"Maybe what we're seeing is the 'obsolesence of middle-class labor', not its commodification."
Nonsense. Although it may look like that, it's because the design of the "free trade" and "global market" is to perpetually move manufacturing to the lowest bidder. This is not necessarily evil at face, but in practice, it frequently is. If it weren't cheaper to get 'thrown-away' kids in India or impoverished Chinese to hand stitch soccer balls, then technology might be used in the US to stitch soccer balls. It's lowest cost production - period.
Besides, if it were middleclass obsolescence, then the world's markets will soon implode. This is easily the logical result when there are only a few highly skilled (i.e. 'people making good incomes') and masses of "unskilled labor" (i.e. 'people with little or no income') in the economy. The only market that can be served by business enterprises are those few with wealth. In short, too few consumers to support an economy.
Since that can't hold, we're going to have to tip the scales back and force the wealthy away from the current parasitic (and yes, the wealthy are the parasites, feeding off the less powerful) to a more symbiotic relationship - because the rich are too pig ignorant to realize that their dream world is totally unsustainable. Not realizing this fact has led to many nation's demise.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Fire the Brain-F'd Andy Reid NOW! (updated)
Since the day that grunty turd rolled through the door, I've expected nothing but disaster. Other than the miracle of a horrible NFC East for a few years, I haven't been surprised by anything that's gone on in Philly after Reid was given the castle.
The man strikes me as a text-book sociopath - his first decision was to filter callers to the "Andy Reid Show" on radio. Why is that a horribly bad omen? Well, you're coming into Philadelphia where fans are passionate and loud in their support and their criticism - and your first act is to throttle their voices?!?! The question that was first on my mind was, "Are you nuts?" Then I started to assemble the answer pretty quickly, "Yes, he is nuts."
I've told my friends and acquaintances this for years. All I get from the non-Philly fans is, "All the guy does is win and you complain." Well, I still see the list of Super Bowl winners doesn't include the Eagles. And the vaulted Championship games that we lost were miserably coached debacles, management mismatches that are clear to any observer.
My way, my rules, my words, my system, my players - mine, me, me. In short, fat boy is a classic "control freak." And all control freaks have one common and inevitable destiny: failure.
And don't think the situation with his older boys (they're both doing time) isn't related directly. If you can't see this guy being the "you colored outside the lines," tear up the coloring book, and stomp away type of father, then maybe you haven't met any. One kid out of 3 in a family being completely unable to function as a law-abiding "adult" isn't outrageous, but he's 2 for 2 so far. Not a coincidence.
Here's an high-level outline of the typical odyssey for those of you who haven't been around a control freak. This is how it works in every type of organization, not just a football team:
The Eagles need to fire Reid and his entire administration now. That way, the stockpiled picks for next year can be put to good use to rebuild. If you wait until after the season, it may take too long to prep for the draft.
And maybe we should think about hiring someone who isn't a nutbag as head coach.... just a suggestion...
Update Nov. 24, 2008 - 10:22
Former Eagles linebacker and Philly-based sports journalist Gary Cobb writes today that the answer to the question, 'who is calling the offensive plays for the Eagles' is a secret. Yes, a secret! G might as well point to my post here,specifically to point #6. If things were going well, it would surely not be a secret. Don't be surprised to hear that Reid will "take over" the play calling for Thanksgiving Day's game against the Cardinals.
The man strikes me as a text-book sociopath - his first decision was to filter callers to the "Andy Reid Show" on radio. Why is that a horribly bad omen? Well, you're coming into Philadelphia where fans are passionate and loud in their support and their criticism - and your first act is to throttle their voices?!?! The question that was first on my mind was, "Are you nuts?" Then I started to assemble the answer pretty quickly, "Yes, he is nuts."
I've told my friends and acquaintances this for years. All I get from the non-Philly fans is, "All the guy does is win and you complain." Well, I still see the list of Super Bowl winners doesn't include the Eagles. And the vaulted Championship games that we lost were miserably coached debacles, management mismatches that are clear to any observer.
My way, my rules, my words, my system, my players - mine, me, me. In short, fat boy is a classic "control freak." And all control freaks have one common and inevitable destiny: failure.
And don't think the situation with his older boys (they're both doing time) isn't related directly. If you can't see this guy being the "you colored outside the lines," tear up the coloring book, and stomp away type of father, then maybe you haven't met any. One kid out of 3 in a family being completely unable to function as a law-abiding "adult" isn't outrageous, but he's 2 for 2 so far. Not a coincidence.
