Good Old Neon

I'm pretty sure I didn't state or imply that anyone at VC echoed the sentiment. I should have more clearly pointed out that articles with headlines that tend to misrepresent the actual content of the video clips contained therein have started popping up on VC. carm down.

I am calm goddamit!!!

 

 

I guess vc is on a roll with these. first the senator supposedly "justified" the attack on the IRS, and now Palin supports a booze-fueled health care summit. what a load of shit.

 

 

The article I linked used the word “justified”, no one here echoed that sentiment. I was simply amazed that a congressman would express such ambivalent feelings towards the IRS in response to a question having to do with some asshat flying a plane into the building with the expressed purpose of taking lives. It has also been reported that at the CPAC convention, King “empathized” with Stack, and encouraged folks to “implode” other IRS offices – the sort of talk and language that would send the entire right wing into a spastic conniption clusterfuck outraged shit fit if a democrat, or worse, a LIBRUWL, even hinted at expressing a similar statement, or maybe even just dreaming about someone dreaming about making such a statement.

But then King is a useless piece of shit, so there’s also that. It would be hysterical if the future of our country wasn't riding on the backs of these douche bags, but it is, and so not so funny anymore.

Yeah, GON may have taken it a bit far to say he justified the attack. I'm not going to take the time to explore it right now. But the man is definitely a tool. Sorry rest of USA.

For the record, I did not claim King justified the attack, I do however feel as though his, it’s sad but the IRS sucks (not his exact words, of course) remark is really pretty shitty - not to mention his entire we're turning into a socialist state convention rant schtick - which, is so meaningless and cliche at this point, that it hardly bears pointing out.

King's CPAC routine - http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=f62783b5-19b9-b4b1-1236-508f6b98c6ec

At one time, rants like this would be broadcast on tiny rural AM stations, mostly to Holsteins and Brangus, but now, this sort of paranoid fever dream rant is pretty much the mainstream in GOP circles.

bullshit.

 

not once in that clip does that man say that the attack was justified. he expresses his opinion that he favors a sales tax to income tax and that the IRS is an unnecessary agency. he also states "I don’t know if his grievances were legitimate, I’ve read part of the material."

 

why do you put up posts/articles that completely put words into people's mouths?

I cannot watch the video portion at work, and thus, posted it based on what was written in the article. If it’s misleading, I share in your frustration.

With respect to what I post – I was not aware that I do or that it has become a habit.

Edit – you would think that a member of Congress would stand strongly against anyone who chose to fly a plane into a government building with the intention of taking others with him, unequivocally. But King doesn’t, he goes on to sort of qualify Stack’s actions with a lame “it’s sad but…” sort of statement:

It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

And he is certainly delusional if he truly believes we're going to do away with the IRS.

One, among a veritable fucking hanger full of crazy statements to come from the recent Reality Challenged Olympic event otherwise known as CPAC – the mind just boggles (and boggles and boggles and boggles and….):

Rep. King Justifies Suicide Attack On IRS: Sympathizes With Hatred Of IRS, Hopes For Its Destruction

Excerpt:

ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) at CPAC to talk about the attack in Texas. Asked if the right-wing anti-tax rhetoric might have motivated the attack, King implicitly agreed, noting that he had been a leading opponent of the IRS for some time. He noted that although the attack was “sad,” “by the same token,” it was justified because once the the right succeeds at abolishing the IRS, “it’s going to be a happy day for America.” He sidestepped the question of the legitimacy of the terrorists’ grievances, but sympathized by saying that “I’ve had a sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back”:

Link - http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/king-justifies-irs-terrorism/

Rolling Stone's political coverage is fucking awful.

With the exception of Taibbi's contributions (which, by and large, are compendiums of his blog posts), I’m inclined to agree.

Rolling Stone (whom, I readily admit, is part of the mainstream media - which is to say, in bed with the NWO crowd) features a new, pretty fucking great rant by Matt Taibbi:

Wall Street's Bailout Hustle

Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the conditions for another crash

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle/print

Wow, it sounds as though pretty much everyone played a role in ruining this guy's life, with the exception of himself.

From wikipedia:

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.[7]

Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist.[8] Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have expressed concern that right-wing conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many left-wing conspiracy theorists but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the far right wooing the far left into joining an insurrectionary national-anarchist movement capable of subverting the established political powers.

Now, who does this remind you of?

Believe it or not, I'm not a board certified attorney, I dabble in law, but usually on the wrong side of it, but anyways, the following link may be of use in determining Cheney's culpability.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558

Used to be that only property owners (minority) could vote.

 

Nowadays, are you telling me that the poor (majority) have the same rights as the rich (minority)?

