Is this what happens when the government is in charge of health care? Yes, it's delusional. But delusions are what happen when the government succeeds in convincing people that it is the solution for all of the problems.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Suing the government because it didn't stop you from becoming the fattest man...
... in the world.
Is this what happens when the government is in charge of health care? Yes, it's delusional. But delusions are what happen when the government succeeds in convincing people that it is the solution for all of the problems.
Is this what happens when the government is in charge of health care? Yes, it's delusional. But delusions are what happen when the government succeeds in convincing people that it is the solution for all of the problems.
Watch Christine O'Donnell dominate debate, even as Wolf Blitzer tries to control her.
She is not susceptible to pushback by people who imagine themselves her superiors. Extremely well done.
More on the debate here.
ADDED: I think this clip — I haven't watched the rest of the debate — will resonate with women. A lot of us have had experiences with men trying to control us like this, and we instinctively root for the woman in this situation. I was reminded of the famous Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio debate, in which the male, Lazio, invaded the zone of personal privacy of the female, Clinton.
AND: You can really feel the disrespect for O'Donnell in that clip. Whether it's because she's a woman or not, I think it stirs something instinctive in many women. It's dangerous for men even to seem to give off the vibe that they're really saying: You don't really belong here, little lady. Hillary has often tried to get us to feel that vibe, and it's worked for her quite few times.
"A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started."
"People say it was the health care bill – no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting. Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism.”
That's Russ Feingold, answering one of 10 questions posed by Jeff Zelenzy in the NYT. Feingold is, as you probably know, struggling to keep his place representing my state, Wisconsin, in the U.S. Senate. The question was "What explains the difficult political climate for Democrats, considering that President Obama has implemented many policies he campaigned on?" The quote above was the second of 2 explanations Feingold offered. The first was the economy and the tendency people have to blame whoever is in power when the economy is bad.
But it's not the health care bill? Some people think "it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats’ electoral woes are directly tied to the passage of the health care bill." Ironically, that link goes to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, who is criticizing the health care bill from the left, that is, hoping for socialism.
Another NYT question for Feingold is: "Are there a lot of undecided voters out there on issues like health care?" He says:
That's Russ Feingold, answering one of 10 questions posed by Jeff Zelenzy in the NYT. Feingold is, as you probably know, struggling to keep his place representing my state, Wisconsin, in the U.S. Senate. The question was "What explains the difficult political climate for Democrats, considering that President Obama has implemented many policies he campaigned on?" The quote above was the second of 2 explanations Feingold offered. The first was the economy and the tendency people have to blame whoever is in power when the economy is bad.
But it's not the health care bill? Some people think "it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats’ electoral woes are directly tied to the passage of the health care bill." Ironically, that link goes to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, who is criticizing the health care bill from the left, that is, hoping for socialism.
Another NYT question for Feingold is: "Are there a lot of undecided voters out there on issues like health care?" He says:
Here in Wisconsin, there’s 40 percent who are locked in on one side, 40 percent on the other and roughly 20 percent independents, they’re not locked in at all. They are holding back and as you calmly and rationally explain, most people say, "No, we don’t really want to repeal that."
"How could a bunch of people who ran such a brilliant campaign be doing such a lousy job at the politics of governing?"
6 theories are presented. Rank them.
The theories are smart, but the columnist, Michael Tomasky, has laughable ideas about what Obama should have done:
And, out here in my little city in the middle of the midwest, I think when a man writes dialogue like that, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.
The theories are smart, but the columnist, Michael Tomasky, has laughable ideas about what Obama should have done:
Send the president out to rural white areas to talk about his national broadband policy....White areas... This from a British paper, but still, Tomasky is purporting to have the line on how America works. He imagines the man in the "white area" saying:
"Well, Martha..."... hicks have wives named Martha...
"... they say he's a socialist, but I don't know, if he's out here in our little town in central Nebraska where we voted 80% McCain and he's promoting rural internet, that doesn't seem too socialist to me."What?! Is that a socialist joke? The rubes say they hate something with the label "socialist," but when you given them something they like they don't even understand how the label applies (because they really don't hate socialism at all, they're just dumb) — is that a socialist joke?
And, out here in my little city in the middle of the midwest, I think when a man writes dialogue like that, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.
"What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is?"
"Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses: He’s been portrayed as a socialist because he enacted Mitt Romney’s health-care plan, as a virulent foe of business because he’s been known to mention that corporations sometimes behave badly."