Here's an high-level outline of the typical odyssey for those of you who haven't been around a control freak. This is how it works in every type of organization, not just a football team:
- Inspire confidence (you've got a plan!). Freak was brought in because things were bad and those still there are hopeful and want to improve the organization.
- Get pretty good results early. People are motivated and inspired to achieve.
- Suggestions to improve things from motivated 'underlings' come in. They are politely "seriously considered"... but really ignored for the most part.
- Impatient 'underlings' leave as it starts to become clear that the freak won't listen. "Yes men" brought in to replace them, which helps stop the flow of questions and suggestions to the freak in charge.
- "Leaders" whose words are not fully under control of the freak are cut loose - or their lives are made so miserable that they don't want to be in the environment any more and leave on their own volition.
- The 'underlings' start shutting down their critical thinking. The more submissive have been beaten enough when they'd previously opened their mouth that they just go through their paces, making no fuss, doing only as told. No innovation, no adaptation, no inspiration - just more tight adherence to the freak's wishes. The "yes men" grate on many people's nerves.
- Eventually, the reality that the freak can't do it all and do it all well, starts to crash down on the freak. Fingerpointing erupts as the freak can't and won't believe that s/he is capable of doing anything wrong. Therefore, the problems must be because of crappy underlings! The freak starts to appear crazy(ier) because s/he is getting crazier.
- Blame game lasts as long as the freak is allowed to stay in control. Bunker mentality grows. Freak attempts to lure some people (often the "yes men") into his corner to help him/her fight the infidels, so in public there are a few loyalists who throw scapegoats under the bus while the resentment of others who just want to get their job done soars.
- Conclusion: Bottom falls out, resulting in organizational failure - or the freak and his/her bunker mates are replaced.
The Eagles need to fire Reid and his entire administration now. That way, the stockpiled picks for next year can be put to good use to rebuild. If you wait until after the season, it may take too long to prep for the draft.
And maybe we should think about hiring someone who isn't a nutbag as head coach.... just a suggestion...
Update Nov. 24, 2008 - 10:22
Former Eagles linebacker and Philly-based sports journalist Gary Cobb writes today that the answer to the question, 'who is calling the offensive plays for the Eagles' is a secret. Yes, a secret! G might as well point to my post here,specifically to point #6. If things were going well, it would surely not be a secret. Don't be surprised to hear that Reid will "take over" the play calling for Thanksgiving Day's game against the Cardinals.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Dean: Keeping Lieberman As Chairman Is Shrewd Move
Oh man, what a nauseating article at HuffingtonPost about Dean's love of the decision to keep lieberman in his chairman role for the next Congress. Many comments supported Dr. Dean, but they are not very logical, and in many cases, based on falsehoods. Some of my thread there.
OK bright-siders. Your arguments refuted:
- lieberman cannot do more damage by caucusing with Rs. He won't have ANY POWER over there. He can vote against cloture as an R or a Dem, so no difference there. But after being voted chairman, he controls the agenda of the HL committee and can't be removed without getting past a filibuster to adopt a Senate resolution. Meaning, lieberman has all the leverage to do whatever he wants to do for 2 years and Dems have NO POWER to keep him from undercutting progressive initiatives, enabling his chickenhawk agenda.
- Calling ouster "revenge" is wrong. It's pragmatic governance - something that still escapes our Dems in Congress. The chairs of important committees need to move on legislation that is in sync with the party's platform. lieberman has continuously maligned the platform, so why would you put someone in this position who'll actively oppose the platform that the country has demanded?!?! This is counter-productive.
- CT has NO Republicans in congress in 2009. Why would lieberman want to become the "new" one? How will that help his re-election bid? How will voting partyline with the Rs help lieberman? It would be self-defeating come reelection time, make him look petty, and give the next Dem candidate in CT a huge advantage over him.
- NO ONE can control what lieberman votes for or against. And no one ever should be able to control a vote in Congress - even for a joke like lieberman.
Further, he's always done whatever he wants. He's had no concern for what anyone in the party might do to him when he's lied on the campaign trail against Obama, carried water for the bush administration when they wanted someone to brand the Dems as pussies for opposing the imperial agenda, and created his own party after being told by CT Dems to get out. So the whole notion that he can be under control, appeased, or in any way convinced to 'tow the party line' has a mountain of anecdotal evidence that conclusively proves the inverse.
In short, there is NO GOOD REASON to have kept lieberman in his chairman role. Quit apologizing for it!
