November 30, 2010

Atlantic Writer: Democrats Are As Pure As The Driven Snow And Republicans Are Nothing But Ruthless And Opportunistic Thugs
— DrewM

Normally the best thing to do with anyone who writes for the company that employs Linda “Report all lies against the regime” Douglas and Andrew “Show me the afterbirth” Sullivan is to ignore them. Sometimes though one of them writes something so ridiculous it’s necessary to call them out on their BS. This James Fallows post is one such time.

Fallows was responding to Ross Douthat’s contention that conservative anger about the TSA now and not under Bush is part of the ebb and flow of politics…you let things slide when your guy does it but get outraged when ‘they’ do it. Fallows thinks this is unfair to Democrats and liberals and that only Republicans and conservatives are guilty of this particular sin.

Stop laughing, he really seems to think this.

The TSA case, on which Douthat builds his column, is in fact quite a poor illustration -- rather, a good illustration for a different point. There are many instances of the partisan dynamic working in one direction here. That is, conservatives and Republicans who had no problem with strong-arm security measures back in the Bush 43 days but are upset now. Charles Krauthammer is the classic example: forthrightly defending torture as, in limited circumstances, a necessary tool against terrorism, yet now outraged about "touching my junk" as a symbol of the intrusive state.

This is such a delicious example of liberal ‘thinking’. Fallows’ example doesn’t demonstrate Krauthammer’s lack of principles. What that paragraph does is demonstrate that Fallows and many other liberals simply can’t differentiate between how the US government should and is required to treat its own citizens on American soil and how it may deal with non-citizen, enemies outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Fallows is free to make the case that people in line to get on an airplane and enemy combatants captured in a war with Islamic fundamentalists but he doesn’t get to steal that base and simply say people who don’t agree with him are intellectually inconsistent and opportunistic.

It would be bad enough if Fallows stopped there but he didn’t.

So: it's nice and fair-sounding to say that the party-first principle applies to all sides in today's political debate. Like it would be nice and fair-sounding to say that Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress are contributing to obstructionism and party-bloc voting. Or that Fox News and NPR have equal-and-offsetting political agendas in covering the news. But it looks to me as if we're mostly talking about the way one side operates. Recognizing that is part of facing the reality of today's politics.

Democrats aren’t ‘guilty’ of “party-bloc voting”? Has he checked the Senate roll-calls on the vote for the so-called “stimulus” bill? Or health care reform? Or the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Can he find one Democrat who voted against either of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees?

Fallows is right about one thing...for the last two years Democrats haven’t been ‘guilty’ of “obstructionism”. How could they obstruct anything when they control the White House, the Senate and the House?

On the other hand, I do seem to recall a fair bit of Democratic “obstructionism” when George W. Bush was trying to get some judges on various courts of appeal or when Bush wanted to pass the free trade agreement with one of our most important allies in South American, Colombia.

I’m sure if I spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it I could come up with dozens of other examples where Democrats obstructed Bush’s agenda (Social Security reform pops to mind) but in Fallows world, nothing like that ever happened.

I can’t get worked up about the opportunism of politicians, like the proverbial scorpion, it’s their nature. While I enjoy tweaking liberals like Fallows and their rose colored glasses, I don’t get worked up over their idiocy…it is after all just their nature.

Added: I forgot to include this bit of news from today's meeting between Obama and Republican congressional leaders.

Senior admin official tells CNN the President did tell Repubs behind closed doors he failed to reach out enough in 1st 2 yrs

Ah, you see Obama didn't reach out to Republicans for two years for a very simple reason...he didn't need them. They simply didn't matter given the overwhelming numbers Democrats had in both houses. Now however the situation is different and Obama will act differently or at least will give lip service to it when it's politically helpful.

It's almost as if Obama lied about his interest in bi-partisanship and is now acting differently simply out of political expediency. I'm shocked!

I eagerly await Fallows taking Obama to task for this. Or you know, not.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:54 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.

1 The Atlantic Ocean puts out better copy than that rag, and it reads at a 4th grade level.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2010 08:59 AM (Y81Xa)

2 I really hope an hurricane environmental disaster doesn't happen on O's watch ......we'd never hear the end of it .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at November 30, 2010 09:01 AM (XDeui)

3
I don't understand why the real reason for the objections to the TSA aren't obvious: before 2010 they weren't imaging. Now they're imaging. If you opt out of standing with your arms held up like a POW and enjoying a leisurely scan of your nether regions, then they perform an aggressive pat down. People objected to these sorts of pat downs during the Bush administration, but they weren't widespread policy back then.

