isn’t to one up you, but just an example of why acceleration can be confusing. The answer is in fractions, making the building height irrelevant, because the equation always holds, assuming no extraneous factors like wind resistance or initial velocities.

    The answer probably won’t surprise you, but it does make for a nice mind bender.

    By the way, Hippie asked for 10 minutes. On the MCAT, we were allocated approximately 60 seconds, without calculator – proving this is all theory and understanding; no math required.

  312. My wife ended up taking my son to practice.

    Tex, the more I think about it, Gray is right. The initial velocity of the bullet does matter. If the ascending bullet has low velocity, gravity has longer to work on both objects. Since the component of velocity based on acceleration varies with time, the answer will be different depending on the initial velocities.

  313. Tex, I still don’t believe we have enough information about initial conditions. With a very tall building and a pellet gun, the pellet could have fallen back to the ground before the dropped bullet gets there.

  314. HIppie,

    If I drop something, what is the initial velocity? Here’s a hint: it is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

    Hippie, I may not care for you much, but this isn’t really to show you up. This was simply an example of explaining to Graychin why acceleration can be a tricky subject – centrifugal acceleration is even more aggravating.

    The problem I always found confusing is why an orbiting space station doesn’t round the globe a few times and fall into the atmosphere. I still struggle with that one.

  315. I’ll give you the answer tonight. Here is another hint. The velocities will be exactly equal at impact.

  316. By the way, Hippie asked for 10 minutes. On the MCAT, we were allocated approximately 60 seconds, without calculator – proving this is all theory and understanding; no math required.

    …and 30 years ago I could have done it in 60 seconds. The fact that it takes a bit of time to remember now isn’t particularly telling.

    But, Tex, I am still confused about why initial velocity does not matter. The issue isn’t about terminal velocity – it is about the fact that the effects of gravity vary with time and therefore the time over which the scenario develops really matters. Lets say the initial muzzle velocity is really slow – say something like that of a nerf gun. I can envision scenarios where gravity overcomes the upward velocity of the projectile and it starts its way back down before the two meet.

    The answer most certainly does depend on the initial velocity, and I suspect the height of the building for similar reasons.

    Why don’t you give us your answer, and we can go from there and see if our concerns matter of not.

  317. Tex, I still don’t believe we have enough information about initial conditions. With a very tall building and a pellet gun, the pellet could have fallen back to the ground before the dropped bullet gets there.

    Exactly my point.

    If the bullet is traveling at close to the speed of light, the two will meet only microns below the top of the building.

    If the bullet is traveling with the initial velocity of a nerf gun, the two could quite easily meet on the ground – even some time after the bullet got there.

    I can forsee lots of scenarios involving intermediate solutions.

    I suspect that there is a complicated two variable solution (building height and initial velocity) – and yeah – I won’t be able to do that one in 10 minutes.

  318. Hippie is right, and I’m calling bullshit on Tex’s problem. It has no unique answer.

    We fire TWO bullets from the ground at the same instant(*) that a bullet is dropped from the building. One bullet is fired from a pellet gun. The other is fired from a high-powered sniper rifle. The bullet fired from the high-powered rifle will meet the dropped bullet first because of its greater initial velocity. The answer depends both on the height of the building AND the initial velocity of the bullet.

    (*) To the extent that “the same instant” is determinable under relativity theory.

  319. Hippie,

    If I “drop” something, the initial velocity is zero. The height of the building is irrelevant, because as the height of the building increases, the velocity from the brick launcher (whatever that is) will also increase exponentially.

    The only relevant velocity to determine the answer is that I “dropped” the brick – in this case, what I drop has no initial velocity.

    I was just having fun when you insulted my intelligence from that first preachy sermon about philosophy. I think what I don’t like most about you is that you have gotten so familiar with talking to bubble headed bleach blondes approximately 18 years of age, you treat me (older than you) like I’m one of your students in the patronizing fashion of teacher to pupil.

    I can almost virtually guarantee even with your pedigree of PHD, you were probably not a better student. And I base that on the requirements for admission to medical school for a non-traditional student.

  320. 😆

    Where did two guns come from? Graychin, did it ever occur to you that the type of gun is irrelevant when I told you that the apogee of the height of whatever shot would exactly equal the height of the building?

    If I fire a pellet gun in the air vs. say a rifle in the air, obviously the rifle will reach a higher apogee than the rifle. I’m glad you’re calling bullshit, because the type of rifle is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I guess we can lower the height of the building to fit whatever rifle you choose, but the answer will be the same.

    I think what I’ve got is two old farts making this way more complicated than the answer really is.

  321. BiC,

    This started out as an exercise to actually be nice to old Graychin and use what I thought a simple analogy as to explain why acceleration can be so maddening, to another fight. 😆

    I think Graychin, Hippie and I were just born to be enemies like Muslims and Jews.

  322. Speaking of getting old, I just went out and got the mail, only to find an AARP invite to me? 😦 Now I feel all blue.

  323. Hippie,

    I didn’t know what XKCD was, but that was funny. Kind of reminded me of Gary Larson, who is still my favorite cartoonist of all time.

  324. Speaking of getting old, I just went out and got the mail, only to find an AARP invite to me? 😦 Now I feel all blue.

    I had an even worse moment recently. I learned that Crosby, Stills and Nash are playing at the AARP convention this summer.

  325. Okay you pompous old, lib farts. Here is my final hint, now that it is driving you both crazy.

    You could set two equations equal to each other and solve for t.

    Let me see if this works on WordPress:

    x2 and x2

  326. I think Graychin, Hippie and I were just born to be enemies like Muslims and Jews.

    Tex, I just don’t get why this has to do with liking. I have lots of friends with whom I disagree, and we can sit together over a beer and have fun and argue about our differences and still end up liking each other.

    I don’t really care if you dislike me or not – but I most certainly don’t dislike you. You piss me off sometimes – but dislike? You gotta do a little more than what I have seen to this point.

  327. Graychin. 😆 You and Hippie do have a sense of humor. Well hell, if I knew CSN was playing at the AARP Convention, I wouldn’t have tossed my application in the trash. I’ll pay the initial fee, attend the concert, and then drop it.

  328. Tex – I understand about setting up the equations and solving for t. That is indeed how I started working on the problems. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said initially – you said you wanted to know where on the building the two objects met, expressed as a fraction – and implying you get the same fraction regardless of other variables.

    But, that fraction most certainly depends on the height of the building and the initial velocity of the single bullet (fired from below). Just a thought experiment shows that your fraction can vary anywhere between almost-zero to almost-one based on those variables. I can’t envision a solution that does not include those two variables.

  329. Okay, you two old farts will have to use your imaginations with subscripts and superscripts. I guess WordPress doesn’t like my HTML, or I’ve gotten rusty and forgotten how to do it.

    You could set two equations equal to each other and solve for t., the plug back in the first equation and solve for x. Obviously, that is a pain in the ass. The zeros in this case will have to represent the initial “o” – when you see a 2, think squared. 🙂

    x = xo + vot + 1/2 (at2) = v2 + vo2 + 2ax. Now I’m guessing that “simultaneous equation” solving hasn’t been your bag since about 21 years of age. Peggy Sue was right – forget the algebra, because Tex doesn’t remember either.

    I’ll tell you tonight or tomorrow morning in an easier format, and then you’ll kick yourself (I think).

    That’s why I liked physics and calculus. They changed the way I thought.

  330. I was just having fun when you insulted my intelligence from that first preachy sermon about philosophy. I think what I don’t like most about you is that you have gotten so familiar with talking to bubble headed bleach blondes approximately 18 years of age, you treat me (older than you) like I’m one of your students in the patronizing fashion of teacher to pupil.

    Tex – look – I feel like you try to insult my intelligence every time we have these kind of conversations. Why else are you always making fun of my Psychology degree (ignoring the Biology degree), claiming I am bad at math, and similar stuff? I guess I feel like you started it.

    We probably won’t ever come to an agreement about who started it. Why don’t we instead just agree that we are both relatively bright and leave it at that without having to make claims about who is smarter?

  331. But, that fraction most certainly depends on the height of the building and the initial velocity of the single bullet (fired from below)

    Sure – the height of the bullet at its apogee is dependent upon the initial velocity when fired, and the faster the velocity, the higher the bullet travels. But remember, I said traveled to exactly the height of the building, where the bullet is dropped.

    But the fractional answer, assuming the shot fired to exactly the height of the bullet, is a constant. The higher the building, the faster the dropped bullet travels too.

    If you’re wondering why I remembered this problem, I thought it a strange question for an entrance exam. And remember, I had the luxury of a multiple choice question. 🙂

    I’ll give you four choices then to make it fair. These were the answers given on the exam, and I had to come home to see if I got it right (I did).

    (a) 25m
    (b) 50m
    (c) 75m
    (d) 80m

  332. You and Hippie do have a sense of humor. Well hell, if I knew CSN was playing at the AARP Convention, I wouldn’t have tossed my application in the trash. I’ll pay the initial fee, attend the concert, and then drop it.

    But Tex, you’ll miss the exciting election for the officers. Roger Daltrey is running against Mick Jagger!

    *hope I die before I get olddddd….*

  333. BiC,

    I might be able to do that with Hippie as long as we kept it at a high enough level – talking about kids, sports, or something along those lines.

    But I’m the minute religion, politics, or something of any consequence came up, we’d be at each other’s throats.

    I’ve got a neighbor just like them. She’s very active in the Democratic party around town. And though I will shoot the bull with her on occasion, she can not go 2 minutes without something of the political persuasion comes up (she knows to leave religion aside). I have to almost lock my jaws, so I end the conversation quickly.

    Most of these active libs I’ve met on occasion are eaten up with politics. That’s why I say it is their religion.

  334. BiC,

    Over at Hippie’s blog, Graychin has called me a liar for telling Hippie my own neighbor was indeed forced to rent to black tenants under threat of suit, which is true. I have no idea if the rentors charges valid, because I don’t know the validity of the charges. Nonetheless, my neighbor when threatened under the guise of the Fair Housing Act was terrified of being sued and consented.

    It is also true that the “choirboys” caused several thousand dollars worth of damage, which was covered by insurance, but the shake and bake method of crack cocaine manufactured in the garage was not – my neighbor was out some substantial money out of pocket for cleanup.

    Graychin called it a “chain email” letter. 🙂

    I think I can find the article at our own Tulsa World. Would you play negotiator, if I can get Graychin to take my bet that I’m not lying? I used to ask Rutherford to play negotiator, but I would rather give you the 10% handling fee. Assuming Graychin is “man” enough to take the bet?

