“Earlier Stewart explained to Oprah he was throwing his rally for the 85% of the country that is “busy” and doesn’t have time to choose sides”

Coming from a leftist asshole, that’s pretty funny.

Earlier Stewart explained to Oprah he was throwing his rally for the 85% of the country that is “busy” and doesn’t have time to choose sides: “

Hey Jon, let me educate;you; the percentage of American’s that are liberal, as you are, is a mere 20%. Then you have 40% that are conservative, and the other 40% consider themselves independent. Obama got a large portion of the I vote last, but his support among then has since evaporated.

Looks like some folks are really afraid of Stewart.

Annoying tick .

Poor Glynnis, Poor Jon. Yawn….always going after Beck and FNC.

Just think of what Jon is missing and could be getting lots of hows over…..lets see, he is a congressman, is father is Jesse Jackson, and he has been involved with the Blago scandal…something about millions of dollars to buy a senate seat for himself, oh and…..something about some blonde gal he got caught with that isn’t his wife. Just imagine what Jon Stewart or Glynnis could do with that story.

But alas, the congressman in question is a democrat….so mediaite will ignore it. Jon will miss the bandwagon of some good chuckles because the congressman in question is a democrat.

Oh well….so it goes.

TfT, be careful, eventually, the mediate writers will get sick of you pointing out their failures and ban you. Then, you will be forced to resurrect yourself under a new name. I know a little something about this.

Azarkhan said:
“Earlier Stewart explained to Oprah he was throwing his rally for the 85% of the country that is “busy” and doesn’t have time to choose sides”

Coming from a leftist asshole, that’s pretty funny.

You have no comeback for stewart… The right has no comeback for Stewart or Colbert, SNL or any of the talented left artists who call it like they see it. Humor is the best way to state fact. Nobody on the Right can combat him. Beck is a rodeo clown.

Big Eddie said:
Annoying tick .

TfT said:
Poor Glynnis, Poor Jon. Yawn….always going after Beck and FNC.

Just think of what Jon is missing and could be getting lots of hows over…..lets see, he is a congressman, is father is Jesse Jackson, and he has been involved with the Blago scandal…something about millions of dollars to buy a senate seat for himself, oh and…..something about some blonde gal he got caught with that isn’t his wife. Just imagine what Jon Stewart or Glynnis could do with that story.

But alas, the congressman in question is a democrat….so mediaite will ignore it. Jon will miss the bandwagon of some good chuckles because the congressman in question is a democrat.

Oh well….so it goes.

Stewart has gone after Obama many times. Unlike the right who can’t be balanced

Hey, righties! Don’t count your chickens before they hatch! If I were you I’d shrug over this story until Stewart actually does his freakin rally. Only then would I ridicule its size or whatever. If Stewart was some liberal nobody, how could he get under your skins like this over some rally that hasn’t even happened yet?

And TfT, who the freak is Glynnis?

Oprah’s viewers wont show up at any rally.

Most are lazy soap opera fanatics who sit around eating their Hagen Daas while watching her show and others are the kind that want the free cars or trips she springs on her audience every once in a while to wake up her audience.

Thanks for the note 1stamendmentlost. If they ban me over constructive criticism I’ll be surprised. I honestly don’t think the writers at mediaite are as thin skinned as hehimselftheone.

AND….given the language that flies on this board (the c-word, the f-word and worse are completely acceptable here), I can’t imagine they would ban someone who is calling them out on their bias, lack of clarity, lack of follow-up, etc.. But….thanks for sharing your lesson learned.

TfT said:
Poor Glynnis, Poor Jon. Yawn….always going after Beck and FNC.

Just think of what Jon is missing and could be getting lots of hows over…..lets see, he is a congressman, is father is Jesse Jackson, and he has been involved with the Blago scandal…something about millions of dollars to buy a senate seat for himself, oh and…..something about some blonde gal he got caught with that isn’t his wife. Just imagine what Jon Stewart or Glynnis could do with that story.

But alas, the congressman in question is a democrat….so mediaite will ignore it. Jon will miss the bandwagon of some good chuckles because the congressman in question is a democrat.

Oh well….so it goes.

If this is such a yawner then why take the effort to comment? Here’s why. You tea-baggers are the the biggest whiners on the planet. If you didn’t have something to bitch about you’d curl up under your bed and start sucking your thumb.

Dear Glynnis: Maybe you should answer this one:

Aloysius Okon Jr says: And TfT, who the freak is Glynnis?

Dave Noland said:
You have no comeback for stewart… The right has no comeback for Stewart or Colbert, SNL or any of the talented left artists who call it like they see it. Humor is the best way to state fact. Nobody on the Right can combat him. Beck is a rodeo clown.

I disagree.

Beck is an old radio jock who should be able to go toe to toe with Stewart any day. That’s one reason the left hates him as they know he can spin them around and make them look silly. They were not used to that with the old Republican stalewarts like Bush, Rove or Cheney.

TfT said:
Poor Glynnis, Poor Jon. Yawn….always going after Beck and FNC. Just think of what Jon is missing and could be getting lots of hows over…..lets see, he is a congressman, is father is Jesse Jackson, and he has been involved with the Blago scandal…something about millions of dollars to buy a senate seat for himself, oh and…..something about some blonde gal he got caught with that isn’t his wife. Just imagine what Jon Stewart or Glynnis could do with that story. But alas, the congressman in question is a democrat….so mediaite will ignore it. Jon will miss the bandwagon of some good chuckles because the congressman in question is a democrat. Oh well….so it goes.

Interesting… I have never seen you criticize anyone on the right for their indiscressions. I have condemned John Edwards for his. And Clinton for his. I assume you have a problem with Newt’s less than savory family values?

Actually Ted – I was just passing on some new material for them….they need it. And since the congressman in question is a democrat, we know the story won’t be headlined here. Just trying to help out.

1stamendmentlost said:
TfT, be careful, eventually, the mediate writers will get sick of you pointing out their failures and ban you. Then, you will be forced to resurrect yourself under a new name. I know a little something about this.

That’s what happens when you steam yourself up by watching Fox News and listening to talk radio: you end up directing all of the manufactured rage onto someone on a website.

TfT said:
Actually Ted – I was just passing on some new material for them….they need it. And since the congressman in question is a democrat, we know the story won’t be headlined here. Just trying to help out.

Great, now you can bitch about something else. When you attack the author – you lose.

PS – Jon Stewart is actually funny and that’s probably why you tea-bag types don’t like him.