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2010 09:03 AM (ibimn)

4 can we get a "Cantor likes main ObamaCare provision, doesn't understand how insurance works" thread?

Posted by: Shoey at November 30, 2010 09:04 AM (ehKDD)

5 I would settle for a "Cantor Must Be Primaried!" thread...

Posted by: Shoey at November 30, 2010 09:05 AM (ehKDD)

6 How about Medicare Part D?  Democrats would've loved that if it hadn't been put forth by the Bush White House.  If you ever mention it to one, they'll only say how it's a reason for Republicans not to like Bush.  You'll never hear how it's a program right from their playbook, but that they railed against it with smear and scare tactics until it got passed.

Posted by: Mippilis at November 30, 2010 09:06 AM (VWhPF)

7 Hey Fallows , you could google this dude named Robert Bork , he could prolly' tell you some stories .
Hmmm, that kinda makes me wonder , which mag is the worst , New Yorker or Atlantic ?

Posted by: awkward davies at November 30, 2010 09:07 AM (YCW1b)

8 "Democrats Are As Pure As The Driven Snow And Republicans Are Nothing But Ruthless And Opportunistic Thugs" That could be an executive summary of pretty much every MSM newscast.

Posted by: tsj017 at November 30, 2010 09:07 AM (4YUWF)

9 Posted by: Shoey at November 30, 2010 02:04 PM (ehKDD)

I Second the motion.

Ayes?  Nays?

Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2010 02:03 PM (ibimn)

Because to a Democrat everything is political.  The only possible reason someone could object to full-body porno-scans or being fondled is that they disagree with Pres. BOHICA's politics- it couldn't possibly be based on any form of principle.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 09:07 AM (8y9MW)

10 Liberals have two main defects. They have more projection than Linda Blair in the Exorcist and were born without the ability to make logical comparisons.

Posted by: Can't believe it's not bitter at November 30, 2010 09:07 AM (iagmy)

11 And the Atlantic writer has what, an audience of two?

Posted by: tarpon at November 30, 2010 09:08 AM (g0QB8)

12 Senior admin official tells CNN the President did tell Repubs behind closed doors he failed to reach out around enough in 1st 2 yrs

FI

As an American citizen I sure do feel a lot like the Chinese guy on SNL now that obi's in charge.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 30, 2010 09:09 AM (tf9Ne)

13

 can we get a "Cantor likes main ObamaCare provision, doesn't understand how insurance works" thread?

 

I saw this on our local news.  Cantor can kiss his political career goodbye as far as I'm concerned.  But, like I have mentioned before, I think the nation jumped off the socialist cliff a long time ago.  Freedom was nice while it lasted.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 09:10 AM (HIlgc)

14 "Fallows is free to make the case that people in line to get on an airplane and enemy combatants captured in a war with Islamic fundamentalists (?)  but he doesn’t get to steal that base..."

Hunh? Missing verb?

Posted by: Aunt Ralph at November 30, 2010 09:10 AM (f9uYB)

15

What’s obvious is that the Republicans, led by talk radio bashers like Rush Limbaugh and “fair and balanced” Fox News, along with an expensive and relentless television ad campaign, did a fantastic job of convincing Americans that up was down and down was up. Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story.

That master of propaganda, Nazi Joseph Goebbels, would have been proud. The GOP and its allies succeeded in creating a throw-the-bums-out angry electorate, most of which didn’t care to look deeper. As one wag put it, “We’re so angry that we’re going to throw the bums in.”

Ain't it amazing how journolist doesn't exist any more.

Posted by: LC at November 30, 2010 09:10 AM (iSP11)

16 It's almost as if Obama lied about his interest in bi-partisanship and is now acting talking differently simply out of political expediency. I'm shocked!

FIFY, Drew.

Posted by: MrScribbler at November 30, 2010 09:11 AM (Ulu3i)

17 BWAhahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! [GASP] BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: joncelli at November 30, 2010 09:11 AM (RD7QR)

18 This is a question worth asking and the answer is the most poignant and effective one I have heard yet.  It's so simple a democrat can understand it.

Just click on the question below and be astounded:

Is Dan a dick sucking campaign hack who is spamming Ace of Spades?

Posted by: Dan at November 30, 2010 09:12 AM (9L1z6)

19 Dan, you posted that in the previous thread. Give it a rest.

Posted by: joncelli at November 30, 2010 09:13 AM (RD7QR)

20 I love my new Socialist overlords

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 09:13 AM (+sBB4)

21 yup, this pretty much demonstrates the left's world view, complete absence of counter argument.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 09:13 AM (QxSug)

22  I've still got a strong veto hand, my 'man-date', and a 'race card', Bitches!

Posted by: Barack H. Obama at November 30, 2010 09:13 AM (fOo+M)

23

Dan, you posted that in the previous thread.

Double Posted in previous thread.

Posted by: garrett smells a Palinisto! at November 30, 2010 09:14 AM (fOo+M)

24

That was some weak shit from Fallows. No wonder he isn't taking comments.

How about this gem: Fallows says nobody's switching their position on security theater since Obama's in charge. He gives you GG as your proof. Just Frau SockPuppet. Then he lets Obama and his supporters off the hook for Gitmo and renditions this way: Obama didn't think this stuff up, after all, so we're on his case for that but in a nice way. These are: "inherited disasters he has not gone far enough to undo and eliminate."

Very weak shit, for true believers only.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2010 09:15 AM (rplL3)

25 How do you "believe" your taxes have gone up?  They either went up or they didn't.

Posted by: Eric Holder at November 30, 2010 09:16 AM (mka2b)

26

Douthat is wrong here also.  Conservatives railed against these non-security measures, mostly because they were ineffective.  But what good does it do to attack a Republican president from the right?  A Democrat would just be worse with the PC nonsense.

Before the nude body scans and the pat-downs the 4th amendment concerns were limited.  It's the same deal as driving.  You don't have to fly.  Furthermore, if the airlines wanted to do their own security rather than the government, they could do anything they wanted and would probably do worse.

I remember a colleague telling me that all of the airport security junk would stop when we got a Democrat in the White House (at the time, he assumed it would be Hillary) instead, Obama cranks it up to 11.  Even when Don't Touch My Junk first emerged, my Facebook account had indignant liberals getting all Fourth Amendmenty.  When Obama came out and defended the scans, the libs shut up.  But the situation is different.  A conservative president wouldn't make it worse, he or she would do exactly what the liberals claim that they want.

Conservatives go after their own all the time, even when the Democrat is worse on the issue.  Ask George H.W. Bush about "no new taxes".

Liberals circle the wagons because they have no independent morality.  What is done in the defense of the progressive ideology is always good.  Always.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 09:16 AM (BvBKY)

27

Dan, you posted that in the previous thread. Give it a rest.

No...Dan has pretty much posted that on every thread today. And will probably post it on every thread for the rest of the day. This is what campaign hacks do. What Dan does not tell you is 1) who he is working or volunteering for and 2) who he expects to benefit from his repetative posting of the same post.

Dan is a hack. You could put up a thread about why mustard is so much better on a sandwich than mayo and Dan will  put that same damn post up.

I still, however, would encourage Dan to use big bold fonts instead of the red....just for variety.

Oh...and I find myself conflicted, for I am strangly defending Mitt Romney. I am now very confused.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:18 AM (OWjjx)

28 Posted by: joncelli© at November 30, 2010 02:13 PM (RD7QR)

Actually in at least two previous threads: I responded to one of them and didn't get a response back (but he may have just left that thread by then).

Dan- Short Form: To believe that Mitt Romney could not reasonably have foreseen the current state of RomneyCare (and, therefore have opposed it instead of leading it), one would have to believe Mitt Romney didn't realize that the nature of Government is to seize ever more power.  If he didn't realize that, he has no business being President.  If he did realize that, then he's just as much to blame as the Democrat controlled State Government in MA.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 09:18 AM (8y9MW)

29 On the Romney care link.

The problem with the question is it makes me assume that the first Doctor diagnosed correctly.

 It is possible to pick 3 bad doctors and get yourself killed, the first still has some culpability for your death.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 30, 2010 09:18 AM (tf9Ne)

30 Normally the best The only thing to do with anyone who writes for the company that employs Linda “Report all lies against the regime” Douglas and Andrew “Show me the afterbirth” Sullivan is to ignore them.

There.

Fixed it for you.

Had you consulted me first I could have saved you the time of analyzing the ravings of the irrelevant and insane. 

Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at November 30, 2010 09:18 AM (t1nMo)

31

Posted by: LC at November 30, 2010 02:10 PM (iSP11)

And you get style points for working in the Goebbels angle. Mr. Soros likes it when you reference Nazi's. He finds them strangly easy to work with.....

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:19 AM (OWjjx)

32

What’s obvious is that the Republicans, led by talk radio bashers like Rush Limbaugh and “fair and balanced” Fox News, along with an expensive and relentless television ad campaign, did a fantastic job of convincing Americans that up was down and down was up. Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story.

That master of propaganda, Nazi Joseph Goebbels, would have been proud. The GOP and its allies succeeded in creating a throw-the-bums-out angry electorate, most of which didn’t care to look deeper. As one wag put it, “We’re so angry that we’re going to throw the bums in.”

Posted by: LC

Is this sarcasm or stupidity? The Democrats outspent the Republicans in the last election cycle. And it's telling that this list of enemies of the Revolution included only one media outfit. MSNBC and their ilk were too busy re-enacting the Freedom Riders?

 

Congrats on the Nazi reference.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 30, 2010 09:19 AM (R2fpr)

33 How do you "believe" your taxes have gone up?  They either went up or they didn't.

Most people have no idea how much income tax they actually pay (or in the case of half the filers, don't pay).  They only know how much was over-withheld and gets returned to them, or how much they under-withheld and "had to pay in" in April.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 30, 2010 09:20 AM (4ucxv)

34 Liberals live inside bubbles.  Inside those bubbles, every liberal thought is true, and every liberal prescription for action is the correct one. 

Outside those bubbles is the real world, where liberalism never ever works.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 30, 2010 09:20 AM (bvfVF)

35 It's Buck Farack Day!!!!  Every day is Buck Farack Day!!!!!!

Posted by: Sponge at November 30, 2010 09:20 AM (UK9cE)

36

Congrats on the Nazi reference.

And I am thinking like Blue Hen. More confusion. (I keed, I keed).

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:21 AM (OWjjx)

37 What’s obvious is that the Republicans, led by talk radio bashers like Rush Limbaugh

What's obvious is that you know nothing about the current crop of Republicans OR Rush Limbaugh because if you did, you would have never made that statement.

Posted by: Tami at November 30, 2010 09:22 AM (VuLos)

38 Dan is no different than Palin's cheerleaders except they don't get the same on this site. Kind of goes along with the subject of this post.

Posted by: Can't believe it's not bitter at November 30, 2010 09:23 AM (lCegM)

39 Didn't LC misspell Fox News? It's supposed to be "Faux Noise", including scare quotes.

You're welcome

Posted by: Jay in Ames at November 30, 2010 09:23 AM (UEEex)

40

Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story.

Cause 9.6 percent unemployment is a feature...not a bug?

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:24 AM (OWjjx)

41 Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story. This line always raises my blood pressure. It's like the people who think that people who don't understand their language will suddenly get it if you yell at them.

Posted by: joncelli at November 30, 2010 09:25 AM (RD7QR)

42 Cause 9.6 percent unemployment is a feature...not a bug?

We're almost as sophisticated as France now.  Almost.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 30, 2010 09:27 AM (4ucxv)

43 LC, I bet you think that the President actually spends the money and the deficit is Bush's fault, don't you.

Posted by: Sponge at November 30, 2010 09:28 AM (UK9cE)

44

Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story

 

Cause stabbing Poland in the back on the 60th anniversary of the Soviet Union invading them can be made pretty if you say it juuuuust right.

Cause announcing that you don't have the details of a local arrest and following up with "the police acted stupidly" can make sense if you run it through a teleprompter once more time.

Cause accusing troops in Afghanistan of "bombing villages and stuff", and then ignoring the problem for over six months and then expanding the war while announcing deadlines for withdrawal just ducky.

Posted by: Blue Hen at November 30, 2010 09:29 AM (R2fpr)

45

This line always raises my blood pressure. It's like the people who think that people who don't understand their language will suddenly get it if you yell at them.

 

I think they're working on the yelling thing as we speak.  Yelling and a rock or a broken bottle as exclamation points.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 09:29 AM (HIlgc)

46

Well, LC, lets be fair. Tell us the lies that Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. spread and we can then determine if the poor Democrats were truly mistreated.

I really don't expect a response. And please don't ask me to hold my breath.

Oh, and scoreboard. GOP + 62 (minimum). I mean, that is a historic ass kicking. That had to hurt, didn't it?

I feel your pain. No....not really........bawhahahahahahaha

 

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:29 AM (OWjjx)

47 Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (OWjjx)
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (R2fpr)

Point being, seems like they're coordinating.  This Zweifel guy is the Madison paper's editor emeritus.

Sorry, should've been LC LaWedgie -- too many windows open and not enough typing.  (blush).

