HULK SMASH
i feel so sorry for you, atrios. i can only imagine what your mailbox must be like. but of course, when did the truth ever matter to the wingnuts? just look at all the misquoting of clinton our trolls post on the subject.
If being wrong gets them off then Glenn Reynolds is the horniest man that ever lived.
Which makes "The Corner" pretty much the world's worst key-party.
OT:
snarky answers to snark letters.
Don't think of it as "being wrong," Atrios. Think of it as "lying." Then it all makes perfect sense.
At Kevin Drum's:
After telling his audience that free speech has its limits — "I can't subject my audience to irresponsible ravings," he said, apparently without a trace of irony — O'Reilly declared that Churchill didn't deserve to be an American citizen and then suggested that he should be arrested for sedition.
Um, 'zit my browser or does this post lack a headline?
CD, thanks for the heads-up below... now there are two posts up, top one headlined Wanker of the Day - Director's Cut.
Brit Hume wouldn't lie
He's always been a religious guy
He makes good use of Jesus' name
when I bone him at the downtown Y
They get off on it because it re-affirms their victim status. When they are corrected, they feel really stupid and furious at their own ignorance. But because they're wingnuts, they impulsively lash out again (instead of getting their asses to, say, a library). Then, they're proved wrong again. And then they feel furious at their own ignorance...again.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
They don't care if they're wrong, Atrios. After all, they're getting paid. There is a reason lowlifes like Brit Hume and the rest of the feces flinging monkey brigade are called media whores. That's what makes them so reprensible; they KNOW what they're saying is total bullshit, but they don't care because they get their paychecks whether they get called on their bullshit or not (as evidenced by Annthrax Coulters stunning performance on Canadian TV last week) At least the NAZI propagandists actually BELIEVED in what they were doing;these guys and gals just go home and gear up for another day of spouting the next load of Bush regime talking points.
Speaking of being wrong, please don't miss Juan Cole's smackdown of Baby-Faced Jonah.
Truly a thing of beauty.
Good 'ole K.Lo is one of the culprits at The Corner. I think we should take some of the statements she has made completely out of context to show what a true liberal she is.
Like this:
She actually said: [K. J. Lopez]
I’m pretty much afraid at this point to read anything they publish on the president’s Social Security plan.
And we change it to this: I’m pretty much afraid at this point of the president’s Social Security plan.
Works for me...
Oh come on! Truth is so 20th century, get with the times people.
The Brit Humes and Tim Russerts aren't journalists, they're wallpaper salesman.
So Harry Reid said something 6 years ago. Good then, according to the wingnuts we don't have any kind of debate on facts, we can just point to a wingnut fantasy about what Harry Reid said and the debate is over. Sheesh.
Reading is hard.
I think that these people never grow up. They use arguments that children use to deny reality. Bill O'Reilly gets paid a lot of money to indulge in childish whining, his viewers get to indulge in imaginary victim hood. It would be pathetic if these overgrown children didn't have so much political power.
There's like a zillion new threads up there. Somebody, wrestle that triple espresso out of our host's hands! 
Don't think of it as "being wrong," Atrios. Think of it as "lying." Then it all makes perfect sense.
--Matt Davis
Exactly. Brown staters think of it as getting caught in a lie. Oh well.
Honesty is for weenies.
Never apologize for anything.
--Riesz
Bush's phase out plan is Catfood Conservatism. Simple as that. And that's a term Howard Dean needs to use.
feeling guilty about spreading disinformation requires acknowledging that there is a world external to the individual and that the individual has moral responsibilities to that external world . . . and you say that the plutocrats passing themselves off as conservatives these days are less likely to worry about these sorts of things? I'm shocked.
Jesus= supply side economics= warhawk= man cannot serve two masters= privatize= 46 percent benefit cut= 4.5 trillion in borrowing= syria= iran= sistani turning iraq into theocracy= fdr wanted to privatize
If you could lie your ass of without losing sleep, you'd be by definition a republican. It's sorta a job qualification/prerequisite with them.
You imagine a political scene in which repugnats are people with their own worldview that just happens to differ from yours. You can respect that, even if you don't feel the same way personally. And yer open minded and think there is not only a place for both sides, but a Necessity for both sides for a society to function in a healthy fashion.
But they see you as reprehensible, wrong and even worse, a chump they know is easily rolled. They got the best of both worlds.
Let's shore up SocSec by taking the 2+ BILLION dollars annually that we give to Israel and put that in a trust fund... and the money we give to Uzbekistan too.
===================================
They're not wrong.. How could they be wrong? They're on the right side of history, just like Lenin was.
You feel awful when you're wrong, Atrios - because it causes trouble for other folks who depend on you. And if that isn't just the sweetest, bestest, ethically sound and morally straight reaction there ever was, then I'm not Arthur's person.
"I've been getting tons of monkey mail lately "
It amazes me that they can write.
"(as evidenced by Annthrax Coulters stunning performance on Canadian TV last week) "
So nice to see that cunt get taken down.
Haloscan has gone fucking nuts again.
I'm really fed up with pud-nit imbeciles whining how Bush's Social Security plan is just too complicated to understand.
I'll explain it for them in the simplest terms:
One of the greatest of American presidents gave the country one of the most successful and beneficial programs of any government in history.
One of America's worst presidents is intent on destroying it.
See. It's not complicated at all.
"They get off on it because it re-affirms their victim status. When they are corrected, they feel really stupid and furious at their own ignorance. But because they're wingnuts, they impulsively lash out again (instead of getting their asses to, say, a library). Then, they're proved wrong again. And then they feel furious at their own ignorance...again.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Republicans Suck. "
That's why the trolls come on here and try to act, oh so, tough.
They know how dumb they are...how nothing their lives are (and are delusional enough to think Bush & Co. gives a rat's ass about the likes of them).
So they venture onto sites like this and try to act like bad-asses...as if Preznit Jerkoff's action validate their existence.
Pathetic!
"One of the greatest of American presidents gave the country one of the most successful and beneficial programs of any government in history.
One of America's worst presidents is intent on destroying it."
What do you mean ONE of the worst?
Bush is THE absolute bottom of the barrel....the pits!
"But, for some reason these people never get tired of being wrong. They must really get off on it."
that's it exactly - 5 year olds...see what they can get away with. Just make up shit and see what happens.
.
Now let's see, who was it who said "I was proved fucking right"? You see, even when they're wrong, they're right--it's their due to remake reality as they choose.
So the issue of being wrong never comes up.
I'll never forget the political ads run by John Ashcroft here in Flyover MO with their promises of a Social Security "lockbox".
ha ha
Does that phrase trigger any dark-humorish laughter in you as it did in me?
These people are killers. They don't care what they have to say to seize and keep power. They are thugs, liars, killers and not to be trusted no matter what they say--thank you for reminding us nightly, Mike Malloy.
This is my four-year's-worth of education in observing the term of the Smirk. There is no other conclusion, and I'm sure I'm preachin' to the choir.
if bein' wrong feels (aka pays) so good I don't want to be right
-Armstrong Shilliams
Maggie GallagWhore et al
But, for some reason these people never get tired of being wrong. They must really get off on it.
"Say," said the bear, "you ain't here for the shootin', are you?"
What do you mean ONE of the worst?
In my opinion, he's certainly the worst in my lifetime (and having lived through Reagan, that's saying something), and he certainly looks like the worst we've ever had. But since I'm no expert on say, James Polk, Calvin Coolidge, and most of the others, I left it unresolved.
"They are wallpaper salesmen."
Good thing I wasn't drinking milk when I read that one, cs...dry. Very dry. And I love dry.
Another Bruce, excellent analogy and reduction. Childhood reality...wow. Right on it.
Catfood Conservatism sums it up, too, pseud-dude.
Excellent equations, jr, I think you got that from a float chart out of the Oval Office.
jdw, I think I'm going to steal your post. The only way the Dems are going to grow a pair and stand up and stop this madness is when they realize what you've written here.
We're just bums, being rolled because we roll over and TAKE it. Something like that. Yours was better.
My quickie thirty-second threadpost critic's corner review is now UP!
Later.
Porrofatto, you remind me of the trip I took to the library last week.
I picked up a copy of The Smithsonian magazine at the table where they sell books and stuff real cheap. I paid 25 cents for that magazine, and only because it had the following headline ON THE COVER:
James Buchanan: Worst President of all time?
I wanted to read that article VERY BADLY, for the most obvious of reasons. I have nearly searched every page (not quite) and the table of contents (completely) and I have not found the fucking article I paid 25 cents for, and I'm pissed.
The last place I have to look is in each and every letter to the editor. Maybe the story is in ONE OF THEM.
One of Life's Little Failures, to paraphrase my good friend Keef.
...for some reason these people never get tired of being wrong. They must really get off on it.
I don't think it's so much that they get off on that they're wrong, but that they're getting away with it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
They must really get off on it.
Just keep repeating it over and over until it finally sinks in. This is the final horrible truth. It's true.
They're getting away with it, and THAT'S very exciting.
For THEM.
They're the Borg. If the queen tells them to say it, they say it.
James Buchanan: Worst President of all time?
Not anymore, he isn't. I've come round to pie's opinion. George W. Bush for actual number of people killed, maimed, blighted, enviornmental ruin, destroyed educational system, impoverished people, destroyed infractructure, criminals appointed, criminals promoted, money looted, very likely antiquities looted,...