I sort of agree with this, but as Lauren alluded to, I think wealthy (and famous) folks are often afforded privileges, not rights, the rest of us are not – but I get the sense that JohnO had other minority groups in mind when he posted what he posted.

Can you?

I know you are but what am I - answer the question or don't, either way, I don't really care all that much.

Equal rights requires no qualifiers. The laws are to be applied equally to all people PERIOD. Attempting to protect the rights of some special group in some manner differently than you do for others is the very definition of unequal rights.

Can you provide some concrete examples of situations in which minorities have been afforded rights not extended to the majority?

An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification

A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2241

I like the comment about statesmen. I watched a program on that liberal den PBS, where two old pundits from both sides of the aisle said that there was a time when you fought tooth and nail, and afterwards went to dinner and drinks and found common ground. .

Here's an old photo of Gary Hart finding "common ground."

The current crop of Republicans have awl the betterer idears.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/utah-mulls-eliminating-12th-grade/story?id=9853553

 

“His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”

From the tea bagger article:

Most of the people there had paid only passing attention to national politics in years past. “I voted twice and I failed political science twice,” said Darin Stevens, leader of the Spokane 9/12 Project.

 

Until the recession, Mr. Stevens, 33, had poured his energies into his family and his business installing wireless networks. He had to lay off employees, and he struggled to pay credit cards, a home equity loan, even his taxes. “It hits you physically when you start getting the calls,” he said.

 

He discovered Glenn Beck, and began to think of Washington as a conspiracy to fleece the little guy. “I had no clue that my country was being taken from me,” Mr. Stevens explained. He could not understand why his progressive friends did not see what he saw.

 

He felt compelled to do something, so he decided to start a chapter of Mr. Beck’s 9/12 Project. He reserved a room at a pizza parlor for a Glenn Beck viewing party and posted the event on Craigslist. “We had 110 people there,” Mr. Stevens said. He recalled looking around the room and thinking, “All these people — they agree with me.”

Also from the NYT, a review of the book Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, the author of w hich pretty much nails the TB movement:

 

He not only notes the appeal of narrative and causality in a frighteningly random world — something readers of Thomas Pynchon’s novels well know — but also argues that overarching theories tend to be “formulated by the politically defeated and taken up by the socially defeated.”

 

These losers “left behind by modernity,” he writes, “can be identified in the beached remnants of vanished European empires; the doomed bureaucrats, the White Russians and the patriotic German petit bourgeois. They are the America firsters, who got the war they didn’t want; the Midwest populists watching their small farmers go out of business; the opponents of the New Deal; the McGovern liberals in the era of Richard Nixon; British socialists and pacifists in the decade of Margaret Thatcher; the irreconcilable American right during the Clinton administration; the shattered American left in the time of the second Bush.

 

“If it can be proved that there has been a conspiracy, which has transformed politics and society, then their defeat is not the product of their own inherent weakness or unpopularity, let alone their mistakes; it is due to the almost demonic ruthlessness of their enemy.”

 

It’s not surprising, then, that conspiracy theories thrive in times of change, uncertainty and economic stress, and that the designated villains often conform to enemies in “American populist folklore.” Of the era of McCarthyism and the venom aimed at supposed Communist sympathizers, Mr. Aaronovitch writes: “They were East Coasters or Hollywooders; they were educated; they were city dwellers; they liked art and fancy music; they were separate from — and unsympathetic to — the daily travails of the American little man.”

 

These days a similar sort of antipathy is directed at President Obama, the Democratic Party and the mainstream news media by the Tea Party movement and by so-called birthers, who question whether Mr. Obama was born in the United States.

 

In the case of the birthers, Mr. Aaronovitch says, many of the individuals and organizations involved are the same ones who tried to torpedo Bill Clinton’s presidency, denouncing Mr. Clinton as morally corrupt, even criminal: “It is as though,” he writes, “they had been on vacation through the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, only to rediscover, on arriving home, that there was yet another slippery liar in the White House.”

Link - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/books/16aaron.html?ref=books

I don't have the energy for this. If you want to think Evan Bayh is a principled man of reason LIKE HIS FATHER, then more power to you.

 

I don't even like typing Palin's and Bayh's names in the same sentence. Bayh was a man of substance. I guess I just expected more backbone from the man.

Now he can go cash in on his 'principled' stand. At least he will have THAT in common with Palin.

I don’t think it’s energy that you’re lacking, more like a valid argument.

Anybody read the profile on the tea baggers in the NYTimes today?

 

 

 

Damn, girlfriend. Easy to say, of course, when you likely won't ever have to.

 

(sidenote: Christ, I never watch Rachel Maddow, but that bit she did last year with Ana Marie Cox poking fun at "tea bagging" was hilarious.)