Received a comment:
winnie47 See Profile I'm a Fan of winnie47 permalink
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 11/18/2008
My reply:
Hey whiny, if you endanger your agenda, your values, and your ability to govern in order to set a tone, then you're unfit. Not to mention illogical, self-defeating, and clueless.
The POINT is to GOVERN. The POINT is to GET THE COUNTRY BACK on track. The POINT is to FIX a shattered government and country.
The POINT is to ACHIEVE. When you intentionally place impediments in the path, it is reprehensible and foolish. This isn't a tea cotillion, GENIUS, this is our COUNTRY! This is our FUTURE!
My reply:
Hey whiny, if you endanger your agenda, your values, and your ability to govern in order to set a tone, then you're unfit. Not to mention illogical, self-defeating, and clueless.
The POINT is to GOVERN. The POINT is to GET THE COUNTRY BACK on track. The POINT is to FIX a shattered government and country.
The POINT is to ACHIEVE. When you intentionally place impediments in the path, it is reprehensible and foolish. This isn't a tea cotillion, GENIUS, this is our COUNTRY! This is our FUTURE!
Another comment to me:
McChimp See Profile I'm a Fan of McChimp permalink
To refute your points:
1) 1. lieberman cannot do more damage by caucusing with Rs.
On the contrary, that's what Republicans were hoping for, they were hoping that they would take lieberman's chair away so he would caucus with the Republicans, the Dems keeping Lieberman just threw another monkey wrench into their plans.
2. Calling ouster "revenge" is wrong.
That's essentially what it would be, revenge for Lieberman campaigning for McCain, and President elect Obama said he isn't having any of it. He made it very clear he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Dem caucus, even if it meant keeping his chairmanship.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 11/18/2008
My reply:
Refutation requires some facts.
What would the Rs gain by having lieberman? No one in either party can force any member to vote yay or nay on any legislation, so it doesn't mean anything at face. I've already shown how joining the Rs HURTS lieberman. Now YOU have to list what the GAIN(s) is.
Obama never said he wanted lieberman chair of the homeland security committee. Your premise is false - provide proof otherwise. And if you DO have proof, then I submit that it concurrently serves as proof that Obama is using some very poor judgment. There will be a knife in his back from lieberman before the end of July 2009 - mark my words.
[Note that mcchimp posted another comment claiming that if lieberman didn't tow the line, Reid would just kick him out. As mentioned before, this is false, as evinced here and elsewhere, proving that people in love with this solution are easily duped. Sad.]
My reply:
Refutation requires some facts.
What would the Rs gain by having lieberman? No one in either party can force any member to vote yay or nay on any legislation, so it doesn't mean anything at face. I've already shown how joining the Rs HURTS lieberman. Now YOU have to list what the GAIN(s) is.
Obama never said he wanted lieberman chair of the homeland security committee. Your premise is false - provide proof otherwise. And if you DO have proof, then I submit that it concurrently serves as proof that Obama is using some very poor judgment. There will be a knife in his back from lieberman before the end of July 2009 - mark my words.
[Note that mcchimp posted another comment claiming that if lieberman didn't tow the line, Reid would just kick him out. As mentioned before, this is false, as evinced here and elsewhere, proving that people in love with this solution are easily duped. Sad.]
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Lieberman's Fate Looks Brighter By The Day
Nice article at HuffPo on what Dems will do with lieberman this week. And the comments to the post have turned back to the primary-season silliness that irks the hell out of me. So many people take a look at 20% of the picture and makes a conclusion that fails to address the whole problem - and the lieberman situation is no different.
This clown's history speaks for itself. He's a shameless, selfish stooge with the moral fiber of a neocon.
I see many at HuffPo waxing philosophic about 'keeping your enemy closer,' but the reality of the situation is this: he's NOT GONNA CHANGE!
When Obama announces plans to start drawing down troops in Iraq, lieberman will be on fux news for weeks, feeding the beast. After the first couple partyline votes in the Senate, lieberman will be on fux news for weeks, denigrating Dems and Obama's ability to bring change while casting no aspersion at all toward his true soul mates across the aisle. There will be other issues, too.
Why? Because he LOVES the ATTENTION.
What will it get him? Probably nothing as the Iraq draw-downs will be almost complete when his reelection bid comes up and he should lose his seat in the Senate (unless CT's still snoozing). His only hope for reelection is to go along with Obama as much as possible. He'll HAVE to do that regardless of whether or not he chairs any committee.
This is an important key to the whole issue. "Palling around with Rs" won't help his reelection bid. He has to get in line with progressive and constructive efforts in the Senate. If he's the guy who votes to keep bills from going to the floor for votes, he is absolutely, positively toast.
In short, lieberman needs the Democratic party more than the Dems need lieberman - period.
If you were running against the man in a few years, wouldn't you trot out snippets of his speech in ads to show the inanity of his "bi-partisanship?" He's not bipartisan.... he's an obnoxious, grand-standing clown that gets off by tail-gunning people on both sides of the aisle. That's not bipartisanship... it's being an insufferable, self-aggrandizing ass. BIG difference.
What will it get the Dems in the Senate? Well, the public might care if Dems toss him out if he did nothing. They could be brought to think of Dems as being spiteful if that were the case. BUT the guy spoke against Obama at the R convention! HELLO!!!!! This is way beyond the point of being 'spiteful' or 'collegial.' It's at a point where you're starting to look stupid if you put any faith in the man to do anything ethically.
Reinstating the man FURTHERS the perception that Dems are spineless.... which is hard to refute in this case. Dems have ALL the leverage here and they cave - typical.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Idiot Meter Going off the Chart
Driving for 6 hours gives you time to think, relax (depending where you are, I guess), and listen to radio. I tuned into NPR in Norfolk, VA this morning. The host of the particular show that jacked me up had "Dean Don" on the show.
Dean Don is a dick.
Why would I say such a mean, nasty thing? Because I'm sick of these pundits. And even more, I'm sick of pundits who are "professors" at colleges (Dick Don noted "... several of my students interned for Thelma Drake over the years..." - Thelma just lost her re-election bid to Democrat Glenn Nye) and are idiots.
It's not just Dick Don. There are many, many others like Dick Don who infuriate me with their stupidity. Don was very cordial and genteel. He gave effusive praise to Obama and others for their campaigns, albeit speaking from a decidedly Republican perspective. So here's my rant on the specific issues with Donnie Boy.
Declaration of Idiocy #1.
"We have 'payback time' now and that's why the decision to bring in Rahm Emmanuel to be Chief of Staff is so good." (Not a direct quote - paraphrasing his words.)
"Payback time"?! What the f**k are you talking about?! Don clarifies, 'All the groups will want to get their return - black groups, MoveOn, and others will start pressuring Obama and he'll need to deliver.'
This is where I realized that Dick Don is a Republican. He must know the, well, "relationship" between the Republican party at national levels and the large evangelical groups. And he assumes that the Democratic Party must also follow the same disastrous rules of engagement embraced by the Republican Party. We know the Clintons rewarded big donors with nights in the Lincoln bedroom among other things. We hear he even helped create K-street. But as far as deep, organizational bonding, joint strategizing/mobilization, and power-brokering goes - I'm sorry to break the news to you, the Democratic party just isn't as structurally immoral enough to engage in that sort of symbiosis.
Declaration of Idiocy #2.
When asked to convey his observations on the losses incurred by the Republican Party in this last election, he summarized by saying, "They have to learn that the country must be ruled from the 'Center.' Reagan ruled from the 'Center-Right.' I expect Obama will do well because he will rule from the 'Center-Left.'" He very introspectively added, "The country is not at the extreme right nor the extreme left."
Wow! Sounds magnanimous and brilliantly pundity, no?
But I have one question - where, or more accurately, what, the f**k is 'ruling from the Center-Left?'
If Obama keeps the Faith Ministry cabinet post, which is about as 'extreme right' a symbol as there is in the cabinet, is he ruling from the extreme right? Is that "rightness" a temporary thing? Is it perpetual? Are there degrees of that "rightness"?
If he advocates for single-payer health care, is he ruling from the radical left if he announces an endorsement of the concept? Who decided that single-payer health care for all is "left," anyway? Based on what criteria?! We have a single-payer military which protects the wealthy tax-payers just as well as the poor ones, but I've never heard the military called "hard left," have you?!
Who makes that subjective assessment of where Obama is ruling?
Or maybe we really can be objective in the assessment. I suppose he can get some sort of "grade" on a scale for each decision which gets averaged in with all the grades assigned to all his decisions?? But then we still have to pick who gives the grades! Darn! How can we do this, Professor Don?!?!
Here's the reality. There is no such thing as "center-right" or "center-left". You surely know that. You HAVE to know that. If you don't, you're a moron.
These places are one of only two things: pure intellectual dishonesty; or intellectual laziness.