James Buchanan was a pig and he was irresponsible but he's nothing compared to Babbs and Poppy's boy. He's sui generis. Till they get Jeb in, that is.
I don't think Jeb would be as bad. I don't have a good handle on just how evil he is, but I'm pretty sure he's a lot smarter than Dubya, and I think he takes the responsibilities of government a little bit more seriously (i.e., not like a little kid playing dress-up make-believe pretend).
I don't think *anyone* comes even close to Bush as worst president of all time. I can't think of anyone else who charged so determinedly headlong into the abyss in so many different directions, or had the same lethal combination of incompetence, hubris, corruption, and general immorality.
Daddy-O
The Smithsonian article you mentioned (pdf file link here) isn’t really about what the cover teased, so you didn’t miss much. It’s more of a comparison of Buchanan to Thaddeus Stevens than to other presidents.
It's heartbreaking to see one's beloved country being destroyed by the right wing...and given the Mighty Wurlitzer propaganda machine and Plan B (i.e., Diebold), there's little that those who love American democracy can do about it.
I don't think Jeb would be as bad. I don't have a good handle on just how evil he is, but I'm pretty sure he's a lot smarter than Dubya, and I think he takes the responsibilities of government a little bit more seriously (i.e., not like a little kid playing dress-up make-believe pretend).
In many ways Jeb would be even worse. Remember, in tbe Bush Crime Family, Shrub is Fredo...and Jeb is Michael.
I would rather have AH-nuld than Jeb...and that's not saying much!
At least Maria can keep a tight rein on AH-nuld.
Besides, he's pro-choice.
You're *sure* George isn't Sonny?
Yeah, Neil is Fredo.
I'd rather have Ah-nold than Jeb, too. I'd rather have roadkill as preznit than Jeb Bush. I don't want another Bush to get any where near the WH for the rest of my life.
Jeb is awful. He cares for our government and our rights about as much as my cat does. He stole the fucking 2000 election for his brother and generally acts like the mafioso he is.
Jeb is awful. He cares for our government and our rights about as much as my cat does.
Hope you'd have a cat like that altered, Tena. If only his wife,.... Whatever happened to Lorena Bobbit anyway?
I'm with Tena.
No More Bushes in the White House.
Ever.
Atrios, I don't know why you think they care, it's about their side getting power and advancing their agenda.
Don't bother projecting your own values onto them. If you spent years becoming knowledgeable in a field and are used to being held accountable for your writing by other knowledgeable people, they're certainly not.
These guys know there's no such accountability for them, the solons of the mainstream press are either cowed or just plain ignorant.
Bush is THE absolute bottom of the barrel....the pits!
Terry C, I'd say Ulysses S. Grant and Richard Nixon can FINALLY rest in peace. The sheer enormity of the corruption in the Bush regime makes both those Administrations look like they were composed of a bunch of Boy Scouts. Staggers the imagination, doesn't it??
Jeb is awful.
Tena, I live in Florida and Jeb is chiefly responsible for turning the entire state into something resembling a Third World Country. The GOP runs everything here, and the few Democrats in office are pathetic "moderates" a la Joe Lieberman. Jeb in 2008 - I can't help but hope that even the GOP will get tired of seeing the Bush name on the political scene by then.
But they are NOT wrong. The facts may not support their claims, but that does not mean they are wrong.
They are RIGHT on all the issues, right in idealogy, so the facts must be wrong.
Brit Hume's gay son Sandy blew his head off the day he was offered a top job at US News & World Report. Hume must have been a great daddy.
Let's not forget that part.
Aside from being wrong about Reid, Hume is also wrong about FDR. The Fox item about FDR supposedly supporting "private investment accounts" is a blatant falsification of what FDR actually proposed.
FDR's proposal of "voluntary contributory annuities" was for insurance-type annuities, to be issued and guaranteed by the government. Income from this program "would go into the trust fund along with the payroll taxes collected under the mandatory program." This is clearly explained here
FDR's proposed "voluntary contributory annuities" are not "personal investment accounts." Money in the former is held by the government and represents a guaranteed benefit. Money in the latter is held by Wall Street. If the chosen investment vehicle is equities, there are no guarantees whatsoever.
In other words, FDR proposed allowing workers to voluntarily increase the size of their government-guaranteed retirement account. Bush's proposal, on the other hand, is to decrease the size of the government-guaranteed retirement account, and instead entrust the money to Wall Street. The two proposals are diametrically opposed. Yet Fox treats them as equivalent, and claims that FDR supported Bush-style "private investment accounts." That's false.
The fact that Fox, Bill Bennett and Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") et al are blithely parroting this nonsense says a lot about how the right-wing media machine works.
BTW, Glenn's recent "update" claiming FDR was promoting "a sort of government-supplied 401k plan" is complete baloney. 401k money is typically invested in the private sector. Invoking the idea of 401k is simply a restatement of Glenn's original falsehood, that FDR supported taking SS money and "putting it into the private sector." He did no such thing.