I'm sorry, but these people are just plain fucking nutters.

Edit: I’ve read many statements from teabaggers who claim that they have become politicized for the first time in their lives, which, no shit you don’t say?

I think both Bayh and Palin are cowards.

 

If you think something is wrong with the process (they both quit for similarly stated reasons), you can quit and whine about it, you can stay and whine about it, or you can STAY AND FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES.

 

One cannot reasonably belittle one and lionize the other. Palin and Bayh are cowards.

 

Period.

What I know about Bayh could be inscribed with a dry Magic Marker on the lip of a Coke bottle, but, from what I’ve read, his resignation may have something to do with possibly running for Pres. in 2012.

It’s what I’ve heard.

And but with regards to your main point - apples and toasters dude, apples and toasters.

We'll use your numbers. It is still a complete waste of taxpayer money. Obama and the DNC sent their storm troopers into Alaska to stir up trouble. Palin resigning cut the legs out from underneath the goons and stopped the waste of taxpayer resources on these frivolous lawsuits. A completely selfless act and all good in my book.

 

Evan Bayh on the other hand is walking away because he doesn't want to be in the minority again. He's a coward. Patches Kennedy on the other hand has legitimate disabilities to deal with including extended pre-pubescence and genetic lack of responsibility. It's too bad his drunken murderer of a father couldn't have set this example for the kid decades ago.

Palin invited ethics complaints by acting unethically. All but ONE of the lawsuits was filed by parties inside of Alaska.

Edit - from The Mudflats:

That’s the top three, none of which sound particularly “frivolous.” So once we crunch the numbers, it’s highly likely that the most expensive investigation brought about by an individual, is Palin’s investigation of herself. And let’s just review that one more time.

The Legislature found enough evidence to approve $100,000 to investigate Palin’s firing of the Commissioner of Public Safety, in light of accusations that he was dismissed for not firing her ex-brother-in-law with whom there was bad blood. They spent $75,000 of the money allocated, and the bipartisan Legislative Council (composed of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats) voted unanimously to go forward. An independent investigation by someone that they all agreed to found that Palin violated the Executive Branch Ethics Act. They unanimously voted to release that decision to the public.

As a counter-measure, and a panicked move to look good during the campaign, Palin (with the advice from the McCain cadre of lawyers headed up by Ed O’Callaghan who had no license to practice law in the State of Alaska) initiated her own ethics complaint against herself, knowing that the outcome would be decided by a friendly panel of governor-appointed people who report to her. Guess what? They found her innocent, and refused to even investigate the matter of testimony from Palin that went completely against testimony from the former commissioner. Frivolous ethics complaint? No….a calculated one that the state paid for.

What did the legislature do about their own $75,000 investigation that found the governor in violation of the Ethics Act? Nothing. So, why did we, as a state, pay that $75,000? What did we get for that money? Maybe that’s the question we should be asking.

Speaking of not knowing what you get for your money…

Palin herself reportedly has incurred over $600,000 in personal legal bills defending against complaints, although she won’t provide a breakdown of the expenses or what cases they were for. Palin friends and supporters set up a legal defense fund and are soliciting contributions for her legal bills.

link - http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/02/numbers-shmumbers/

If you cannot comprehend the distinction between quitting while still on the job, and not SEEKING reelection, which is to say, retiring - well, you may want to work on your comprehension skills.

If Palin is truly interested in being selfless, she would voluntary remove herself from the public arena, entirely - forever. She has nothing to say (outside of what can be scribbled on the inside of her hand using a magic marker), and nothing to bring to the table by way of ideas, policies or anything else for that matter. She was chosen by a failing campaign for purely cynical reasons, not because of her resume or her political acumen. She’s a hack by any standard, but a wealthy one, which, based on her behavior post quitting fiasco, it appears as though she saw dollar signs and chose to cash in.

It takes a special kind of loser to go up against someone like Levi Johnson and come away looking the worse for wear.

Palin quit because of the ludicrous number of frivolous lawsuits being filed against her that were costing the Alaskan taxpayers millions of dollars. Bayh is quitting because it's not going his way. You're right there is no comparison! Palin made a choice based on the best interest of her State and Bayh made a choice based on a lack of intestinal fortitude. imho

 

Then again maybe there is a scandal brewing...

In, I don’t know, let’s say baseball, would there be a difference between a player abruptly quitting midseason, and say, finishing out the season, and then retiring?

As for why she quit, I call complete and utter bullshit. Regarding the alleged millions:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-xxxii-the-cost-of-ethics-complaints.html

Who determines who is surplus? ANSWER: The guys with the bigger guns.

 

 

Do you mean this guy?