I've noticed that this writer is named Andrew McCarthy. That reminded me - I have no idea why - of the actor named Andrew McCarthy who is most famous for playing a nerd obsessed with fucking an inanimate object that looked sort of like Kim Cattrall.
Oh please. He wrote that from his summer house, with half a brain on what to wear to the local fashonista cafe that evening and the other half on what to write while on vacation : hence the topic.
"I've noticed that President Obama has two legs. That reminded me - I have no idea why - that Voldemort also acquired two legs when he became re-born in the cemetery through evil Satan-magic while murdering people."
The biggest lie right wingers like to tell themselves is that people who oppose them--liberals--are in cahoots, or even have anything in common with, Fundamentalist Islamists. In fact, being the true believers they are, the opposite is true. In 2001, before you know the Bush administration attended a conference on women's rights sponsored by the UN. And ended up aligning itself -- against women's rights, of course -- with three other governments: the Saudis, Afghanistan's Taliban government, and Sudan.
So take your revisionism--and your own religious and ideological fundamentalism--and shove it up you ass.
As for K-Lo, I won't read this insane person's rants, but I can tell you that every prominent conservative politician and religious "leader" in this country is a flaming philandering asshole.
@Mediahohoho: I don't think the Repugs are any better or any worse in aligning themselves with the Fundy Islams. The Repugs and Dems disagree with each other so often that one side tends to align with the FI more so than the other... so one can always make this argument and it will always fall pretty flat on its face.
@hypocriteoath: Maybe, maybe not. But I wasn't asserting that Republicans figuratively aligned themselves with Fundamentalist Islamic governments at a UN women's health conference in 2001; it was literal. I can't think of an instance where a Democrat-led administration did this. Can you?
@Mediahohoho: I do recall in the 911 Commission Report (an admittedly flawed document) reading that the Clinton Administration wouldn't make a large payment to the Taliban to hand over bin Ladin because they found their treatment of women repugnant (it is). I am not going to make a moral judgment on what the C.A. did, but I think that history has shown that it might have been a wise compromise.
This is an insane point of view: "The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society."
And so is this: "But it is all especially shameless because neo-conservatives-not the "hard Left"-were the only Americans publicly begging for an Ahmadinjead victory, so that they could-as they are now!-demand that Obama take a harder line against the Iranian regime."
Neither side has any love for this asshole and it is as disingenuous to assert that conservatives wish ill upon the Iranian people (by extension) as it is to accuse liberals of the same.
@ChillbearLatrigue: yes mine is an insane point of view WITH LINKS THAT LEAD TO PEOPLE ESPOUSING IT, LIKE ACTUAL REAL-LIFE NEO-CONS WISHING FOR THE REELECTION OF AHMADINEJAD.
but hey the easiest way to excuse the dumbest and most indefensible statements by any group is to play the old THEY DO IT TOO card so keep it up mr latrigue
For the last time: when we are talking in global terms, Obama is a centrist.
Proof? He was elected a president of US, which is the rightmost industrialized, democratic country in the world. He is promising some changes in this country, but even if and when implemented, those changes will still leave the US where it is relative to other industrialized democracies countries: farthest to the right.
Enough with this ""socialist", "far left" and "hard left" crap. You'd crap your fucking pants if we really had a hard left president.
@Niko Bellic: By that argument, since we did not devolve into an Axis Power facist state, Bush/Cheney were slightly more conservative centrists than Obama. If we're keeping score: Obama is not Nik Lenin and Bush is not James Franco*.
*Yes, I know it's not Francisco Franco, but Pareene used an asterisk so I wanted to use one too. If people don't like it they can blow me.
@ChillbearLatrigue: Where did I say there is no room to the right of Bush/Cheney before we get to Nazi Germany? I said "among the industrialized democracies" for a reason. Reason being that I didn't want to sound like a logic-twisting wack-job. I'd appreciate if you'd take the same care.
So, without further attempts to caricature my words or meddle the issue:
Can you please name a modern-day economically and politically upstanding country in the world which is to the right of US, and to the right of Barack Obama's stated goals?
@Niko Bellic: Well, what is your comparison measure of left and right? Is it solely health care? I'm not trying to be evasive but you have a few vague terms in your question. I also believe that there are countries that are to the left of the US, but are seeing a need to move in our direction. [online.wsj.com]
Really, I wasn't implying that you were the one that was making the facist argument, but I have heard it on here before. So, apologies if it came off as a shot across your bow. I guess it did.
My concern with Obama is the level of spending. This irks me much more than what he is going to spend it on. With that said, entitlement programs rarely shrink in size. So, the "what" does concern me more than a little.
@ChillbearLatrigue: Trying to stick to what we are talking about here, here is the criteria:
1. Health care (raise of hands: how many of us actually do have insurance?)
2. Education (if your parents are not rich, you are fucked.)
3. Labor laws (vacation anyone?)
4. Social programs ("3 strikes" laws is not it)
5. Arts and culture support (no BBC here. Why does Jim Jarmusch have to make movies financed by Germany and Israel?)
6. Military (our doctrine seems to be "bomb the bastards")
7. Political System (only two parties? Really? Really And is it one person = one vote, or more like one dollar = one vote?)
8. Gun rights (everyone for themselves! yeee-haw!)
9. Financial system (up-down, up-down... your 401(k) still OK?)
10. Sports (care about Olympics? Of course not, there's no money in it)
I could go on.. but really, if you ever visited Europe (or Canada, or Japan) the differences are clear. I am not saying they are better in all of the solutions, I am just saying: they are all to the left of us.
@Niko Bellic: I wasn't trying to be a jackass with my asking for qualifiers, I really wanted to know what you were looking for. I have been to Europe and I have family in Canada, by most of these standards we are to the left of those governments. So, you make your point.
I was going to argue the merits or lack thereof of each of your points, but I think you were just trying to demonstrate how far left other governments are by comparison. I will point out that some of the most facist, reactionary governments have poured money into every one of your points with the exceptions of 7, 8 and maybe 9. For example, Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics and hoped that it would be a showcase for his "superior" athletes.
@Niko Bellic: Yeah, but I was pointing out that public funding for sports is not a right wing/left wing issue. The Munich games were just an example. I couldn't really come up with it on the spot. However, you don't dictate to me what I write. I could also point out that Napoleon had a variety of social programs, but I don't know his record on publicly funded athletics.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Death Panels and Death Eaters. Coincidence?!?!?
06/22/09
So take your revisionism--and your own religious and ideological fundamentalism--and shove it up you ass.
As for K-Lo, I won't read this insane person's rants, but I can tell you that every prominent conservative politician and religious "leader" in this country is a flaming philandering asshole.
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
And so is this: "But it is all especially shameless because neo-conservatives-not the "hard Left"-were the only Americans publicly begging for an Ahmadinjead victory, so that they could-as they are now!-demand that Obama take a harder line against the Iranian regime."
Neither side has any love for this asshole and it is as disingenuous to assert that conservatives wish ill upon the Iranian people (by extension) as it is to accuse liberals of the same.
06/22/09
but hey the easiest way to excuse the dumbest and most indefensible statements by any group is to play the old THEY DO IT TOO card so keep it up mr latrigue
06/22/09
Proof? He was elected a president of US, which is the rightmost industrialized, democratic country in the world. He is promising some changes in this country, but even if and when implemented, those changes will still leave the US where it is relative to other industrialized democracies countries: farthest to the right.
Enough with this ""socialist", "far left" and "hard left" crap. You'd crap your fucking pants if we really had a hard left president.
06/22/09
*Yes, I know it's not Francisco Franco, but Pareene used an asterisk so I wanted to use one too. If people don't like it they can blow me.
06/22/09
So, without further attempts to caricature my words or meddle the issue:
Can you please name a modern-day economically and politically upstanding country in the world which is to the right of US, and to the right of Barack Obama's stated goals?
06/22/09
Really, I wasn't implying that you were the one that was making the facist argument, but I have heard it on here before. So, apologies if it came off as a shot across your bow. I guess it did.
My concern with Obama is the level of spending. This irks me much more than what he is going to spend it on. With that said, entitlement programs rarely shrink in size. So, the "what" does concern me more than a little.
06/22/09
1. Health care (raise of hands: how many of us actually do have insurance?)
2. Education (if your parents are not rich, you are fucked.)
3. Labor laws (vacation anyone?)
4. Social programs ("3 strikes" laws is not it)
5. Arts and culture support (no BBC here. Why does Jim Jarmusch have to make movies financed by Germany and Israel?)
6. Military (our doctrine seems to be "bomb the bastards")
7. Political System (only two parties? Really? Really And is it one person = one vote, or more like one dollar = one vote?)
8. Gun rights (everyone for themselves! yeee-haw!)
9. Financial system (up-down, up-down... your 401(k) still OK?)
10. Sports (care about Olympics? Of course not, there's no money in it)
I could go on.. but really, if you ever visited Europe (or Canada, or Japan) the differences are clear. I am not saying they are better in all of the solutions, I am just saying: they are all to the left of us.
06/22/09
I was going to argue the merits or lack thereof of each of your points, but I think you were just trying to demonstrate how far left other governments are by comparison. I will point out that some of the most facist, reactionary governments have poured money into every one of your points with the exceptions of 7, 8 and maybe 9. For example, Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics and hoped that it would be a showcase for his "superior" athletes.
06/23/09
I am going to say this only once more, and never again: we are talking about modern day industrial democracies. Drop that Hitler shit already.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
Wasn't he in St. Elmo's Fire, too, and/or The Breakfast Club?
06/22/09
06/22/09
To quote from "The Critic" Jay Sherman, when the character was a guest on "The Simpsons" - Talking to action star Ranier Wolfcastle....
Rainier: The film is just me in front of a brick wall for an hour and a half. It cost $80 million.
Jay: [contemptuous] How do you sleep at night?
Rainier: On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies.