The 2012 Democratic National Convention

[House]

Interlude

One could never guess that Greta Van Sustern had plastic surgery on her grill. She looks like the surgeon used a broken Olde E bottle, rebar, and a brick.

I had to turn off the high def

She has a face that's made for radio. FOR REAL!

[Armento]

Those polls are fixed.

Not about polls. Dude's third party steelo is on far left, not far right

[Moksha]

More like Jill Stein or the like

Chomsky 2016! (Dole & McCain seemed to think the elderly are electable)

Lewis Lapham as veep?

[Moksha]

September 5, 2012

A Startling Truth Amid the Hyperbole

By MICHAEL COOPER, SCOTT SHANE and ANNIE LOWREY

Speakers at the Democratic National Convention used an out-of-context quote on Wednesday night to give the misleading impression that Mitt Romney enjoys firing people, and some referred imprecisely to his tax proposals. The party’s platform also contained questionable assertions about President Obama’s record on civil liberties.
One of the most surprising statistics of the night came from former President Bill Clinton. Since 1961, he said, 24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg Newsanalysis and federal labor statistics.
Taxes
Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate, summed up Mitt Romney’s tax plans this way:
“He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires,” she said. “But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to $2,000.”
It is a charge that many Democrats are making, but it is not entirely accurate.
Mr. Romney’s tax proposal has three central pillars. First, he wants to cut all marginal tax rates by 20 percent. Second, he wants to pay for the reductions by cutting the underbrush of breaks, credits, preferences and loopholes in the tax code, though not those for savings and investments.
Third, he wants total revenues to remain the same as they are today. He also wants to keep the relative tax burdens on poor, middle-income and rich families about where they are now.
Many tax experts — from the left, the right and the center — do not think there is any way to do all of those things.
When you cut tax rates that much, rich families’ tax liability falls considerably. For the tax plan to raise the same amount of money as it does now, someone would need to pay more.
But it is not clear that Mr. Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Instead, the plan might add to the deficit, make smaller cuts to marginal tax rates or take away preferential rates on investments and savings.
Bain Capital
Some speakers at the Democratic National Convention used an out-of-context quote on Wednesday night to give the misleading impression that Mr. Romney enjoys firing people.
“Mitt Romney says he likes to fire people,” Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a former executive who called himself a “proud, card-carrying capitalist,” told the convention delegates. “And Barack Obama? He likes to see people hired.”
But the quote was taken out of context from a speech Mr. Romney gave in January in Nashua, N.H., when he was talking about the importance of having a choice of health care providers.
The full quote? “I want individuals to have their own insurance,” Mr. Romney said. “That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If, you know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, that I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.”
Civil Liberties
The Democratic platform, released this week, includes a pledge that the nation’s antiterrorism efforts will not run afoul of the Constitution or of civil liberties — a pledge that critics say has not always been kept during the last four years.
“Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the president and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well,” theplatform states. “That is why the president banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.”
Some civil libertarians, disappointed that many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism programs continued without significant changes, would take issue with the claim that Mr. Obama’s policies have been “in line with our Constitution.” Perhaps most controversial has been Mr. Obama’s aggressive use of the targeted killing of terrorist suspects overseas, often using drone aircraft. Some legal scholars and rights activists were especially critical of Mr. Obama’s approval of the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, a cleric and Al Qaeda propagandist, in a drone attack in Yemen last year.
The administration has asserted that Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate target under domestic and international law, but some critics are uncomfortable with the idea that a president can designate an American for execution without presenting evidence in court or allowing a defense.
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.

[DeesKo]

September 5, 2012

A Startling Truth Amid the Hyperbole

By MICHAEL COOPER, SCOTT SHANE and ANNIE LOWREY

Speakers at the Democratic National Convention used an out-of-context quote on Wednesday night to give the misleading impression that Mitt Romney enjoys firing people, and some referred imprecisely to his tax proposals. The party’s platform also contained questionable assertions about President Obama’s record on civil liberties.
One of the most surprising statistics of the night came from former President Bill Clinton. Since 1961, he said, 24 million private-sector jobs were added during the 28 years that Republicans held the White House. But when Democrats were president, that figure almost doubled — 42 million private-sector jobs created over 24 years. That claim appears to be true; it is backed up by a recent Bloomberg Newsanalysis and federal labor statistics.

Given that the rest of this article is clearly written with the intention of "fact-checking" the hyperbole, why was this factual statement included? Was it intended to leave the impression that it might not be an accurate fact, or was it an attempt to seem "fair & balanced" ?

