Displaying 841 To 870 Of 10,917 Comments KQ, I heard an explanation about Newt that made sense to me, and it’s along the lines you mentioned. Someone wrote that Newt is so bellicose that’s what the base likes. They fantasize that he can also make everyone realize that Obama is not all that smart, but the main thing is he exudes the kind of bitter nastiness the base feels–he personifies it. They are willing to overlook a lot to find someone they imagine can beat up on Obama. I don’t like George Will at all, but this is so deliciously scathing about Newt: Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything. Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say “if you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment. His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On election eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal. And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama. Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.” » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 4:48 pm I just wrote the same thing. Jinx! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 4:38 pm Excellent point about the Baby Boomers, KQ. I am one and I took an early retirement. After being laid off, I stopped looking for work at 59. I just got my first SS check November 23 and took it early. As hard as it is on so many of us Boomers, I hope that it bodes well for our kids. With us out of the way, maybe more of them can find good jobs. The other thing about those new hires–are many of them for the holidays? » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 4:37 pm KQ, Cesca is completely right of course. But from what I’m reading about the Occupy movement, they are not all like the ones he is talking about. I think the dregs of the original activists are the anarchists and the libertarians, but many are not. The movement is in transition–the best thing that could have happened to them was the evictions. ow they have to get down to the hard task of deciding what they want to focus on. Some are focusing on foreclosures; others on financial regulations. Out of this, many other new movements will start to gel, IMO. This was only the first (necessary and effective) step. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 11:08 am Good, I’m so glad you took some time off! Today was a long edition–and that bug still gives me nightmares. Holy Cow!! Megan McCain is an airhead–she can’t even speak English all of a sudden? That’s what liking Michelle Bachmann will do to your brain. I watched the Harry’s Law episode too–and didn’t you see immediately what they were doing–that it was totally about OWS? I was so glad, I couldn’t believe how fast that happened. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 10:37 am I wrote a note to MSNBC this morning. I was half listening to MSNBC in the background and the new Alex Wagner show was on–she used to be a “reporter” for PuffHo, and then she became a regular on all the evening shows. She is a total lightweight. Anyway, she and her panel of other lightweights were saying that Romney and Obama both don’t like politics–both have a hard time “connecting” with people; both are “distant.” What a load of horseshit. I sent MSNBC a few out of the hundreds of photos of the Obamas hugging people in the crowds with genuine warmth. It just enrages me when so-called journalists peddle these lying memes. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 10:32 am I used to watch a few TV shows about flipping houses–they were pretty popular before the bust. It seemed so easy to make some money, I used to wish I could do that. And I grew up being told that real estate never lost value–it was a finite resource and the best investment. All my adult life I was told that the best investment one could make was in one’s home; everybody knew that. Also, it made economic sense: rents were rising so if an apartment rented for $1000/mo and a mortgage payment was $1200 why wouldn’t anyone want to own rather than rent? We were told that it was smarter to not “throw away that rent money.” I can’t blame people for believing all of that, and I don’t think it was a scam–at least not at first. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 10:24 am Definitely. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:55 pm KQ–right! And both were once thought to have principles, but didn’t once they needed election votes. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:50 pm Seen this? Ron Paul really skewers Newt. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:40 pm Sally, no need to apologize–that was a good show. Many years ago I remember another article that showed that for airlines, fatal crashes were considered the cost of doing business–acceptable losses! They figured out how many fatalities they could afford each year and as long as the number stayed within that margin, it was all good. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:33 pm Great analogy, Sally. It’s so easy to see how ripe they are for manipulation by just about anybody. I’m starting to see how they are just like zombies–unable to think for themselves–and they keep popping up throughout our history. And what do zombies eat? Brains! It occurs to me that the reason they eat ’em is cuz they need ’em! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:24 pm Funk–I read that and I apologize for not getting back to you–I lost the thread. You were 100% correct! When I first heard about the changes in the bankruptcy laws years ago I remember being upset, but never connected the dots until I read your comments. The AA bankruptcy really shows how the system is gamed against us. It’s a textbook case. Yesterday, I even put up that “Wall Street” movie vid because it was all about taking over an airline to screw the union. See, this is what the OWS movement is about, IMO–exactly this kind of injustice. It should be illegal as hell! My only consolation–a tiny one–is that Time Magazine (a MSM mag if there ever was one) reported on this accurately. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 12:13 pm I can understand why Baggers (if anyone can truly understand idiots) would support Perry, Cain, Bachmann–but Newt?! He is the antithesis of everything they supposedly stand for. He’s a bigger flip-flopper than even Mitt. If they are really behind Newt, it just goes to show what a phony corporate movement the Baggers really are–and that the little people in the TP have no freaking idea what the freak they want. I always knew they were idiots, but I used to think they were at least consistent in their idiocy. But if they want Newt, they are just really totally devoid of any ideology–just id and insanity. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 11:51 am KQ About the ACA, it really drives home for me how long it takes people to get a message. We (or I, anyway) think that once something is announced and several articles are written about it, that most people then know about it. But that’s not true at all–getting information out takes years. Most people don’t pay attention to news. And I knew that: I worked in advertising most of my career and one of the cardinal rules was repetition–it takes seeing the same ad multiple times before it even begins to register. Yet I keep forgetting that. Sometimes, I watch Obama make speeches at events and I think, “He is saying the same thing again.” But then I realize that is the smart thing to do! Lot’s of talk among journalists now that Gingrich has a real shot at unseating Mitt. He just now got a 21 pt lead in a new national poll. But I’m not buying it. I WISH he’d win the nom, but I honestly don’t think he will. Over the next 5 weeks he’ll tank as people get to know him. I still say Romney will be the candidate. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 11:26 am Works for me, funk! 😉 » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 10:56 am SAlly–don’t get me started on Mika. She annoys the hell out of me. She is so smug and prissy, and is treated like dirt by Scar. She has no substance at all. And if sex is ever discussed she reveals some really deep-seated issues and clutches her pearls. Can’t stand her! » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 30, 2011 @ 3:50 pm I do too, agrippa–they will vote. But what they won’t do–and this can make a difference in a tight race–is volunteer to get out the vote, make phone calls, etc. As I see it, the GOP base is comprised of fanatics, religious and otherwise. They don’t have a candidate. The rest of the Repubs–not TeaBaggers–just really hate Obama, so they will vote too. But as we are told, voting against somebody is not as motivating as FOR somebody. I’m not sure about that, because even if I were displeased with a Dem President I would be extremely motivated to keep any Repub out of office. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 30, 2011 @ 3:47 pm Sue, then my evil plot is working! 😆 Hey, I haven’t has time yet to read your post but the reviews look fantastic. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 30, 2011 @ 3:42 pm KQ what gets me–I honestly cannot grasp this–is how he can possibly get away with being such a liar. There are tons of video of Willard taking opposite positions. I have not heard many pudnuts talking about the Enthusiasm Gap for the R’s–only for the Dems, but when he wins the nom it’ll be massive. The only thing that might allow him to win the general is if voters totally freak out about the economy. When the European crisis impacts us here, and it will, people might go insane and vote for Romney. That’s all he has going for him. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 30, 2011 @ 3:41 pm KQ, our disagreements aside, you are absolutely right about the fact that this WAS known by some, and I was wrong about that. I don’t see why more of that money couldn’t have been channeled to the mortgage mess– not directly to individuals but to pay the banks for a larger percentage of underwater mortgages. The Fed bought tons of toxic assets anyway, so why not help homeowners and the banks and the economy at the same time? » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 5:56 pm Wow, kes, you really read a lot, bless you! You should give yourself a pat on the back because of the GS call. I mean, who cannot see this as worse than insider trading? How can they vote on financial legislation when they are invested in a company that would be impacted? It’s so self-evident I can’t understand why it isn’t illegal. Bog Dog Bill Clinton is one cagey dude. I usually trust his instincts about centrist voters and Indies–he’s got a real feel for them. But we might be in such a tumultuous time that even his instincts are blunted. I just don’t know. I do love the praise he gave Gingrich–so cleaver. I thought the story about the couple and her mental illness was fascinating, and I felt he wrote it with her permission although it doesn’t specify. What I found particularly amazing is that she recovered (at least for now). I didn’t know that was possible with a real psychotic break. Maybe she was misdiagnosed. But it was both chilling and sweet too. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 5:51 pm Sue, I thought so too. And while I don’t really know what to make of it, the Fed also loaned foreign banks several trillion. I’ll trust Bernie though– Statement issued by Bernie Sanders: The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 5:40 pm Heh! You made me smile, agrippa. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 3:43 pm Sociopath is right. He truly is hollow with zero principles or integrity. I agree too that sexual indiscretions are petty (actually I couldn’t care less) compared to Romney’s total lack of ethics. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 3:43 pm Cheers, KQ! I accept the fact that the Fed had to play a big role in preventing another Great Depression, but I don’t think that is the thrust of the article at all; it’s about the enormous scope of the bailout–which made TARP look like peanuts, and the utter secrecy from everyone in Congress. I think the Fed must remain independent–that’s for sure. But they use taxpayer money and should not do something so vast without anyone knowing. Also, there are many valid criticisms of the way in which the too-big-to-fail banks got their credit and opposed regulations, and then gave themselves obscene bonuses. We probably don’t agree about this, but $7.7 Trillion dollars shouldn’t have gone exclusively to the banks at the very real and painful expense of each and every one of us and our kids. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 28, 2011 @ 3:38 pm Weekend Music Thread – Giving Thanks I’m not big on national anthems, KT, but this song sung by Ray–and Ray only–makes me grateful to be here, if for no other reason than we had Ray Charles. (Not really, but he’s a big part of it.) » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 26, 2011 @ 6:14 pm Lovely KT! He might well have been. Then again, my personal belief is that we all have the potential to be actual angels; that’s how God works. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 26, 2011 @ 6:06 pm AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL by Ray Charles
» Posted By Chernynkaya On November 26, 2011 @ 6:00 pm It always makes me tear up. And so does Grandma’s hands. If that doesn’t get you, you’ve never had a grandma–not a real one anyway. » Posted By Chernynkaya On November 26, 2011 @ 5:54 pmComments Posted By Chernynkaya
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats