Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OBAMA: Krauthammer’s criticism rings hollow

Letter by Jim R. Groves, Gig Harbor on Jan. 27, 2012 at 10:59 am with 187 Comments »
January 27, 2012 10:59 am

Re: “Obama touted his small ideas when we need big ones” (Charles Krauthammer column, 1-27).

As with most columns Krauthammer pens, they’re directed at President Barack Obama with utter scorn and disdain. His latest rant is about the president’s lack of big ideas and hints that what the president is doing is shrinking.

He also makes sure that he throws out those tired old GOP-baiting terms like socialism, Maoism, Leninism and the rest of the red meat he feeds his party to keep them in a rabid frenzy.

Krauthammer knows that Congress is stifling  Obama at every turn in hopes that if they bring the country to her knees they’ll have a cakewalk to the presidency.

Obama offered a “grand bargain,” which put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. That deal was incompetently quashed when Mitch McConnell uttered his now most profound statement: “The single most important thing is for Obama to be a one-term president.” It  was an implied order to Speaker John Boehner and his tea party-controlled House to shut it down, which they obliged with glee.

If the GOP can’t take credit for every idea that is put forth, then the Democrats are considered small thinkers. His column and all the nonsense he expresses shows he’s grasping at straws and knows the Republicans can’t beat Obama. So as he suggests, the GOP needs to find another line of work.

Leave a comment Comments → 187
  1. Pretty hollow, since this report paints a completely different point of view offered by Krauthammer quotes right after the president’s State of the Union address:

    Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s SOTU Speech ‘Struck The Right Tone’
    10:49 pm, January 24th, 2012

    Following the State Of The Union address, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer– often thought of as President Obama’s toughest critic — commended him for delivering a speech “that struck the right tone.” “It was less partisan than I would have expected,”

    “He tried to act statesman-like, he tried to be bipartisan. There were a couple of allusions here-and-there to Republican obstruction, but I think he struck the right tone for the State of the Union address and didn’t open himself up to attacks,” Krauthammer continued.

    “The one area where he spoke forcibly and I think dramatically was on raising the taxes on the rich,” Krauthammer added. “That was sort of the only strong aspect of the speech but in other respects, but that’s just a repeat of the decade of debate over the Bush tax cuts. Other than that, it’s hard to say what exactly does he want for the country in the next year and in the next term and that I think he hasn’t answered. He’ll do that when he starts his swing around the swing states tomorrow.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/charles-krauthammer-obamas-sotu-speech-struck-the-right-tone/

  2. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Congress is accused of malice? How about Harry and half of the equation? The least productive senate in a century.

    SOTU was failed ideas that he could not ram through under a dem monopoly. Even his rhetoric was cut and paste from previous SOTUs.

  3. concernedtacoma7 says:

    http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm

    I hope the left can get past the first section and look at the data. The numbers are scary (and make Newt’s points more valid).

    The growth in entitlements is incredible, and above and beyond our the effects of the recession.

  4. BlaineCGarver says:

    SOTU was saying yet again what he promised in the first term (wiht no results that I can see, except accruing more debt than all the other presidents put together)

  5. klthompson says:

    As I recall the popularity poll numbers for the Congress are in the tank. Even worse than the Bush era. Of the past three years of the Obama debacle the Republicans have only controlled the House for one year. The Democrats control the Senate in such a manner that it is frequently deadlocked. For Obama’s first two years with complete control of both Houses the only thing that got done was Obama-care which is almost sure to get thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am not a Republican, but I am a conservative who wants this country to get back on the track that built this nation. Obama has derailed the engine but the voters can put it back on the rails by correcting their biggest mistake in American political history.

  6. concerned — you do understand the rules of this senate, yes? two-thirds majority required.
    Mitch McConnel, senate minority leader, instructs his minions to focus on ousting oPresident Obama.
    111th senate set the record for filibusters.
    you blame the senate?
    why do you think the republican controlled congress has a 9% approval rating? below paris hilton…
    because they are obstructionists.
    plainly and clearly.
    that’s why they have nothing to run on in 2012. and is the reason they have no valid candidates for president.

  7. blaine — the debt was over 10 trillion when our president took office. it is 15 trillion now that the wars are being paid for. simple math disqualify your statements.

  8. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Jelle, those wars were paid for, stop learning about govt from blog posts. They were not ‘budgeted’.

    Please take a look at the link I posted and stop repeating knowledge learned from the likes of Xring.

  9. ct7, “those wars were paid for,”? Prove it! The link above does not. Can you prove anything you post?

  10. Jelle,
    The Congress is Republican controlled? The Congress is made up of the Senate and the House. When did the Republicans take control of the Senate?

  11. concerned — are you really admitting that bush was “paying for” the wars but not “budgeting for” them?

  12. concernedtacoma7 says:

    I was just clarifying your dated rhetoric for you.

  13. ct7 – read your linked article. I didn’t see data, rather a partisan rant.

    Not sure where you think you prove A) or B). But then, you think that the article you linked was full of data.

  14. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Funny, the growth in entitlements is stated in 8 different metrics on the first page.

  15. concerned — so you admit it then, good for you. the deficit was over 10.1 billion when president obama took office, and the wars had yet to be accounted for.
    the deficit is 15 trillion now that we have a president who has accounted for the wars are on the waging…

    lenz — yes, i understand the house and senate are both congress.
    did you not read what i typed?
    111th SENATE set the record for filibusters.
    The majority doesnt need to filibuster the votes.
    The minority won’t even allow votes!
    Two-thirds vote required.
    Dems hold majority but not two-thirds.
    least active congress since 1940’s.
    McConnell shared their singular focus – opposition.
    Reid, by way of the rules of the senate and an obstructionist opposition, cannot take advantage of his majority.
    thus, 9% approval
    and voter whip-lash in 2012

  16. lenz “When did the Republicans take control of the Senate?”

    When the Republicans in the Senate under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell started using Filibuster and Cloture rules to stop any legislation they didn’t like from coming to a vote.

    In the U.S. you don’t need to have the majority to “control” it.

    Republicans effectively “control” both houses of congress and that is why very little can get done to fix this economy! Read a newspaper every so often and you might find this stuff out. You won’t get the truth from FOX NEWS.

  17. concernedtacoma7 wrote “Muck, what a stupid post. Did every part of the last 10 years of war occur on an IOU? No. Servicemen and contractors were paid, bullet bought, etc.”

    That is EXACTLY what YOU implied concerntacoma7 when you wrote

    “Jelle, those wars were paid for,”

    Don’t DENY it. There is NOTHING in that post about partial payments or IOUs. Stop repeating propaganda from FOX and whatever you learned from aislander and SPeters.

  18. concernedtacoma7 wrote: “What I did prove is ”

    He hasn’t proven anything yet!

  19. One thing you can sure say about Charles Krauthammer is: He’s just as much a hypocrite as almost any other FOX-Propagandist is.

    Immediately after the president’s State of the Union Address this is what Krauthammer is reported to have said:

    .

    Following the State Of The Union address, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer– often thought of as President Obama’s toughest critic — commended him for delivering a speech “that struck the right tone.” “It was less partisan than I would have expected,”

    “He tried to act statesman-like, he tried to be bipartisan. There were a couple of allusions here-and-there to Republican obstruction, but I think he struck the right tone for the State of the Union address and didn’t open himself up to attacks,” Krauthammer continued.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/charles-krauthammer-obamas-sotu-speech-struck-the-right-tone/

    .

    THEN, in his column in the TNT Krauthammer does a complete one-eighty in his “attack piece” against the president, and ends it with this little paragraph to wrap up his snappy little diatribe of hypocrisy:

    .

    “What Obama offered the nation Tuesday night was a pudding without a theme: a jumble of disconnected initiatives, a gaggle of intrusive new agencies and a whole new generation of loopholes to further corrupt a tax code that screams out for reform.”

    “If the Republicans can’t beat that in November, they should try another line of work.”

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/27/2001142/obama-touted-his-small-ideas-when.html

    .

    Well! What else can you expect from someone from FOX? Certainly not consistency of integrity, and not even a slight glimmer of lasting truth either.

    But, old Sour-Kraut is right about one thing: The Republicans should find a new line of work. They are going to lose! So, why wait until November? They should start looking now.

    It’s a tough job market out there, thanks to them!!! (The Republicans, that is.)

  20. menopaws says:

    Charles is a shrink—he needs to go back to therapy and he DEFINITELY needs better meds……….This guy has lots and lots of problems…….there are plenty of great conservative writers out there—he isn’t one of them………Always angry and mean.

  21. aislander says:

    The wars cost $1 trillion–over ten years. The average is obviously $100 billion per year–FAR below the deficits we are now running.

    Say what you like about the wars, but THEY aren’t the reason we’re looking like Greece.

    (By the way, the Europeans spent hardly anything on defense, but they DID do the things that lefties like to do.

    So…why are they beyond broke?)

  22. aislander says:

    So…menopaws…who is YOUR ideal as a “great conservative writer”–Paul Krugman?

  23. sandblower says:

    So I look at concerned’s link and the first chart I see is the food stamp chart which concerned says has not bearing on the recession. Tells me he has not a clue about which he writes.

  24. Investors Business Daily? The hate rag that claimed Obama was a secret Muslim? You find them at all credible? ROFLMAO

  25. There’s nothing hypocritical in Krauthammer’s remarks. He gave the president credit for a reasonably good speech. In his column, he got down and dirty about actual policies and actions.

    I think people have been way too generous in evaluating this president. Did you hear Trump’s comment recently that Barrack Obama is NOT a nice man. I think intuitive, especially bright people see behind the facade. Krauthammer is one of them.

  26. ManuelMartini says:

    “I think people have been way too generous in evaluating this president. Did you hear Trump’s comment recently that Barrack Obama is NOT a nice man.”

    Trump is saying someone “is not a nice man”? Now there is a laugher. Trump is better off when he lies about Barack Obama’s birth certificate and the “people on the ground in Hawaii” that he has.

    If most of us filed bankruptcy as much as Trump, we’d be living in the streets, for lack of credit – and he has the gall to comment about someone else?

    If Trump was an “especially bright person” he’d lose the comb-over and just admit that he’s bald. Instead he pretends that he fools us. Well….some of us.

  27. ManuelMartini says:

    sandblower – after yesterday’s te a te with “Concerned”, I’m convinced that there is a lack of chemical balance, i.e. too much (C2H5OH)

  28. ManuelMartini says:

    In honor of Concerned’s presence, I must report that the Washington Examiner called Newt Gingrich a “Saul Alinksky Republican”…..LMAO.

    I realize this has nothing to do with Krauthammer’s comments about Obama, but it does have something to do with Concerned’s comments about darned near everything.

  29. I know aislander was asking menopaws, “who is YOUR ideal as a “great conservative writer” but since she hasn’t answered yet, I thought I would jump in and say that my ideal “great conservative writer” is Philip Klein, for right now anyway.

    Newt Gingrich is a Saul Alinsky Republican

    by Philip Klein Senior Editorial Writer
    postedJanuary 25, 2012

    “When he claimed victory in South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrich declared that, “The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.”

    “But if any candidate is using Saul Alinsky’s playbook in this campaign, it’s Gingrich himself.”

    .

    “GOP nomination fights are often described as battles between Rockefeller Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. In 2012, Gingrich has brought us the Alinsky Republican.”

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-saul-alinsky-republican/338701

  30. LMAO… By the way, the Europeans spent hardly anything on defense, but they DID do the things that lefties like to do

    Bulls eye!

  31. SolAllinandSki says:

    glad everyone is paying attention

  32. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Did you hear Trump’s comment recently that Barrack Obama is NOT a nice man. I think intuitive, especially bright people see behind the facade. Krauthammer is one of them.

    Jan Brewer agrees.

  33. jan brewer showed herself to be a person with quite a mean streak. while she sticks her finger in the face of the ruler-of-the-free-world, she then claims to feel “threatened” by the president of the united states, whom she is seen verbally assaulting and physically threatening her very self.
    she has obviously taken the newtonian course on transferring your own personal weakness upon your opponent.

  34. no wonder her disapproval rating outweigh her approval ratings even in the state of arizona where she was recently elected… no wonder…

  35. sandblower says:

    “Great Conservative” is a simple oxymoron; something like “Military Intelligence” was when it was the standing joke.

  36. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Jelle- you find a 60 year old little woman threatening?

    Sand- I am not intel, but since you got drafted and/or kicked out, things have changed.

  37. It seems kind of strange that Conservatives would look upon Charles Krauthammer as one of their heroes or at least opinion leaders, since he is documented to be a supporter of legalized abortion and he opposes the death penalty.

    Krauthammer has called the religion-science controversy a “false conflict, is a critic of intelligent design, an advocate for evolution, and a supporter of embryonic stem cell research.

    Besides all that, Charles Krauthammer is a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation, so he’s basically a tree-hugger as well.

    Given all that, he might even be in favor of same-sex marriage!

    And this is the guy who Right-Wing Conservatives consider their, how did aislander put it: “ideal great conservative writer.”

    Those Right-Wing Conservatives sure seem like a fickle lot, aren’t they?

  38. I see a NEW moniker has shown up: SolAllinandSki

    Welcome Sol!

    Since you’re new here, and I have been around a couple months now, I am willing to volunteer to be your sponsor if you like.

    I may be able to help you get oriented by keeping an eye on your comments, and offering suggestions from time to time that might help you to get along with the gang a little better than some of the people here do.

    How about that. Would you like me to help you out as you get started here?

  39. When I wrote this part of my 10:13 PM comment: “Charles Krauthammer is a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation,” it reminded me of something I remembered President Obama saying when he was still a United States Senator.

    In January 2008, Senator Obama said in an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    You can watch two videos of Obama explaining this at the following linked site:

    http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/obama-plan-electricity-rates-skyrocket-video/

    Basically, what Senator Obama was saying, was pretty muchthe same thing Charles Krauthammer was saying, in that to reduce greenhouse gasses and “induce conservation” it may be necessary to increase the cost of energy, through the cap and trade system.

    Seems like Old Sour-Kraut agrees with President Obama on at least this issue, doesn’t he? Yeppers! Old Sour-Kraut sure does agree with The Prez!

  40. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Muck bro, perhaps he is conservative and not just following a party line? You, and others on this board, should learn a thing or two from him.

  41. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “no wonder her disapproval rating outweigh her approval ratings even in the state of arizona where she was recently elected… no wonder…

    Wow, you’re right jellz… Brewer’s approval ratings are even 2% below the campaigner-in-chief’s. And her disapproval rating is a whopping 1% above 0bama… which means the campaigner-in-competant suffers the same affliction as Brewer, only on a much larger scale.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  42. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Really jellz, you shouldn’t mention 0bama and approval/ disapproval ratings in the same post.

