Saturday, September 24, 2011
Miscellaneous 100
1) O'Reilly has gone on numerous tirades about Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The dude goes on and on about just how far out of the mainstream that this justice is and has even gone as far as to call her an extremist. Contrast this to the fact that Mr. O'Reilly has never, EVER, done an equivalent dressing-down of the high court's far-right jurists; Mr.s Thomas and Scalia. Is he trying to tell us (through his silence) that these two bellicose ball-busters ARE in the mainstream? Methinks that Mr. O'Reilly isn't exactly being fair and balanced here?............2) Another thing that O'Reilly is constantly saying is that hard-right in this country doesn't have the same opportunities and platforms as the rabid far-left does (The New York Times, NBC News, Newsweek, etc.), and that that's why he doesn't tend to focus on the right-wing lunacy. Yeah, huh? Never mind the fact that a) political talk-radio is almost exclusively right, b) individuals on his own frigging network are bonkers, and c) publications and web-sites such as the "Washington Examiner" and "World Net Daily" constantly spew highly questionable stuff. I think that we just have to face it here, peeps, now that Keith Olbermann has been demoted into obscurity, Mr. O'Reilly may have finally regained that crown as the high-prince of naked paranoia.............3) Have you also noticed that MSNBC (especially in prime time, with its partisan ramrods) doesn't appear to be all that interested in the Solyndra controversy? Yikes, huh? In fact, folks, I haven't seen an omission this naked since boxer Floyd Mayweather went on "Pardon the Interruption" and refused to say, Pacquiao.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Will: Have you also noticed that MSNBC... doesn't appear to be all that interested in the Solyndra controversy?
No, I have not noticed that. Perhaps because I am not that interested in it myself. Contrary to what Rusty says, I think it's pretty clear that this is a "scandal" that will go nowhere.
As for O'Reilly, I heard he's going to retire. I heard him say that if his taxes go up then he's done (Keith Olbermann told me).
Keith Olbermann was relegated/promoted to a network where he got a raise and total control over the content of his program. I believe he is quite happy with the move. I watch him the same as always, so I have no idea what this "demotion" or "obscurity" is that you speak of.
Keith Olbermann? Who is that? Perhaps Rachel Maddow should have him on her show so we can see what he is like.
If he is good, I might try to find Current TV myself, whatever that is.
527 million dollars isn't a big thing, wd? Well, I guess that when you're taxing people at 77.65%......I don't get "Current TV", either, John. And if Mr. Olbermann is the best that they've got to offer, they can keep it that way.
Keith O was one of the Great ones, Will.
I have argued many times that he sometimes makes disingenuous partisan arguments, that he defends or attacks based on party affiliation. It annoyed me and caused me to stop watching him for a while. They are usually minor. I don't even remember them now, but what annoyed me about it was he was so quick to attack others for that exact crime. They all do that to one degree or another. He is a very intelligent passionate representative of liberalism and we need that to offset the crazies on the right, and their appeals to emotion, with something.
He is certainly not worse than Rush, Sean, Glen, O'Reilly, etc. In fact, he is better, in each of those cases. I watch Bill O'Reilly on occasion and I like his show. He is still wrong about everything and partisan as all hell.
MSNBC losing Keith was really bad, in the short term. However, in the long term it may work out, because it gives others an opportunity to emerge from the shadows, like Chris Hayes, who is fast becoming my gay little hero.
John Myste, Rachel Maddow is gay, Chris Hayes is married to a woman. I just looked it up.
Keith Olbermann is STILL one of the great ones.
Will, I didn't say 527 million wasn't a big deal, just that I wasn't that interested. Some heads should definitely roll. Of those who approved the loan when it should not have been, and of those who did such a poor job at running the company.
It looks like some malfeasance may be involved. I hear there is an investigation, so I'm sure we'll hear more about it in the future. Some people should probably end up in jail.
I think you made it a topic of one of your posts to suck up to your buddy Rusty. Neither one of you has said anything about the Murdoch phone hacking scandal.
WD,think back to when Rusty broke the Little Anthony Weiner story here two weeks before it hit the media.Remember how many postings you did in defense of Little Anthony,remember how you continually said Little Anthony was completely innocent.In the end you looked foolish.Well my little friend you're going to look foolish once again.