    Graychin, do we have another bet? Because I believe your statement that no one has ever been “forced” to rent to a black tenant incorrect about a thousand times over. I’m reasonably sure I can document both.

  335. The original problem:

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    NOW he tells us that the bullet shot upwards reaches its apogee at the top of the building.

    With that piece of omitted information, the problem is solvable.

  336. Tex said: But remember, I said traveled to exactly the height of the building, where the bullet is dropped.

    Tex, I didn’t get that out of the way you stated it originally in 359.

    By “exactly to the top of the building” do you mean that the apogee of the bullet’s path is exactly the building height?

    If that is the case, I can see that the problem is indeed solvable because, given that apogee and building height are equal, initial velocity ceases to be relevant. For each possible initial velocity there is only one possible building height.

    Now, the key to the problem is recognizing that the upper bullet accelerates at the same rate the lower bullet decelerates. This means that the acceleration curves for one bullet is a mirror image of the deceleration curve for the other. (i.e., one bullet starts with a zero velocity, the other ends with a zero velocity, and because acceleration and deceleration are equal the curves mirror each other). Since the curves are mirror images, they will meet exactly in the middle – so the answer is 50 percent (or 50 meters in the example you gave).

    Did I get it?

  337. Graychin,

    NOW he tells us that the bullet shot upwards reaches its apogee at the top of the building

    Good grief, here’s the original question I addressed specifically to you.

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    What part of top of building do you not understand? I’m tired of being nice. Now that you’ve got the “apogee”, answer the question. I provided a multiple choice answer. Surely you can get it now.

    Better yet, hows about you take my bet from above? Since money seems to be a hold up with you, how about $200 bucks. I doubt BiC would be interested for anything less than a twenty. I’ve got something I want to show you for a price – me being a liar, and all. 🙂

  338. “See, I think that HP and I could sit down, knock back a few barley pops and get along just fine, as long as politics never came up.”

    I hear ya.

    I am a 40-something university student who regularly hangs out with school friends that are my son’s age. Most are very liberal. But we have no problems having great times together at conferences, parties, etc. They even allow me to get in a political dig now and then, and aren’t afraid to give back what they get.

  339. I might be able to do that with Hippie as long as we kept it at a high enough level – talking about kids, sports, or something along those lines. But I’m the minute religion, politics, or something of any consequence came up, we’d be at each other’s throats.

    See, I think it is possible to be civil and respectful even when controversial topics come up.

    Look – I learn something when I listen to you guys. You provide perspectives I haven’t heard before. If anything, it helps me hone my arguments. It is even possible that my opinions can change.

    I think it is possible to do that without getting nasty – but hey – I’m weird…..

  340. Hippie, you answered you beautifully. This paragraph is exactly right. You indeed do have a practical understand physics:

    Now, the key to the problem is recognizing that the upper bullet accelerates at the same rate the lower bullet decelerates. This means that the acceleration curves for one bullet is a mirror image of the deceleration curve for the other. (i.e., one bullet starts with a zero velocity, the other ends with a zero velocity, and because acceleration and deceleration are equal the curves mirror each other).

    Let me get Graychin’s answer and I’ll get back with you. 😉

  341. What part of top of building do you not understand? I’m tired of being nice. Now that you’ve got the “apogee”, answer the question. I provided a multiple choice answer. Surely you can get it now.

    Tex – in fairness to Gray I didn’t get that from the initial wording either.

    I provided an answer back in 409, based entirely on logic and not even needing any math. Did I get it?

  342. Well, to me Hippie, top of the building surely does mean apogee. I can’t imagine how the brilliant one could have deciphered “top” any different from apogee. My wording is verbatim the MCAT question. Now that there is no confusion, lets have the answer Gray. I double checked – the word apogee is my doing.

    I’m going to go run and I’ll check back later to discuss Hippie. Good response – I mean that.

  343. Hippie is right – if the bullet peaks and begins to drop when it reaches the top of the building, then the minimum velocities of both bullets (zero) and their peak velocities are equal. Not only will they meet halfway up the building, but they will also be traveling at the same velocity when they meet – in opposite directions.

    Tex, I don’t know how in the hell we were suppose to know that the bullet would run out of gas at the top of the building from your original statement of the problem. Most bullets travel farther than the height of a building and don’t stop until they hit something.

  344. Hippie, I’m still waiting on Graychin’s answer, but you made one misstatement, though your reasoning sound in answering the question. I’m just curious to see how Graychin answers it, because your explanation provides the perfect demonstration of why acceleration is hard to grasp for most folks.

    initial velocity ceases to be relevant.

    No, initial velocity is relevant, because it would add to the downward path. However, In this case, the initial velocity is zero because the object is dropped. I guess Graychin though the person dropping the brick, or rock, or bullet, or feather was going to throw the object at the bullet being shot as it traveled bye. 😐

  345. Oh Graychin, I forgot something while we were conversing about the universe.

    Even though there was no credible allegation that Weigel’s writing was unfair or unbalanced, his private opinions (dug up and posted by Tucker Carlson, who may have biases of his own) have rendered Weigel unfit for journalistic duty.

    I’m afraid Dave is now groveling Graychin. Of course, the comments that followed kind of showed my opinion not unique:

    Still, this was hubris. It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade. It was also the hubris of someone who thought the best way to be annoyed about something was to do it publicly.

    http://bigjournalism.com/dweigel/2010/06/28/hubris-and-humility-david-weigel-comes-clean-on-washington-post-the-d-c-bubble-the-journolist/

  346. No, initial velocity is relevant, because it would add to the downward path.

    When I was talking about initial velocity I meant the velocity of the lower bullet when it left the gun – not the upper bullet when it is dropped. Initial velocity of the lower bullet is indeed irrelevant.

    Interestingly, the initial velocity of the bullet leaving the gun will be equal to the final velocity of the dropped bullet when it hits the ground.

  347. Tex – earlier you said you didn’t know what an XKCD was. It is a webcomic that often features math and science-related jokes. I honestly think it is one of the best things on the web.

    Here is today’s, another based on math (though more of a curiosity than a joke):

    http://xkcd.com/

  348. Tex, I don’t know how in the hell we were suppose to know that the bullet would run out of gas at the top of the building from your original statement of the problem. Most bullets travel farther than the height of a building and don’t stop until they hit something.

    I said to the top of the building goon. What you think I was talking about? A rocket with a parabolic curve where the dude wings the bullet up at the sky trying to hit something? Come on – you’re running on empty for excuses.,. 🙂

  349. Hippie, those are pretty good. I book marked that. I think that explanation is the same one provided in some of my math books. 😆

    Why do some authors of college text books feel it necessary to make the simplest things complex? Organic Chemistry books are the same way. I can remember the most complex algorithms imaginable as proof, when all I wanted was all I wanted was damn formula. Honestly…

  350. Speaking of getting old, I just went out and got the mail, only to find an AARP invite to me? 😦 Now I feel all blue.

    LOL … my wife who turns 42 in a couple of weeks got the same letter a day or two ago. She was pissed. 😀

  351. Oh crap …. Tex a CSN fan? Now Tex don’t forget they (or maybe it was CSNY) sang:

    Tin soldiers and Nixon’s comin’.
    We’re finally on our own.
    This summer I hear the drummin’.
    Four dead in Ohio.

    They were commie hippies opposed to the Vietnam war.

    Hey Gray and HP … how much you wanna bet that Tex’s trajectory is the exact opposite of HP’s, i.e. he was a long haired flower carrying peacenik back in the 60’s? The only thing that disproves this is that he is my age which made him 8 or 9 years old in 1969. 🙂

  352. Well gentlemen and scholars, Graychin and Hippie:

    You are both…





    WRONG. The correct is answer is (C) 75 meters.

    Your explanation Hippie is absolutely correct – they are mirror images of each other – but remember, this is a parabolic curve and not a straight line because times is a value squared (secs) and I think that is where the confusion of acceleration stems. Most of the displacement for the launched rock happens during the initial period as the rock decelerates through the flight. The dropped rock accelerates at a “mirrored” rate through it’s flight. In otherwords, it moves faster and faster through the drop, but velocity is decreasing upward and increase downward.

    Perhaps the easiest way to think about it is this, at least in my head is by example.

    If I assume that acceleration is constant, no frictional forces, and no resistance, the object dropped will accelerate downward in the first second 5 meters, the average drop downward of accelerating from 0 to 10 in one second, 15 meters the next second (10+20/2) + 5 (20 meters after two seconds, (20+30/2) + 5 + 15 (45 meters after three seconds), etc.. 5, 20, 45… The objects will meet exactly half way through their flight time, but this will not be an equal displacement.

    The easiest way is to see this is to smooth the parabolic curve and draw a velocity vs. time graph, with v being the Y axis, and t being the X axis.

    Make a Big X, then split the X axis with a vertical line and label this 1/2 t., drawing a line to the equilibrium point. Then draw a horizontal line across the diagram, half way up the Y Axis.

    This should leave you with six right triangles. If you measure the surface area, you will see that the surface area of the thrown rock (left of the flight time) is 3 times greater than the dropped rock.

    Clear as mud, probably.

    Nonetheless, the analogy I was trying to make is that people, me including, have a difficult time separating velocity from acceleration.

  353. But Tex, you’ll miss the exciting election for the officers. Roger Daltrey is running against Mick Jagger!

    I saw a photo today of Mick Jagger sitting behind Bill Clinton and Terry McCaulife at the World cup and thinking “sh*t, whatever happened to rock and roll? Rock stars don’t cozy with ex-presidents at sporting events.”

    Jagger is nothing more than a business man now. Sickening. You wouldn’t catch Billie Joe Osborne at the World Cup with Clinton that’s for sure. (For you old farts …. Billie Joe is the lead singer of Green Day.) 🙂

    Come to think of it …. you wouldn’t catch Iggy Pop there either. And he’s friggin ancient but he’s true to his f*ck you rock and roll roots!

  354. NOW he tells us that the bullet shot upwards reaches its apogee at the top of the building.

    Yup … even a physics ignoramus like me knew there was a missing piece to the question. In Tex’s haste to show you guys up, he blew the question.

    That is why I asked how tall the building was!!!!

  355. Interestingly, the initial velocity of the bullet leaving the gun will be equal to the final velocity of the dropped bullet when it hits the ground.

    Correct. And conversely the velocity of the launched rock at the height of the building will be equal to the velocity of the rock just dropped – both zero. And for some reason, I remember struggling with this concept until I realized why the standard read for time /sec/sec/. 🙂

    What bummed me Hippie was that for all the practicality of learning this stuff, if we were to go out and test our “theory”, you could never make it work exactly because of all the extemporaneous variables, friction being one.