    – First President since Truman to finish his third year at below a 50% approval rating (Gallup) – even the lowly Jimma’ Cahta managed that
    – Second lowest (only to the peanut farmer) approval rating for November (Gallup)
    – Lowest approval rating, at this juncture, of any president since 1938 (Gallup)
    – Fully 9 points below average for his term to date, when compared to the average approval ratings of all other Presidents since 1938 (Gallup)
    – Should we go on?

    But hey, maybe the guy has a second career as a 60’s soul cover singer. Another pack or two of butts a day should get that pitch jusssst right. In the mean time acting is obviously his career of choice – especially comedy. (Did ‘ya see the one where he stormed off the tarmac? Too funny!))

  43. ManuelMartini says:

    I see Brewer’s water carriers have finally surfaced. It took a couple days.

    My favorite part of this was that she felt “threatened” by the President with Secret Service and photogs within plain view.

    I visioned an old woman clutching her purse in an elevator…

    I’m disappointed that the right wing spin is so slow. They must be caught up throwing fecal matter at their gaggle of presidential campaigners.

    I guess Brewer didn’t like the president’s critique on her book. It seems that she said one thing about their meeting, and then printed something else for the red meat base. Obama read part of the book and commented to her about it.

    Maybe Obama needs to visit earlier in the day.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUPKKbmWMZ8

  44. ManuelMartini says:

    “- Lowest approval rating, at this juncture, of any president since 1938 (Gallup)”

    “At this juncture” – which eliminate competing with Bush for a 29% rating in the last year of two terms.

    Don’t you love how the Republicans manipulate the facts?

  45. ManuelMartini says:

    “Another pack or two of butts a day should get that pitch jusssst right.”

    Let’s see. The philandering Herman Cain’s campaign manager smokes on an ad, but if Obama smokes, that’s subject to rididule. More Republican hypocrisy.

    By the way, Obama executed perfect pitch with the Al Green cover. All one has to do is play each video

    See the comments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lus8OTnLo7w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-hDt2E8MoE

    Don’t let the facts get in the way.

  46. concernedtacoma7 – “Muck bro, perhaps he is conservative and not just following a party line? You, and others on this board, should learn a thing or two from him.”

    ct7 my brother from another mother! My offer to help the SolAllinandSki is not based on his political leaning. He can be right, center, left, I don’t care. My offer is to help him understand things like: when making a statement of fact he should be able to back it up with documented facts by providing a real link. Also, if he makes a charge against another blogger, he should be able to prove that charge is true, and have the guts to stand by his statement and stand by his charge. You know, things that most of us do, but that you typically don’t do yourself.

    P.S. I am sure we can learn new things from SolAllinandSki, if he cares to share his views, ideas and knowledge with us. That’s why I am here. Unfortunately, I haven’t really learned a thing from you yet ct7, but their’s still hope, I guess.

  47. ManuelMartini says:

    “conservative and not following the party line”

    Interesting, to say the least.

  48. Brewer’s publisher is connected with ABC News, which is connected with Yahoo…..this was a choreographed publicity stunt for her book.

    If the old pre-Reagan era regulations to prevent concentration of control over media outlets were still in existence the Brewer publicity stunt wouldn’t have been elevated to the status of “most popular news” story.

    BTW – government competition regulations (aka “antitrust”) have existed since the Roman Empire – hardly what one could term “liberal” or “socialist”. The unregulated “Free Market” is a myth that, when attempts to make it reality come into vogue, leads to less competition and a less stable economic system that wildly cycles through boom and bust.

  49. Manuel; Apparently Voxy_loxy missed the rerun of Jay Leno last night with President Obama as his guest. Jay asked him, and the president stated for a FACT that he has QUIT SMOKING.

    Voxy_ doesn’t really stay too current on his FACTS does he (or she or whatever Voxy_ is)?

    By the way, The President’s approval rating is FOUR (4) TIMES that of the entire congress! FOUR TIMES!!!

    If it were rated in Stars, President Obama is a 4 STAR and congress barely rates 1 dim little star, thanks to the Republican Obstructionists, McConnel, Boehner and Cantor et. al.

    Oh, and I recall one of the jokes from Leno’s monologue, which went something like:

    Did you know that Muammar Gaddafi was said to be The Richest Man in the World, worth over two hundred billion dollars! But he apparently didn’t spend any of that on education or healthcare for his people. He must have been a REPUBLICAN right?

    Good stuff!

  50. aislander says:

    If you’re alleging that you are quoting me, do so accurately…

  51. aislander says:

    Presidents with an approval rating below 50% don’t get re-elected, since “undecideds” always break for the challenger–except for once.

    If I concentrate on the first part, I can fall asleep at night. The second part is what will have me writing checks to the campaign to save America…

  52. President Obama is going to be reelected.

    Gingrich is has no integrity whatsoever, and “undecideds,” Independents, non-partisans or whatever you want to call us, are not the Right-Wing lemmings Republicans are, so we see Newt for the scuzzball he really is.

    If Romney does win the Republican nomination he will have been too badly beaten up by Gingrich to mount any kind of campaign against President Obama, so The President wins again.

    If Ron Paul (or even Comb-over Trump) decides to run as an Independent or 3rd Party candidate, that will syphon votes away from whomever the Republican candidate is, and guarantee The President’s reelection.

    Knowing all that, I don’t have to concentrate at all to go to sleep at night. I just close my eyes and Dream of FOUR MORE YEARS!

  53. ManuelMartini says:

    “He must have been a REPUBLICAN right?”

    The real funny part is that Gaddaft WAS a conservative.

  54. Harry_Anslinger says:

    @ klthompson: “I am not a Republican, but I am a conservative”(rearranging deck chairs on the titanic) who wants this country to get back on the track that built this nation. Obama has derailed the engine but the voters can put it back on the rails”(so you want to build more railroads?).

    When the country was losing 750,ooo jobs a month and the nation was trying to avoid ‘game over’ with our economy and Obama reversed the job losses and the economy is anemically growing even through the obstructionism that is our current political playbook it is interesting to see how the narrow minded still cling to the notion that this Administration is somehow at fault or totally incompetent. I’m not saying there is no incompetence at all mind you but a GOP Administration would solve our economic problems? Yeah good luck with that.

  55. ManuelMartini says:

    “Jelle,
    The Congress is Republican controlled? The Congress is made up of the Senate and the House. When did the Republicans take control of the Senate?”

    With the filibuster

  56. “this was a choreographed publicity stunt for her book.” Is that a fact, bBoy?..because I know how careful you are about distinguishing between fact and opinion on this blog.

    Let’s say your inference is correct. What does it say about a president who falls for it?

    But for your remarkable inferential skills we would never have known about the governor’s shenanigans. Thank you!

    muckibr, sometimes it seems to me that you represent a faction of people these days who presume that one must take an all or nothing stance on virtually everything. To say that Krauthammer is intelligent,which he clearly is, in no way suggests 100% alliance with everything he believes or feels. The point is, he’s smart, and in this case, there was no big hypocrisy as you and the letter-writer would have us believe.

    Example, I think Barrack Obama is very intelligent (though I think it impossible to believe he’s as intelligent as it appears HE thinks he is) — but I digress. I think he’s intelligent. I think he has some right ideas about a few things. Intelligence aside, I think he is a poor leader and frankly, a danger to this society as he attempts to Eurofy the U.S. by his policies. I personally think he is an angry, egocentric dude, but I own that as my very personal, intuitive opinion.