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 09:30 AM (iSP11)

48 Another upstanding Democrat passing on his ethics: http://tinyurl.com/2f2eedn
Nice family.

Posted by: Museisluse© at November 30, 2010 09:31 AM (DTfXb)

49 Yeah, libs live in bubbles, they argue against their own prejudices. Imaging how nice the world would be if they were honest about themselves and people they agree with. Imagine if guys like this writer would say something like "gee, in 2009, obama's apparent spending spree scared a lot of people." nope, it's "nazi racist hick!!!!1!1" Instead, it's just invective.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 09:31 AM (QxSug)

50

Point being, seems like they're coordinating. 

And the President sitting down with a meeting with Olbermann, Maddow, et. al. is........just a college bull session. Maybe Keith can add some insights into what....Obama's NCAA picks (psst...he can't...Keith sucked at sports as much as he sucks at news).

Please.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:33 AM (OWjjx)

51

relentless television ad campaign, did a fantastic job of convincing Americans that up was down and down was up. Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story.

We must move forward, not backwards...  not to the side, not to the forwards - but always, whirling, whirling, whirling, towards freedom! 

Posted by: Kang at November 30, 2010 09:33 AM (fOo+M)

52 We're almost as sophisticated as France now.  Almost.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 30, 2010 02:27 PM (4ucxv)

No way in hell.

Posted by: Jerry Lewis at November 30, 2010 09:35 AM (BvBKY)

53 his other point, "oh no, people who are opposed to us actually tried to put across their point of view. We should have stopped that1!1@@!!1?" facsist

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 09:35 AM (QxSug)

54 If memory serves me correctly, I recall that Obama DID reach out to Republicans. He reached out with a single finger and said "I Won"

Posted by: Max Entropy at November 30, 2010 09:36 AM (lH6z9)

55

We must move forward, not backwards...  not to the side, not to the forwards - but always, whirling, whirling, whirling, towards freedom! 

 

Okay.....

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 09:36 AM (HIlgc)

56

 that conservative anger about the TSA now and not under Bush

The TSA did not have full body scanners under Bush.

The TSA did not have "agressive pat downs" under Bush.

Obama & Napalitano are on record saying these measures were put in place because of the "Christamas Day bomber"

The memes by the left never end.

 

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2010 09:37 AM (zz1BZ)

57 Charles Krauthammer is the classic example: forthrightly defending torture as, in limited circumstances, a necessary tool against terrorism, yet now outraged about "touching my junk" as a symbol of the intrusive state.

How can liberals be this stupid? If the military shoots some Jihadi planting a bomb in Afghanistan, I don't care. If Obama ordered the military to shoot people who write idiotic opinion columns in the US, I would care.

Oh, and when Clinton was using the FBI and IRS to go after domestic political foes, I seem to recall the lefties were ok with it...but when Nixon did it it was a high crime worthy of impeachment...

Posted by: 18-1 at November 30, 2010 09:38 AM (7BU4a)

58 actually, I think that the problem with libs sort of hit a resonant frequency self destruction with Obama...sort of the perfect storm of smug. Libs live in their own world, ruled by their own prejudices (we are ennobled, benevolent, cultural elites, they are evil hicks). Combine that with Obama being a blank slate upon which people project their dreams. Whoa, that's bad news for people who already have a tenuous grip on reality. See how libs have turned the reader of the teleprompter of the formerly free world into a version or signifier of their own reality. No wonder we get articles like this now.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 09:40 AM (QxSug)

59 ***Charles Krauthammer is the classic example: forthrightly defending torture as, in limited circumstances, a necessary tool against terrorism, yet now outraged about "touching my junk" as a symbol of the intrusive state.*** remember liberals see no difference between abortion and killing criminals...or rather they see opposition to abortion as being inconsistent with capital punishment. There's no critical capabilities up in that head.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 09:41 AM (QxSug)

60  If Obama ordered the military to shoot people who write idiotic opinion columns in the US, I would care.

Well....if it got rid of Jason Whitlock, it might not be such a bad deal.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 09:42 AM (OWjjx)

61 Maybe Cantor has a point, a good political point, in saying Republicans want to find a way to keep the under-26-ers in their parents coverage, and a ban on refusal for pre-existing.

Obama already has made it clear that those are the principal battering-ram points against the evil Republicans who want to screw you.

Give in on those, change them so they make better sense, if possible, but do the biggies like tort reform, no state borders, and more.