    Both Newton and Einstein were incredibly brilliant men. I don’t believe there is anyone currently alive who would begin to rival their mathematical genius.

  356. If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building …

    Tex I interpreted that to mean you shot a bullet in the direction of the top of the building …. i.e. straight up into the air. I did not get the impression the bullet would end its ascent once it got to the top of the building.

    Sorry dude … you stated the question ambiguously. Or to put it differently, you may be brilliant at math … but you suck at English. 😀

  357. Rutherford,

    Yup … even a physics ignoramus like me knew there was a missing piece to the question. In Tex’s haste to show you guys up, he blew the question.

    That is why I asked how tall the building was!!!!

    You’re still an ignoramus because the question I just asked doesn’t require the height of the building, unless in a multiple choice format with numeric values provided as answer. All that is required is to know the final height the bullet reaches is the top of the building which is exactly what I provided for each of you. I can well imagine what you would have scored on the MCAT – especially the Verbal Reasoning. 🙂

    The answer is 3/4 up the building and the question I provided verbatim that was provided to me during testing. When you diss me, you diss the professor Hippie, because guys like him are writing the tests. These are egg-headed professors deluxe that create these. 😉

  358. Tex said: WRONG. The correct is answer is (C) 75 meters.

    Haha… you may not believe this, but try to imagine it – it is pretty funny..

    Earlier this evening I had to go to the grocery store on a trip that should have taken five minutes. I started thinking about the problem and ended up wandering, lost in thought, for 20 minutes with an empty cart. I finally realized that the store manager was looking at me really funny….

    During that time I had actually convinced myself that my initial answer was wrong – based on the following logic. Since t was equal for both bullets, and since they were traveling at equal velocity when they hit, then the one shot from the gun had to have been at a higher velocity during the interval – and had to have traveled farther. But, when you said I had given a good response I figured I must have been messing something up.

    I realized from the top that the curves would be parabolic. My mistake was to try to mentally visualize the curves – I didn’t bother to plot them on paper. Had I done that I would have realized my mistake.

    Once again, I embrace my nerd status – I enjoy this stuff.

  359. Rutherford, I am trying to decipher what you just wrote to what was originally asked. You state:

    Tex I interpreted that to mean you shot a bullet in the direction of the top of the building …. i.e. straight up into the air. I did not get the impression the bullet would end its ascent once it got to the top of the building.

    I asked:

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building, at what height on the building will the bullets meet?

    What part of Drop, Top or Height (as in building) where the bullets MET did you think ambiguous? Did you think the building spring loaded and hopped like a Mexican Jumping Bean? Now, the Rutherford I once knew was not this dumb, which tells me you are “oversexed”, “undersexed” or jacking off ten times a day, explaining why you’re not here much anymore.

    Put that Ivy League credential to work and put your eyeballs back in their sockets. 👿

  360. I saw a photo today of Mick Jagger sitting behind Bill Clinton and Terry McCaulife at the World cup and thinking “sh*t, whatever happened to rock and roll? Rock stars don’t cozy with ex-presidents at sporting events.”

    I remember when Jagger was knighted that Keef said something to the effect of “That ain’t what the Stones is all about”

  361. Hippie,

    Then you and I share something in common. Because I hate running on a tread mill. But I was so preoccupied with trying to figure out how I was going to try and explain a graphical concept on a blog, the time flew bye. I actually ran over the allotted time, when normally I am counting the seconds while staring at the clock.

    Maybe we should do this more often? Sure as hell made my run easier. If I had stayed on this board while in med school, I would have allowed you to quiz me about Anatomy and lost weight at the same time. 🙂

    My rote memorization wasn’t worth a damn anymore, and personally I didn’t really give a damn which artery branched off the carotid. I was absolutely sure surgery wasn’t going to be my bag. Didn’t give a shit if I knew the Vagus Nerve was Cranial Nerve IX or X either, so that pretty much ruled out neuro surgery. I’m afraid the professors did care, however.

    On the clinical side (critical thinking portion), I always scored in the top one quarter of the class. But on my final Anatomy exam, I got the lowest score in the class. By a lot. Oops.. 😳 I already knew I was leaving.

    If your children ever attend med school, tell them Tex said taking a medical school exam in Gross Anatomy, especially the lab test, will absolutely guarantee you miserable results. I was actually proud I score a little over 50! 🙂

    True story.

  362. Tex – I read “to” as “toward” in your first statement of the problem, and thus didn’t pick up on that critical part of the problem.

    THANK YOU!!!!

    you’re shooting a bullet to the top of the building I am standing with my gun and I can shoot my bullet to the ground, to the window, to the lady down the street or to the top of the building. As HP says … to = toward.

    Tex, if you did indeed quote the MCAT verbatim then it is clear they are in the business of training illiterate doctors.

    Now let’s try again:

    If I drop a bullet off a building, at the same time you’re shooting a bullet to the height of the building and no farther …

    NOW we have a decipherable question.

  363. And by the way …. any honest academic will tell you that just because a test question is phrased a certain way does not justify its phraseology. In the old days, the SAT always had some pure test questions thrown in so they could test how many people got the question right. If everyone got it wrong, they went back to the drawing board on the question assuming the phraseology sucked.

  364. Oh and Tex … since I see folks carted out their credentials during this academic discussion … full disclosure ,,, I majored in Math and sucked at it. BUT on the other hand, I got an A- in Expository Writing. So I may not know how to get to that mathematical answer … but I DO know when I’ve been asked the wrong question. 😉

  365. Yeah … Keith would not have been caught dead in a photo with an ex-president. Then again, Clinton’s blow job may have labeled him enough of an outlaw to appeal to Keith. 🙂

    Minor bit of trivia … for a short time my sister went to school with Keith Richard’s son, Marlon at a private school on Long Island. My mom saw Anita Pallenberg, Marlon’s mother, and noted how totally burnt out the poor woman looked. My sister went on to get her law degree and then move to Florida and handle vendor contracts (in a non-legal capacity). I don’t know what became of Marlon.

  366. SAT always had some pure test questions thrown in so they could test how many people got the question right. If everyone got it wrong, they went back to the drawing board on the question assuming the phraseology sucked.

    The MCAT was the same way – phraseology or not, that was the question verbatim. Perhaps they threw it out, but I do know when I took the test, I had no problem with the language.

    Why did you major in math if you sucked at it? Are you a glutton for punishment, like I always suspected?

  367. “You wouldn’t catch Billie Joe Osborne at the World Cup with Clinton that’s for sure. (For you old farts …. Billie Joe is the lead singer of Green Day.) ”

    OK, for starters, his name is Billie Joe Armstrong. And he has made his support of Barack Obama more than clear. So if you are trying to convince us that this so-called “rock star” is apolitical, you have failed at more than just his name.

  368. Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” — Joe Binden
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008924-503544.html

    What happened to the stimulus that was going to bring down unemployment? But haven’t we “saved or created” over 2 million jobs since porkulus was passed? It kind of takes the wind out of this: Obama, Biden declare ‘Recovery Summer’

    Where’s the jobs though? In full disclosure, the WH probably should have said something along the lines of ‘the stimulus will save or create union jobs‘ because that is the only place where stimulus money has gone- pay back the union.

    This has been one of the most economically inept administrations ever. you guys keep justifying its spending and mismanagement, but we’re getting nothing for it. The administration has literally blown a trillion dollars in the last 18 months. Its gone, with almost nothing to show for it.

    It has been shown repeatedly that tax cutting stimulates the economy, any time and every time. When compared to government stimulus, tax cutting increases economic growth 3-4 times more. History can be a very good teacher…if you’ll just listen…

  369. Off the topic of math, but…

    Could someone please explain to me why the Republicans’ major issue against Elana Kagan is going to be that she once clerked for Thurgood Marshall?

    If they’re still sore about Brown v. BOE, they should keep in mind that the Brown decision was unanimous.

  370. George Will posted some questions that should be asked of Kagan. I’d like to hear the opinions of the blog on these questions…

    n Regarding campaign finance “reforms”: If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem?

    n If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?

    n If the problem is the “appearance” of corruption, how do you square the First Amendment with Congress restricting speech in order to regulate how things “appear” to unspecified people?

    n Incumbent legislators are constantly tinkering with the rules regulating campaigns that could cost them their jobs. Does this present an appearance of corruption?

    n Some persons argue that our nation has a “living” Constitution; the court has spoken of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against “changeability” and stressing “the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution,” says “its whole purpose is to prevent change — to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” Is he wrong?

    n The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The 14th Amendment says no state may abridge “the privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens. How should the court determine what are the “retained” rights and the “privileges or immunities”?

    n The 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”) is, as former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont has said, “to the Constitution what the Chicago Cubs are to the World Series: of only occasional appearance and little consequence.” Were the authors of the Bill of Rights silly to include this amendment?

    n Should decisions of foreign courts, or laws enacted by foreign legislatures, have any bearing on U.S. courts’ interpretations of the Constitution or federal laws (other than directly binding treaties)?

    n The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not be taken by government for public use without just compensation. But what about “regulatory takings”? To confer a supposed benefit on the public, government often restricts how persons can use their property, sometimes substantially reducing the property’s value. But government offers no compensation because the property is not “taken.” But when much of a property’s value is taken away by government action, should owners be compensated?

    n In Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 election, seven justices ruled that Florida vote recounts that were being conducted in different jurisdictions under subjective and contradictory standards were incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws.” Were they right?

    n In Bush v. Gore, five justices held that Article II of the Constitution gives state legislatures plenary power to set the rules for presidential elections. The Florida Legislature fashioned election rules to produce presidential electors immune from challenge by Congress. But the Legislature said that immunity depended on electors being chosen by a certain date, which could not be met if further recounts were to ensue. The court held that allowing more recounts would have contravened the intent of Florida’s Legislature. So the recounts were halted. Was the court’s majority correct?

    n Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?

    n You have said: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” But that depends on what the meaning of “is” is. There was no constitutional right to abortion until the court discovered one 185 years after the Constitution was ratified, when the right was spotted lurking in emanations of penumbras of other rights. What is to prevent the court from similarly discovering a right to same-sex marriage?

    n Bonus question: In Roe v. Wade, the court held that the abortion right is different in each of the three trimesters of pregnancy. Is it odd that the meaning of the Constitution’s text would be different if the number of months in the gestation of a human infant were a prime number?