Obama visted Solyndra,gave a speech there saying Solyndra was a perfect example of stimulus money being well spent.The Solyndra exectutives visited the White House at least 20 times prior to getting the 527 million.One of the biggest investors in Solyndra is one of the biggest bundlers of campaign money for Obama.You'll be hearing the name Solyndra up until Nov.2012.Valerie Jarret is up to her eyebrows in this vat of shit.
Ole Rusty also pointed to Fast and Furious a few weeks ago,Darrell Issa is on this one and Rusty predicts it will lead to Eric Holder being bounced out.
The Sage of Las Vegas....strikes again.
John, I'll be honest with you. I really liked Olbermann at first. He was anti-war. I was anti-war. He was anti-Fox. I was anti-Fox. He was irreverent. I LOVE irreverence! But when he started to markedly resemble the very things that he was pissed about AND he started getting paranoid, he lost me. And now I basically can't stand him.......As for Rupert Murdoch, wd, the guy's a frigging dick (although, I do appreciate the fact that he and the Post endorsed ED Koch over that slippery little idiot, Abe Beam). In fact, I hold him personally responsible for heading us down this path of conflicted journalism.
1) Re: Supreme Court Justices: Will, maybe what's mainstream isn't what matters. Maybe what matters most is the proper understanding of the U.S. Constitution, where "mainstream" opinion is irrelevant.
That meltdown that he had about Scott Brown was probably the final straw. That was creepy, I thought.
Will: That meltdown that he had about Scott Brown was probably the final straw. That was creepy, I thought.
There was no "meltdown". He gave commentary, which is his job.
As for Rusty's "sageness"... Rusty has an incredibly over-inflated opinion of himself. I'll admit I was wrong about Anthony Weiner. But I think I said he was innocent once or twice, not over and over.
Anyway, I've got no regrets. Anthony Weiner was a good Congressman who did something really dumb (which was totally unrelated to his job, btw). I don't think he should have stepped down.
I don't know where this Solyndra story is going to go... so I'm making no predictions, except to say I don't think it's going to be as big as Rusty says. Rusty would LIKE to to bring down Obama. Doesn't mean that it will.
Like nobody is talking about Darrell Issa's criminal past.
Finally, regarding the Heathen Republican's comment on the Supremes... as illustrated by the Citizens United decision, a majority of them do not have a proper understanding of the US Constitution.
Which is the number one reason why Obama needs to be re-elected... so he can appoint one or two new justices who do.
Dervish,
John Myste, Rachel Maddow is gay, Chris Hayes is married to a woman. I just looked it up.
I know Rachel Maddow is gay and I never thought Chris was.
Will,
I LOVE irreverence! But when he started to markedly resemble the very things that he was pissed about AND he started getting paranoid, he lost me. He lost me, and for the exact same reason. Then I realized that we need him, despite this.
HR, just for the record, I think that a President should basically get whoever he OR SHE wants as a justice. Unless a nominee is totally corrupt (like those 2 imbeciles that Nixon nominated), I think that the Senate should confirm that person, regardless of politics.......wd, that Scott Brown thing was SO over the top that John Stewart actually did a "bit" on it.......John, you're point is well taken. I would just prefer a format where a guy like Anderson Cooper serves as the moderator and the clown posse (Hannity and Olbermann) only shows up as commentators and debaters. In a totally perfect world, I'm saying.
I need to make a correction to one of my previous statements about the Solyndra controversy. I previously said, "I think it's pretty clear that this is a scandal that will go nowhere".
I was talking about in regards to the Obama Administration. Then (later) I said I thought the Solyndra executives might have been involved in some "malfeasance"...
I was wrong. I just posted my own article about Solyndra to my blog. It's titled, "Republican Hacks Manufacture Solyndra Scandal".
There is no scandal here. Just an investment that didn't pan out because of rapidly changing market condition. My prediction is that Rusty is going to end up looking mighty foolish when this story fades into obscurity instead of bringing down the Obama administration.
Republicans are just miffed because George bush was SO incredibly incompetent and corrupt... and now they're desperate to get the same labels attached to Obama... but nothing is sticking. Hint: It's because Obama is an extremely intelligent, competent and honest man, not to mention a substantially superior POTUS to the previous doofus who held the office.
WD said: "I watch him the same as always, so I have no idea what this "demotion" or "obscurity" is that you speak of."
Olbermann is at the Bret Favre stage of his career. He's a big fish.... in a tiny jar now. On a network so obscure that I never heard of it unless you mention it.
