Bloggers report nut-jobs poll created on Facebook, then offer creepy anti-conservative diatribe

(A comment on a good move that instantaneously turns smelly-bad by authors of a rail-jumping 'Slobbering Blog')

An idiot Facebook user created a poll asking users if our president, Barack Obama, should be violently offed, wasted, done away. Pure madness, right? Happily, some loyal Obama supporters with a blog were aware and activist enough, when they noticed this thing, to not vote in it (I assume they didn't), but instead report it to the Secret Service.

What an adult, awesome thing to do, huh? I thought so too. Then I read their blog.

Say these saviors of all of us from a vile FB weeny, on their blog:

"The hate speech, the threats have gotten completely out of hand. And those who have incited viewers and listeners.. (here I omitted the non-liberal targets of their opinions)... are responsible for a good part of this horrific activity."

Oh, COMPLETELY out of hand! Yes! Horrible! This FB poll by some college dweeb, this is just one tiny little SIGN that the nation is much more dangerous with conservatives saying things of a broad, anti-leftist and/or anti-statist variety! They marched, for goodness sake! And in Washington, DC! Who marches in DC but scary people! (Like Christian fathers, or a million -- or so -- black men, or ... members of the military.)

These Thomas Paines of blogging go on, with great knowing: "No, it is not 'grassroots', not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest."

You know, that worst kind of civil unrest: the organized, overwhelmingly tame, and nonpolluting kind. Why, what else could that be but the WORST? Else the accusations and paranoia of these bloggers would be ... completely illogical, utter silliness! (Note: the impish exception is not the rule; the rule is the rule. Look into it.)

These modern Samuel Adamses go on: "The same "party leaders" who get their rocks off by pretending to be macho and exerting their windbaggy, wrongheaded power will one day come to realize that killing is real, not just a word on a Facebook poll."

Huh! So what these people are saying is, life ISN'T video game! I've learned something here! I wonder if those guys who created that Bush assassination film (YouTube clip only) realized this? No way. They would never have made that movie if they understood death is REAL. I think these bloggers must be the first in years to appreciate the difference between irate stooges' antics and reality, in fact. They seem so sure if it, at least.

And finally, these entirely rational American heroes state, of the obvious leaders of all these millions of dangerous anti-tax, anti-big government activists (all actually racists longing for the days of separate water coolers and when only white blues musicians got paid fairly, it's sooo obvious): "Time to tame them. And time to demand that they tame their deranged, diseased herd of blind followers."

Oh, most definitely. Taming them and their millions of deranged, diseased followers!!!!!!

I am sooo glad the Internet has rational people like these bloggers around to help us all keep our rational, aluminum-foil-laced cowboy hat-covered noggins.

Here's the full post by these brainiacs, which effectively gets interesting at "Okay, that's it, I've had it."

- jR AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Conn. poll puts Sen. Dodd on notice, boosts GOP governor's cache

I am at the right of center in my views generally, and definitely to the right in my fiscal thinking -- that's part of who "jR" is, politically. Because of that, in case it appears I am picking on Democratic leaders, such as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Dodd all the time, that's not because I agree wholeheartedly with any Republican policy independent of my free thinking. It is also not because I think the Dem leaders are now, ever have been, or ALWAYS have been, evil, ignorant, shallow, or completely partisan. However, to be fair, perhaps Dem leaders' own voters ought to have sway in my opinions, just to help keep me "on track." If only just for fun.

Well, I am happy to say I agree with Connecticut citizens on one of the aforementioned leadership's ratings, while my personal view of him, as a longtime and ineffective national leader of late, would be lower. This guy is one of the bigshots in financial matters, and a man who received a very sweet deal from widely disparaged Countrywide, on a mortgage.

Connecticut's Rell Is Queen Of The Hill At Midterm, Poll Finds; Dodd Has Worst Approval Ever - Quinnipiac University

Halfway through her first elected term as Connecticut Governor and one week after a grim budget message, [Conn. governor] Jodi Rell has a 75 - 19 percent approval rating and tops any likely Democratic challenger by 21 to 40 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Connecticut voters split 41 - 42 percent on whether they think Sen. Christopher Dodd is honest and trustworthy and disapprove 48 - 41 percent of the job he is doing, his first negative approval rating in a poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

Even Democrats approve of their Republican Governor 67 - 26 percent, while Republicans approve 85 - 11 percent and independent voters approve 75 - 18 percent.