Just curious.  What is in the bill that forces employer-group insurance to include children in policies, anyhow?

And spouses? 

Or partners, or live-ins, or whatever. 

Let's say I fall for a stripper, she has nine kids by eight different men, she and the kids move in with me on Monday, I go to my employer Tuesday and say, "I want to amend my file info as regards my employer-provide insurance."

How does that go?

Posted by: Boris Yeltsin at November 30, 2010 09:42 AM (4sQwu)

62

Well....if it got rid of Jason Whitlock, it might not be such a bad deal.

NOOOO....we would all go broke!

Posted by: America's Donut Shops at November 30, 2010 09:43 AM (OWjjx)

63
LC is right about everything.

The Democrat's biggest blunder this years was that they didn't say DON'T STOP THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW enough.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 09:44 AM (uFokq)

64 Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 02:33 PM (OWjjx)

You're not getting it -- I didn't write that stuff, Zweifel did.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 09:44 AM (iSP11)

65

How does that go?

If I am your employer, it goes like this...you tell me you have moved in with a stipper with 9 kids from 8 different men, then I hit you upside the head with a bat and tell you to pull your head out.

Screw the Human Resource Department.

Posted by: Mallamutt, Your HR Specialist at November 30, 2010 09:45 AM (OWjjx)

66

Fallows and many other liberals simply can’t differentiate between how the US government should and is required to treat its own citizens on American soil and how it may deal with non-citizen, enemies outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

They demonstrate this lack of basic reasoning ability on the death penalty, too, by bleating about how many conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty. The small but detectable difference between an unborn child and a murderous monster like Tookie Williams (who blew four people's heads off with a shotgun, IIRC) is apparently lost on them. They think their moronic argument is a crushing response.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 30, 2010 09:46 AM (UJWNs)

67

 Meanwhile, the Democrats did a miserable job of telling the real story.

Like what?

That you get to "keep your doctor" which is a lie?

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2010 09:46 AM (zz1BZ)

68

You're not getting it -- I didn't write that stuff, Zweifel did.

I'm a little slow today. My bad. Its Garrett's fault. He called the Greatness that is.....Zach Greinke a RINO earlier. It has pretty much shot my whole day.

Posted by: Mallamutt, Your HR Specialist at November 30, 2010 09:46 AM (OWjjx)

69 The TSA's worse-than-uselessness is NOT a partisan thing for me at all, and shouldn't be for anyone. The new security procedures would have been over any reasonable if not constitutional line in any case and I'd be calling for Bush's or any other Republican's head who would betray liberty to no purpose. I just want it gone (in its present incarnation, at the very least) So screw the "hurt Obama" aspect. He needs hurting, and this is one reason why, but that's not what makes it the affront and failure that it is.

Posted by: SarahW at November 30, 2010 09:52 AM (Z4T49)

70 Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (OWjjx)
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 30, 2010 02:19 PM (R2fpr)

Point being, seems like they're coordinating.  This Zweifel guy is the Madison paper's editor emeritus.

Sorry, should've been LC LaWedgie -- too many windows open and not enough typing.  (blush).

Posted by: LC LaWedgie

 

Blush? You wrote that turgid crap and you want us to believe that you have a sense of shame?

 

It "seems like they're coordinating"? The Left was caught coordinating, and it was deemed to be a 'closed issue'. A so-called journolist asked (on national TV feed) Obama how he could help, and you want to push "it seems like they are coordinating"?

 

You are a fucking waste of time.

Posted by: Boris Badanov at November 30, 2010 09:53 AM (R2fpr)

71 My bad.
Posted by: Mallamutt, Your HR Specialist at November 30, 2010 02:46 PM (OWjjx)


No, I was having technical difficulties with the italics, so I tried the easy way out and put my comments in italics instead of doing it like I should have...  man, was that a mistake.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 09:55 AM (iSP11)

72

Try this one on for size.  The idiots in the TSA are no more qualified than mall guards. Here, even malls won't use them. They hire off duty state police, who patrol in uniform. Remember how suddenly we were told that most of the TSA creeps were ex-military or law enforcement? But they refused to cite examples? They are no better trained or qualified than they were under Bush, and now they are responsible for machines that emit rediation, and to conduct invasive body searches. And we can't even get a straight answer on gloves.

 

And to you, this is solely a problem of messaging? Idiot.

Posted by: Boris Badanov at November 30, 2010 09:57 AM (R2fpr)

73 I remember Schumer repeating, over and over, that James Madison proclaimed that the Senate was, "a cooling saucer" to temper the "hot tea" of the House and Executive branch, and imploring comity and the traditions of the Senate when the Democrats were in the minority.