If this is such a yawner then why take the effort to comment? Here’s why. You tea-baggers are the the biggest whiners on the planet. If you didn’t have something to bitch about you’d curl up under your bed and start sucking your thumb.” Ted

Says the whining Ted.

Ps. Buy Diapers

“Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land,” President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.

The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.

PS: What do they teach at Harvard?

@TfT: Is there a media angle? If a local pier fire is a one and a talk show host asking another talk show host about a third talk show host is a ten, where would your cheating congressman story fall on the media scale?

Isnt this the same Oprah that said Barry was the “one”,…..BIG TIME FAIL!

From the above article:

“If God had wanted us to burn holy books would he have made them so tantalizingly flammable?”

MEDIAite misquoted Jon. He actually said:

“If God had NOT wanted us to burn holy books would he have made them so tantalizingly flammable?”

The first quote makes no sense.

TfT said:
Poor Glynnis, Poor Jon. Yawn….always going after Beck and FNC.

Just think of what Jon is missing and could be getting lots of hows over…..lets see, he is a congressman, is father is Jesse Jackson, and he has been involved with the Blago scandal…something about millions of dollars to buy a senate seat for himself, oh and…..something about some blonde gal he got caught with that isn’t his wife. Just imagine what Jon Stewart or Glynnis could do with that story.

But alas, the congressman in question is a democrat….so mediaite will ignore it. Jon will miss the bandwagon of some good chuckles because the congressman in question is a democrat.

What is wrong with you.

Have you been eating cheese?

Oh well….so it goes.

I suppose there are a lot of similarities between Jon and Glen, if you overlook the fact that Jon doesn’t take his jokes seriously and is obviously trying to get laughs, whereas Glen believes his own bullshit and is obviously shilling for Goldline. But other than that, identical!

Dave Noland said:
Stewart has gone after Obama many times. Unlike the right who can’t be balanced

Dave, get back in your closet.

murf said:
If this is such a yawner then why take the effort to comment? Here’s why. You tea-baggers are the the biggest whiners on the planet. If you didn’t have something to bitch about you’d curl up under your bed and start sucking your thumb.” Ted

Says the whining Ted.

Ps. Buy Diapers

If you actually read it that way (or had it read to you), and have no doubt you did, you are far bigger idiot that I ever imagined. Are shooting for all time idiot tea-bagger? Of course the bar is set pretty low…very low…very, very low. You can do it.

Ted- said:
If you actually read it that way (or had it read to you), and have no doubt you did, you are far bigger idiot that I ever imagined. Are shooting for all time idiot tea-bagger? Of course the bar is set pretty low…very low…very, very low. You can do it.

That was a whine , why ? That’s not the first time you commented to TfT about the Mediaite writers. Thus a habitual whiner.

Can somebody please compile all the posts by notsofast and determine the last time he contributed something meaningful to the discussion? I mean seriously, isn’t there a TOS violation for posting nothing but juvenile insults?

murf said:
That was a whine , why ? That’s not the first time you commented to TfT about the Mediaite writers. Thus a habitual whiner.

Good Lord, I had no idea they made them this stupid. Well, you might know something about “habitual whining” right candy ass?

I’ll always be here for ya Ted . Lol

I see gold hit another record high today. That means that people who took Glenn Beck’s advice and bought gold when Obama was elected have made a 70% return. That is better than the return made by any investment group or mutual fund in the country. Better than Warren Buffett . Better than George Soros. Better than anybody.

I remember MSNBC devoting a huge amount of coverage to Beck’s ties to gold investment firms. Do you think they will mention this extraordinary return on investment? Come on, Maher, why don’t you devote a segment to it? How about it Olbermann? Go ahead, Rachel, tell people the facts.

redleaf says:

Can somebody please compile all the posts by notsofast and determine the last time he contributed something meaningful to the discussion? I mean seriously, isn’t there a TOS violation for posting nothing but juvenile insults?

I’ll tell you what, you do the same for Ted and we have a deal!

felixw said:
That means that people who took Glenn Beck’s advice and bought gold when Obama was elected have made a 70% return.

In a normal world run by rule of law, that would figure prominently in the Weiner/Waxman inquisition of Goldline being held Thursday.

However, in the gangster world of the Left and the Democratic Party, the real aim is to scare sponsors of Fox News and especially, sponsors of Glenn Beck. The goal is to intimidate and censor political opponents of the Left. For the moment, dragging honest businessmen before a public inquisition suits the Left just fine.

Fortunately for freedom in America, the Democrats are going to lose the House in November. That will spell the end of Stalinist Henry Waxman’s chairmanship of the Commerce Committee.

alamo2 said:
Interesting… I have never seen you criticize anyone on the right for their indiscressions. I have condemned John Edwards for his. And Clinton for his. I assume you have a problem with Newt’s less than savory family values?

Hmmmm. This tells me that Newt has eleven (thumbs down for me) people who think that Newt was OK when he told his (first) wife he wanted a divorce while she was being treated for cancer. Or when he told his second wife he wanted a divorce while he was in the middle of an affair. Right wingers and Left wingers will accept anything from those with whom they agree. Whereas the moderates try to see the whole person.

@DaveNoland—–”You have no comeback for Stewart,or any of the talented left artiste.”

Your right that’s because those on the right are to bizzy getting real job’s and making a real contribution to society.

and Johnny Ramone was a conservative.

redleaf said:
Can somebody please compile all the posts by notsofast and determine the last time he contributed something meaningful to the discussion? I mean seriously, isn’t there a TOS violation for posting nothing but juvenile insults?

You should be more worried about the person holding that gun to your head making you read NSF’s comments.

felixw said:
I see gold hit another record high today. That means that people who took Glenn Beck’s advice and bought gold when Obama was elected have made a 70% return. That is better than the return made by any investment group or mutual fund in the country. Better than Warren Buffett . Better than George Soros. Better than anybody.

I remember MSNBC devoting a huge amount of coverage to Beck’s ties to gold investment firms. Do you think they will mention this extraordinary return on investment? Come on, Maher, why don’t you devote a segment to it? How about it Olbermann? Go ahead, Rachel, tell people the facts.

Azarkhan said:
In a normal world run by rule of law, that would figure prominently in the Weiner/Waxman inquisition of Goldline being held Thursday.

However, in the gangster world of the Left and the Democratic Party, the real aim is to scare sponsors of Fox News and especially, sponsors of Glenn Beck. The goal is to intimidate and censor political opponents of the Left. For the moment, dragging honest businessmen before a public inquisition suits the Left just fine.

Fortunately for freedom in America, the Democrats are going to lose the House in November. That will spell the end of Stalinist Henry Waxman’s chairmanship of the Commerce Committee.

Nobody is arguing about the price of gold. The 70% increase over two years is only slightly ahead of the Bush Jr. rate of 300% over eight years, so that’s not really saying much, especially when gold should be up significantly anyway, due to recession. Anyhoo, the point isn’t that Beck is shilling for gold. Anyone can buy gold on the open market – in ingots or index funds, mining operations or gold purveyors. The problem with Goldline, is the MASSIVE commission they charge, the MASSIVE overvaluation of the gold itself, for the price that is paid. Goldline takes what should, absolutely, make a good investment, and turns it into a dog for five years minimum. EVERYONE knows that and has been screaming that to Beck for months and years. But he needs the sponsorship money too badly to do anything but ignore the criticism and defend the brand. It’s a terrible crime every time someone buys gold from Goldline instead of through a cheap broker, online or over the phone. They’re out there, offering MUCH better deals, but Glen doesn’t tell his audience that. I hope he can live with the money he’s costing his listeners.

StandUp said:
You should be more worried about the person holding that gun to your head making you read NSF’s comments.

Funny. A bit snarky, but funny. B+

;-)

Azarkhan said:
In a normal world run by rule of law, that would figure prominently in the Weiner/Waxman inquisition of Goldline being held Thursday.

However, in the gangster world of the Left and the Democratic Party, the real aim is to scare sponsors of Fox News and especially, sponsors of Glenn Beck. The goal is to intimidate and censor political opponents of the Left. For the moment, dragging honest businessmen before a public inquisition suits the Left just fine.

Fortunately for freedom in America, the Democrats are going to lose the House in November. That will spell the end of Stalinist Henry Waxman’s chairmanship of the Commerce Committee.

Nothing is more amusing than the idea of Rep. Henry Waxman investigating why gold is rising. I can see his stunned expression when he learns that the policies advocated by Rep. Henry Waxman have been the single biggest cause. This could be a Saturday Night Live routine….

Paul Westlake said:
gold should be up significantly anyway, due to recession

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? As demand drops for commodities during recessionary periods, that is supposed to bring down prices. It’s the increased demand during times of prosperity that pushes prices up.

Nice try, though.

Azarkhan said:
What do they teach at Harvard?

I’ve been wondering that for a long ass time now and trust me, it infects both sides. Look at all the dimwitted Harvard grads at Goldman Sachs and Lehman and so on. Yale, too. No freaking clue what the hell goes on in those institutions but it sure as shit doesn’t seem like higher education to me either.

One we can agree on, I think! ;-)

@DaveNoland—-And I would like to add Vinnie Colaiuta,you know the guy who played drums for Frank Zappa,sting and Jeff Beck and Drummers for Jesus.I could do this all night.

felixw said:
Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? As demand drops for commodities during recessionary periods, that is supposed to bring down prices. It’s the increased demand during times of prosperity that pushes prices up.

Nice try, though.

Felix, you ass, that’s for non-precious metals. Precious metals go up in recessions as investors flee from risky securities and into bonds and tangible assets, like real estate and gold.

And stop asking stupid questions like “Uh, have you ever taken an economics class?” When you turn out to be totally fucking wrong about the point that comes after that snide refrain, it kinda deflates your gravitas.

Paul Westlake said:
Felix, you ass, that’s for non-precious metals. Precious metals go up in recessions as investors flee from risky securities and into bonds and tangible assets, like real estate and gold.

And stop asking stupid questions like “Uh, have you ever taken an economics class?” When you turn out to be totally fucking wrong about the point that comes after that snide refrain, it kinda deflates your gravitas.

People do not flee to precious metals in times of recession. They flee to precious metals in times of fear and economic uncertainty. In other words, during the Obama administration.

Wow. The drummer for Frank Zappa was a conservative~!!!

Over reach much Defender?

So sad that all the great musicians were and are liberals.

wah wah wah.

felixw said:
People do not flee to precious metals in times of recession. They flee to precious metals in times of fear and economic uncertainty. In other words, during the Obama administration.

So you are now negating your original point:

felixw said:
I see gold hit another record high today. That means that people who took Glenn Beck’s advice and bought gold when Obama was elected have made a 70% return. That is better than the return made by any investment group or mutual fund in the country. Better than Warren Buffett . Better than George Soros. Better than anybody.

…just to contradict me and try to prove you aren’t totally fucking wrong… as usual.

Can’t wait to see the pretzel logic you use to unwind this one. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Felix, you ass, that’s for non-precious metals. Precious metals go up in recessions as investors flee from risky securities and into bonds and tangible assets, like real estate and gold.

And stop asking stupid questions like “Uh, have you ever taken an economics class?” When you turn out to be totally fucking wrong about the point that comes after that snide refrain, it kinda deflates your gravitas.

Paul, you don’t want to lecture to me on investment economics. I have made plenty of money by successfully predicting exactly the kind of economic destruction that Obama would unleash upon us. Your comprehension of the gold situation is flawed, plain and simple. And as for the longterm price trend. It peaked under Jimmy Carter, when it approached $1,000 per ounce, and didn’t get close to that amount until Obama was President. In the interim, there were plenty of recessionary period in which gold prices did not rise. The increase under Obama are driven by fear and the anticipation of a deficit-driven collapse in the dollar. The fact that a similar scenario played out under Carter should tell you something right there…..

Paul Westlake said:
Can’t wait to see the pretzel logic you use to unwind this one. ;-)

Why don’t you read some interviews with the advisers and investors who are buying gold, and see the reasons they state for making the investment? If you actually do that empirical research — and I have done it — you will learn that they are investing in gold primarily because their sense that the US dollar will be massively devalued due to Obama’s projected deficits. What you won’t hear is people saying that they are buying gold because of a recession. You are the one employing pretzel logic here, I’m afraid.

Paul Westlake said:
So you are now negating your original point:

…just to contradict me and try to prove you aren’t totally fucking wrong… as usual.

Can’t wait to see the pretzel logic you use to unwind this one. ;-)

No contradiction at all in my statements. I said in the first comment that the gold rise was due to Obama. In the second comment I state that the gold rise was due to investors’ fears. Even you can complete that syllogism.

Did anything come up about Michelle Obama’s campaign tour schedule?