Favre WAS one of the great ones. Like Olbermann. Neither has the ability to play in the big leagues anymore.
WD said: "Republicans are just miffed because George bush was SO incredibly incompetent and corrupt... and now they're desperate to get the same labels attached to Obama..."
Your claims about Bush are partisan insults, and nothing more. Not facts. And guess what? I know NO Republicans who believe this. They just happen to hold similar partisan opinions, but the names of the Presidents are reversed. It is exactly the same thing.
Will said: ".I don't get "Current TV", either, John. And if Mr. Olbermann is the best that they've got to offer, they can keep it that way."
Maybe some day "Current TV" will become as well known as your blog.
dmarks: Your claims about Bush are partisan insults, and nothing more. Not facts.
No, my claims that George bush was a corrupt and incompetent president are quite factual. Actually I should have said the bush ADMINISTRATION was corrupt. It's documented and factual... and completely not partisan. The truth is the truth, calling someone "partisan" who reveals it does not change what the truth is.
A 12/20/2005 Salon.com article titled "Bush's illegal spying" says "the president defied a major Supreme Court ruling to authorize hundreds of wiretaps inside the U.S. According to the article, "the president simply ignored the law and unilaterally -- and secretly -- authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans".
A report issued by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) on 8/4/2006 titled "Constitution in Crisis" identifies "26 specific laws and regulations implicated by the Bush Administration".
Regarding the report John Conyers said, "...the administration of George W. Bush is... worse than previous scandals such as Watergate and Iran-Contra... The alleged acts of wrongdoing... include making misleading statements about the decision to go to war; manipulating intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using classified information to out a CIA agent; and violating federal surveillance and privacy laws".
Concerning the Iraq war, a 2008 Baltimore Chronicle article titled "These Treasonous Thieves" discusses proof of government corruption and war profiteering, sweetheart deals and kickbacks, high-level types on the take, and trillions of missing dollars.
A CBS News article from 1/25/2011 reveals, "the White House Office of Political Affairs during the George W. Bush administration violated the law by giving briefings to political employees, concludes a government report issued Monday".
I could go on, but I think these examples are enough to definitively prove that the bush administration was one of the more corrupt and incompetent administrations. MostCorrupt.com ranks the bush administration #4 in their list of "Most Corrupt Administrations in U.S. History". Ahead of bush is Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, and Richard M. Nixon.
I don't know why Ronald Reagan isn't on the list. He certainly should be. Reagan's residency would be on near the top of my rankings of the most corrupt administrations. btw, notice that all these corrupt administrations are Republican?
Dervish,
I followed the link you posted.
There is a "click here to see the report" link. Though a lot of these claims have often been made and are certainly valid, I wanted to read the report, so I clicked the link, which took me to a page could not be found error.
I was going to post a comment in protest, but it wants me to log in to face book, that vile application that I refuse to use.
Therefore, I cannot get at the report. Can you see if you can get the report or post a comment about the broken link?
"btw, notice that all these corrupt administrations are Republican?"
Which says a lot about the minor-league bloggers you are quoting.
dmarks: Which says a lot about the minor-league bloggers you are quoting.
Actually, I think your comment says a lot about how right-leaning individuals argue. They use ad hominem when they can't dispute the facts. Minor league bloggers? Armchair attorneys? Serious individuals laughing at actual attorneys who say bush is a war criminal and his invasions were illegal?
That's a LOT of ad hominem, dmarks.
Perhaps dmarks (and, no, I probably shouldn't be speaking for him) was referring to the fact that you've YET AGAIN gone to an agenda driven blog for your "ammo" against Republicans, and that maybe it would be a breath of fresh if you threw in an occasional CNN or ABC or Time or Politico post. Maybe he could clarify.
Will: ...you've YET AGAIN gone to an agenda driven blog for your "ammo" against Republicans. ...if you threw in an occasional CNN or ABC or Time or Politico post...
Are the Baltimore Chronicle and CBS News biased and agenda driven? I don't keep records about what news sources I've linked to, but I think I HAVE quoted those 3 sources you think are more objective.
John Myste: I wanted to read the report, so I clicked the link, which took me to a page could not be found error.
The report can be viewed here (pdf, 273 pages).
Dervish,
Two things:
1. Thanks!
2. Christ! It is 273 pages. Can't we indict Bush in 12 pages or something?
Post a Comment