Then Obama basically destroyed the Senate and its traditions to pass healthcare via Deem and Pass and other shenanigans, with nary a peep from Schumer. 

Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 30, 2010 10:01 AM (r1OG3)

74 Posted by: Boris Badanov at November 30, 2010 02:53 PM (R2fpr)

Lack of "dripping sarcasm tag" on my journolist comment noted.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 10:04 AM (iSP11)

75

Before the flame war starts, I give LC LaWedgie 10 yards and loss of down for  failure to adequately show quotes, and 10 yards and loss of down for failure of comprehensive reading skills to the Moron offensive line. Penalties offset, please rewind clock 30 seconds!

Posted by: Some Fruity Looking Guy in a Striped Shirt at November 30, 2010 10:04 AM (ERJIu)

76 @61 - Ah, worthy of a post on its own... let's see if I can tackle it for you...

1st- Nothing can make guaranteed coverage or "dependent until 26" "better."  They're absolutely terrible for insurance companies.

1a) Currently, if you are applying for a personal insurance policy, the insurance company has roughly three possible alternatives: accept, reject, accept with "riders"

In the case of an "accept" it is possible to deny coverage for any pre-existing condition, but only for up to 12 month, and then only if you haven't had coverage for the last two months and a lot of other things that mean this really only affects those who don't get insured until they get sick.

In the case of "accept with riders" they basically say "we'll never cover conditions x, y, and z"

What HCR does (if I understand properly- which we won't know until there's a lawsuit: yay!) is take the "reject" and "accept with riders" off the table (at least as far as pre-existing conditions are concerned).  What this means is that anyone with any medical condition can get insurance (which sounds nice).  For the insurance companies, though, it means they have to completely re-work their actuary tables to make sure they're charging the correct premiums- and I guarantee you those will only go up, not down.

1b) Does anyone really believe that a 26 yr old still claiming "dependent" status (outside of actual disability- which was already provided for in old law) is anything less than a loser?  This one doesn't necessarily "hurt" so much as it was completely unnecessary.  By the time I was 18 I had a job that offered insurance benefits: most fast food joints and banks (I was a teller) do.  The only purpose of this provision is to further foster the society of dependency.

2 - This gets tricky: This one mostly affects group plans (that is, what your employer provides).  A group plan is required to provide coverage for dependents.  Individual policies are not (they can, they just don't have to: but it's got to be across the board either way).  So re-defining what makes a "dependent" hits group policies in a couple of ways: increased reg cost, and increased premiums (to the employer: whether that's passed on to employees is up to the employer). 

To your specific example, it depends on how your group plan is set up.  Most of the time you'd have to be able to claim them as dependents: which is to say she'd have to be your wife (or domestic partner), but assuming you did that, the group wouldn't have much choice but to accept them all.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 10:05 AM (8y9MW)

77 Posted by: Some Fruity Looking Guy in a Striped Shirt at November 30, 2010 03:04 PM (ERJIu)

I'm on a dial-up, could I get a couple of minutes?  (Yeah, I know, pushy pushy.)

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2010 10:13 AM (iSP11)

78

I'm happy to hear that this Fallows POS think my Aunty Helen deserves the same respect and care as Abdul Akbar Mouhammed I KEEL YOU Assad.

All I need is two minutes in a room with one of the weasles.

  

 

Posted by: dananjcon at November 30, 2010 10:17 AM (pr+up)

79

Posted by: Some Fruity Looking Guy in a Striped Shirt at November 30, 2010 03:04 PM (ERJIu)

Do we get anything for spiking the commenter? Or gratuitous roughness?

Posted by: Boris Badanov at November 30, 2010 10:31 AM (R2fpr)

80 Does anyone really believe that a 26 yr old still claiming "dependent" status (outside of actual disability- which was already provided for in old law) is anything less than a loser?

How about a 26 year old who has been trying to find a job in her chosen field - teaching - since graduation and has obtained a master's degree in the meantime?
It happens.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2010 10:42 AM (IpIBJ)

81 Yeah, Fallows just totally beclowned himself.  It's amazing how low the Atlantic has sunk that they need to hire second-rate "analysts" like Fallows and keep amateur OBGYN's like Sullivan on-staff.