Krugman, who worries that Obama is "still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship."
Krugman, who worries that Obama is "still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship."
Read Elena Kagan's college thesis and decide if she's "an open and avowed socialist"...
... which is what Erick Erickson has concluded.
ADDED: I've read the last few pages of the thesis, and a key sentence, at page 130, is: "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Does that sentence imply that its author is included in the "those who... still wish to change America"? Does it imply that socialism is required in order to "change America"?
However you answer those questions, remember that the paper was written20 30 years ago, when Kagan was a college student. Not only is it likely that she has changed since she was in her early 20s, but it is also nearly a certainty that she wrote to obtain the favor of her teachers in the Princeton University History Department. I think there is a lot more evidence that Kagan knows how to please and win the favor of those with the power to advance her career than that Kagan is a socialist. I'm just going to guess — correct me if I'm wrong — that in 1981, Princeton students were able to discern that their history professors liked socialism.
ADDED: I've read the last few pages of the thesis, and a key sentence, at page 130, is: "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Does that sentence imply that its author is included in the "those who... still wish to change America"? Does it imply that socialism is required in order to "change America"?
However you answer those questions, remember that the paper was written
"The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America."
Wrote Elena Kagan in here college thesis "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In it, she thanked her brother whose "involvement in radical causes... led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."
In 153 pages, the paper examines why, despite the rise of the labor movement, the Socialist Party lost political traction in the United States — a loss that she attributed to fissures and feuding within the movement. “,” she wrote.Kagan and Obama have a real affinity...
If that sounds like a defense of socialism, [Prof. Sean Wilentz, her senior thesis adviser] insists that is not the case.
“She was interested in it,” he said. “To study something is not to endorse it.”
One thing was unusual about Ms. Kagan: she smoked cigarettes. One old friend, Margaret Raymond, said Ms. Kagan was the only girl she knew who smoked in high school....No wonder Obama feels comfortable with her.
A socialist, an atheist, and a Muslim.
Ah! I've unwittingly written a "Jeopardy"-style answer. Now, you tell me the question!
ADDED: You could also take it as a Karnak answer.
WE HAVE A WINNER: Irene says: "Which affiliation do most Americans agree would disqualify a person from nomination to the US Supreme Court?"
Yes, there is a new poll about replacing Justice Stevens, and in one part of it, Americans are asked if they would be "comfortable" with various sorts of nominees. Here's the PDF of the results. A socialist, an atheist, and a Muslim are the 3 types of nominees that a majority of Americans would not be "comfortable" with. 64% were uncomfortable with the socialist (though Democrats were split 47/47%). 58% were uncomfortable with an atheist, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. And 53% were uncomfortable with a Muslim (though only 45% of Democrats had a problem). Interestingly, in contrast to the socialist, libertarians did pretty well. 57% were comfortable, including 53% of Democrats. The poll also asked about Mormons and Christians who take the Bible literally. Both of those types did quite will, with 65% and 62%, respectively, feeling comfortable.
ADDED: You could also take it as a Karnak answer.
WE HAVE A WINNER: Irene says: "Which affiliation do most Americans agree would disqualify a person from nomination to the US Supreme Court?"
Yes, there is a new poll about replacing Justice Stevens, and in one part of it, Americans are asked if they would be "comfortable" with various sorts of nominees. Here's the PDF of the results. A socialist, an atheist, and a Muslim are the 3 types of nominees that a majority of Americans would not be "comfortable" with. 64% were uncomfortable with the socialist (though Democrats were split 47/47%). 58% were uncomfortable with an atheist, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. And 53% were uncomfortable with a Muslim (though only 45% of Democrats had a problem). Interestingly, in contrast to the socialist, libertarians did pretty well. 57% were comfortable, including 53% of Democrats. The poll also asked about Mormons and Christians who take the Bible literally. Both of those types did quite will, with 65% and 62%, respectively, feeling comfortable.
"How Grand Socialism Is!"
"Ooh it’s good, ah it’s good":
How grand, the vinalon fabric pours out like a waterfallJust some Sunday morning propaganda, submitted for your approval. I know what you're wondering: What is "vinalon"? It's the "national synthetic fiber" of North Korea.
How grand, the Juche iron glows like a fiery sunrise
My socialist homeland overflows with joy
Ooh it’s good, ah it’s good
The day of living well draws nigh
How grand socialism is!