Imagine that: a poll that sugests an evil Republican -- a governor -- is steeply more popular than a longtime, and vocally anti-Bush and anti-conservative, member of the U.S. Senate. I wonder if someone is hiding some of those poll results?

Thanks to twittering of Matthew Gagnon for tipping me off on this one.

This has has inspired me to see what the other Democratic leaders are rated by their voters. It might be easy to forget, in all this current hubbub, but since 2006 when the Dems took over, Congress' ratings plummeted quickly below those of Prez GW Bush. Those ratings remain very low.

So it would be no surprise if all the majority leaders and their flying monkeys are suffering at home. (The reference to monkeys in the preceding sentence refers to the soldier beasts in the Wizard of Oz, and is not a profane comparison of black people to monkeys, but is a comparison of many congressional leaders' thinking to the limited complex logic skills of lower primates.*)

Lucky us! We have a pack of professional politicians who are liberals in charge after the quickest downturn in the economy (evidently quickest, though a long time coming, as far as mortgages) since the late 1970s - early 1980s. Boy, I hope they listen to the some actual businessmen and economists (assuming these types gain favor in economic policy over the social workers and other professional politicians among them).


- jR

* This parenthetical comment is a necessary while obvious explanation brought to you by the Rev. Al Sharpton's crass and pandering race-baiting over blatantly nonracial political cartoons.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Forbes: Paul Krugman let out to pee on NY Times

Help! The crazy economist is after me! OK, Krugman takes a wild pitch at supply-siders, that's all. But it is a wild throw! Read the piece in the NY Times, you'll notice the rest of it is not even cohesive with the first paragraph. I assume this means he is now forging ahead full steam with a "hate Republicans" career (even though he was an economist affiliated with a pretty big one, once). I guess the getting's easy now, huh?

Forbes' writer Karlgaard blogs his defense of supply-siders and business, and damns -- rightfully, I say -- the immoral capitalists. We could use more of that!

Failure Of Morality, Not Of Capitalism - Forbes.com: Digital Rules By Rich Karlgaard

“Old-fashioned voodoo economics--the belief in tax-cut magic--has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.”

Take a guess. Who wrote this?

If you said "one of those anonymous twerps posting on Daily Kos," you are forgiven. Had I not cut and pasted this crazed quote myself, I might have guessed it came from a reedy tenor in the Huffington Greek Chorus.

It was actually Paul Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times.

...supply-side capitalism is just a simple and benign idea. It posits: Only suppliers can supply us with goods and services. The demand side can’t will a product or service
into existence. Society therefore advances economically when it reduces tax and regulatory barriers to the creation of goods and services.

Hardly a cultish idea. One can unpack this simple idea into entire books, and many of Krugman’s betters have. The reputations of Smith, Say, Schumpeter and Hayek surpass that of the dyspeptic economist writing for The New York Times.

In fairness, Krugman is not alone. Many people do blame capitalism for bringing us to this low moment in the economy. Do they have a point?

They do if capitalism, as they define it, is devoid of any underlying morality. True enough, it is hard to see any underlying morality when one surveys the present carnage caused by liar loans, shady banks, duplicitous politicians, Ponzi schemers and regulators angling for Wall Street jobs.

The author continues by reflecting on the title of his piece, and I think perfectly, rightly, so in his suggestions on how to get back on track. Lest we ultimately FAIL (!!!), I should note.

This weekend, I caught a BBC radio program on the meltdown in “The City”--London’s financial district. The program quoted many young Brit bankers who said morality was a barrier to personal success in The City. Better to have the sociopath gene if one wants to become a billionaire.

What we are hearing and seeing, in other words, is a failure of morality, not of capitalism.

How do we get back to the old Adam Smith/Benjamin Franklin idea of free enterprise based on a moral foundation? It won’t be easy, but I think we need to start with these:

Please read the piece to review his kernels of good old American business... goodness, and keep going.

Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist (that was the old days, while today some suggest he's merely a political pundit who hates the GOP and favors state-heavy economics) will have NOTHING to do with that remotely unpartisan, working together thing. He wants to blame it all on the same people that 18-year-old video game addicts who don't read want to blame it on: the bloody Republicans.