Yes, it was announced that Queen Michelle, fresh off her Vacation World Tour, will be holding non-stop FUNDRAISERS from now until election day! – FOR LARGE CONTRIBUTORS ONLY!

That’s correct, because no stops are scheduled for the average middle class voters!!!
- you know, voters like the woman who SCHOOLED Barry the other day on his calamity of an administration!!!

felixw said:
Paul, you don’t want to lecture to me on investment economics. I have made plenty of money by successfully predicting exactly the kind of economic destruction that Obama would unleash upon us. Your comprehension of the gold situation is flawed, plain and simple.

Way to avoid your obvious contradiction of your original point. I don’t care how much money you’ve made in the markets, I’ve made plenty of money there, too. When you’re wrong, AND you contradict yourself, it kinda shows.

felixw said:
And as for the longterm price trend. It peaked under Jimmy Carter, when it approached $1,000 per ounce, and didn’t get close to that amount until Obama was President. In the interim, there were plenty of recessionary period in which gold prices did not rise. The increase under Obama are driven by fear and the anticipation of a deficit-driven collapse in the dollar. The fact that a similar scenario played out under Carter should tell you something right there…..

Oh, Felix. Gold topped out around $850 under Carter in 1979, and crossed $700 and back in 2006, peaked under Bush Jr in early 2008 at just over $1000 – http://www.goldprice.org/spot-gold.html

As you can see, the scenario you describe more realistically played out again in the final year of Bush Jr’s term, and the massive influx of Federal cash kept the free-fall from continuing. Why? Because even if investors are fleeing to gold, if the economy is grinding to a complete halt, non-existent industrial demand is too much of a drag. But in NORMAL recessions, industrial demand only ebbs slightly, as well-positioned companies seize opportunities to stockpile. But in a near-total implosion, even those companies tighten belts too much to keep commodities prices, even precious metals, in the black. So, as you can see, we went from a near-total implosion in late-2008/early-2009, to a normal recession by the end of 2009. And gold prices perfectly reflect that economic sequence.

[Ding] Next!

felixw said:
In the second comment I state that the gold rise was due to investors’ fears.

Felix! You said,

felixw said:
They flee to precious metals in times of fear and economic uncertainty. In other words, during the Obama administration.

“Gold rise was due to investor fears” – “Flee precious metals in times of fear”

Seriously, Felix. At least keep your own bullshit straight. Good grief.

Paul Westlake said:
“Gold rise was due to investor fears” – “Flee precious metals in times of fear”

Seriously, Felix. At least keep your own bullshit straight. Good grief.

Oh shit! I’m sorry. I was reading too fast and seriously thought you said it the way I typed. You TOTALLY DID NOT contradict yourself and it was MY BAD for reading too fast. My apologies, Felix. Seriously.

You’re still wrong about everything else. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Way to avoid your obvious contradiction of your original point. I don’t care how much money you’ve made in the markets, I’ve made plenty of money there, too. When you’re wrong, AND you contradict yourself, it kinda shows.

Oh, Felix. Gold topped out around $850 under Carter in 1979, and crossed $700 and back in 2006, peaked under Bush Jr in early 2008 at just over $1000 – http://www.goldprice.org/spot-gold.html

As you can see, the scenario you describe more realistically played out again in the final year of Bush Jr’s term, and the massive influx of Federal cash kept the free-fall from continuing. Why? Because even if investors are fleeing to gold, if the economy is grinding to a complete halt, non-existent industrial demand is too much of a drag. But in NORMAL recessions, industrial demand only ebbs slightly, as well-positioned companies seize opportunities to stockpile. But in a near-total implosion, even those companies tighten belts too much to keep commodities prices, even precious metals, in the black. So, as you can see, we went from a near-total implosion in late-2008/early-2009, to a normal recession by the end of 2009. And gold prices perfectly reflect that economic sequence.

[Ding] Next!

Paul, I hate to break the bad news, but you have no understanding of the reasons behind the fluctuations in the prices of commodities and precious metals. What does even mean that “in a near-total implosion, even those companies tighten belts too much to keep commodities prices, even precious metals, in the black”? This is just gibberish. The price of all commodities rise because of increased demand, which is the exact opposite of what you would see in a period of “belt-tightening” as you call it. And companies don’t get to set commodity prices — the marketplace sets the price, based on the cumulative impact of all buyers and sellers.

As to the error you pointed out — it was a typo. I meant to write “flee to precious metals in times of fear.” Sorry to have missed that sometimes I type too fast for my own good.

Yeah, I read your second version too fast, too. So we’re even on that front.

Paul Westlake said:
Oh shit! I’m sorry. I was reading too fast and seriously thought you said it the way I typed. You TOTALLY DID NOT contradict yourself and it was MY BAD for reading too fast. My apologies, Felix. Seriously.

You’re still wrong about everything else. ;-)

You could easily have been right. Sometimes I look back on my own comments and can’t figure out what I was trying to write.

Paul Westlake said:
Yeah, I read your second version too fast, too. So we’re even on that front.

I will grant you this. Gold went up under Bush II, and that is a negative commentary on his fiscal management.

But on everything else you are wrong. :)

felixw said:
The price of all commodities rise because of increased demand, which is the exact opposite of what you would see in a period of “belt-tightening” as you call it.

Of course, Felix, but investor demand for precious metals often replaces and even exceeds the minor drop-off in industrial demand during normal recessions. During extreme recessions, the drop-off in industrial demand is too steep for investor demand to match in increased demand, thus the price drop we saw at the beginning of the deep global implosions under Carter and Bush Jr. In the most recent example, the Fed stepped in quickly enough to stabilize the banks and markets, as is reflected in the resumption of the upward trend in gold. Yes, investors are still fleeing to gold, but industrial demand has no also returned to normal recession-like levels, and therefore, gold is rising.

Your distinction between “recession” and “fear” is a political one that you would never use under a conservative administration. Therefore, you’ll have to pardon me for taking it with a grain of salt. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
industrial demand has no also returned to normal recession-like levels

“has now also”

Jesus Christ….I just saw a picture of Glynnis MacNicol…..no wonder shes so pissed off. She make Debbie Wasserman Schultz look like a Playboy center fold.Damn!

Paul Westlake said:

Your distinction between “recession” and “fear” is a political one that you would never use under a conservative administration. Therefore, you’ll have to pardon me for taking it with a grain of salt. ;-)

I say we call a truce on this. Right now we have both recession and fear — so maybe we both can be right.

Ouch Rusty! I don’t think much of Glynnis’ journalistic abilities, but that’s cold man!

felixw said:
I say we call a truce on this. Right now we have both recession and fear — so maybe we both can be right.