    Finally muckibr, re Leno’s remark…it’s satire. It’s a commentary about the presumptions people make, as in “if he’s rich he must be a Republican.” It’s a joke about stereotypes. period. Are you familiar with Leno’s politics. He is bipartisan when it comes to his jokes.

    MM’s adolescent crack about Donald Trump hardly deserves an answer, but what the heck. Are you able to distinguish between intelligence and vanity? Or intelligence and personality? Say what you want about Donald Trump, (maybe it takes one mean guy to i.d. another!) but he’s clearly brilliant and, given his status in political circles, he’s had a lot more up-close time with the president than you or I have. His insights could be wrong, but there are in my opinion, worth at least considering.

  57. ManuelMartini says:

    “MM’s adolescent crack about Donald Trump hardly deserves an answer, but what the heck.”

    How do expect people to take you seriously when the wind proves otherwise?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1362611/Donald-Trump-hair-encounter-fans-wind-catches-out.html

    Be what you really are, and quit trying to fool people.

    What makes Trump “brilliant”? His PT Barnum huckster image? His multiple bankruptcies? His ability to lose money handed to him by his daddie?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  58. ManuelMartini says:

    “I personally think he is an angry, egocentric dude, but I own that as my very personal, intuitive opinion.”

    Funny. People who know him personally and interact with him on a regular basis claim he is a quiet, gentle man.

    The above hightlight comment reads like it was scripted by Newsmax and Brietbart, with all the Frank Lutz buzzwords.

    What angry man would break into song in front of all those people?

  59. aislander says:

    ManuelMartini writes: “‘He must have been a REPUBLICAN right?’

    “The real funny part is that Gaddaft WAS a conservative.”

    Another example of deep thinking from the sinister side of the aisle…

  60. “– Should we go on?”

    Sure. Obama leads all the potential GOP nominees in the polls.

  61. sozo “muckibr, sometimes it seems to me that you represent a faction of people these days who presume that one must take an all or nothing stance on virtually everything.”

    No! I represent the faction of people who would prefer other people to be honest and consistent and not talk out of both sides of their mouth like Sour-Kraut has. I am against hypocrisy.

    And, I know what Leno’s politics are and that he tells jokes. It’s just too damn bad for you and the Republicans that sometimes Jay’s jokes hit too close to the truth!

    BTW sozo…

    What do YOU think of Charles Krauthammer supporting legalized abortion and opposing the death penalty?

    How about Krauthammer calling the “religion-science controversy” a “false conflict, and criticizing intelligent design, and advocating for evolution, and supporting embryonic stem cell research?

    What’s YOUR opinion on those positions held by Old Sour-Kraut?

  62. ManuelMartini says:

    aislander – you have something to contribute to prove that Gaddafi wasn’t a conservative leader in his country?

    Of course you don’t. That’s why you resort to insult.

    Like many “revolutionary” figures, Gaddafi resorted to dictatorial control over his masses, eliminating opposition and governing from a religiously conservative position.

    It’s funny how the Republicans are quick to lable Mao from a position of their takeover and not a position of their governing style.

    Yet….they’ll be the first to tell you that the “Founding Fathers” were conservatives, not progressives.

  63. “What angry man would break into song in front of all those people?”

    Well, I can think of at least one….

    John Ashcroft

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woLQI8X2R6Y

  64. ManuelMartini says:

    This is a great example of how Republicans can flip flop with the best of them:

    “Gingrich actually supported a bill that would imprison, and in certain cases put to death, anyone who brought more than two ounces of a controlled substance into the country. The Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 was only ever introduced, but it’s an interesting choice of pet project for someone who used to smoke pot … because it was, as he put it, “a sign that we were alive and in graduate school”

    I’m wondering what Limbaugh should have gotten for his cache of oxycotin.

    No wonder he’s the “Saul Alinsky Republican”.

  65. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – oh my! I had forgotten.

    I’ll stick with the Al Green cover.

  66. “Presidents with an approval rating below 50% don’t get re-elected”

    Bovine byproduct.

    Truman won re-election despite having an approval rating of 38%.
    Reagan won re-election despite an approval rating that dipped as low as 38% in his first term.
    Bill Clinton won re-election despite an approval rating of 49.6.
    Bush II won re-election despite having an approval rating below 50% for a good part of 2004.

  67. ManuelMartini says:

    Hell, Bush II won without 50% of the popular vote!!!

  68. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Wait a minute MMnos, the Founding Fathers were white, rich, an did not pay, design, or desire an income tax. they were about small, limited federal powers and scope. Is that not your current view of republicans today?

  69. ehill, Manuel, are you guys saying aislander TOLD ANOTHER FIB?

    Naughty! Naughty! aislander! You win the “Blogger Pants On Fire Award” today!!!

  70. Apparently ct7 is FORGETTING that “The Founders” only had to craft a government for 13 states and it was one of the weakest countries in the world at that time.

    In case ct7 hasn’t noticed, there are now 37 MORE states, and The United States of America is still the most powerful country in the world today, in spite of how the Republicans have tried to ruin that ranking.

    ct7, I t might be useful for you to try to keep things IN PERSPECTIVE.

  71. ItalianSpring says:

    Krauthammer is good sometimes, as is Will. But none of them is a Mark Levin, and sadly, they’re not sharp enough to ever be.

  72. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Obama leads all the potential GOP nominees in the polls.

    ALL polls? LMAO!

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/05/news/la-pn-obama-trails-romney-20111005

    Even if you were close to being right – which, as usual, you aren’t – it would behoove you to bone-up on the roll of the Electoral College in Presidential elections.

  73. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Hey muck, I thought you weren’t speaking to me… but then are you not the same fabulist who claims that he doesn’t mock others screen names?

    BTW, you still driven’ a Toyota?

  74. “What angry man would break into song in front of all those people?”

    You don’t even know, do you, what this question says about your discernment, MM It’s going to be hard to take you seriously after this. Well, it’s been hard, now it’ll be dang near impossible.

    muckibr, if I could trust your account of what Krauthammer favors, I’d answer you, but I’m sorry, I don’t quite. Can you send me to direct quotes, etc?

    For the record, if it turns out that what you say is true, it does not change my opinion of Krauthammer’s intelligence. Do you agree with every politician or pundit that you respect?

  75. ManuelMartini says:

    “What does it say about a president who falls for it?”

    I’d say that the President wanted to give someone the benefit of the doubt AFTER she had already badmouthed him in a book, after telling the press that her first meeting with Obama went well.

    Wanna bet it won’t happen again?

  76. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo – please, avoid taking me seriously. I don’t want to disrupt the bubble in which you exist.

  77. “ALL polls? LMAO!”

    You cited a poll that’s three months old, and only interviewed people in seven states? ROFLMAO

  78. “It is truly amazing the level of blabber-mouthing from the lefties here.”

    … said the guy who cited a three-month old poll which only considered people in seven states. ROFLMAO

  79. ManuelMartini says:

    “BTW, you still driven’ a Toyota?”

    I must be muckibr because I was “kardy” and “kardy” was “Toyotaman”

    ….and the music goes ’round and ’round and it comes out here!

    But it seems that the same (coughLF) person (coughLF) is always worried about who is who, thus “Vox” must be (fill in the blank)

    These threads read better than a Kitty Kelly book.

  80. ManuelMartini says:

    Did Bush hit a record low 29% favorable in 2008?