  371. Is this a good reason Chin?

    No. Someone is trying a little too hard on that alleged point. Kagan was arguing a case for her client, not expressing her own opinion.

    Why the nonsense with Thurgood Marshall? Anyone? Anyone?

    Beuller?

  372. “Could someone please explain to me why the Republicans’ major issue against Elana Kagan is going to be that she once clerked for Thurgood Marshall?”

    G-chin, there’s only one answer: the GOP and anyone that investigates, much less opposes an Obama nominee, is a racist. Proof? Marshall is black. Kagan clerked for black justice. Therefore, she is black, and as we all know, to criticize a black justice or his decisions makes you a racist. There’s just no other explanation.

    The “major issue” is her clerkship with Marshall? What he F&#ck do you think the focus of the inquiry into her potential philosophy and bias might center on?

    Go ahead. Distance yourself from the tenor of your comment now. You’re above the worthless chatter of your liberal blogger friends that will say outright what you are unwilling to when called to task.

  373. p.s. I would love to hear her contend with questions posed by Will. Thanks for putting them up 800 Pounder.

  374. There are 3 ways to make it in life, comrades.

    Darth Vader
    Luke Skywalker
    Han Solo

    I’m going the Han Solo route.

    Starting July 12th, the Feds will start throwing money at writing off principle and re-modifying mortgages in my area. For me, this could be a 100,000 dollar swing,

    There is one catch, my wife works. That’s counted against us.

    She works and it tears her apart every day she leaves the baby with the expensive day care provider just so we can keep current on a house that has lost 40% of it’s value that we bought when we made 50% more money.

    Comrades, say what you will about the Rabbit. But I’m done playing the game.

    My wife puts in her two weeks notice today.

    All payments on the house are being terminated.

    I’m walking comrades.

    Unethical?

    Yes, it is.

    We’re not talking about big jars of honey and government cheese here though. We’re talking about a quarter million dollars of debt.

    A while back Tex’s advice was to keep on doing the right thing.

    I didn’t say anything to him, put for a year it was Tex’s words, who for all practical purposes is an abstract entity in the Rabbit’s life at best, that rang in my mind.

    I kept on tucking on, wrestling with the moral dilemma.

    My inlaws are going to sign for us and we are moving out in the country and buying a small farm house on a few acres. Dirt cheap. Like 80 grand cheap. I’ll keep my job and drive a little more.

    Here is my take on the Rabbit’s ethics.

    1. People have a right to be pissed at me. I walked over to every neighbor and looked them in the eye last night and told them what we are doing. I told them they have a right to be pissed. Nobody said a word other then that they either don’t blame me or are following me soon. I don’t know what they said when the door shut.

    2. The Rabbit is a family man. I have to do what’s best for my tribe. Anytime the individual is taken out of the process, and my actions are for the collective, the ethical landscape does change. There still is a line of right and wrong. Hitler is in hell for what he did. I believe FDR is in heaven, even though he fire bombed Dresden.

    I will be able to have a mom home with her baby (babies?). I will be able to pay for their college. I will be able to teach the fruits of real labor on our small farm. (I’m talking a 2 acre garden and maybe some chickens).

    It’s been a fun ride comrades, but I’m done playing the game.

    You can begin throwing rotten fruit at me. Just remember it wasn’t that silly Wabbit that changed the rules. Apparently tricks are for everybody.

  375. Tiger @ 451:

    What he F&#ck do you think the focus of the inquiry into her potential philosophy and bias might center on?

    Yeah, I guess they have to come up with some reason to oppose her, since they can’t find anything that matters. (Except that she doesn’t look like Gretchen Carlson. :D)

    But since a law clerk only helps the Big Guy do his research and draft his opinions based on what the Big Guy has decided, I can’t see why the issue of WHO Kagan clerked for matters. Actually, isn’t being a clerk to a Supreme pretty darn good experience for a prospective Justice?

    If Kagan had clerked for Clarence Thomas, I’m sure they would love her for it. I wasn’t playing the race card. But thanks for bringing it up anyway.

    No, the R’s on Judiciary are actually trashing Marshall because he was a (gasp!) – LIBERAL. I’m confident that it’s not supposed to be a dogwhistle to the morons who put up “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all over the countryside.

    Move on, asshats. You’re only making fools of yourself and giving blacks one more reason never to put your party in power. And you should remember that elections have consequences – including 2008. You got Roberts and Alito from Bush. Now it’s our turn.

  376. Rabbit,

    I’m not going to hold it against you. I have not met one “progressive” I thought honest in word or deed since Obama was elected. They have proven more dishonest then even I imagined, when I first started debating with Rutherford. I find even Rutherford has sunk to new lows of dishonesty. Virtually every response I get from the little hack now is out of context – blatantly dishonest, and frankly Rutherford, I’m getting a little tired of correcting your twists.

    Doesn’t matter – consumer confidence is dropping like a rock anyway, no matter how much these dreamers lie, or spin, propagandize, or cheer lead. The military is turning on them – a majority of the people are slowly following their lead.

    In the last few weeks, we’ve seen:

    A Massachusetts campaign consultant working for the DNC shove a conservative reporter.

    A North Carolina Democratic Congressman physically assaults a college student when asked if he fully supports the Obama agenda.

    A staffer for an Illinois Senate candidate assaults a videographer on the roof of a condo.

    Obama and his jackboots are cracking under the pressure, their performance has been dismal, they lie, cheat and steal at every turn, they’re obviously clueless and powerless to do anything of real substance, and frankly I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them. I think the behavior will grow worse. Elric is right – they are thugs and thieves. Perhaps it is time to treat them as such.

    I’m a little tired of being stolen from myself.

    I can understand the frustration of following the rules when nobody else appears to be.

  377. Here Rabbit,

    Look what goes on in the circles of academia, right in Hippie’s backyard. The same fine people that boost tuition at twice the rate of inflation every year.

    Here’s a state thief for you – only if you’re a public employee, it’s called “exploiting a loophole.” Perhaps my buddy Hippie Professor would care to comment?

    Retired, then rehired: How college workers use loophole to boost pay

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2012217904&zsection_id=2003904401&slug=retirerehire27m&date=20100626

  378. n Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom you clerked, said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Can you defend this approach to judging?

    This is probably a good place to start if you’re concerned about the role Marshall in her judicial philosophy. Activist judge?

    Tell you what Chin, why don’t you answer the questions I posted and we’ll see where that puts us…

  379. G-chin, you obviously know nothing of the influence of a Supreme Court law clerk. They don’t just “do the research for the big guy.” They are universally instrumental and oftentimes the controlling influence in the opinions.

    If she had clerked for the “Uncle Tom” Thomas, she wouldn’t have been nominated. The only view taken for black conservatives by the broad minded left.

  380. For American taxpayers, now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg.
    According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/37982580

    DR, as long as the people in your state and city elect the morons that they elect, I’ve a hard time finding sympathy for the effects of bad policy. I think it sucks that you’re in the position you’re in, and I respect that you feel you got to do what you got to do, but I don’t have to like the fact that this will be just one more thing that the collective will have to carry.

    When does it stop for me? Should that be our attitude?

  381. Tex asked: Here’s a state thief for you – only if you’re a public employee, it’s called “exploiting a loophole.” Perhaps my buddy Hippie Professor would care to comment?

    Tex – it isn’t really my backyard anymore, I haven’t lived in Washington since 1985. BiW lives there now – so he would be a better person to ask.

    My reaction from a distance? Of course this is outrageous. I have heard (locally) of retired faculty picking up the occasional single class – but full time? I have never heard of that here.

    Note that the article says that this is not just occurring at universities.

    This is also most definitely NOT what is causing college tuition to rise rapidly. I posted a long explanation of that a while back (which you rejected) and don’t have the time to post it again.

  382. They are universally instrumental and oftentimes the controlling influence in the opinions.

    That’s generous. I’ve read accounts of some who worked for older justices in the twilight of their careers who claim to have outright written the opinions.

  383. Tell you what Chin, why don’t you answer the questions I posted and we’ll see where that puts us…

    No thanks. But I’ll be happy to address all of them when Obama nominates me to the Supreme Court. 😀

    (Law clerks) are universally instrumental and oftentimes the controlling influence in the opinions.

    So – did Kagan make Marshall the liberal that he was? Or did she rein in his most liberal tendencies?

    Either way, vilifying Marshall seems like an obnoxious (and losing) strategy to me. Why have the Republicans decided that THIS is Kagan’s weak spot?

  384. Hippie,

    That comment wasn’t so much meant to be a shot at you, but to show the entire spectrum of public employee benefits, from school teachers, to higher education, to office workers, to street maintenance is out of control and must now be squeezed. It’s time you chaps got to bite the shit sandwich like most people in America have.

    I don’t begrudge someone a living – I do begrudge someone that is clearly overpaid from public funds with little or no oversight and little or no accountability.

    If it were up to me, every public worker in America, including the President, would be taking a 10% pay cut across the board with a wage freeze initiated until January 2013 to pay for Obama Care, 862B in debt for a stimulus package that was clearly public thievery, and lack of performance.

    Obama and company have literally stolen trillions from the public coffers with no end in site, damaged the country – probably irreparably.

  385. “Either way, vilifying Marshall seems like an obnoxious (and losing) strategy to me. Why have the Republicans decided that THIS is Kagan’s weak spot?”

    Dissembling again? So, what’s the winning strategy in the “confirmation process?”

  386. Public Policy Polling took a look at the Wisconsin Senate race, and finds that Senator Russ Feingold is potentially in for big trouble. His approval rating is a tepid 42/42 split, and he earns only 45% of the vote against his two largely unknown challengers, Ron Johnson and Dave Westlake. Johnson and Westlake get 43% and 38%, respectively. The President is upside-down in his approval at 45%-50%, while majorities oppose Obama’s health care plan.

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/06/29/its-on-in-wisconsin/

  387. Obama is the Most Radical President America has ever Had…

    Not all Ivy League Professors are alike, fortunately. A very interesting and terrifying interview with a Distinguished Professor of both Harvard and Yale. Well worth the 7 minutes:

  388. So, what’s the winning strategy in the “confirmation process?”

    Tiger, I guess it depends on what you mean by “winning,” doesn’t it?

    Defeating any and every Obama nominee by any means necessary? Maybe vilifying Marshall is is an OK strategy for that.

    Pandering to the some of the GOP’s most far-right elements? Maybe for that too.

    Finding a qualified Supreme Court justice? Maybe not so much.

  389. “Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.” — Joe Binden

    Boy, we sure have come a long way from this….

    “Well I’m here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month.”