I’ll buy that for dollar… but not a penny more! Times are tough, you know. Truce it is. ;-)

I agree 1stamendmentlost – we should never sink to the lows of the left with their politics of personal destruction by focusing on style over substance. What Glynnis and the rest of the mediaite staff do with their personal and vicious attacks on anyone conservative (especially conservative women), I think we should just leave that level of vitriol to the left.

The attacks are backfiring. Christine did just fine on Hannity tonight – but I’m sure we’ll see several snarky articles about how she looked, laughed, etc., on the show tonight, and nothing about the substance of what she said.

The left is sinking, soon to be sunk. Nov. 2 can’t come soon enough for me.

I doubt we will ever see an article on this board about the “bearded marxist”. Just like all those dems who were arrested in CA today — NOTHING HERE, NADA, ZILCH. And if an article was written about them, you can bet your bottom dollar that mediaite would follow the rest of the lamestream media and refuse to identify their political affiliation. I’m almost certain that next Sunday, Bob Schieffer will attack Coons just like he attacked Christine (HA)!

OH and PS: The silence of the board on Jesse Jr is pretty laughable as well.

Hey Felix and Paul:

I really enjoyed your “sidebar” debate.

Azarkhan said:
“Earlier Stewart explained to Oprah he was throwing his rally for the 85% of the country that is “busy” and doesn’t have time to choose sides”

Coming from a leftist asshole, that’s pretty funny.

Of course he just criticized leftist extremist.

SO many tea-baggers, so little time.

Rusty Shackelford said:
Jesus Christ….I just saw a picture of Glynnis MacNicol…..no wonder shes so pissed off. She make Debbie Wasserman Schultz look like a Playboy center fold.Damn!

wow
a gross and repugnant statement put together with a reference to someone you probably call your savior

TfT said:
Christine did just fine on Hannity tonight – but I’m sure we’ll see several snarky articles about how she looked, laughed, etc., on the show tonight

Duh! Her own father couldn’t have been any more adoring! O’Hannity pretty much lapsed into so,e form of masturbatory idol worship!

Paul Westlake said:
Oh shit! I’m sorry. I was reading too fast and seriously thought you said it the way I typed. You TOTALLY DID NOT contradict yourself and it was MY BAD for reading too fast. My apologies, Felix. Seriously.

Good save…way to man up. B+

Why do Repubs. have so much hate for John Stewart? Is it because he reveals Fox’s deceptive practices? Fake video, misleading graphics, bad reporting, donating money to politics!!

the “Restore Sanity” event?? its these people that lost their sanity in the first place! Look, I don’t care that Jon Stewart is on the left side of the isle, but these people are agreeing with policies that are illogical by our elected elites and yet they want to create the “Restoring Sanity” event so that is can overshadow the “Restoring Honor” Event. if you really want to restore sanity, you have to restore your honor first, then you restore you values and principles, you restore your community, you restore history and then you can restore your sanity!

1stamendmentlost says: “Hey Jon, let me educate;you; the percentage of American’s that are liberal, as you are, is a mere 20%. Then you have 40% that are conservative, and the other 40% consider themselves independent. Obama got a large portion of the I vote last, but his support among then has since evaporated.”

First, that 40% conservative are actually split between reactionary (Tea Party, KKK & Nazis) and genuine conservatives.

Second, despite the President’s drop in the polls to about what Reagan’s were at this point in his presidency, he is still the most popular pol in this country BY FAR.

Finally, and I realize that this is a sore point for conservatives and reactionaries, liberals are smarter than conservatives. Generally, people in blue states have a higher average IQ than people in red states. This is why no real solutions to our nation’s problems are enacted until the liberals are in control.

If things go the way pundits are predicting, then we’ll have gridlock for two years and very little will get done about the danger that confronts the human race, i.e., global warming. As the author if Eaarth points out, there is not much time to prevent a collapse of our civilization and our country as a nation. We will hear more about this on 10/10/10, but the denialists will still get elected.

It’s a depressing state of voter gullibility and ignorance.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/does-glenn-beck-lie-volume-i.html

GlennBeckReview said:
1stamendmentlost says: “Hey Jon, let me educate;you; the percentage of American’s that are liberal, as you are, is a mere 20%. Then you have 40% that are conservative, and the other 40% consider themselves independent. Obama got a large portion of the I vote last, but his support among then has since evaporated.” First, that 40% conservative are actually split between reactionary (Tea Party, KKK & Nazis) and genuine conservatives. Second, despite the President’s drop in the polls to about what Reagan’s were at this point in his presidency, he is still the most popular pol in this country BY FAR. Finally, and I realize that this is a sore point for conservatives and reactionaries, liberals are smarter than conservatives. Generally, people in blue states have a higher average IQ than people in red states. This is why no real solutions to our nation’s problems are enacted until the liberals are in control. If things go the way pundits are predicting, then we’ll have gridlock for two years and very little will get done about the danger that confronts the human race, i.e., global warming. As the author if Eaarth points out, there is not much time to prevent a collapse of our civilization and our country as a nation. We will hear more about this on 10/10/10, but the denialists will still get elected. It’s a depressing state of voter gullibility and ignorance. http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/does-glenn-beck-lie-volume-i.html

Because referring to them as Nazis are REALLY going to get them to change their mind and join your side, yeah.

Drew said:
the “Restore Sanity” event?? its these people that lost their sanity in the first place! Look, I don’t care that Jon Stewart is on the left side of the isle, but these people are agreeing with policies that are illogical by our elected elites and yet they want to create the “Restoring Sanity” event so that is can overshadow the “Restoring Honor” Event. if you really want to restore sanity, you have to restore your honor first, then you restore you values and principles, you restore your community, you restore history and then you can restore your sanity!

What policies are Stewart and Colbert agreeing with.

You want to restore honor and principles. Great idea. Honor has something to do with valuing honesty and facts over distortion and propaganda doesn’t it. If you’re going to value principles then judge people fairly and with the same principles.

Rusty Shackelford said: “Jesus Christ….I just saw a picture of Glynnis MacNicol…..no wonder shes so pissed off.”

Let’s start, shall we, with your lack of basic writing skills. It looks like you dropped out of high school.

Then, as no touchy pointed out, you used your Lord’s name in vain.

You also make an assumption about Glynnis being “pissed off,” which simply makes an ass out of you.