  81. ManuelMartini says:

    Did anyone else notice that since I posted the Al Green and Obama videos that Vox shut up about the perfect pitch issue and moved on to some other creative crap?

    Is Obama over the age of 18? I believe that is the criteria for smoking choice. Ask John Boehner.

  82. ManuelMartini says:

    2/8/11 –

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has finally done what millions of fellow Americans are still struggling to achieve – he’s given up smoking.

    “Yes, he has,” his wife, Michelle, said Tuesday at the White House when asked whether he had conquered a nicotine habit that began as a teenager.

    “It’s been almost a year,” she said, offering no details on exactly when or how he quit.

    But is the breakup with tobacco final?

    One in five adults, about 46 million people, still smoke, and brain research shows that nicotine is powerfully addictive. Three out of four smokers who try to kick the habit relapse within six months, and repeated attempts often are required to quit long term, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

    Obama, who has one of the world’s most stressful jobs, has walked this tobacco road before. He announced in February 2008, during his presidential campaign, that he was quitting smoking – again.

    “He’s always wanted to stop,” Mrs. Obama said Tuesday. She said he wants to be able to look daughters Malia, 12, and Sasha, 9, in the eye and deny that he smokes should they ask.

    The issue of Obama’s smoking last surfaced in December, when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about it and said he had “not seen or witnessed evidence of any smoking in probably nine months.” That timeline would put Obama’s final cigarette puffs in March of last year.

  83. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Seven KEY states, blabbermouth. Do You know how to read?

    Thanks for your confirmation. Now go find out what is meant by “Key”. And in the mean time, how much will you wager 0bama still trails in these states when the next poll comes out? I mean… is he above 50% yet?

    Save it, I’ll reply for you:

    No, nothing, and no.

  84. What does this have to do with Charles Krauthammer?

  85. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Did Bush hit a record low 29% favorable in 2008?

    Do I really have to point out the non-sequitur here?

    Okay, for Kardy… again:

    2008 was Bush’s SECOND term, he was not facing re-election, and it was not following his third year in office (where he notched a 55%). Hence you have no point – like a very dull tool. But feel free to blabber on.

  86. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Kardy, I’m going to explain one more thing to you:

    I make joke about Al 0bama cover job. You takey serious – you problem. If you no get, return to toolbox.

    HTH

    Geez Larry, I knew your brain cells were thin, never guessed the problem extended to your skin. What…are you a smoker too?

  87. ManuelMartini says:

    Voxie is really upset.

  88. ManuelMartini says:

    Someone who thinks they know who I am should know if I smoke, shouldn’t they?

  89. ManuelMartini says:

    Sozo – what did your opinion of me have to do with Krauthammer?

  90. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    What, Kardy? No response? C’mon, you are the leader of the blabbermouths, surely you can do better than a lame “Voxie is really upset”.

    Truly, you bring the Churchillian but pimple to mind; not noticeable unless scratched.

  91. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Sorry solo, I’ll stop the thread drift here with a more recent poll – just for LarrEhill:

    12/13/11
    A USA Today/Gallup poll of 12 swing states released Tuesday finds the Republican Party in a stronger position than in 2008, when Obama ran the table in each state contest. More than six in 10 Republicans say they are enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with fewer than half of Democrats.

    Obama also runs slightly behind his most likely Republican contenders in hypothetical 2012 match-ups. Among registered voters in swing states, Gallup shows Obama winning 45 percent to Newt Gingrich’s 48 percent (within the poll’s margin of error), and Obama trails Romney 43 to 48 percent. In 2008, Obama beat John McCain by 53 to 46 percent among voters in these key states.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-watcher-swing-states-less-friendly-to-obama-in-2012/2011/12/13/gIQAvDAEsO_blog.html

  92. Well sozo…you may choose to believe that the “news” on Yahoo/ABC News just coincidentally was giving a lot of coverage of an incident related to a book release by HarperCollins and had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all three companies serve the same stockholders but I’m not that trusting.

  93. aislander says:

    Geez, I hate having to clean up after the lefties.

    “Conservative” means different things in different places. Conservatives in America are trying to conserve the founding principles of the nation. It SHOULD go without saying that is an entirely different thing from whatever ManuelMartini was trying to say about the dead Libyan dictator. But believing idiotic things is what makes them lefties, I suppose.

    When I posted that incumbent presidents sporting approval ratings below 50% don’t get re-elected, I noted the one exception, but I made the assumption that smart people would understand I meant the approval rating at the time of the election.

    One can’t assume “smart” where lefties are concerned…

  94. ManuelMartini says:

    Regardless of the Right Wing’s attempt to rewrite the dictionary, “conservative” has a political application.

    “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”

    The above is the applicable definition.

    Now, if the “conservatives” were trying to “conserve the founding principles”, maybe we need to examine the roll of the black man in America during the time of the “founding principles”. How about the “founding principles” of voting? Maybe the “founding principles” of womens’ rights?

    I’m certainly glad we have all that worked out.

    Meanwhile in Iran, the religious leaders take a conservative stand, as did Gaddafi, Bin Laden, and Hussien (Saddam).

  95. ManuelMartini says:

    Oops. I left “ehill” out of Voxie’s name rant.

    All of those names are the tripe that LF used to blather when frustrated.

    The funny part is that VoxieLF doesn’t have a clue as to who I really am and is going out of its mind trying to buy a clue.

    Someone really got into Voxie’s nickers. Big time.

  96. ManuelMartini says:

    Back to the “founding principles”…

    What is the difference between Repubicans wanting to CONSERVE a voting process that restricted voters and the process that Saddam used in Iraq?

    Didn’t Saddam kill some Iraqis because of their culture/religion? Wouldn’t that be alot like killing blacks in America, prior to civil rights legislation?

    :::handing aislander the broom:::::

    I think you missed some dirt.

  97. aislander says:

    Pity you can’t discern the difference between principles and behavior, but all you guys are limited in that way to some degree.

    That all people are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights is a principle. Not living up to that principle is a behavior, but then so is extending those rights to those who were formerly denied them. See the difference?

    And even a liberal would have to admit, when pressed on specifics, that drawing an equivalence between Americans and bloodthirsty Middle Eastern dictators is a shabby, shabby thing to do…

  98. L.H. the extraordinaire torpedos another thread.

  99. close italics.

  100. O_bummer.

  101. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    LOL, Kardy may have torpedoed the thread, but at least he didn’t lock us in interminable html italics. Come to think of it neither did I… for a change.

    And speaking of LH, I have never confused the personas of T-Man and any of his collection. ehill on the other hand, I’m not so sure about.

  102. Voxy I told you before, you must be suffering from advanced CRS.

    NOW WRITE THIS DOWN SO I DON’T HAVE TO TELL YOU AGAIN, my wife drives the Prius. (Yes, its a Toyota.) I drive my Dakota R/T. She gets about 42 mpg, I get 11 mpg.

    And Voxy, about creative name usage, I told you this before too.

    TAKE NOTES IF YOU CAN’T REMEMBER STUFF: I stopped lecturing YOU PEOPLE about name-calling a long long time ago, because it’s never stopped YOU PEOPLE from calling me or others on these blogs names. So I figure, if you’re gonna do it, then so can I. That’s only FAIR right?

    .

    sozo, You tell me you don’t believe what I wrote about Old Sour-Kraut, and that I should provide you with a link to prove it, but you say even if I do provide you a link and it proves what I said, then you say you still won’t believe it.

    Well, let me ask you: If you’re going to refuse to believe me even if I provide you proof, then why the hell should I even bother?

    You see, you are a classic example of what I mean when I say people like you have CLOSED MINDS! Even if I can prove something to you, you have already decided you are just going to refuse to accept the proof and the truth anyway. That is a CLOSED MIND.

    Anyway, all you have to do to prove it to yourself, about Sour-Kraut that is, is read the Wikipedia page on Krauthammer. It’s down a few sections where it describes exactly what I said in my post about him being pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment, pro-stem cell research and so forth. Find it yourself, it’ll be good exercise for you.

    As far as proving you are CLOSED MINDED, just re-read your own comments.

    .

    aislander, your stuff is just too silly and not worth specifically replying to at all. DO YOU EVER DO ANY REAL RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING YOUR NONSENSE?

  103. Oh! And look! Thanks Voxy, we now are stuck in italics!!! Way to go!!!

  104. aislander says:

    mucky writes: “…then why the hell should I even bother?”

    Well, exactly…

  105. ManuelMartini says:

    Nice work, SPeters.

    You locked the ital.

    Of course, you are Vox, so Vox did it.

    Meanwhile aislander still gropes for a way out of the hole he dug for himself.

    If only I was who VoxPeters thinks I am. I know someone is getting a huge laugh about all this.

    Isn’t it time for LF to unleash “Took14″?

  106. Sorry Voxy, it does look like it was SPeters who locked-in the italics.

    See! I can admit when I have made a mistake. Can you?

  107. Yes it was I. Actually, it was a glitch. I closed the italics. When I saw it didn’t close I immedietly attempted to close again.

    But, does it really matter? The thread died a long time ago. :(

  108. Cherry picking again aislander? Out of context, and you get it wrong. Again!

  109. ManuelMartini says:

    If I asked for a cookie, could LF make one appear?

  110. Well MM, I was commenting on something you said when we were still talking about things that were at least close to on-topic. But never mind. Think what you will. Or not.

  111. ClamatoClamato says:

    Yadda yadda

  112. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo – “Must every situation be adverserial and divisive?”

    Rubber/glue

  113. ManuelMartini says:

    Clamato…..LMAO

  114. ManuelMartini says:

    By the way, since someone is allegedly keeping track – comment #2 was the first one to go “off topic”. As follows:

    concernedtacoma7 says:
    Jan. 27, 2012 at 11:31 am Congress is accused of malice? How about Harry and half of the equation? The least productive senate in a century.
    SOTU was failed ideas that he could not ram through under a dem monopoly. Even his rhetoric was cut and paste from previous SOTUs.

    LF….you’re going to have to get control of your “Concerned” character.

  115. ManuelMartini says:

    Just to keep things even:

    sozo says:
    Jan. 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm What does this have to do with Charles Krauthammer?

    There is the criteria for “on topic”

  116. Manuel, You are absolutely correct about the comment #2 deflection by concerned…7.

    And, apparently sozo hasn’t yet bothered to look up the Krauthammer Wiki page, or perhaps she has, and refuses to believe that Krauthanmmer is not down with the Republican/Conservative party agenda, being pro-abortion, pro-stem cell, anti-death penalty and all the other liberal positions he’s said to really believe in.

    Yet, Old Sour-Kraut is pro-hypocrisy as well, given his two-faced competing views of the president’s SOTU, which I have provided documented PROOF of above, unlike some people who only provide opinions without proof or documentation. I’m sure you know who I mean, right Manuel? (The one who LF needs to get better control of.)

  117. aislander says:

    another alt attack…yawn…

  118. aislander says:

    The general heading under which this forum appears is “opinion.” Sum here believe that means “researching” the internet to be able to cite the opinions of others.

    Longtime members (and some newer ones) are perfectly able to observe a set of circumstances, assess them, and produce their OWN opinions, which seems much more in keeping with the aim of the forum.

    …unless the real aim is to derail discussion and prevent the “wrong” sort of persuasion…

  119. ManuelMartini says:

    “THAT’S one of the tactics: fixate on one word”

    The latest wallpapering campaign from thread to thread is to complain about other’s posts.

    Then use buzzwords

    “Sum” “alts”

    Can’t take the heat in the kitchen, huh?

  120. ManuelMartini says:

    Did your parents name you “aislander” with a lower case “a”?

  121. You really DON’T get it, do you aislander? How long have you been posting on these blogs? (Maybe you need a break!)

    Yours is a very shallow OPINION as to what the purpose of these blogs are. Here, let me try to explain it to you, so do try to pay attention:

    1. The letter writer writes an Opinion Letter and sends it to the TNT

    2. The TNT posts selected letters on these blogs, and … (this is the key part aislander, so pay close attention…)

    3. The TNT invites people to… either PROVE or DISPROVE the OPINION of the original letter writer, by providing facts and/or documented evidence that either supports or refutes the OPINION that is the TOPIC of discussion.

    Pretty simple huh? Even you should have been able to figure that out aislander.

    Addendum: Simply stacking more unfounded opinions on top of the original opinion, as concerned…7 has been doing, is totally and completely pointless and proves nothing, and concerned…7 has proven nothing.

    Now do you get it aislander?

    BTW, what the hell is “the “wrong” sort of persuasion…” you mentioned? That was a really weird comment you made!

    Forget that! Don’t answer that last question aislander, it doesn’t matter.

    ….

    Anyone have anything new to add regarding Letter-Writer Jim Groves’ OPINION of Charles Krauthammer’s hit-piece on President Obama?

  122. aislander says:

    Hall monitor, huh? Be sure to remind teacher to assign homework and that there was supposed to be a test today. “W” word. (see, no obscenity, even though one is well deserved)

  123. ManuelMartini says:

    “aislander” is an “alt”

    “A” word

  124. Today The Mascot posts “yawn” and, on another thread, The Master types “another alt attack…..yawn..”

    The master imitates the wannabe.

  125. aislander says:

    beerBoy: If you look up-thread, you’ll see that someone (the “alt”) is using a corrupted version of vox’s screen name. That is what I was referring to.

    As for the “yawning” coincidence, well those happen. I don’t read every post in every thread. Precious time, and all that…

  126. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “I stopped lecturing YOU PEOPLE about name-calling a long long time ago, because it’s never stopped YOU PEOPLE from calling me or others on these blogs names. So I figure, if you’re gonna do it, then so can I. That’s only FAIR right?”

    Actually, your entire explanation is both racist and hypocritical.

    But I would be interested in your retrieving a post of mine whereby I referred to you by any other nom de plume than the abbreviated from of your most recent handle (muck). Consider it a term of endearment, irrespective of the appropriateness of the literal definition of “muck”. Oh I’ll admit, I “Toyed” with your new moniker at first, but I have refrained for some months now, out of pity for your sensitivity.

    As for your admitting mistakes, if you were to set out correcting your record you would need more pages than Tolstoy. You may be surprised to know I often actually agree with you, but when you are wrong (all too frequently) you are so astonishingly wrong – as in everything you’ve posted to this thread from 1/28 @ 9:23 on.

    Wallpaper may cover mistakes, but they’re still there… lurking just below the surface. And when the wallpaper is just as ghastly as what it purports to cover, what’s the difference?

  127. aislander tells another FIB! “beerBoy: If you look up-thread, you’ll see that someone (the “alt”) is using a corrupted version of vox’s screen name.”