Posted by: RickJ at November 30, 2010 10:43 AM (udpRV)

82 go ahead and hide behind the "popular provisions." Let's just be sure to poll these options with the caveat, "do you want to forbid denial of preexisting conditions if it will cause your own insurance premiums to quadruple?" What, not so popular now? Obama, btw, couldn't sell water to a fish. His sales pitch on Obamacare was tone deaf and deceptive.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 11:02 AM (QxSug)

83 Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2010 03:42 PM (IpIBJ)

How about her?  She can't work as a teller at the local Chase branch until she lands a teaching job?  Even Olive Garden has a pretty decent health plan for its employees.  Plus a mini-med you qualify for during your "gap" (that first 60 days or so).

I was on my own by 20 (by choice).  It's really not that hard (okay, it might be currently, but that's a temporary thing- and hasn't been going on for a full two years, yet).

Where is she looking for work, btw?  I knew a couple who were sooooo distressed that neither of them (they're both teachers) could find work in Abilene- an area where there are literally waiting-lists to become a teacher.  When asked when they weren't looking elsewhere (say, Tarrant or Dallas counties- where they wouldn't even have had to move (lived in a suburb of Fort Worth)), they basically said "'cause we don't want to."  It was a little hard to gin up any sympathy for their plight.

I'm not saying that's universal, but I will say that if you're good (or just new and therefore cheap) find a run-down school district: they'll snap you up in a hurry.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 11:10 AM (8y9MW)

84 I have no idea who this Fallows fellow is, but based on a cursory reading of the excerpted paragraphs, I can state with near certainty that he regularly picks his nose and eats the treasure he finds within.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 11:37 AM (HzhBE)

85 Screw the Atlantic. They're a third-rate rag not worth picking up, much less reading. As for the Dems, there's nothing wrong with them that an up-close-and -personal application of 12 gauge, loaded with 00 buck, wouldn't cure.

For the guy asking about marrying the stripper, just tell HR that she can suck a golf ball through fifty feet of garden hose. He'll understand. If it's a woman, she'll understand too but she'll probably be jealous. However, in the interest of making a verified claim,  I suggest you make the stripper demonstrate her actual proficiency first.

Posted by: mac at November 30, 2010 11:46 AM (gSYTw)

86 If Obama ordered the military to shoot people who write idiotic opinion columns in the US, I would care.

I'm not sure I would.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 11:51 AM (HzhBE)

87 Democrats lie about everything.

Fallows is a Democrat (he would deny it, in all likelihood, but it would be a pathetic and shallow denial).

Fallows lies about everything.

It sounds like a logical fallacy, but the problem with a fallacy is that it isn't necessarily true - it may be true, but it isn't guaranteed.

You know, it's true, but in an alternate universe it might not be true.

But in this case, it's true.

"Democrats aren't hypocrites" isn't a fallacy, on the other hand, it's just not a defensible statement.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at November 30, 2010 12:21 PM (bxiXv)

88 Social Security (starts at 0:54)

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 30, 2010 12:59 PM (tE8FB)

89 Fallows is a draft-dodging coward and a master of obfuscation.  He is beneath contempt.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 30, 2010 01:40 PM (mAm+G)

90 Fallows sounds like the sort of lefty loser who, arrested for, say, drug possession in... pick a country... Turkey, would be demanding his one phone call as they shoved him into the police car, shouting that no one had read him his Miranda rights as they hauled him out of the car at the station, and kneeling in uncomprehending shock as they shot him there.  This sort of thing used to happen in Turkey fifty or so years ago; I don't know if/when it changed.

Some people were taught too young and too thoroughly that is it somehow bad or nasty to think of people in terms of "us" and "them."  This is a handicapping condition.

Regards,
Le


Posted by: Leonie Alemann at November 30, 2010 05:40 PM (Amnw4)

91 Liberals can often be the biggist most pathetic excuses for humanity there ever are epciecialy if they write stupid liberal collums in stupid liberal news papers

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at December 01, 2010 06:58 AM (vA9ld)

92 According to the 2010 market survey, we can see that Canada Goose Apparel had a hot sale and consequently Canada Goose Company made great profits. Exactly Canada goose clothing indeed performs very well in providing warmth and showing fashion looks. It is predicted that 2011 Canada goose clothing also has a good response in the market. How do you think of it? Please leave your message here. Exactly you will also speak highly of Canada goose. Perhaps you could buy canada goose and experience  canada goose parka , which will help you to learn well about this brand.(yang)

Posted by: canada goose parka at July 02, 2011 12:22 AM (Mqo+u)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
132kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 0.1008 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0424 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.