You know wingnuts are on the edge of meltdown when they resort to "Clinton said...". We saw the same thing on WMDs. These guys are freaking, the whole world they know, the one where rugged individualists look down on foolish people who rely on collective solutions, is rocked to its core by a fully funded Social Security system.
But they are no longer denying the facts. The beauty of this current battle is that we can win either way. We can make the nuanced argument that based on the numbers available at the time Clinton and Gore were justified in using the language and policy suggestions they deployed. Or we can simply agree "Clinton was wrong, what's your point?"
Piratizer/wingnuts are thrashing. It is perfectly true that until recent months the vast majority of Americans left and right believed that Social Security was going broke, and why would they not? That was literally all you ever heard in every op/ed or story on Social Security written by just about anyone whose name wasn't Baker or Weisbrot. None of which changes a single figure in any table or any line on a single chart in the Social Security Trustees Reports.
Numbers are bitches. And right now they are our bitches.
Got Numbers
Aside from being wrong about Reid, Hume is also wrong about FDR. The Fox item about FDR supposedly supporting "private investment accounts" is a blatant falsification of what FDR actually proposed.
FDR's proposal of "voluntary contributory annuities" was for insurance-type annuities, to be issued and guaranteed by the government. Income from this program "would go into the trust fund along with the payroll taxes collected under the mandatory program." This is clearly explained here
FDR's proposed "voluntary contributory annuities" are not "personal investment accounts." Money in the former is held by the government and represents a guaranteed benefit. Money in the latter is held by Wall Street. If the chosen investment vehicle is equities, there are no guarantees whatsoever.
In other words, FDR proposed allowing workers to voluntarily increase the size of their government-guaranteed retirement account. Bush's proposal, on the other hand, is to decrease the size of the government-guaranteed retirement account, and instead entrust the money to Wall Street. The two proposals are diametrically opposed. Yet Fox treats them as equivalent, and claims that FDR supported Bush-style "private investment accounts." That's false.
The fact that Fox, Bill Bennett and Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") et al are blithely parroting this nonsense says a lot about how the right-wing media machine works.
BTW, Glenn's recent "update" claiming FDR was promoting "a sort of government-supplied 401k plan" is complete baloney. 401k money is typically invested in the private sector. Invoking the idea of 401k is simply a restatement of Glenn's original falsehood, that FDR supported taking SS money and "putting it into the private sector." He did no such thing.
Aside from being wrong about Reid, Hume is also wrong about FDR. The Fox item about FDR supposedly supporting "private investment accounts" is a blatant falsification of what FDR actually proposed.
FDR's proposal of "voluntary contributory annuities" was for insurance-type annuities, to be issued and guaranteed by the government. Income from this program "would go into the trust fund along with the payroll taxes collected under the mandatory program." This is clearly explained here
FDR's proposed "voluntary contributory annuities" are not "personal investment accounts." Money in the former is held by the government and represents a guaranteed benefit. Money in the latter is held by Wall Street. If the chosen investment vehicle is equities, there are no guarantees whatsoever.
In other words, FDR proposed allowing workers to voluntarily increase the size of their government-guaranteed retirement account. Bush's proposal, on the other hand, is to decrease the size of the government-guaranteed retirement account, and instead entrust the money to Wall Street. The two proposals are diametrically opposed. Yet Fox treats them as equivalent, and claims that FDR supported Bush-style "private investment accounts." That's false.
The fact that Fox, Bill Bennett and Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") et al are blithely parroting this nonsense says a lot about how the right-wing media machine works.
BTW, Glenn's recent "update" claiming FDR was promoting "a sort of government-supplied 401k plan" is complete baloney. 401k money is typically invested in the private sector. Invoking the idea of 401k is simply a restatement of Glenn's original falsehood, that FDR supported taking SS money and "putting it into the private sector." He did no such thing.
USofA: "OW! what's going on back there?"
Neo-Con henchman: "Nothing...
U: "Are you sodomizing me?"
H: "nope. I'm paving the way for a brighter tomorrow!"
U: "Sure feels like your sodomizing me."
H: "Freedom is sometimes painful."
U: "Could I at least get a reach around?"
H: "No! That would be immoral!"
Oops, sorry about those annoying dupes. Darn Haloscan. I think I know how to avoid the bug now.
I've had an epiphany and I want to share it. The Right we're fighting has a mind-set very like the White Supremacist movement (let's call them the Right Supremacists). Yes, that makes us the niggers. Everything they do is right because they do it and they're Right. Their "enemies" are mud. They like moderate Democrats the way the Klan likes light skin. These people won't give up this mindset easily; their entire self-worth is now wrapped in it.
133 Visitors Online
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