    All of the comments posted with a moniker begiginning with “Vox_…” are legitimately posted by the same name, which is the one and only: Vox_clamantis_in_deserto

    There are NO variations of that screen name posting any message in this thread above this message. Absolutely NONE! aislander FIBBED again!

    UNLESS, aislander is referring to the one message posted by someone using the screen name ClamatoClamato, in which case aislander is kind of calling Vox_ a name, in a way.

    .

    Voxy_ YOU ARE WAY TOO FUNNY!!! How is ANYTHING I wrote racist or hypocritical. YOU PEOPLE is not a racist pejorative. It’s just two commonly used words one might use to describe any group of like-minded people like YOU RIGHTIES. And, since we have absolutely no way of knowing what anyone’s race is on these blogs, it could NOT possibly be interpreted as racist in any possible way. And hypocrital? I think not.

    You are way too sensitive Voxy_! Take a break man, Get some chamomile tea or something to calm yourself down.

    But, I am very glad you finally admit that YOU DO AGREE WITH ME?

    And, BTW I am correct about Sour-Kraut, because unlike some people on these blogs, I HAVE PROVIDED DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE FOR MY ASSERTIONS about Old Sour-Kraut.

    What next? Are you going to call me a commie!

  128. aislander says:

    Get that therapy, muck…

  129. He can’t possibly take himself serious.

    I think b’s getting jealous.

    Let’s play ‘Does This Ring a Bell’ Who said the following…

    “sozo-to bring up another thread is hardly taking the higher ground. As Kim admonished to all of us – let’s stay on topic.
    btw….the post I made was criticizing all of the wasted time and space spent on speculating about alternative screen-names. I did not know that the term I used was considered “name-calling” or in any way considered offensive.”

    I’ll give a hint if I have to. :)

  130. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Nope. Liar, hypocrite, and racist will do for starters.

    BTW, the phrase “you people” is offensive to minorities. It is therefor considered a racial slur. And since you have no idea of my ethnicity, it is clearly a phrase that you feel comfortable in using. Thus, using the types of circular logic common to yourself and your fellow blabbermouth compadres, herein, it is a clear window into your racist soul.

    You need sensitivity classes, muck.

  131. “And, apparently sozo hasn’t yet bothered to look up the Krauthammer Wiki page, or perhaps she has, and refuses to believe that Krauthanmmer is not down with the Republican/Conservative party agenda, being pro-abortion, pro-stem cell, anti-death penalty and all the other liberal positions he’s said to really believe in. ”

    You are correct, I haven’t bothered. First of all, I have a life away from this blog and second, I’m not voting for Charles Krauthammer and he needn’t be in lock step with me and my thinking, and certainly not you and yours muckibr, to qualify as a conservative.

    Wikipedia, seriously?

    But you don’t really care much about that do you? I think you ust like to bicker.

    aislander, if one dares to step out and actually form and express an opinion that they can’t back up with some lame googled source, there are those here who just aren’t going to appreciate what that’s about…some call it critical thinking.

  132. sandblower says:

    Mr. Krauthammer is a flaming neocon with proof beyond reproach. We all know about the unhealthy disruptions neocons have endorsed and for that reason, taking anything Mr. Krauthammer usually says as a way to improve the human condition is equivalent to accepting nonsense in place of reason. That is the case here.

  133. took14theteam says:

    Thank you sandblower401/402

  134. aislander says:

    Another glittering gem…

  135. Columnists like Krauthammer are printed solely to generate readership. Ignore him and he will go away.

  136. “if one dares to step out and actually form and express an opinion that they can’t back up with some lame googled source, there are those here who just aren’t going to appreciate what that’s about…some call it critical thinking.”

    Hubris trumps critical thinking in that statement.

  137. vox – “you people” is racist?!!!

    Where is xx/qq/SCORPION when you need him to take on the PC crap you are trying to feed us?

  138. “Seven KEY states, blabbermouth. Do You know how to read?”

    How adult.

  139. “When I posted that incumbent presidents sporting approval ratings below 50% don’t get re-elected, I noted the one exception, but I made the assumption that smart people would understand I meant the approval rating at the time of the election.”

    ROFL. That’s really funny coming from the guy who claims a superior grasp of the English language.

  140. ManuelMartini says:

    “if one dares to step out and actually form and express an opinion that they can’t back up with some lame googled source”

    If my opionion was that all Evangelical Christians are facist, would you accept it as fact?

  141. ManuelMartini says:

    ehill – when a Republican goes searching for minutia to support their warm and fuzzy feeling that everything will be OK if we just have a different President, they’ll categorize and re-categorize the issue so that there is only one person to which the category applies:

    “- Lowest approval rating, at this juncture, of any president since 1938 (Gallup)”

    How about adding “with dark skin” and eliminate “since 1938″? Bottom line is that George Bush took the prize RECENTLY for the lowest popularity rating at ANY TIME in his service

  142. “If my opionion was that all Evangelical Christians are facist, would you accept it as fact?”

    Good Lord.

    Try to read this for meaning: I am not suggesting that anyone ignore facts. I am saying that it is called critical thinking when, after thoughtful exploration, you form a reasoned opinion and express it.

    As for your jab at evangelicals, given the demonstration of your reasoning abilities on these pages, I would not place any significance on your remark at all.

    And hubris is not an assumed byproduct of critical thinking, cirrus.

  143. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    C’mon, bB, I wouldn’t expect the mutant Kardy clone army to get it, but you’ve been around long enough to recognize sarcasm. He and his aliases are very keen to use circular logic as a means of identifying racism under every overturned rock. So when their acolytes provide opportunities to turn the mirror on them, I am happy to put on the gloves and get out the polish.

    EXHIBIT “A”:

    ““- Lowest approval rating, at this juncture, of any president since 1938 (Gallup)”

    How about adding “with dark skin” and eliminate “since 1938″?”

    Thanks, Kardy, right on cue.

    And if Krauthammer ever directed the phrase “you people” at a minority group, you libs would bring the site down with your cries of “racist”.

  144. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo….you really don’t get it do you? You pretend to be intelligent but you actually don’t comprehend an analogy.

    My example, using “Evangelical Christians” was intended to penetrate the bone structure in your head and make a BS issue be personal to you so that you can see the destruction allowed when “opinion” without support data is submitted in a discussion.

    Instead you see this as a “jab” – or are exercising your martyr rights. Either way, you’ve, again, missed the point.

    You see, you miss the point also that Republicans will make all sorts of BS statements about….oh, how about “homosexuals”. Not a lick of fact in the statements, and every bit as incendiary as my “Evangelicals” statement, but you wouldn’t flinch an inch, because it aligns with your “critical thinking” that you allege.

    When you avoid critical thinking you miss the obvious, just like Voxie. You see Voxie’s skullbone got in the way of the obvious fact that, when the GOP is citing their “facts” by exclusion, the simplist way would just be to say “dark skinned”, which really isn’t a racist term, but would define their category so that only Obama could be considered.

    Limited thinking skills will always produce the same limited spectrum of view.

  145. ManuelMartini says:

    Maybe, when trying to isolate Obama as the only person with a such and such record, you need to say “with a size 38 inch inseam” and eliminate all others, or say the “Obama’s record is the worst of all presidents elected in 2008″.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  146. ManuelMartini says:

    Voxie, since I am not “Kardy” and have no alias, does that make you paranoid or deflecting, LF?

  147. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    LMAO, okey-dokey.

  148. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Let’s be precise then; Kardnos – there, I said it. That better?

  149. ManuelMartini says:

    If I’m “Kardy” you are “LF”.

    That better?

  150. ManuelMartini says:

    Sozo – I should have just said that my analogy was only humor. That seems to work for Voxie/LF

  151. aislander says:

    cirrus: There are some constructs that are internally consistent–that is, logical–and if you are trying to refute those, you DO need to refer to facts, sometimes requiring an outside source if the facts aren’t generally known and stipulated. In such a case there may be internal consistency, but the assertion would be wrong if the facts are wrong.

    That is not what sozo and I are talking about. We are talking about constructs that lack internal consistency. In those cases, the facts called on to support the assertion may be right, but the assertion itself would be wrong.

    It would appear that reason and logic in such a case are not enough to satisfy the hall monitor, who seems to require some “expert” to endorse perfectly valid opinions. He is free to show where our logic is flawed and why there is logic to support the conclusion he prefers, but that is not his game…

  152. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Kooky.

  153. Oh I comprehend and analogy, when an analogy actually exists. I think it best to just let you go on your merry way MM.

  154. Dismissed!

  155. sozo: “Try to read this for meaning: I am not suggesting that anyone ignore facts. I am saying that it is called critical thinking when, after thoughtful exploration, you form a reasoned opinion and express it.”

    But sozo, if you present your “reasoned opinion” without providing any supporting facts as proof or even an attempt to identify how you arrived at your “reasoned opinion”, then all you have really presented is your “opinion.” Without some documented evidence there is no proof whatsoever of that “critical thinking” you claim was used to arrive at your alleged “reasoned opinion.”

    And, opinions, by themselves are not facts.

    Try this for an analogy…

    Dump your “reasoned opinion” in one hand, and then dump manure in the other hand. Now tell me, which hand fills up first?

  156. ManuelMartini says:

    Sozo….look up the definition of “analogy”.

    There is no opinion on what an analogy is. There is a FACT.

    1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

    Now because you can’t discern, does not make the analogy disappear.

  157. aislander says:

    Wrong logic makes a statement wrong. Live with it, muck. Now go stalk someone else…

  158. I’m not stalking you aislander. I’m just trying to help you.

  159. took14theteam says:

    Thanks mockingbird…

  160. aislander, looks like you slipped-up and responded to my comment with your took14theteam alt. You should have logged out as took14theteam, and then logged back in as aislander before you posted your “Thanks” comment.

    Now you have revealed yourself as being both aislander and took14theteam. Oops! I guess ManuelMartini has been correct about you all along.

    But seriously folks, is there any more to say about Old Sour-Kraut’s two-faced commentary about President Obama and The State of the Union address that Krauthammer first said he liked and then wrote that he hated?

  161. Give it up, aislander. It’s hopeless. Didn’t you break your own ignore rule. I know, it’s hard sometimes.

    Funny that this should all erupt in the “opinion” section of the paper.

    btw muck, shouting…using all caps and other keyboard geegaws …does not make you appear any brighter, just loud.

  162. ManuelMartini says:

    Now sozo resorts to the silliness of “all caps is shouting”. Personally, I run all caps on a word or phrase for emphasis, but I’m certain that if the alleged minds of the conservative world claim I’m shouting, then I must be shouting.

    Muckibr, isn’t it funny how those who run around like Chicken Little crying about “alts” eventually get caugh in their own fecal pile?

  163. took14theteam says:

    took14theteam
    JAN. 29, 2012 AT 9:06 PM  
    Thank you sandblower401/402

    aislander
    JAN. 29, 2012 AT 9:06 PM  
    Another glittering gem…

    Yep, one and the same muckingbird.

  164. Took1/aisland_nos

    So you posted two messages at the same time, so what. That just means you have at least two computers. Doesn’t prove you are both NOT the same person. Try again.

  165. ManuelMartini says:

    “but this guy, who I am convinced is psychotic, is following me all over the forum.”

    As YOU are following ME around the forum? Everywhere I go, there is aislander/took14/LF, worrying about whose underwear I wore today.

    What a childish post. Of course, I have noticed that aislander suffers from visions of granduer leading to the idea that his name is “Tribune” and that this is his private property.

    Who is psycotic? The person who knows that everyone with whom he disagrees are all the same person, because no more than one person could possibly disagree with His Royal Highness.

    The Emperor has no clothes.

  166. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr…LOL

  167. aislander says:

    MM writes: “Of course, I have noticed that aislander suffers from visions of granduer leading to the idea that his name is “Tribune” and that this is his private property.”

    Yep. I’m the guy who’s badgering everyone to “stay on topic.” THAT shows delusions of grandeur, which IS a symptom of psychosis.

    Oh, wait: that’s mucky…

  168. No delusions of grandeur on my part.

    I simply ask folks to go back to the topic so we can avoid more of this silly off topic junk that is neither informative or entertaining.

    I wish I had the power of a Tribune Monitor, because if I did I would use it to DELETE all the Off Topic comments from everyone who posts them, and BLOCK the most egregious initiators of those off topic deflections.

    But, alas, I don’t have such power at my command, so I simply ask, from time to time, that we return to the original topic for a FUN change of pace. You know what I mean?

    So, aislander, if you are done with your little rant, can we return to the topic for a change?

  169. aislander says:

    Not a rant; simply an observation…

  170. ManuelMartini says:

    Here is “simply an observation”…..

    Whoever would post something like this – “but this guy, who I am convinced is psychotic, is following me all over the forum.”

    is the Puget Sound equivilant to Jan Brewer’s “feeling threatened” to now telling GOP monied types that she was telling Obama “you have one more year”. Fear to tough woman in a flip flop.

    http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/brewer-using-tiff-with-obama-to-raise-money/article_105ecbfa-4b79-11e1-8fa7-0019bb2963f4.html

    What will aislander say next about muckibr’s whereabouts on the Tribune site?

  171. took14theteam says:

    That he is hanging with you at the lake or tickling some ivory..

  172. A. I don’t know anyone who lives on a lake.

    2. I don’t play the piano.

  173. took14theteam says:

    YOU ARE SUCH A Kard….

    ;-)

  174. took14theteam says:

    NOW BACK ON TOPIC….

    So WHY should Obama DESERVE 4 more YEARS?

    He REALLY hasn’t DONE a DAMN thing for THE COUNTRY other than ENJOY the GOOD LIFE on the TAXPAYERS DIME.

  175. Pathetic!

  176. No suprprise, aislander, I thought your remarks were cogent and spot on.

  177. aislander says:

    So…sozo…do you think he is truly incapable of grasping that, or–as I believe–he is screwing with me. I MEAN–NObody can be that…

  178. aislander says:

    Oops–left off the question mark when I recast the sentence.

  179. aislander’s ardent admirers include sozo and jimmofmanynames. They seem to be impressed by his intellect in service of anti-intellectualism.

    I enjoy his forays into wit and wordplay but, as the previous paragraph indicates, am not impressed by his insistence, employment of arcane and non-relevant factoids, or that he has apparently memorized Jonah Goldberg’s entire text. Like most devotees to Ayn Rand’s adolescent rants, his politics are not grounded in the real world.

  180. Just like Krauthammer

  181. I don’t know aislander. I’m taken back by how … some people are.

  182. aislander says:

    Well…thank you, beerBoy!

  183. sozo, So am I. Taken aback, by how some people are, that is. Some people!!!

  184. aislander says:

    Some people…cannot be shamed, sozo.

  185. muckibr says:

    Are you confessing or bragging aislander? It’s hard to tell with you.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0