Oh, please, will someone please out him as a slimy little socialist -- and uncover some sickly thing he likes doing in his free time or something -- so we can move past this kook?!! Geez -- where's Noam Chomsky when you need him!!! (Gaaag!)


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Banter: possibly the butt of progressive thought jokes

A new series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog


THE DAILY BANTER.COM

Ben Cohen is a ... progressive. Check that, he's a Democrat. No, no that's not it. Perhaps he's a whiner with severe daddy issues. No, that might be too generous, assuming there's some deep cause for his mental myopia. Cohen dislikes anyone who has a record of doing something that is not highly radical -- to the extents of Noam Chomsky-like psychobabble. Or so it would appear. Judge for yourself:

Professor Noam Chomsky has influenced my thinking more than any single person on earth. His speeches, interviews, articles, and books have profoundly changed the way I see the world, and I feel forever indebted to him for his contributions to human knowledge.

The MIT linguistic professor is regarded as the world's leading intellectual for good reason.

So Cohen calls the Bush legacy -- now a legacy is everything one has done, in this case an entire administration -- tragic. Not the usual -- and slightly rational -- war-mongering, or stumbling, but TRAGIC. He's young, his Cohen guy: it's cute to see how the adults fool the young ones so thoroughly.

This guy, and perhaps his cohorts on Banter, either read(s) too little or react(s) too dramatically and emotionally. I think it is likely they read too much in one direction, but mostly the latter. This is a far left, socialist-leaning pack of knee-jerkers. In other words, mistaken liberals who are actually socialist utopian cry babies.

He's such a whiner that independent senator Joe Lieberman is on his list of ten Democrats who need to go not once, but twice. And the second time, he actually calls the senator a "d**k head." Thanks for the commentary, Mr. Cohen.

I think he could have included the pathological denier, Barney Frank, in that list, with Chris Dodd, too (the king of "their fault" politics in the midst of this economic crisis). I find it strange, actually, that seeing as Pelosi and Reid are on his list, that these two contributors to the do-nothingness of the recent Democratic leadership were not included.

Here's what anyone can do to decide for themselves about Daily Banter: Read this post, then the related post regarding Republican leaders. If you don't notice the holes, in content and members, of both listings, then... well, enjoy reading Daily Banter. I suppose this one must be for you.

-jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Diggy Duggy suggy Digg.com: comments, because Digg didn't seem to keep them.

I copied these comments, since Digg apparently forgets to post them sometimes. What a joke that is.

I am voting for McCain because I believe stubborn extremes in the GOP have distracted McCain, not the other way around.

Bush is not McCain, and that is the dirtiest tag that Obama's campaign has so sarcastically put on McCain. (Sadly, the same can be said the other way around, but at least they aren't calling him a Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter). I think the GOP has forced McCain out of his element, not that McCain has pulled the party from its core.

I think a McCain presidency will help set the GOP on a course away from a silver-spoon leadership (a curse, if you ask me) of GHW Bush and GW Bush toward more of a realist, common-man party as it had started out. Even if he loses, that change in the GOP has begun.

Or, I can only hope it has. That, or I will be registered Independent come the new national, the 2010, election. So, look out so-called mid-term politicians. Boogedy!

Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president


Powered by ScribeFire.

Economy of Scale in Change in the Country: Politics, political parties, media influence, 'popularity' opinion

Interregnum: a beautifully Latin term for "leadership vacancy" (see definition).

This first segment was written in the context of the market meltdown ...

'My final newspaper article' - Dan Connelly on Xark!

Shumaker, the real-life model for the comic-strip character Shu, was a walking indoctrination into a culture of journalism that once held sway in America: Confident, straight-talking, blue-collar, irreverent, abrasive — but also undeniably talented and privately idealistic.

That's good stuff. And exactly what journalism is NOT any longer, except with rarity, in local dailies or TV, or in national dailies ("national" meaning stuff like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, but of course that includes LA Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Washtingon Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the likes).

The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.

How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.

-----

The Future of The Republican Party « Jon Taplin’s Blog
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.

My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:

Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do.

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.

Powered by ScribeFire.