Finally, directly to Glynnis, if I weren’t a married man, I’d be one who would ask you out. Smart, slender women are a big turn on for me. Don’t let the bastards get you down.

From Greg Grutfeld- http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/09/21/smugfest-2010-jon-stewart-wages-political-war-on-civilians/

“So last week Jon Stewart announced he was going to hold a rally of his own in Washington DC, to restore reason, sanity or whatever.”

“It’s a cute idea- not as good as a gay bar next to a mosque – but it’s an appropriate, hipster response to the tea parties and Glenn Beck’s thing. It’s the kind of thing that the bald nerdy guy in glasses from the New York Times subscription commercial might attend. And feel totally good about himself, afterward.”

Which raises an interesting question: would Stewart have announced his event if those other events had a decidedly liberal tilt?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Which makes the jokiness of the stunt wear off fast. Think about it: what Stewart is doing is not speaking truth to power, but poking fun of the people who are speaking truth to power.

I mean – Stewart isn’t going after politicians or leaders – he’s mocking people who are standing up to politicians and leaders. While the tea party is a “bottom-up” phenomenon, Stewart is on top, looking down. His is a reaction from the establishment, not against.
Here’s proof. Yesterday Democrats actually complained that Stewart’s rally being too close to the elections will hurt the Democrat’s chances. They worry their supporters will be more inclined to see Stewart than campaign.

Translation: Stewart will harm the establishment left, because he is the establishment left.

So that doesn’t make Stewart brave. It makes him a toady.

But no surprise. This is what passes for rebellion in media – which is really just making fun of people in fanny packs who prefer Sarah Palin over Sarah Silverman.

I’m with them on the fanny packs, though. They suck.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic islamophobic urophobe.

That’s all Greg Gutfeld’s thoughts-should’ve put quotes all the way through.

Calvin says: “Think about it: what Stewart is doing is not speaking truth to power, but poking fun of the people who are speaking truth to power.”

Yeah, except there’s a BIG problem with that assertion. Beck does not speak truth to power. Beck lies. Beck even lied during his big speech on the national stage three times after first saying, “Our sacred honor. It means that you tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Beck often lies, three times on Monday’s show that I noticed. Beck also claims that he tells the truth on his show. This makes Beck, not just a liar (deceiver in chief), but a hypocrite too.

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html

First, that 40% conservative are actually split between reactionary (Tea Party, KKK & Nazis) and genuine conservatives.

The FBI estimates there are currently 6000 kkk and nazi members. There are street gangs bigger than that. Exaggerate much, GBR?

GlennBeckReview said:
liberals are smarter than conservatives.

and then said

GlennBeckReview said:
As the author if Eaarth points out

and then said

GlennBeckReview said:
Let’s start, shall we, with your lack of basic writing skills. It looks like you dropped out of high school.

and if that wasn’t bad enough

GlennBeckReview said:
Finally, directly to Glynnis, if I weren’t a married man, I’d be one who would ask you out. Smart, slender women are a big turn on for me.

GlennBeckReview said:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html

Alright, so the first thing you start off with is the Jefferson quote. You say he’s omitting “honest questioning” on purpose. I googled “Thomas Jefferson question with boldness” and this was the first result.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff101717.html

It’s the same quote Glenn used. I’m not sure if you know this or not, but there are often several versions of famous quotes, either with different wording or different authors.

Then you go on to say that Glenn should have been calling Van Jones an ex-communist. Hoo boy.

“After the demise of his anti-Prop 21 movement, Jones decided to change his political tactics. Specifically, he toned down the overt hostility and defiant rage that he previously had worn as badges of honor. “Before, we would fight anybody, any time,” he said in 2005. “No concession was good enough; we never said ‘Thank you.’ Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward…. I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”‘”

“Added Jones: “I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs.”"

“Jones’ new approach was modeled on the tactics outlined by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who stressed the need for revolutionaries to mask the extremism of their objectives and to present themselves as moderates until they could gain some control over the machinery of political power. In a 2005 interview, Jones stated that he still considered himself a revolutionary, but a more effective one thanks to his revised tactics.” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

The important part of that is where he says “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends”

Then you go on talking about the Washington Monument comment. Here’s what I found.

“Work progressed favorably until 1854, when the building of the monument became involved in a political quarrel. Many citizens became dissatisfied with the work and the collection of funds lagged. This unfortunate affair and the growing antagonism between the North and South, which resulted in the Civil War, brought construction to a halt. For almost 25 years, the monument stood incomplete at the height of about 150 feet. Finally on August 2, 1876, President Grant approved an act which provided that the Federal Government should complete the erection of the monument.”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v9DuWys8CKkJ:www.tourofdc.org/monuments/washington-monument/+washington+monument+civil+war&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

But your big beef is him saying he held the document in his hand. Let me quote Steve Krakauer. “Seriously though – this was the egregious lie that came out of the Restoring Honor speech, left-wing media? (also GBR )”

“Instead of what he said in that 19-word sentence, this was what he should have said”:

Yesterday I went to the National Archives, and they opened up the vault, and they put on their gloves and then they put it on a tray. They wheeled it over and it’s all in this hard plastic and you’re sitting down at a table and you can’t, because of Sandy Berger, I had a long conversation with him about this, you can’t actually touch any of the documents, these are very very rare. So what they do, they have it in this plastic thing and they hold them right in front of you, you can’t touch them but then you can say ‘can you turn it over,’ and then they turn it over for you and then you look at it. I thought it was a little clumsy to explain it that way.

GBR, you have BDS. Get to a doctor soon. And get some fresh air.

Nobody cares to convert neo-nazis, skinheads, fascist sympathizers, and terminal bigots. I’d don’t give a rat’s ass if we reach those people. They represent less than 10% of the population on their best day. And they DO represent an outsize portion of self-identified conservatives. The equivalent on the left is militant tree-spiking environmentalists. They are disproportionally self-identified liberals. Nobody cares about changing their minds either, but those people are my job, and I deal with them I see them. They also people represent less than half of 1% of the population, because even the kids eventually figure out that endangering loggers isn’t cool. The skinheads are NOT my job, they’re reasonable conservatives’ job. I’ll police my crazies if you police your crazies. It was a system that worked for a good long time in America – remember Buckley? – but the GOP recently realized their ideas are bankrupt and their only chance for electoral victory is in trying to harness this reactionary wave of extremism. So the Tea Party, financed by corporate bigots, is now the new base of the GOP. They have nowhere else to turn. Beck and Limbaugh ARE the GOP platform now. They can’t survive without them.

