...and he's probably still more "fair and balanced" than Fox News

/just starting this off right

*yawn*

NOW you understand the mirth with which we watched FoxNews for the past 8 years

Whamdangler: NOW you understand the mirth with which we watched FoxNews for the past 8 years

"Mirth" is not the descriptor that leaps to mind.

Stop giving speeches and put Franken in office, you cock!

And "tyranny??" You guys really do that extremist rhetoric is going to help you, don't you?

Lionel Mandrake: Stop giving speeches and put Franken in office, you cock!

And "tyranny??" You guys really do that extremist rhetoric is going to help you, don't you?

I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

The problem with Republicans accusing the Democrats of "socialism", "tyranny", etc. is not that it's necessarily untrue. That depends on how broadly you define your terms. The problem is that any definition broad enough to include Obama also has to include Bush.

As usual, the problem is not that the party out of power is wrong per se. It's that they're hypocritical.

Churchill2004: I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

yeah well you're overlooking one small thing. BUSH HAS WRECKED THIS COUNTRY

Hobodeluxe: Churchill2004: I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

yeah well you're overlooking one small thing. BUSH HAS WRECKED THIS COUNTRY

And for the most part Obama is on the exact same path. A little tweaking around the edges to satisfy the partisans, but the core of American government policy doesn't really change from one administration to the next.

What's the difference between Bush and Obama?

Obama is a a better salesman.

Churchill2004: I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

Hey - where you been, man? The libertarians have seemingly disappeared on these boards. Good to see you here again.

DamnYankees: Churchill2004: I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

Hey - where you been, man? The libertarians have seemingly disappeared on these boards. Good to see you here again.

I pop in every now and then. I've floated towards more libertarian-minded political sites. Intra-libertarian disputes can be as fascinating and heated as the liberal-libertarian debate, which is mostly what I get on fark.

Good thing to. He just got Bush's out of his mouth.

Churchill2004: I dunno, [extremist rhetoric] worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

So Democrats saying mean things on blogs made Bush unpopular.

TofuTheAlmighty: Churchill2004: I dunno, [extremist rhetoric] worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

So Democrats saying mean things on blogs made Bush unpopular.

No, but their use of "Bush is a tyrant"-type rhetoric didn't harm them any.

That gave me a tingle shooting up my leg.

Churchill2004: TofuTheAlmighty: Churchill2004: I dunno, [extremist rhetoric] worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

So Democrats saying mean things on blogs made Bush unpopular.

No, but their use of "Bush is a tyrant"-type rhetoric didn't harm them any.

When clearly Bush was the Zaphod Beeblbrox of the administration, and Cheney was the tyrant.

/he shot a guy in the face, and the guy apologized, what else do you want?

Does Keith Olbermann know?

/Keith will have to share the spooge

Churchill2004: No, but their use of "Bush is a tyrant"-type rhetoric didn't harm them any.

Maybe because there were some truth in that? The thing the freeper party doesn't have the capacity to comprehend is Obama speaks like Reagan, his domestic policy are similar to LBJ and Roosevelt, while his foreign policy is close to George H.W. Bush.

All this nonsense that Obama is a socialist, mustard eating, thin moustache muslin is doing them more harm than good, but they are just too stupid to realize it.

Anyways why is this douche talking, doesn't he have an open Senate seat he needs to fill?

vabeard: Does Keith Olbermann know?

/Keith will have to share the spooge

please, Olbermann has taken Obama to task many times more than this douche has when Bush was the leader of his worthless party.

MuadDib: Whamdangler: NOW you understand the mirth with which we watched FoxNews for the past 8 years

"Mirth" is not the descriptor that leaps to mind.

Yeah. Wasn't for most of us either.

Has Matthews called the president out on anything? I know Olbermann has, which kinds of surprises me. It seems to me that left wing biased commentators are often ideologues. They definitely see things in terms of a certain ideology, but it isn't partisan. They will usually criticize whoever fails to follow their ideology. Right wing commentators, though they obviously play ideologues, are usually more partisan in nature. The bias comes not from a preconceived set of ideas about governance, but from a loyalty to the party.

It's interesting that that is the case. Though there are some exceptions, Al Franken is pretty partisan for instance, but I think overall on the partisanship vs. ideology scale conservative commentators average out pretty partisan and liberal ones average out ideologues.

SeismicJizzer: Maybe because there were some truth in that?

And there's some truth in it when the charge is leveled at Obama's anschluss between the federal government and GM, to pick just one example where Obama is undeniably pushing the envelope in some direction.

I thought Pawlenty would have an interesting test coming up when the Minnesota supreme court rules against Norm Coleman, but it doesn't look like the Republicans have enough steam to push for a US supreme court fight, and so Pawlenty will go ahead and certify Al Franken.

If the issue were still nice and hot, his certification might have upset enough 26%ers to hurt Pawlenty's chance to lose to Obama in 2012. As I read the situation today, it's not going to generate any friendly fire from other republicans. (on the other hand, if he had sided with Coleman and kept Franken from going to Washington, I think it would throw so much bad press on Pawlenty that it would knock him out of any kind of spot on the 2012 ticket).