"People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook"/"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist."
There's this Ron Paul quote that's getting some attention:
Now, Nixon was denying his own guilt. Ron Paul is raising the issue about the President and providing the denial. Nixon stepped in it. Ron Paul is doing something else. But what?
Let's pull it apart:
1. The beginning of the statement, paraphrased, says: There's an important question about whether the President is a socialist. We should address it. Some people believe it. You ought to take it seriously. That's the opposite of a denial. That's massaging the concern about socialism into our heads.
2. Next we hear that there is a technical, economic definition of what socialism is, and according to that restricted definition, Obama is not a socialist. We are left to think that there is some less technical definition that would include Obama.
3. Ron Paul's next statement is therefore key: "He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country." It seems that Paul is warning about some vast alliance between government and business that isn't technically socialism but is dangerous in the same or worse way.
So, lefties, don't get all excited about that Ron Paul statement. He's not on your side.
"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist. I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."And what strikes me about it is the rhetorical similarity to the famous Nixon quote:
"People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."Rhetorically, the acknowledgment that there is a question has more impact than the denial. Indeed, the denial seems to underscore the seriousness of the question.
Now, Nixon was denying his own guilt. Ron Paul is raising the issue about the President and providing the denial. Nixon stepped in it. Ron Paul is doing something else. But what?
Let's pull it apart:
1. The beginning of the statement, paraphrased, says: There's an important question about whether the President is a socialist. We should address it. Some people believe it. You ought to take it seriously. That's the opposite of a denial. That's massaging the concern about socialism into our heads.
2. Next we hear that there is a technical, economic definition of what socialism is, and according to that restricted definition, Obama is not a socialist. We are left to think that there is some less technical definition that would include Obama.
3. Ron Paul's next statement is therefore key: "He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country." It seems that Paul is warning about some vast alliance between government and business that isn't technically socialism but is dangerous in the same or worse way.
So, lefties, don't get all excited about that Ron Paul statement. He's not on your side.
Pictures from the Tea Party Express in Madison, Wisconsin.
Meade and I stopped by the Tea Party Express event over on the far east side of Madison. There were about 300 people there, with various flags and signs. No violence. No epithets. Just a lot of people opposed to socialism.
I took a lot of photographs and video, which I'll put up here as soon as I can.
ADDED:
I took a lot of photographs and video, which I'll put up here as soon as I can.
ADDED:
Al Gore would like you to lie back and accept what the government decides is good for you.
The other day I said:
What do you make of these meanderings about capitalism and socialism?
Not only did the fall of communism make the work of the government regulator much more difficult, according to Al, the mainstream media also became less supportive:
And what is this "hatred and divisiveness"? It's just criticism and debate. Al Gore is distressed that the media don't propagandize for government regulation as they did back in the good old days of communism.
I search in vain for the part of the article where Al Gore notes his personal financial interest in this regulation. So, supplemental reading: "Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor."
ADDED: In the comments Paul draws my attention to the NYT's post-script identifying the author, which includes: "As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies."
I see the analogy between global warming and the weapons of mass destruction used to justify the Iraq war. Those who planned the war believed there were other good reasons to go to war with Iraq, but they made a decision to use weapons of mass destruction as the reason to go to war, because they thought people could understand this reason and unite behind the war effort. But then, when the WMD were not found, the war looked like a big mistake.Now, here comes big Al Gore with a huge op-ed in the NYT that begins with a fat juicy piece of evidence that I was right:
... [P]eople [who] support the policies that are supposed to deal with global warming [may have] other reasons they have for wanting those policies [but may] rely on the global warming prediction rather than those other reasons....
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.He wants the policies that are sold under the name "global warming" whether the prediction of global warming is right or wrong.
Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.
[T]he crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer....The "pollution" is carbon dioxide, which is what flows out of our noses and mouths when we exhale. Do you think of your breathing passages as spewing shit? There's nothing dirty or toxic about carbon dioxide. The problem has only to do with the greenhouse effect. But isn't it so much more effective — i.e., scarier — to make people think we're still talking about filth?
What do you make of these meanderings about capitalism and socialism?
The decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s led to a period of philosophical dominance for market economics worldwide and the illusion of a unipolar world. It also led, in the United States, to a hubristic “bubble” of market fundamentalism that encouraged opponents of regulatory constraints to mount an aggressive effort to shift the internal boundary between the democracy sphere and the market sphere.When someone writes like that, I get suspicious. I want to rewrite it in plain English: After the fall of communism, people placed more trust in the market and were wary of government-dictated solutions.
Over time, markets would most efficiently solve most problems, they argued. Laws and regulations interfering with the operations of the market carried a faint odor of the discredited statist adversary we had just defeated.Yeah, that's what was already in my translation of your previous windbaggage. Maybe this piece is just padded. Maybe it's a devious plot to bore us into submission.
This period of market triumphalism coincided with confirmation by scientists that earlier fears about global warming had been grossly understated.Oh? Just a coincidence? Al Gore has unwittingly tweaked my suspicion that the scientists are politicos.
Not only did the fall of communism make the work of the government regulator much more difficult, according to Al, the mainstream media also became less supportive:
Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment.Quick: Name a showman masquerading as political thinker. You said "Al Gore," right?
And what is this "hatred and divisiveness"? It's just criticism and debate. Al Gore is distressed that the media don't propagandize for government regulation as they did back in the good old days of communism.
And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.As in what "times past"? Is the lively public debate of today somehow akin to the racial bigotry that stalled civil rights legislation? Because worrying about socialism isn't expressed as hatred. Really, Gore seems to expect people to lie back and accept whatever the government decides is good for us.
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.What?! I knew this was religion! We're supposed to believe. And please don't use "rule of law" as a synonym for government regulation.
Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation.And we should just lie back and take it.
I search in vain for the part of the article where Al Gore notes his personal financial interest in this regulation. So, supplemental reading: "Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor."
Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.The mouth, is, as noted, a sewer.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”So the market is great... when it's making you a billionaire.
ADDED: In the comments Paul draws my attention to the NYT's post-script identifying the author, which includes: "As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies."
The terrible things those "self-identifed" Republicans think...
... according to a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll. Yes, we have to stop first and wonder how good are the Daily Kos/Research 2000 pollsters. I picked up this story at Talking Points Memo, where there's no information about why I should trust this poll. How did they locate their 2,000 "self-identified" Republicans, who, TPM tells us represent "the psyche of the minority party's base"?
And I know that plenty of conservatives won't call themselves "Republicans." I'd like to see a poll that delves into the reasons people who call themselves "Republicans" choose to call themselves "Republicans" and why others reject the label, despite being conservative.
Also, I wonder if some people who aren't conservative at all lie to pollsters — especially a poll with a lefty name like "Daily Kos" — so they can skew the results and give those folks the results they imagine the poll is designed to produce: that non-liberals are evil/stupid.
Nevertheless, let's read the results of this poll:
How would you word questions to ask "self-identified" Democrats if it were your goal to generate anti-Democrat PR? How would you smoke out all the flaky and stupid suggestions they'd go along with if a pollster offered it in a rational-sounding form and didn't interject amazement at the answers? Then how would you reword the questions to publish the results to make the best propaganda for your side?
(I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?" and "Are you sure?" in a shaming way that made it obvious they were trying to get people to say they supported laws restricting abortion so they could attack some politician — probably Russ Feingold. It was really unprofessional!)
ADDED: Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence: "As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.
How independent and reliable is Research 2000?
And I know that plenty of conservatives won't call themselves "Republicans." I'd like to see a poll that delves into the reasons people who call themselves "Republicans" choose to call themselves "Republicans" and why others reject the label, despite being conservative.
Also, I wonder if some people who aren't conservative at all lie to pollsters — especially a poll with a lefty name like "Daily Kos" — so they can skew the results and give those folks the results they imagine the poll is designed to produce: that non-liberals are evil/stupid.
Nevertheless, let's read the results of this poll:
• 39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached.Wonderful anti-Republican PR results. They justify the fears people who are not Republicans have about the Republican Party. I don't like thinking people are this extreme, and I wish I could see how the questions were worded. The full survey (and the questions) were not out at the time TPM put up this post, and releasing the results in this form reinforces my suspicion that the motivation of the poll is to generate anti-Republican PR.
• 63% think Obama is a socialist.
• Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States.
• 21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election -- that is, that Obama didn't actually win it, and isn't legitimately the president, with 55% saying they are "not sure."...
• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president.
• 23% want to secede from the United States.
• 73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools....
• 31% want contraception to be outlawed.
How would you word questions to ask "self-identified" Democrats if it were your goal to generate anti-Democrat PR? How would you smoke out all the flaky and stupid suggestions they'd go along with if a pollster offered it in a rational-sounding form and didn't interject amazement at the answers? Then how would you reword the questions to publish the results to make the best propaganda for your side?
(I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?" and "Are you sure?" in a shaming way that made it obvious they were trying to get people to say they supported laws restricting abortion so they could attack some politician — probably Russ Feingold. It was really unprofessional!)
ADDED: Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence: "As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.
How independent and reliable is Research 2000?
"City of Madison cracks down on socialists: Citations to newspaper hawkers set up First Amendment clash."
A story in Isthmus:
"If the city is going to require a permit and then not issue a permit to political speakers... it's really saying you can't speak on State Street" [says lawyer Andrea Farrell, who represents members of the International Socialist Organization who received tickets for vending without a license for selling $1 copies of the newspaper Social Worker, an activity they've engaged in on State Street for decades].
[Chris Dols, one of the vendors who received a ticket] sees a larger pattern, which includes demonizing the homeless, redoing Peace Park and regulating street musicians.Given the election of Barack Obama?! Oh, yeah! I know that feeling. It looks like this: Celebrate, good Obama, come on!... Who let the Obama out... Ooh! The police are here... Boo! What are you, a McCain voter? Sorry, pal, but Obama's President now! Obama! Obama! Lift the cop car! Lift the cop car!... Yes, we can.... Obama, you're so fine, you're so fine, you blow my mind. Obama! Obama!
"It seems like there are political forces interested in changing the character of State Street," he says. It's an effort he feels is sure to backfire, given the election of Barack Obama and ongoing activism.
"The city's decision to create more barriers to speech comes just as thousands of Madison students feel politically relevant for the first time," Dols says. "The timing is terrible. The city should have tried this with Bush in office, when we were still used to losing."There's some logic to that. The Socialists were down, and the cops could have trodden them down further, and they might have suffered silently. That was back when they were "used to losing." But now, as Obama says, "I won." They won. They feel like they won anyway. They, meaning the Socialists. Hmmmm..... Anyway, they're feeling all Celebrate, good Obama, come on! Obama's President now! Obama! Obama! Lift the cop car! Lift the cop car!
***
Hey, it's my boss! Hey, Boss!
Oh... hello, Marsh.
Yeah. Ya know what? FUCK you!
Huh?
You heard me, you fuckin' piece of SHIT! I can finally tell you what I think of you, fuckin' ASSHOLE!
[STAN:] Dad, what are you doing?
It's okay, Stan, everything's changed. I don't need his stupid fuckin' JOB anymore. You're a stupid fuckin' assfuck, piece of shit. You know what Obama said? "YES WE CAN!"
HEY, I voted for Obama!
Obama's not talkin' about YOU! [Punches boss in face.]
Shepard Fairey — who made the famous Obama "Hope" poster — thinks the Joker Obama poster is "great."
"The artwork is great in that it gets a point across really quickly. The Joker is a sinister, evil character that can't be trusted. And if they want to make that parallel with Obama — bam."
Somehow the L.A. Times sees fit to headline the article "Shepard Fairey has 'doubts' about intelligence of Obama Joker artist." The intelligence doubt is actually a "grammar" point, that the caption should be "socialist," not "socialism," because it's a picture of a man, not his belief system. Hmmm... but Mr. Fairey, your poster of Obama has the word "Hope" as the caption. If it's an error, you made it too. If it's a sign of low intelligence, why should I listen to you, a man of low intelligence?
Somehow the L.A. Times sees fit to headline the article "Shepard Fairey has 'doubts' about intelligence of Obama Joker artist." The intelligence doubt is actually a "grammar" point, that the caption should be "socialist," not "socialism," because it's a picture of a man, not his belief system. Hmmm... but Mr. Fairey, your poster of Obama has the word "Hope" as the caption. If it's an error, you made it too. If it's a sign of low intelligence, why should I listen to you, a man of low intelligence?
The Republican National Committee wants to rebrand the Democrats the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Politico reports.
Chairman Michael Steele has said that this "will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans," but the answer to that is — per Politico — "Who cares?"
Chairman Michael Steele has said that this "will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans," but the answer to that is — per Politico — "Who cares?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