    Count on it, smartasses!

  390. OK … Osborne, Armstrong … cut me some slack that I have an Ozzie brain fart after midnight.

    Huck … on your point, I beg to differ. It’s very rock and roll to support who you think will be a change candidate. It’s not rock and roll to be seen with an old fart of an ex-president.

    It’s all about screwing the establishment and putting it to THE MAN. (Who knew Obama would turn out to be the establishment? 🙂 )

  391. I’m curious R, when are you going to admit that this little experiment in Obamanomics is an epic failure? When are we ever going to hold the President accountable to any of the benchmarks he established for himself?

    Just curious…

  392. Now who said the dems aren’t about arguing positions in the arena of ideas?

    “The Democratic National Committee is seeking “Macaca” moments. The party today is opening a website, http://www.accountabilityproject.com, designed to recruit and display embarrassing audio and video of Republican candidates, as well as information about their schedules and copies of their mailers.

    Campaigns have long made videotapes of each other, using “trackers” who follow the opposition from event to event. It was a young tracker who shot the video footage of then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) that wound up sinking his campaign.

    The DNC hopes campaigns and journalists will use the footage in ads and news coverage. The site targets both 2010 candidates and 2012 hopefuls.”

  393. Regarding Thurgood Marshall, once again the GOP is out to commit political suicide. First of all Brown v BOE is not an example of Marshall being an activist judge, He wasn’t a damn judge at the time … he was an attorney and ALL attorneys are activist on behalf of their clients. The GOP just keeps trying to out-dumb itself.

    I did find one thing very striking yesterday. The SCOTUS overruled a ban gun (I forget which city … maybe Chicago). What it hammered home to me is how important these Supreme Court nominations are. Here we have a liberal President with a conservative court. And the way the system works, Obama has no “veto” power over the judicial. So Obama’s hands are tied as the SCOTUS allows guns to flow with reckless abandon and allows corporations to exert undue influence on elections.

    Scary! (Yes …. I have said in the past that the Citizens United case made sense to me from a constitutional POV but I still don’t like it.)

  394. Constitutional freedoms are there whether you like them or not. You have no right to restrict my freedom of speeck just like you have no right to take away my right to bear arms.

    It never ceases to amaze me how selective you are in what “rights” are really “rights” and what rights “rights” are just priviledges you allow ‘us’ to have.

  395. So Rabbit, my being a bit thick, does this mean you’re letting your house go into foreclosure? Two questions:

    1) What will be the short term effect on your credit rating?

    2) Keep good notes brother cos I may need to pump you for info in 8 months. I’m not walking away from mine but I may hit rock bottom by then. 😦

  396. I’m curious R, when are you going to admit that this little experiment in Obamanomics is an epic failure? When are we ever going to hold the President accountable to any of the benchmarks he established for himself?

    He won’t and he can’t.

    To admit Obama’s clear failure as President and leader is an admission of self-incrimination. The more Obama manipulates the press for transformational neo-socialism, the more Rutherford, Graychin, and Hippie will carry forth with the message, demanding more and bigger government under the guise of Journolist type talking points. This is a game of propaganda now.

    There’s no turning back for them Gorilla. The more ethically compromised Obama proves himself, the more shrill their message will become.

  397. Thurgood Marshall said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

    Do you think that this type of judicial philosophy is concerning?

    I don’t know anyone talking about Brown v. BOE, but they are talking about the premise like the quote above. So far, her testimony has been vapid and hollow…

  398. I’m curious R, when are you going to admit that this little experiment in Obamanomics is an epic failure? When are we ever going to hold the President accountable to any of the benchmarks he established for himself?

    Of course, there is a prevalent view in progressive circles that you guys have rather neatly tied Obama’s hands. What needs to have occurred was an even bigger stimulus – and you folks were more than happy to block that from occurring. Now you can sit back and cast blame for a failure that your side created.

    Yeah – Tex – I know exactly what you will say about that – you don’t need to bother….

    😉

  399. Santelli needs to be bound, gagged and placed somewhere until the economic crisis is over. He was the ass-hat who blamed our problems on folks who shouldn’t have more than one bathroom in their house.

    He’s a loudmouth fatcat who doesn’t give a flying f*ck about the little guy. 👿

  400. Let’s be honest boys …. the confirmation process has become a joke. Any question of import can be answered by “I cannot answer that as it may come before the court in a future case”. Kagan herself criticized this aspect of the process and now of course she will play it to the hilt.

  401. HP, did you read the econ article I posted at 105 as well as a couple threads ago?

    I thought not.

    Stimulus does not stimulate the economy.

    Read the Crisis Economics article at 105, then read this UCLA study on FDR policies and their affect on the depression: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx.

    I’m not pulling this out of my ass, unlike most of Chin’s responses. These are economist studies by respected economists, some of which currently work in the administration. Get off of the Daily Kos talking points and look for yourself…

  402. “It’s very rock and roll to support who you think will be a change candidate.”

    I guess we have different definitions of what rock and roll is.

    “It’s all about screwing the establishment and putting it to THE MAN. (Who knew Obama would turn out to be the establishment?”

    See, this doesn’t make any sense.

    Who knew Obama would be the establishment? The people, like your rock star, who supported him and made him the establishment!

    Sticking it to The Man doesn’t lead one to vote for a change candidate. Sticking it to The Man leads one to not vote. Because all politicians are The Man and voting makes one a part of the establishment that gives them power.

  403. Because all politicians are The Man and voting makes one a part of the establishment that gives them power.

    This is both cynical and 100% true. One of the internal crises I am going through right now is that I thought I was voting for transformation in 2008. While I continue to support Obama, I will never be that naive again.

  404. Hippie,

    But I must. 😉

    What needs to have occurred was an even bigger stimulus – and you folks were more than happy to block that from occurring.

    We have accumulated 3.4 Trillion Debt under Obama in seventeen months. That’s $200,000,000,000 billion dollars a month. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely.

    And with large majorities in both house and senate, the most neo-socialist President we’ve seen in a hundred years, your left with the excuse of “our hands are tied?”

    Hippie, you’re likable, but pathetic in your unfounded and complete deranged accusations. Sorry pal.

    You opinion is sheer madness. Like I said above, self-incrimination; there’s no turning back for you now because you have so much of yourself invested. We get it. Unfortunately, you don’t get it because you’re feeling no pain. For several years, you’ve been immune to the consequences of liberal politics, even personally benefited, sheltered by the world of academia. That needs to change.

    We allocated $862 billions dollars alone to be allocated in the creation of jobs and the real unemployment rate rose another 3%. I don’t know what more anyone can prove to you that your way doesn’t work, hasn’t ever worked, and will never work.

    And the part of you that I disdain the most is this so called oppression you accuse us of that makes us “wealthy”, that somehow job creators required to make apology for exploitation to anyone and everyone not either affiliated with higher education, or public service.

    I can’t tell you how pitiful and distasteful I find your political commentary anymore.

  405. So Rabbit, my being a bit thick, does this mean you’re letting your house go into foreclosure? Two questions:

    1) What will be the short term effect on your credit rating?

    2) Keep good notes brother cos I may need to pump you for info in 8 months. I’m not walking away from mine but I may hit rock bottom by then.

    State laws vary, but I would advise the Rabbit to tell his mortgage company what he is up to. He might be able to help himself out by helping the bank. Foreclosure is very expensive for the bank. Signing a “deed in lieu of foreclosure” might be more favorable to the Rabbit than just walking away and disappearing.

    Again, state laws vary. But the Rabbit’s mortgage company may be able to get a “deficiency judgment” against him for the difference between what he owes and what the house is worth (or ultimately sells for). Which would leave the Rabbit with the same debt as before.

    There used to be a tax problem with taxable income for “forgiveness of indebtedness” when someone walked away from a house, but I think that the problem was solved for most by the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.

    Rabbit, I think that squandering some of your hard-earned cash on legal advice in this matter would be money VERY well spent.

    As for the effect on a credit rating? Who cares? The Rabbit didn’t sound like he was going to run out to borrow money as soon as he was living in his new hutch.

  406. I understand you Rutherford more than you might think. I know why you are invested in Obama. Not only does he share large portions of your philosophy, but the election historical in nature.

    But I guarantee you that in the majority of circles you will never dare to travel, Obama epitomizes why Americans are angry – it has nothing to do with race or creed.

    The anger directed at Obama and his sycophants is the determination by attendants of the Tea Parties or just individuals like me, is that his Highness has come to the decision that federal, state, and union workers apparently are supposed to be immune to the laws of economics.

    The common opinion of Obama is quickly becoming he is the most dishonest and ethically challenged President since Richard Nixon. Throw in that it would appear Obama is less capable leader than Jimmy Carter, and the dreams of transformation are becoming a nightmare for just about everyone.

    The only thing that Obama has transformed is who is defined as friend or foe. You should watch the video I submitted, though I have determined you read only what to read – that which either you think room to mock; or that which you think shallow enough to provide input. Input is pretty much ignored anymore.

    You have, in my opinion, pretty much resigned yourself to burying your head in the sand.

  407. Gorilla said: HP, did you read the econ article I posted at 105 as well as a couple threads ago?

    Gorilla – yeah – actually I did.

    Are you an economist? I certainly am not, though like you I do read quite a lot of economics.

    The articles made some reasonable points. However, I know Tex will scoff but Krugman and others make some good points too. Krugman has been saying from the start – going backs months ago – that the stimulus needs to be larger. He notes that our biggest worry right now should be deflation and not inflation – and on this last point I think he is spot on. If in fact we end up in a deflationary cycle – a cycle that will indeed weaken the recovery – it will be because of a lack of spending rather than too much.

    So – here is the billion-dollar question: What is our bigger worry – inflation or deflation? If it is the former, you guys are right, and financial austerity is the best solution. If it is the latter, us libs are right and we need a bigger stimulus.

    Like I said, I am not an economist – and I don’t know the answer.

  408. 100% wrong.

    Tex has asked you this before, now I’m curious, Chin, what’s your background? What is/was your profession? What education do you have? Really, we’re curious…

  409. BTW – did anyone catch Franken’s opening remarks yesterday? Spot on, in my opinion.

    Damn that guy is turning out to be a fine Senator. Who woulda’ thought.

  410. As demonstrated by the economic studies, the stimulating factor of tax cuts is conservatively 4-5 dollars for every dollar cut. The stimulating factor of government spending is about 1.4 dollars for every dollar spent.

    If you’re worried about deflation, cut taxes- especially capital gains- and watch government revenue skyrocket.