At this point I'd start to think about a Romney/Pawlenty ticket. Romney is the most palatable candidate to the few rational republicans left, and with a nice bland running mate they might not lose too horribly, assuming we're still in a recession. If the economy picks up they won't have a single credible issue to hit the democrats with.

Either Palin or Huck getting on the ticket will just spin the race into a vortex of craziness as bad as the last month of the last cycle, and I doubt the republicans want to go there.

Churchill2004: anschluss

Godwin would be pleased. And you just confirmed SeismicJizzer's thesis:

All this nonsense that Obama is a socialist, mustard eating, thin moustache muslin is doing them more harm than good, but they are just too stupid to realize it.

Big Dave: Romney is the most palatable candidate to the few rational republicans left

This makes me question your understanding of rationality. Hint: it does not include magical underwear.

/romney's going nowhere fast

Churchill2004: And there's some truth in it when the charge is leveled at Obama's anschluss between the federal government and GM, to pick just one example where Obama is undeniably pushing the envelope in some direction.

Don't see what other choice he had, either let them go bankrupt immediately at a time when the market was severely unstable or slowly let the bandage out while the market could sustain itself.

This idea that Obama or the democrats want to control a worthless company in order to reign in power is stupid argument invented by the freepers to make their own projections about democrats.

Of all the problems on his plate, people actually believe he wants to take control of a crappy car company so he can have free reign over the country?

After bankruptcy they either will renegotiate their contacts or they go down under and all this energy perpetuated by people like Glenn Beck again is unfruitful for the republicans.

DarnoKonrad: Godwin would be pleased

The conversation is about tyrannical rhetoric. I was talking about a possible example of such rhetoric. You fail at law, life, and the Internet.

Elvis_Bogart: What's the difference between Bush and Obama?

Obama is a a better salesman.

Very good point. And you're right.

The phrase man-crush makes me think of a fguy being crushed into a pulpy bloody mess by an evil robot.

Big Dave: I thought Pawlenty would have an interesting test coming up when the Minnesota supreme court rules against Norm Coleman, but it doesn't look like the Republicans have enough steam to push for a US supreme court fight, and so Pawlenty will go ahead and certify Al Franken.

Of course he will. Just as soon as the law allows. Which, until the statutory election contest has run its course, he could not. He was no more allowed to certify Franken when he took the lead than he would have been to certify Coleman when he started out with one. And if (when) the process is done, he will follow the law as he's done all along.

That is what we want, right?

I don't think this GM deal did Obama any favors. His disapproval rating is up to 47%.

I'm more than willing to admit I have a man-crush on Obama. I would imagine any PolySci major would. The guy is the most skilled politician in the history of politics.

SeismicJizzer: Don't see what other choice he had, either let them go bankrupt immediately at a time when the market was severely unstable or slowly let the bandage out while the market could sustain itself.

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. The only difference between GM going bankrupt in January and GM going bankrupt now is the taxpayer is out some billions of dollars at this point, and no doubt on the hook for more. That, and Obama gets to pick who gets what instead of a bankruptcy judge.


SeismicJizzer: This idea that Obama or the democrats want to control a worthless company in order to reign in power is stupid argument invented by the freepers to make their own projections about democrats.

Of all the problems on his plate, people actually believe he wants to take control of a crappy car company so he can have free reign over the country?


I don't think the motives are really what's in dispute, though that the government sees this as an opportunity to force its will on GM in a variety of areas is fairly obvious.

Do I think that Obama is plotting to use GM as the cornerstone of his new fascist state? Of course not. But I do know that it was Mussolini who claimed that "What's good for Fiat is good for Italy", and you don't have to think Obama has bad motives to see the similarity in the thinking. The point being, the charge of creeping tyranny does not belong in the same category as birth certificate and secrete muslim nonsense.

Sybilll: I don't think this GM deal did Obama any favors. His disapproval rating is up to 47%.

Yeah, not many people are going to buy a car from Obama Motors.

Churchill2004: DarnoKonrad: Godwin would be pleased

The conversation is about tyrannical rhetoric. I was talking about a possible example of such rhetoric. You fail at law, life, and the Internet.

I'm aware of the context. If you were making an example of such useless rhetoric, you might examine your delivery.


Because it sure looks like needless hyperbole. There's no truth in your anschluss statement.

As far as Matthews goes - I prefer MSNBC's brand of meaningless political gossip/bullshiat to the other cable 'news' channels, so I've seen the man's opinion of Obama evolve over the past two years. I would call it genuine admiration instead of a man-crush, and I think it has a lot to do with Matthews being impressed with other Americans for electing a Black man, moreso than Obama's values or personality.

Matthews has been in politics his whole life, and to him Obama's election was probably something he couldn't have imagined until early '08. Politics is a cynical game, and after so many decades of identity politics and the 'southern strategy' and always seeing people like Bush and Kerry get the nomination, I don't fault Matthews for being genuinely, personally touched by the election.

The only real Obama-booster on TV these days is that horrid Ed guy they just put on MSNBC. The way he tries to spin everything as good news... for Obama - is just pathetic and clumsy. He's like some bizaro Fox guy. I hope they take him off the air soon - between Keith and Rachel there was plenty of piss raining down on whatever stupid move the republicans pulled every day, there was no need for an even shriller shill on the left.

/cable news is the Fark Politics Tab Reader's version of the E! Channel
//I tivo BBC/Newshour with Kim Leher

Matthews, like so many of the rest of us, is just so grateful that the boob bush is out of the highest office in the Land.


8 years is a long time to watch incompetence.

Sybilll

I don't think this GM deal did Obama any favors. His disapproval rating is up to 47%.

Unemployment shot up to 9.4%, and when it goes double digit in 2 months, the Government run media.... well they never will take notice.....

Now the American public, will see that, and know for sure the Chairman Obama is leaving office in 4 years. A Jimmy Carter moment is comming.

DarnoKonrad: I'm aware of the context. If you were making an example of such useless rhetoric, you might examine your delivery.


Because it sure looks like needless hyperbole. There's no truth in your anschluss statement.

It's called rhetorical flourish and creative vocabulary. Since your seem blind to such nuance, I'll make it clear and perfectly literal: I don't think Obama is a Nazi.

Chris Matthews has nothing on the Fark Obamapologists™.

winterwhile: Now the American public, will see that, and know for sure the Chairman Obama is leaving office in 4 years. A Jimmy Carter moment is comming.

Commas don't just grow on trees, you know.

Churchill2004: DarnoKonrad: I'm aware of the context. If you were making an example of such useless rhetoric, you might examine your delivery.


Because it sure looks like needless hyperbole. There's no truth in your anschluss statement.

It's called rhetorical flourish and creative vocabulary. Since your seem blind to such nuance, I'll make it clear and perfectly literal: I don't think Obama is a Nazi.

You're on edge?

Here, I'll pay you a compliment:

Do I think that Obama is plotting to use GM as the cornerstone of his new fascist state? Of course not. But I do know that it was Mussolini who claimed that "What's good for Fiat is good for Italy",

You should write for FOX.


In the mean time, I'll stop mistaking you for someone trying to make rational statements en-lieu of creative flourishes.

Apologies.

Churchill2004: That's the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. The only difference between GM going bankrupt in January and GM going bankrupt now is the taxpayer is out some billions of dollars at this point, and no doubt on the hook for more. That, and Obama gets to pick who gets what instead of a bankruptcy judge.

You are kidding right? The market fell close to 8000 at the time when Obama was negotiating with GM. You think choosing bankruptcy at that time would have been helpful? His job at that time was to stop the bleeding and they had to play this out till a time when investors were not panicky about bankruptcy as evident when they finally did it last week the dow jumped 200 points.


Churchill2004: I don't think the motives are really what's in dispute, though that the government sees this as an opportunity to force its will on GM in a variety of areas is fairly obvious.

Do I think that Obama is plotting to use GM as the cornerstone of his new fascist state? Of course not. But I do know that it was Mussolini who claimed that "What's good for Fiat is good for Italy", and you don't have to think Obama has bad motives to see the similarity in the thinking. The point being, the charge of creeping tyranny does not belong in the same category as birth certificate and secrete muslim nonsense.



Oh do tell what bad motives Obama wants to implement on a car company and the country. Improve fuel standards? I ask specifics because freepers make this claim all the time he has bad motives well what are they? What is Obama's "Moussolini" policies he is going for?

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: I'm more than willing to admit I have a man-crush on Obama. I would imagine any PolySci major would. The guy is the most skilled politician in the history of politics.

You say that like it's a compliment....

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: I'm more than willing to admit I have a man-crush on Obama. I would imagine any PolySci major would. The guy is the most skilled politician in the history of politics.

O'RLY?
In the entire history of the world he is the best?
Wow, I was not aware of that.

With the GM decision...Obama is going down a very dangerous path!

Jimmy Carter Moment: Crisp
Sweet
Satisfying.


Get yours today.

Churchill2004:
It's called rhetorical flourish and creative vocabulary.

Perhaps he was commenting on the fact that you don't seem to understand either the Anschluss, or exactly how much direct control of GM the government will have. It's such hyperbole to use Anschluss that it is a fair comparison to a Godwin.

bulldg4life

With the GM decision...Obama is going down a very dangerous path!

most Americans will never buy from Gov Motors. So Chairman Obama just killed the Union along with GM>

Hobodeluxe: Churchill2004: I dunno, it worked fairly well for the Democrats. Bush left office more despised than Nixon.

yeah well you're overlooking one small thing. BUSH HAS WRECKED THIS COUNTRY


and Reagan got the ball rolling back in the early 80's.