Intellectual laziness is certainly ground zero for many members of the Republican party (around 64%, apparently). How else can you explain why millions of people can completely ignore Sara Palin's guilt of violating state ethics laws after an investigation led by 10 Alaskan Republicans and 4 Alaskan Democrats, while decrying "partisan politics" at the heart of the investigation? I rest my case.
So clearly, this could be Don's excuse. But since uniquely Republican bilge like "he's the most liberal Senator in Congress..." is the sort of slop that the unwashed rank-and-file Republican loyalists ravenously devour, I think it's the former. It's just another labeling scam that will be trotted out at some later date in order to paint Obama as some radical, deviating from some smart-sounding advice from brainiacs like Don.
More specifically, saying crap like "ruling from the center-left" is an admission of stupidity - either of the speaker or of the audience (or both). This phrase is just a label. "Moderate." "Liberal." "Cracker."
It's a stupid label because there are many, many policy decisions that have to be made and trying to summarize the whole of those policies into a term is unjust and illogical. As a simple example, Obama can push to spend more for something he believes will pay big dividends in the future. Two people could very likely, with equal accuracy and veracity, prove that Obama is concurrently very "conservative" and very "liberal."
As an analogy to this ridiculous concept of "center", I offer our stupid Homeland Security color codes. They do nothing. They tell us nothing. One day you could be yellow, the next orange. What does it mean? Should we all be accosting strangers on the street today if they're carrying a briefcase? Are there going to be scary people running around transportation centers that we should be concerned about?
It's just a stupid label to allow political hacks to jack people's heart rates up. They are used to prove that the Homeland Security department is working hard and doing really smart things. Because that's the only thing those codes can do. I defy anyone to prove differently.
These terms "center-left" and the rest are the same thing - chaff spewed by asshats like Dean Don to prove that he's a big-time smarty-pants, keeping tabs on how Obama's doing - while reserving the right to unfurl his later declarations that "Obama's gone to the 'left-center-left'" to spin up the Republican lemmings into a frothing stew.
Declaration of Idiocy #3.
Among his praise-gushing, were excesses that already sounded disingenuous. Calling Hillary Clinton a "brilliant legislator," followed up by an identical hailing of John McCain as a "brilliant legislator." Obama isn't a brilliant legislator - but he was tagged as a "brilliant executive." Wow, huh?!
But the one that tripped the fail-switch on the 'Giggle-Test' was when Don said, "Sarah Palin is brilliant."
Amazing. The woman who wiffle-ball thrower Katie Couric turned into a pretzel is, "brilliant."
Cheapens the other compliments just a tad, doesn't it????
Dean Don... I'm holding up one of my hand's 5 fingers... guess which one it is: extreme left, extreme right, center-left, center-right, or center?
Dean Don is a dick.
Why would I say such a mean, nasty thing? Because I'm sick of these pundits. And even more, I'm sick of pundits who are "professors" at colleges (Dick Don noted "... several of my students interned for Thelma Drake over the years..." - Thelma just lost her re-election bid to Democrat Glenn Nye) and are idiots.
It's not just Dick Don. There are many, many others like Dick Don who infuriate me with their stupidity. Don was very cordial and genteel. He gave effusive praise to Obama and others for their campaigns, albeit speaking from a decidedly Republican perspective. So here's my rant on the specific issues with Donnie Boy.
Declaration of Idiocy #1.
"We have 'payback time' now and that's why the decision to bring in Rahm Emmanuel to be Chief of Staff is so good." (Not a direct quote - paraphrasing his words.)
"Payback time"?! What the f**k are you talking about?! Don clarifies, 'All the groups will want to get their return - black groups, MoveOn, and others will start pressuring Obama and he'll need to deliver.'
This is where I realized that Dick Don is a Republican. He must know the, well, "relationship" between the Republican party at national levels and the large evangelical groups. And he assumes that the Democratic Party must also follow the same disastrous rules of engagement embraced by the Republican Party. We know the Clintons rewarded big donors with nights in the Lincoln bedroom among other things. We hear he even helped create K-street. But as far as deep, organizational bonding, joint strategizing/mobilization, and power-brokering goes - I'm sorry to break the news to you, the Democratic party just isn't as structurally immoral enough to engage in that sort of symbiosis.
Declaration of Idiocy #2.
When asked to convey his observations on the losses incurred by the Republican Party in this last election, he summarized by saying, "They have to learn that the country must be ruled from the 'Center.' Reagan ruled from the 'Center-Right.' I expect Obama will do well because he will rule from the 'Center-Left.'" He very introspectively added, "The country is not at the extreme right nor the extreme left."
Wow! Sounds magnanimous and brilliantly pundity, no?
But I have one question - where, or more accurately, what, the f**k is 'ruling from the Center-Left?'
If Obama keeps the Faith Ministry cabinet post, which is about as 'extreme right' a symbol as there is in the cabinet, is he ruling from the extreme right? Is that "rightness" a temporary thing? Is it perpetual? Are there degrees of that "rightness"?
If he advocates for single-payer health care, is he ruling from the radical left if he announces an endorsement of the concept? Who decided that single-payer health care for all is "left," anyway? Based on what criteria?! We have a single-payer military which protects the wealthy tax-payers just as well as the poor ones, but I've never heard the military called "hard left," have you?!
Who makes that subjective assessment of where Obama is ruling?
Or maybe we really can be objective in the assessment. I suppose he can get some sort of "grade" on a scale for each decision which gets averaged in with all the grades assigned to all his decisions?? But then we still have to pick who gives the grades! Darn! How can we do this, Professor Don?!?!
Here's the reality. There is no such thing as "center-right" or "center-left". You surely know that. You HAVE to know that. If you don't, you're a moron.
These places are one of only two things: pure intellectual dishonesty; or intellectual laziness.
Intellectual laziness is certainly ground zero for many members of the Republican party (around 64%, apparently). How else can you explain why millions of people can completely ignore Sara Palin's guilt of violating state ethics laws after an investigation led by 10 Alaskan Republicans and 4 Alaskan Democrats, while decrying "partisan politics" at the heart of the investigation? I rest my case.
So clearly, this could be Don's excuse. But since uniquely Republican bilge like "he's the most liberal Senator in Congress..." is the sort of slop that the unwashed rank-and-file Republican loyalists ravenously devour, I think it's the former. It's just another labeling scam that will be trotted out at some later date in order to paint Obama as some radical, deviating from some smart-sounding advice from brainiacs like Don.
More specifically, saying crap like "ruling from the center-left" is an admission of stupidity - either of the speaker or of the audience (or both). This phrase is just a label. "Moderate." "Liberal." "Cracker."
It's a stupid label because there are many, many policy decisions that have to be made and trying to summarize the whole of those policies into a term is unjust and illogical. As a simple example, Obama can push to spend more for something he believes will pay big dividends in the future. Two people could very likely, with equal accuracy and veracity, prove that Obama is concurrently very "conservative" and very "liberal."
As an analogy to this ridiculous concept of "center", I offer our stupid Homeland Security color codes. They do nothing. They tell us nothing. One day you could be yellow, the next orange. What does it mean? Should we all be accosting strangers on the street today if they're carrying a briefcase? Are there going to be scary people running around transportation centers that we should be concerned about?
It's just a stupid label to allow political hacks to jack people's heart rates up. They are used to prove that the Homeland Security department is working hard and doing really smart things. Because that's the only thing those codes can do. I defy anyone to prove differently.
These terms "center-left" and the rest are the same thing - chaff spewed by asshats like Dean Don to prove that he's a big-time smarty-pants, keeping tabs on how Obama's doing - while reserving the right to unfurl his later declarations that "Obama's gone to the 'left-center-left'" to spin up the Republican lemmings into a frothing stew.
Declaration of Idiocy #3.
Among his praise-gushing, were excesses that already sounded disingenuous. Calling Hillary Clinton a "brilliant legislator," followed up by an identical hailing of John McCain as a "brilliant legislator." Obama isn't a brilliant legislator - but he was tagged as a "brilliant executive." Wow, huh?!
But the one that tripped the fail-switch on the 'Giggle-Test' was when Don said, "Sarah Palin is brilliant."
Amazing. The woman who wiffle-ball thrower Katie Couric turned into a pretzel is, "brilliant."
Cheapens the other compliments just a tad, doesn't it????
Dean Don... I'm holding up one of my hand's 5 fingers... guess which one it is: extreme left, extreme right, center-left, center-right, or center?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama Victory Speech - VIDEO, TEXT
Halle-f***ing-lujah!
The world has changed in less than 20 hours... my faith in humanity is restored. Can't be happier...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
NOT THE POINT, genius. It's not how much power he has. It's not about revenge. It's not about rubbing his nose in it. The point is to set a new tone in Washington, instead of descending into the pit that the Rethugs have governed from for the last eight years.