  411. I never thought I would live to see the day that Socialist Germany would have to tell the U.S. Government that it is more than apparent the Keynesian Economics is a pipe dream, that we can’t incur any more debt, or that no less than the Harvard Business Review would call Keynesian theory a failure and post the proof – and still there are the sycophants of the Neo Socialist Obama would deny it.

    No doubt in my mind anymore than liberalism truly is a mental disease, and there is no known cure except extreme personal pain to snap them out of “stuck on stupid.”

  412. I’ve got a question for an Liberal that would care to answer, if you have an answer.

    If deficits do not matter as I heard Paul Krugman say the other day, why the need to tax both corporations and people anymore?

    Why don’t we just print money?

  413. Ape, I’m glad you mentioned capital gains.

    I have never understood the logic behind taxing capital gains differently than ordinary income.

    Perhaps you could explain it to me.

  414. President Barack Obama’s political director failed to disclose that he was slated to receive a nearly $40,000 payout from a large labor union while he was working in the White House.

    Patrick Gaspard, who served as the political director for the Service Employees International Union local 1199, received $37,071.46 in “carried over leave and vacation” from the union in 2009, but he did not disclose the agreement to receive the payment on his financial disclosure forms filed with the White House.

    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/06/29/patrick-gaspards-37k-disclosure-form-lie/

  415. G-chin said: “Tiger, I guess it depends on what you mean by “winning,” doesn’t it?”

    Yep. The term you applied to the process like a true democrat’s purpose in these confirmations.

    “Defeating any and every Obama nominee by any means necessary? Maybe vilifying Marshall is is an OK strategy for that.”

    Tell us how that works in this process? I love how the left, merciless and despicable in their treatment of Republican nominees, feigns incredulity that anyone would even consider examining their selection.

    I would love to know how you arrived at a decision as to her suitability. Care to detail? (Just kidding — she was selected by your Messiah — that’s all you needed to know, — anything you say would be a cut and paste of the platitudes that pacify the unthinking masses that worship at the alter of Obama).

    Don’t worry. She’ll make it through.

  416. I do have to give my “young” friend Hippie one compliment, though a left handed one.

    Hippie, congratulations. No matter how wrong-headed I think your comments, no matter how much we disagree politically, spiritually, socially, or morally, you seem to be the last lib left here on the Rutherford Lawson blog who will to make the attempt to answer difficult questions when asked.

    This blog is quickly becoming one sided about anything other than the superficial or something like the Kagan nomination based solely on like or dislike.

  417. Gorilla – I understand the argument about the multiplier. Like I said, both sides have good points. However, I don’t actually know enough about economics to honestly know which side is right with certainty. Hell – economists themselves can’t agree on much.

    I do know that there are issues with supply-side concepts. For example, trickle-down economics does require that the money is reinvested in the US economy. We have no assurances that it will – and in fact we have evidence to the contrary. India has a growing middle class because US companies are outsourcing there. The trickle-down is trickling overseas, or into the pockets of multinationals who have no particularly loyalty to the US economy.

  418. :Like illegals who send 75% of their income back to their home countries? I’m glad we agree its a problem.

    However, when I look to government expenditures- compensating state deficits, rescuing union pensions, bailing out failing homeowners in homes they should have never gotten in the first place- I don’t see those dollars coming back into the economy either.

    At least private dollars, while not all of the them, at least most will stay in the States. And by the by, China jobs are coming back to the US, so…

  419. I have never understood the logic behind taxing capital gains differently than ordinary income. – Graychin

    Not surprising. You never understood the concept of entrepreneurial investment, venture capital, or real incentive for growth either. 😉

    That’s why your solution is always more taxes, because it is the only thing you fully understand – as long as someone else is paying them and you are personally immune. If you can prove me otherwise, I will happily shut my mouth and leave you alone as alpha sheep in the Obama herd.

    I would dearly love to know if your supposed generosity extends behind generous words of great deeds on a blog…my gut tells me a definitive NO WAY.

  420. How about it R, you going to take a crack at any of the questions posed in 449?

    It’s above my pay grade. 😀

    Seriously, why is Will so obsessed with campaign finance reform? Is that expected to come before the court any time soon? His question is a nice academic exercise but ultimately silly. We have only one body who writes laws so they must be the ones to legislate reform of their own campaigns. There is no getting around it. They also vote themselves pay increases.

    I’ll address some of the other points later.

  421. Let’s be honest boys …. the confirmation process has become a joke. Any question of import can be answered by “I cannot answer that as it may come before the court in a future case”. Kagan herself criticized this aspect of the process and now of course she will play it to the hilt.

    Let’s be honest, R. The Dems turned the process into a joke when they began to make ideology a central criteria in determining whether candidates namonated by the President even got a vote for confirmation. The memos leaked on the process in 2004-2005 show very clearly that the Dems on the committee were being informed not by the judical and legal acumen of the nominee, but whether or not outside parties thought the nominees could be relied on for solid support of bog labor, the rights of mothers to murder their children, and their support of the expansion of government.

    As for making a statement on something that she might be called on to make a judgment about in the future, as much as it pains me to say it, she is absolutely correct. Judges are not supposed to provide advisory rulings on what ifs. In this respect, she has shown a better command of what is expected of her than did a self-professed wise latina woman who when questioned last year, stated (paraphrased) that she believed the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of individuals to possess and bear firearms….a striking contrast from her dissent in yesterday’s ruling, I might add, but then I pointed out at the time of her nomination that she was unfit and injudicous, and as such a terrible choice for the job.

  422. BiW: I would argue that Democrats did indeed start us down the wrong path when they politicized the Bork hearings. Of course, that was back in my conservative days and it pissed me off at the time. I am not sure how I would react now….

  423. Rutherford et al,

    I just got off the phone with my mortgage company. I have, in fact, told them.

    It looks like there are a couple options in the air.

    First thing is everything changed when I disclosed my wife no longer has a job.

    Dee and lieu…I walk away from the house, they pay me 3 grand. Credit is fucked for 5 years. They can’t come after me for the difference.

    Short sale….my credit takes a hit, but I can buy another house.

    Re-modification….we negotiate an completely new mortgage at the new market value of the house

    War….I live here for almost two years not making a payment. Yes, if you know what you are doing, you can make it two years.

    My brother is a CFA who specializes in bankruptcy and debt counseling. Poor guy, spent the thousands of dollars to be big time, passed some of the hardest tests out there and the depression hit.

    Anyways, he’s working with me and knows his shit.

    I don’t use credit cards and never will again. I’m proud to say I have paid of 20 grand of 30 grand cc debt. I will continue to pay those.

  424. BiW: I would argue that Democrats did indeed start us down the wrong path when they politicized the Bork hearings. Of course, that was back in my conservative days and it pissed me off at the time. I am not sure how I would react now….

    The Bork hearings are when it really came to the attention of the public at large. However, if you look at the number of federal judicial vacancies that have gone unfilled annualy, which I believe started under Reagan. That is the canary in the coal mine regarding the process of Advise and Consent being hijacked.

  425. Deed in lieu…I walk away from the house, they pay me 3 grand. Credit is fucked for 5 years. They can’t come after me for the difference.

    Sounds like a good strategy. Good luck to you.

  426. Rabbit,

    I found recently that my wife and I have “perfect” credit – or so they tell me 800+ is.

    I’ll be damned if I can tell you what that gets you, if you don’t carry balances or have a mortgage. So what, your credit takes a hit? You and 50MM other people. I’d rather you get the benefit than some liberal thief.

    They told us that would qualify us for really great interest rates. I said, who the hell would be purchasing anything in this economy with interest rates associated with them?

    Good luck with Jr. – trust me, in about 15 years look me up if I’m still around, and tell me if a new truck and bigger house brings the joy your kids do. Your marriage will benefit as well.

    We’ve all been too caught up in having “things.” Give me a full belly, a great air conditioner, a pair of good running shoes, a nice TV, and a computer with high speed access, and I’ve got about all I need to enjoy life.

  427. Anybody remember a current pompous ass of importance as Jr. Senator that made his name being a prick during the Bork hearings – in my opinion, the final straw in so called bipartisanship?

    I’ll give you a clue. He likes ice cream, calls those who ask him to “lower their taxes” smart asses, and is a gaffe a minute.

    Memory serves, he’s a “Constitutional Expert” that couldn’t get the Constitution right in a debate either. A total douche bag.

  428. Yes, the mainstream media that came together to play up the false allegations that the “N-Word” was hurled 15 times by Tea Party participants at the Congressional Black Caucus outside the Capitol the day before the “Obamacare” vote, is the same MSM that colluded to make sure the American public accepted the smear, and refused to show the exculpatory videos that disproved the incendiary charges of Tea Party racism.

    Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough.

    Buwahahahahahaha…Racial Madcow’s nightly talking points expose’:

    Rutherford, here’s your chance to make some money:

    Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected

    http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/06/29/reward-100000-for-full-journolist-archive-source-fully-protected/?preview=true&preview_id=86962&preview_nonce=ec524375b1

  429. If only someone could have stopped the government back when it decided that it would play a role in getting people to own houses.

    Are there people still around other then Barney Frank who believes this was a good call?

    Oh wait a minute, I forgot. Barny was blowing that dude from Fanny at the time. He never cared.

    I still can’t believe that the people playing Russian roulette with derivatives from these insane dumb ass loans got a bail out by the tax payer.

    I can’t get over that one. I really can’t.

    _________________________________________________

    I learned something today.

    You know when you see that house in your neighborhood on the market for a relatively decent price? And you say, “hey….maybe things are looking up?”

    I learned that the house isn’t meant to sell. In order for a deed and lieu, the house must go on the market for three months. That’s all you’re seeing!

    I was wrong about credit being fucked up for 5 years. More like 7 to 10.

    But as Tex pointed out, and my brother as well, those credit ratings are becoming obsolete…so who knows.

    By next spring, the Rabbit will be planting corn.

  430. Wow Tex, I wonder how long it will be before the first forged archive shows up – kinda like the forged Kenyan birth certificates for Obama…

    Breitbart is first class – your worst nightmare. We’re going to decipher your collusion and expose the bias we all have known existed for years.

    I see that Rev. Wright, Obama’s mentor, just doesn’t hate whitey – he hates MLK too. 😆

  431. Breitbart is first class – your worst nightmare. We’re going to decipher your collusion and expose the bias we all have known existed for years.

    So – what happens if Journolist doesn’t contain the smoking gun you claim? Will you admit it? Or, will someone instead take quotes out of context – or even fabricate quotes – to prove what you apparently already know for certain is there?

  432. Comment seen on another blog:

    Here’s what I wish Kagen had said yesterday while Sessions was speaking of Thurgood Marshall:

    ” Senator Sessions, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, we get it that you, your daddy and your daddy’s daddy were named for Confederate president Jefferson Davis and Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard. So we understand it’s difficult to hide your bigotry. But honestly, do you think dissing Justice Marsall is gonna curry any favor with Black voters in Alabama? “

  433. So – what happens if Journolist doesn’t contain the smoking gun you claim?

    Seriously? The fact that there was a listserve of legacy media types that decided what the story was and what the spin would be doesn’t bother you in the slightest?

    Maybe the participating organizations need to change their bylines to : All the news that’s decided in committee.

  434. Seriously? The fact that there was a listserve of legacy media types that decided what the story was and what the spin would be doesn’t bother you in the slightest?

    BiW – the stuff I have read does not suggest that is what the list was. I am sure your sources say otherwise. To be honest, I don’t know what is there.

  435. ” Senator Sessions, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, we get it that you, your daddy and your daddy’s daddy were named for Confederate president Jefferson Davis and Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard. So we understand it’s difficult to hide your bigotry. But honestly, do you think dissing Justice Marsall is gonna curry any favor with Black voters in Alabama? “

    I love how that conflict will only ever be about one issue for people, and that therefore because of it, anyone who participated in the Confederate cause is automatically and necessarily deemed to be a racist. One of the many tragedies of that conflict is that it divided not just a nation, but many of its institutions, like the military, and many distinguished soldiers and graduates of West Point took up that cause.

    In P.T. Beauregard’s case, he had actually been appointed to be the superintendant of West Point, but the orders were revoked shortly thereafter because of Lousiana’s sessession from the Union, a move with he protested because it reflected a judgment upon him before he had done anything to reveal that his sympathies were with the Confederacy.

    While I’m sure the quote above makes a handy talking point, but in so diminishing those who fought for the losing side in that war only reveals the intellectual shallowness of the speaker.

  436. Rabbit,

    The only man (or woman) I’ve ever had a political sign in my yard for – first a CPA, then Medical Doctor. Smart as all get out.

    Double Bonus – Graychin hates his guts.

    Tom and I are kindred spirits. I’ve actually spoken to him, and he’s a nice guy too. Even if he does think Nancy Pelosi is a nice woman. 🙂

  437. BiC,

    The fact that there was a listserve of legacy media types that decided what the story was and what the spin would be doesn’t bother you in the slightest?

    Bet it doesn’t bother Hippie a bit. Bet even more Hippie thinks collusion is the standard operating procedure. It’s obvious in that they all have the same meme.

    Look at everything they’ve ignored on this thread alone, but have debated Kagan until red in the face.

  438. As hard as it may be to believe, I kinda like Coburn myself. He was the only one at the health care summit with Obama from the GOP side who seemed to want to suggest pro-active solutions as opposed to just saying no.

    I might add his question to Kagan seemed fair to me.

  439. Another worthy read…

    Why Obamanomics Has Failed
    The administration’s stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.

    But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

    The contrast with President Reagan’s antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.

    Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html

  440. We’ve been saying that the policies of the administration aren’t working. We’ve pointed to multiple examples of recession strategies that have not only worked to correct the downturn, but have resulted in unprecedented economic growth. We’ve been pointing to the extreme long-term danger of the current policies, pointing out that not only will the fail in the short term but that the long-term consequences makes the cure worse than the disease.

    You own this.

    Reinhart and Rogoff observe that following systemic banking crises, the duration of housing price declines has averaged roughly six years, while the downturn in equity prices has averaged about 3.4 years. On average, unemployment rises for almost 5 years. If we mark the beginning of this crisis in early 2008 with the collapse of Bear Stearns, it seems rather hopeful to view the March 2009 market low as a durable “V” bottom for the stock market, and to expect a sustained economic expansion to happily pick up where last year’s massive dose of “stimulus” spending now trails off. The average adjustment periods following major credit strains would place a stock market low closer to mid-2011, a peak in unemployment near the end of 2012 and a trough in housing perhaps by 2014. Given currently elevated equity valuations, widening credit spreads, deteriorating market internals, and the rapidly increasing risk of fresh economic weakness, there is little in the current data to rule out these extended time frames.

    … Put bluntly, I believe that the economy is again turning lower, and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the U.S. stock market will ultimately violate its March 2009 lows before the current adjustment cycle is complete. At present, the best argument against this outcome is that it is unthinkable. Unfortunately, once policy makers have squandered public confidence, the market does not care whether the outcomes it produces are unthinkable. Unthinkability is not evidence.” — John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
    http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc100628.htm

  441. Gorilla,

    My favorite part one the WSJ Partisan and the Press article you released is the Daily Caller’s list of more egregious crap Weigel posted. He reads like a combination of Butch Madcow, Keith Ogremann, and Graychin.

    And that represents the “conservative” angle?

    These loons that post here from the Left can’t understand the hypocrisy and why collusion looks bad. No wonder they still believe Obama is feeding us with loaves and fish – delude collusion. 🙂

  442. Remember, Weigel’s supposedly off-the-record audience consisted of hundreds of journalists, both left-wing and purportedly objective. What it appears he was doing was not merely expressing an opinion but engaging in partisan politics–i.e., advising other journalists on how they should tailor their coverage so as to avoid “doing more damage to the Democrats.”

    Taranto nails it again. I hope this lays to rest about the supposed fairness of the MSM the moonbats ferociously defend here.

    Incredible how devious and amoral these press folks from the Left are.

  443. For starters … I am blown away that Supreme Court oral arguments and “cross examination” are available in audio for anyone to hear. I thought that stuff was closed door, never broadcast in any form. So Gorilla, hats off for opening my eyes to this. To your (or BiW’s) knowledge is there a web site where I can listen to other oral arguments? Fascinating stuff.

    As for the argument …. well it’s a snippet of argument taken out of context. But let’s take it for what it’s worth …. doesn’t make any sense and I kinda have to side with Scalia on this one. The idea that we don’t need to worry about a law because it is never enforced is absurd … and kinda cynical almost. The notion that a corporation can make a political statement in book form but not in film form is nonsensical.

  444. You guys crack me up … truly you do. Collusion???? What does that even mean in a news commentary context? Fox News is nothing if not one huge example of collusion … otherwise why would we not hear any independent voices there? It’s a friggin’ echo chamber.

    Give me a break. Save your outrage.

    By the way … may shock you guys but Sharon Angle has actually finally said something I agree with. I agree with her what but not her why. If you are truly “pro-life” then rape and incest are not exceptions. Now why she had to pull God into it befuddles me a bit since I doubt anyone would agree that it is God’s will that a ten year old gets raped by her father.

  445. People here have become cynical. There have been suggestions that Obama wants to use the oil spill as a “teachable moment” in his effort to pass his cap and trade energy legislation. And there are even darker intimations, the suspicion that something else must be afoot. If the spill had occurred in Long Island Sound, say, or San Francisco Bay—or in Nantucket Sound with oil lapping at the beaches of Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard—would there be this indolent a response from Washington?

    What I have suspected for weeks. Obama wanting to use this “teachable moment” to punish states who didn’t vote for him and, to use the crisis to push for cap and tax.

  446. You guys crack me up … truly you do. Collusion???? What does that even mean in a news commentary context? Fox News is nothing if not one huge example of collusion … otherwise why would we not hear any independent voices there? It’s a friggin’ echo chamber.

    Told you he wouldn’t get it, and that FOX News would be used as excuse of collusion. Predictable as morning. 😆

    Um Rutherford, talk shows are not straight news reporting and journalism. Even that is political commentary. We’re not condemning George Stephanapolus or David Gregory here.

    These are newspapers and magazines of record for straight reporting – those that you have called apolitical. Not so apolitical…

  447. Gorilla quoted:The contrast with President Reagan’s antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending.

    I get so tired of hearing about how Reagan was god. His refusal to acknowledge the AIDS crisis arguably resulted in millions of deaths – but hey – he made some people rich – so he must be god….

  448. Now why she had to pull God into it befuddles me a bit since I doubt anyone would agree that it is God’s will that a ten year old gets raped by her father.

    Rutherford, I have heard people make exactly that claim…..

  449. Completely unrelated and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion- and this is not an acknowledgement of what you say is even true.

    Why don’t you stick to the point…

  450. The charges that Reagan “ignored AIDS” is one of the bigger lies from the Left dialect in order to rewrite history. Fortunately, I was a professional employee during the Reagan era and remember the situation – this time, I’m not allowing a whitewash of history. Consider:

    (1) Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Luc Montagner announce they have co-discovered the virus that causes AIDS, and the different modes of HIV transmission are identified – in 1984; half way through the Reagan Presidency.

    (2) All blood and plasma collection centers begin screening the country’s blood supply for HIV antibodies – 1985.

    (3) In May 1986, Surgeon General Koop releases his report calling for AIDS education for children of all ages and urges widespread use of condoms.

    (4) In May 1987, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) establish an Office of AIDS Research. Dr. Anthony Fauci is named the acting director.

    (5) In Feb 1988, U.S. mails 107 million copies to every American home of Understanding AIDS, a booklet by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

    To this day, the Left will not admit that the initial pandemic explosion of HIV was caused by homosexuality, propagated soon thereafter by intravenous drug use.

    To excuse really bad behavior, the Left uses Reagan as a scapegoat.

    History is repeating itself as we speak with respect to MRSA – and in the same demographic.

    Rest assured, twenty years from now we will be hearing that George Bush ignored this crisis too.

  451. Yes Tex – but physicians and researchers and the CDC had recognized that the epidemic was unfolding far earlier than any of the dates you mention. Requests for expanded funding by the CDC were repeatedly denied – these were prime budget cutting years, remember. Identification and screening was delayed by at least two years because the administration dragged its feet.

    Reagan himself didn’t publicly speak about the crisis until 1987.

    But hey, in those early days only homosexuals were dying – so I guess that doesn’t matter, huh?

  452. Gorilla asks: Why don’t you stick to the point…

    Hey – when have we ever stuck to the point here.

    😉

    But, it is on the point. You were trumpeting Reagan’s budget cutting and tax lowering strategy. People commonly forget that there was a downside to the budget cutting. One of those downsides was a crippling of our public health services at the start of the AIDS crisis.

  453. Yes Tex – but physicians and researchers and the CDC had recognized that the epidemic was unfolding far earlier than any of the dates you mention.

    The cause for the “gay disease” wasn’t even discovered until half way thru Reagan’s term. The only thing the researchers and CDC understood was that the epidemic of an obviously transmittable disease was unfolding. I highly doubt Ronald Reagan intended to kill Ryan White.

    In fact, nobody thought it a new virus because predominantly men were dying of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and bacterial infections, and indeed the epidemiology for the CDC was funded to determine the pandemic for the previously rare Kaposi’s. It wasn’t until three years later that it was determined that it was the destruction of one’s immune system brought about by destruction of T-4 cells, thereby the inactivation of antibodies.

    Have you heard either G.W. Bush or Bongo speak of the recent outbreaks of MRSA in the gay community? No? Didn’t think so. Yet I remember well the mass panic of the 80s anyway, and in fact had myself tested in 1986 at the instruction of one Dr. C. Everett Koop – in my estimation the best Surgeon General America has ever had.

    But it is a pattern with you. You’ll point the fingers at the fallacy of big government, the turtle reaction time and its failures, then in the next post talk about how we need more of it. In fact, you were the biggest proponent of pushing for a government sponsored public plan for health care. We’ve seen how quickly government can respond to national crises in the Gulf of Mexico. Give you great confidence if small pox ever rears its ugly head again, when we just wasted millions disposing of 70 million vaccines for H1N1? Did you blame Obama? No, I didn’t think so.

    The fact you would blame a President for really bad behavior, never mentioning the initial explosions of HIV were predominately due to multiple partners in bathhouses of NYC and San Francisco, once again proves to me that you are not only a rank propagandist parroting Jounolist talking points, but intellectually dishonest to the cause and effects of poor personal responsibility.

  454. Rutherford says: “Collusion???? What does that even mean in a news commentary context?”

    WTF? It’s the news commentary context that is the source of outrage. Interesting that Weigle (sp?) apologizes and you point to Fox as proof that it’s o.k.

    Rutherford, did you got hit on the head with coconut as a child? This shit’s troubling and you gotta know it, especially when the outed offender acknowledges it is wrong. The tireless “it doesn’t matter because someone else on the right does it” justification should have started hurting your Harvard educated brain a long time ago.

  455. Yeah I have to concur with Tex. I also reviewed the CDC/HHS budgets for HIV/AIDS only and it saw nothing but increases from day 1.
    Public health is a serious issue here in the states as we have constantly failed on a bipartisan level to do it right. I personally believe the biggest part of the problem is not a lack of science or commitment but rather a hypersensitivity within the new American PC culture set.
    Mental health is a good area to see that. I would also add that the polio history is telling as well as TB.People speak of the stigma of AIDS but if we had looked back to our county based TB interventions we may have been better off.Can anyone imagine if we attempted to quarantine ala Cuba in the early days of the HIV/AIDS saga? The politics would never have allowed it!
    We were never going to curtail the spread of HIV (HTLV as I remember my 80’s era testing,shows they were still unsure of it all) and it will and should stand as testimony of how not to provide public health.

  456. Tell you what, guys. Read Randy Shilts And The Band Played On. It is simply an amazing piece of journalism. I don’t have my copy in front of me now, and I can’t cite the exact statistics off the top of my head. Regardless, the book chronicles the Reagan administration’s repeated refusal to address the crisis.

    Now, I suspect the response here will claim that this is just another example of the liberal media. Read the book before you make that claim. It is equally harsh in its assessment of the homosexual community itself – a community to which Shilts himself belonged.

  457. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-to-4, that public colleges and universities may require religious organizations seeking recognition or funds as campus groups to comply with anti-bias rules.

    I didn’t think this court had it in em’

    BiW – you out there? Thoughts?

    I read all 90 or so pages once though last night.

    First, in answer to Greychin, I’m a conservative, and on the squib that was reported in the news services, I wouldn’t have considered it “in the bag”. That wouldn’t be in keeping with the Court’s 70 year hostility to the practice and recognition of Christianity.

    The majority opinion seemed responable, although they still misapplied one of the doctrines, and concluded that a certain level of discrimination against the group in question was reasonable, which in light of the totality of circumstances, was surprising.

    However, the dissent calls attention to the law school’s remedial actions and policy directives enacted after the suit was filed and the complaint had been answered, meaning that both the ninth circuit and the SCOTUS majority were very selective about the facts and the pleadings that each choose to center their decision on. Essentially, the “all-comers” policy was a pretext, that was not even enacted at the time the decision was made to reject the CLS’s RSO application. It was actually rejected on a different basis that was not being even applied to other RSOs at that time.

    It was pretty shocking to read, and I will be doing more research, because if the entire record bears it out, it smacks of judicial malfeasance, and comes close to a declaration that the rules have changed, and the proceedure hasn’t caught up yet.

  458. Tell you what, guys. Read Randy Shilts And The Band Played On.

    I remember reading a part of it several years ago. But let’s do consider the source of your objection.

    Randy Shilts was America’s “the first openly gay reporter with a gay ‘beat’ in the American mainstream press. (Wiki).” While his AIDS death tragic and Shilts a talented journalist, I continue to be amazed at what passes as objective reporting for you. The Band Played On was a big hit in Leftist circles, played to emotions of the gay activists and sympathizers, but Shilts facts and reality don’t match.

    Hopefully, you won’t mind me using a graph from some site called Republicans for Family Values? Because it provides a nice graphical representation of the allocation of the National Institutes Health research funding.

    To me, AIDS research shows exactly what happens with liberals, led by feelings, sympathies and emotions, decided public policy.

    Now you tell me Hippie? When number of deaths are considered, and number of citizens affected, and aggregate population considered, do you consider this allocation of funding wise public policy?

  459. Tex – if you had actually read the whole book you would recognize that Shilts criticized almost everyone. I mentioned this before, but he was particularly harsh in his criticism of the gay community itself – which refused to change its behavior well after it became obvious that AIDS was sexually transmitted.

    Out of curiosity, what dates does your pie chart cover? I am not suggesting that AIDs research is currently underfunded – I am claiming that it was underfunded in the early 1980s.

    Also, note that your chart includes only two other infectious diseases – and Hepatitis, though serious, has nothing close to the mortality rate. It makes sense that we would spend a lot of money on a disease with a mortality rate of close to 100 percent (in the early stages of the epidemic) and that had the possibility of widespread transmission.

    BTW – Shilts compares the governments response to Legionnaire’s disease to its response to AIDS. The government was all over Legionnaire’s – which had a relatively small number of victims. It took thousands of dead AIDS patients before the government had a similar response. But, of course those were mostly homosexuals, so who cares, right?

  460. Tex – something else is funny about your chart…. it includes no cancers. Don’t you find that a bit odd? Yes – I realize that much of cancer research comes under NCI – but last I checked that is part of NIH.

    What gives?

  461. Also, note that your chart includes only two other infectious diseases – and Hepatitis, though serious, has nothing close to the mortality rate.

    ?

    Au contraire my liberal friend. What Shilts should have compared AIDS to is Hepatitis C. And it is estimated that yearly deaths in the U.S. of Hepatitis C will exceed AIDS in the next 3-5 years and like AIDS, with no vaccine available.

    http://www.nfid.org/factsheets/hepc.shtml

    The government was all over Legionnaire’s – which had a relatively small number of victims. It took thousands of dead AIDS patients before the government had a similar response.

    Bad analogy from a medical perspective and one that took but a short time to determine the cause and possible reatment – a gram negative bacteria that we were already familiar with and effects localized.

    The CDC was all over the new strain in New Mexico of Hantavirus which would have made a much better analogy to Legionnaire’s disease. 😉

  462. Au contraire my liberal friend. What Shilts should have compared AIDS to is Hepatitis C.

    Shilts did compare the response to AIDS to that of Hepatitis C – and it is an apt comparison because of the co-morbidity. He found that the response to AIDS (again, in the early 1980s) was far slower than the response to Hepatitis.

    Legionaire’s was a good example because it was an epidemic that occurred roughly in the same time period. The Hantavirus you are talking about is relatively recent, correct?

  463. Huck,

    I read that Marc Ambinder worm’s article the other day. I didn’t note the date of the article. Buwahahaahahaha!

    With the advent of Fox News and the power of that echo-chamber, complaints about liberal media bias are quite irrelevant.

    Dollar to a donut Marc is a board member of Journolist. 🙂

  464. Disgusting. Attaching bull shit, even bull shit that could help the Rabbit (as in so called teacher money), to a war funding bill humiliates me.

    My union doesn’t need the cash becuase we voted to take a 10% cut in pay, major hike in benefits and a longer day.

    Want to know 2 things that have blown up the cost of education?

    No my right wing brothers, not unions.

    The Department of Education!

    Reagan should abolished that money sucking, bureaucratic red tape machine like he promised. He’s the last conservative to call it out for what it is, pointless.

    Bush inflated it to monstrous proportions. NCLB seems to be the one governmental intrusion conservatives turn a blind eye to.

    Do you have any idea how much State money is spent just to accommodate federal mandates?

    Standardized testing and the cottage industry that goes along with it (changing educational objectives every two or three years) costs billions. Billions!

    Want to make some money? Get on one of the committees that spends years coming up with standards, just to start them all over again the minute they are implemented. Trust me, you’ll be eating steak every night on the text book company’s dime too, as a perk.

    Fucking algebra hasn’t changed since the Arabs invented it.

    Do you know how much red tape, bureaucracy and money is attached to each kid labled as “learnig disabled”?

    I’m not talking autism or asperger synrdom.

    I’m talking about every jack ass who’s fat soccer mom finds a doctor who has no problem writing the acronym ADHD down and a script for psychotropic drugs.

    You don’t even need the doc anymore!

    It’s called a 504 plan.

    Johnny is a butt wipe who doesn’t study. Parent signs this form after endless meetings with dozens of people and now the teacher can get sued for giving Jonny an E for not doing his homework.

    Trial lawyers, and the leftist mentality of victim-hood.

    There’s your wasted money.

    It’s not my 48,000 grand a year.

  465. He found that the response to AIDS (again, in the early 1980s) was far slower than the response to Hepatitis.

    How did he prove that? And it’s an honest question because I don’t remember much – other than I thought Shilts was a talented writer, but an activist just the same.

    Remember, Shilts was an “active” part of the gay community. In addition, when the book was written in the late 80s I think, HIV was still somewhat of a mystery.

    The problem was not slow response but misdiagnosis. The tests for the HIV at the time (I know from personal experience) were six months from exposure to positive result before infection could be positively detected.

    It’s only a recent phenomenon with the Western blot that HIV can now be detected a few weeks after exposure.