The real questions for this “movement” will arise after November, when no Amendments banning gay marriage or abortion have been offered, when Rand Paul says sheepishly that he just can’t muster the votes to repeal the 17th Amendment, but he’ll sure try next time! How long until the people who really believe they’re following a genuine leadership inspired by genuine populism, turn away from their false prophets and look deliverance in new saviors? How will the liberals be to blame next time? Which Democratic President in history will to be blame for all America’s ills next time? Grover Cleveland?

Stay tuned. It’s coming sooner than you think.

Nobody gives a shit about Saul Alinsky. Few people in the rank-and-file left know who the fuck Saul Alinsky was. Trying to pin Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin on liberals ran out of purchase, huh?

Hey, let’s bake a cake with Ayn Rand’s picture on it and have a circle jerk while we’re here. I’ll get the squeegee! ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Which Democratic President in history will to be blame for all America’s ills next time? Grover Cleveland?

I would love to have him as President today.

“In vetoing a bill in 1887 that would have appropriated $10,000 in aid for Texas farmers struggling through a drought, Cleveland wrote:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.” http://www.mackinac.org/7440

BTW, facism is left wing. Total government. That’s not to say all liberals are nazis, though.

Paul seems to think that there are just millions and millions of KKK members out there (despite FBI stats), but when it comes to crazies on the extreme left, there’s just a handful. Maybe four or five in the entire country. Nothing to worry about. And while the GOP and tea party has been taken over by extremists, Obama’s associations with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, and so on are nothing but ‘guilt by association’. No influence whatsoever.

Calvin said:
“In vetoing a bill in 1887 that would have appropriated $10,000 in aid for Texas farmers struggling through a drought, Cleveland wrote:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.” http://www.mackinac.org/7440

Well cited. He went even further: “The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

That’s was a valid argument in both its time and context, an America that was still part-frontier (Texas had been a State for 32 years – imagine if NY had been admitted in 1978 and started asking for handouts today) and still mostly agrarian (especially on the frontier – the industrial revolution was just getting into full swing back East). But all that went out the window in the Great Depression. Those who resurrect that same argument now ignore the MUCH larger role the America citizen plays in today’s economy as consumer, representing fully two-thirds of all domestic commerce, nowhere near the numbers of 1887, where most of America was still built around subsidence farming communities, especially in the South and on the frontier (even in places like upstate NY and the Delmarva peninsula), and exports from agriculture and industrialization. It might have made sense then, but it has no place in today’s largely service-based and consumer-driven economy.

writer said:
Paul seems to think that there are just millions and millions of KKK members out there (despite FBI stats), but when it comes to crazies on the extreme left, there’s just a handful. Maybe four or five in the entire country. Nothing to worry about. And while the GOP and tea party has been taken over by extremists, Obama’s associations with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, and so on are nothing but ‘guilt by association’. No influence whatsoever.

No, not millions of KKK members, per se, but if we include those who cheer people like them (like neo-nazis, anti-civil rights libertarians, minutemen, and the overtly racist Rush) from the reactionary sidelines, yes, many, many millions. But still not enough to represent anywhere near a majority of Americans. By contrast, even the majority of progressives can’t stand PETA anymore. Even Greenpeace is getting old with constant histrionics. Don’t see the Democrats lining up behind a phalanx of Code Pink candidates. WE know when our kooks have gone off the deep end. But you’re so far IN the deep end, you think everyone Obama associates with is some pied piper, luring him away from reality. And don’t make me smack you by bringing up ACORN. ;-)

Calvin said:
BTW, facism is left wing. Total government. That’s not to say all liberals are nazis, though.

Oh, BTW, no it isn’t. That isn’t to say all conservatives are liars, though. ;-)

No, Paul. You have just as many and probably more kooks. You just ignore yours and make excuses for them. If a conservative presidential candidate had spent twenty years going to an Aryan Nations church, called the pastor a ‘mentor’, then claimed he had no idea of the pastor’s racial views, you’d have been howling like a werewolf. But when Obama does something similar, no connection whatsoever. Guilt by association.

Tell me, kind sir, how is it right wing? My understanding of left and right is that the further right you go othere is less government and vice versa for the left side. BTW, if I am a conservative troll, you are a progressive troll, you twitterhead. ;)

writer said:
If a conservative presidential candidate had spent twenty years going to an Aryan Nations church, called the pastor a ‘mentor’, then claimed he had no idea of the pastor’s racial views, you’d have been howling like a werewolf. But when Obama does something similar, no connection whatsoever.

Never said that. What I did say is that Obama disassociated himself from that church and that man, whereas you’re still defending the rights’ association with bigots. Fact.

I listed the kooks I believed we could agree on. List yours if you think mine was too short.

Calvin said:
Tell me, kind sir, how is it right wing? My understanding of left and right is that the further right you go othere is less government and vice versa for the left side.

It’s not that pat. The spectrum is less linear and more box-shaped. But political theory aside, fascism is also notable for the nationalist machine that accompanies it:

fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ –noun – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Communism is closer to what you’re looking for, because it reaches for the extreme liberal utopian ideal of a classless culture, which, by definition, includes suppression of all non-conformity, from religion to personal industry.

Calvin said:
BTW, if I am a conservative troll, you are a progressive troll, you twitterhead. ;)

Yeah, I suppose so, especially since I’m pretty sure I never called you a conservative troll. If I did, it was probably meant toward someone else and I was typing too fast, and my apologies.

You have been a gentleman in all your direct comments to me… especially with the winky on the end of that last sentence. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
It’s not that pat. The spectrum is less linear and more box-shaped.

I know. More like this- http://www.wirkman.net/images/nolanchart.gif http://www.nolanchart.com/

Nazis were National Socialists. They wanted Socialism for Germany. Their flag was a Swastika surrounded by a sea of red, which was intended to attract communists.

http://mises.org/daily/3564

Paul Westlake said:
Yeah, I suppose so, especially since I’m pretty sure I never called you a conservative troll. If I did, it was probably meant toward someone else and I was typing too fast, and my apologies.
You have been a gentleman in all your direct comments to me… especially with the winky on the end of that last sentence. ;-)

I should’ve included this: http://twitter.com/pewestlake/status/25246715500 Hence the “twitterhead” comment. ;-)

Calvin said:
I know. More like this- http://www.wirkman.net/images/nolanchart.gif http://www.nolanchart.com/

Oh, so you knew all along that communism was on the left and fascism was on the right. So I guess you were lying after all.

Calvin said:
Nazis were National Socialists. They wanted Socialism for Germany. Their flag was a Swastika surrounded by a sea of red, which was intended to attract communists.

Thanks for the same old tired conservative argument that Nazis were liberals, but even liberals don’t accuse Nazis of being conservatives, we just accuse them of being Nazis. Nice.

Yes, Nazis did all kinds of things to attract and co-opt communist propaganda, right up until they tried to slaughter them all.

Calvin said:
I should’ve included this: http://twitter.com/pewestlake/status/25246715500 Hence the “twitterhead” comment. ;-)

Aw, you care. Yep, I tweeted this:

“I’ve been sucked into the Mediaite boards – the conservative trolls are many and tenacious, but only a few beat-downs so far. Some decency.”

When I said “some decency,” I thought I was initially referring to people like you. But I see that I was wrong and you’re nothing like the conservatives who don’t seem to have juvenile impulses, like trying to convince me that liberals were responsible for the rise of Hitler. Good grief.

Paul Westlake said:
Oh, so you knew all along that communism was on the left and fascism was on the right. So I guess you were lying after all.

What? Here’s another picture of the Nolan Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg
If you look at that chart, you would see that communism/fascism/ would be in the populist corner, because they are totaltarian systems of government. Neither of them allow for much freedom, if any.

Here’s another way of describing the political spectrum. http://www.sovereignlife.com/essays/07-06-04.html (The Right Left Hoax)

“However, in truth – having “small” government at one end, and “big” government at the other – is not really the solution, because it assumes as a given the very nature and need for the “political” means of organisation itself – government. A more logical axis would be total government at one end, and no government at the other.”

“Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed “on paper”, but because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual’s interest is subservient to the national interest.”

“Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state. Government and business are the same thing – as the state owns the means of production. Under a communist system of government, the individual’s interest is likewise subservient to the national interest.”

“Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the status of serfs – under a ruling class. And we have plenty of historical examples to prove it – Germany under Hitler, The Soviet Union under Stalin, Italy under Mussolini and China under Mao – not to mention present day North Korea under “Dear Leader” Kim.”

Those are just some snippets from that link, you really shoud read the whole thing.

Paul Westlake said:
Thanks for the same old tired conservative argument that Nazis were liberals, but even liberals don’t accuse Nazis of being conservatives, we just accuse them of being Nazis. Nice.

Yes, Nazis did all kinds of things to attract and co-opt communist propaganda, right up until they tried to slaughter them all.

Liberal = communist? Anyways, both sides call the other side nazis. That’s BS to say the nazi card only comes from one side.

Nazis killed communists because they were a threat. Nazis believed in the power of Germany. Only Germany.

Paul Westlake said:
Aw, you care. Yep, I tweeted this:
“I’ve been sucked into the Mediaite boards – the conservative trolls are many and tenacious, but only a few beat-downs so far. Some decency.”
When I said “some decency,” I thought I was initially referring to people like you. But I see that I was wrong and you’re nothing like the conservatives who don’t seem to have juvenile impulses, like trying to convince me that liberals were responsible for the rise of Hitler. Good grief.

I thought you were saying that all conservatives are trolls, even if some of them are decent. That was my misunderstanding, I suppose.

I never said liberals were responsible for the rise of Hitler. If anybody is responsible for Hitler’s rise, it’s Hitler, with his charisma and all. He was a powerful orator. The people were convinced by him. I’m just saying that fascism is not too different from communism.

Calvin said:
Those are just some snippets from that link, you really shoud read the whole thing.

*should* My apologies for any other typos you may find.

Calvin said:
Nazis killed communists because they were a threat. Nazis believed in the power of Germany. Only Germany.

Now your talking. Let’s accuse nazis of being nazis and leave it at that. Hell, I don’t even call neo-nazis nazis, because one, they’re way too lightweight, and two, they have no idea what being a real nazi means.

OK, I’ll grant you that all of these definitions are much more nuanced than either of us has really delved into thus far. But that begs the question, if you wanted to have a real, in-depth discussion about the labels, what they mean, and how they’re used, why did you start with the obviously confrontational and vague-at-best:

Calvin said:
BTW, facism is left wing. Total government.

?

Calvin said:
I thought you were saying that all conservatives are trolls, even if some of them are decent. That was my misunderstanding, I suppose.

OK, let’s reset. I take back my snarky comments and I’m cool with talking about any of these issues or labeling systems or whatever. I was in grade school during the cold war, so all these definitions are mutable to me, not because of what the textbooks say, but because of how civilization has used them over the decades. We all knew Chinese communism was nothing like communism at all, and that American capitalism was more socialist than Soviet socialism, which was just State ownership and central planning. I get my hackles up when I see those same labels used as buzzwords to define opposition ideology in today’s political terms, because we both know there’s never been a pure definition of any of these concepts in practical existence anywhere on the face of the Earth, ever. It’s fun science, but that’s really all it is. ;-)

Calvin says: “If anybody is responsible for Hitler’s rise, it’s Hitler, with his charisma and all. He was a powerful orator. The people were convinced by him.”

Hmmmm, who’s that sound like on the American scene?

A stem winder. check.
Charisma. check
convincing liar. check.
followers not exactly highly informed but angry. check
master propagandist. check.

Share this url about Glenn Beck: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com before someone you know gets sucked into the deceitful narrative that Beck weaves so convincingly.

Azarkhan said:
“Earlier Stewart explained to Oprah he was throwing his rally for the 85% of the country that is “busy” and doesn’t have time to choose sides”

Coming from a leftist asshole, that’s pretty funny.

you really love the name calling, don’t you?

Kitsune said:
Glynnis MacNicol

well, i don’t really think any “mind changing” is going on at this point… it has pretty much turned into a mud slinging, hit over the head with a folding chair, pile driving political wrestling match now.

Facebook User said:
ast, but his support among then has since evaporated.” First, that 40% conservative are actually split between reactionary (Tea Party, KKK & Nazis) and genuine conservatives. Second, despite the President’s drop in the polls to about what Reagan’s were at this point in his presidency, he is still the most popular pol in this country BY FAR. Finally, and I realize that this is a sore point for conservatives and reactionaries, liberals are smarter than conservatives. Generally, people in blue states have a higher average IQ than people in red states. This is why no real solutions to our nation’s problems are enacted until the liberals are in cont

and you think these teabaggers are going to win over the voters that are on the fence? do you believe in unicorns and Santa Claus, too?

Anybody isn’t afraid of it.