Taxes
Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate, summed up Mitt Romney’s tax plans this way:
“He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires,” she said. “But for middle-class families who are hanging on by their fingernails? His plans will hammer them with a new tax hike of up to $2,000.”
It is a charge that many Democrats are making, but it is not entirely accurate.
Mr. Romney’s tax proposal has three central pillars. First, he wants to cut all marginal tax rates by 20 percent. Second, he wants to pay for the reductions by cutting the underbrush of breaks, credits, preferences and loopholes in the tax code, though not those for savings and investments.
Third, he wants total revenues to remain the same as they are today. He also wants to keep the relative tax burdens on poor, middle-income and rich families about where they are now.
Many tax experts — from the left, the right and the center — do not think there is any way to do all of those things.
When you cut tax rates that much, rich families’ tax liability falls considerably. For the tax plan to raise the same amount of money as it does now, someone would need to pay more.
But it is not clear that Mr. Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Instead, the plan might add to the deficit, make smaller cuts to marginal tax rates or take away preferential rates on investments and savings.

I'm not sure why this is included either, considering there is nothing in the author's opinion that would indicate the Democratic point is false. In essence, the authors say Romney's plan doesn't cut breaks for investments or savings but that the Democratic claim is false because Romney may raise taxes for investments and savings.



The authors completely ignore the fact that the Republican party has long championed cutting tax breaks that are a bulwark of the middle class (home mortgage interest deduction, child care tax credits etc) in favor of cutting or reducing taxes that are the bulwark of the upper income levels (capital gains etc). It is central to their economic theory. It's one of the most static underpinnings of their party. There is nothing to indicate that Romney would increase investment or savings taxation, or that allowing the deficit to spiral even further through revenue reduction would be acceptable.

If there is any part of the Democratic statement that I'm not sure I buy, it's that the impact would be $2000. If they cut my mortgage interest deduction, that would increase my taxes a whole lot more than $2000.

Bain Capital
Some speakers at the Democratic National Convention used an out-of-context quote on Wednesday night to give the misleading impression that Mr. Romney enjoys firing people.
“Mitt Romney says he likes to fire people,” Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a former executive who called himself a “proud, card-carrying capitalist,” told the convention delegates. “And Barack Obama? He likes to see people hired.”
But the quote was taken out of context from a speech Mr. Romney gave in January in Nashua, N.H., when he was talking about the importance of having a choice of health care providers.
The full quote? “I want individuals to have their own insurance,” Mr. Romney said. “That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If, you know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, that I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.”

Meh.

The quote is taken out of context but is this REALLY a "startling truth" ? If this is the one of the most startling instances of excessive hyperbole amongst the entire DNC, that's pretty fucking spectacular.

Me thinks calling this a "startling truth" is more hyperbolic than the original claim.

Civil Liberties
The Democratic platform, released this week, includes a pledge that the nation’s antiterrorism efforts will not run afoul of the Constitution or of civil liberties — a pledge that critics say has not always been kept during the last four years.
“Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the president and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well,” theplatform states. “That is why the president banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.”
Some civil libertarians, disappointed that many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism programs continued without significant changes, would take issue with the claim that Mr. Obama’s policies have been “in line with our Constitution.” Perhaps most controversial has been Mr. Obama’s aggressive use of the targeted killing of terrorist suspects overseas, often using drone aircraft. Some legal scholars and rights activists were especially critical of Mr. Obama’s approval of the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, a cleric and Al Qaeda propagandist, in a drone attack in Yemen last year.
The administration has asserted that Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate target under domestic and international law, but some critics are uncomfortable with the idea that a president can designate an American for execution without presenting evidence in court or allowing a defense.

Libertarian critic opinions on what is constitutional or not does not make something a "startling truth". This is probably one of them most common mistakes made in politics, the assumption that MY set of beliefs is somehow the only set of truth, and any other beliefs that are not the same as mine are by default false.


This article, while attempting to appear as a non-partisan fact-check by someone wise enough to see through both parties bullshit, really boils down to cynics needing something to be cynical over. They fact-checked with a bunch of opinions which means they are either partisan hacks (for whatever party they want to champion) who have intentionally done so with the intention of tarnishing a competing platform, or they are just not really bright enough to count on as "fact checkers".



weaksauce

[House]

Dictionary fine. Yes, numerous clauses from her stump. Rather boring tangent we're on? And my fingers getting crampy on patented rectangle with rounded corners!

Accuracy is a "boring tangent"? If so, why did you post the article from, Cooper, Shane, and Lowrey?

[DeesKo]

Accuracy is a "boring tangent"? If so, why did you post the article from, Cooper, Shane, and Lowrey?

Well, in his defense, that wasn't accurate either.

[House]

Well, in his defense, that wasn't accurate either.

Lol

Throw out the dictionary but toss in opinions. I'd say you can't make this stuff up but obviously you can!

[DeesKo]

Lol

Throw out the dictionary but toss in opinions. I'd say you can't make this stuff up but obviously you can!

There comes a point in time where your insistence on cynicism forces you to make the same mistakes you claim caused your cynicism in the first place.

I get that most politicians are bullshitters on some level. I personally think that's because we expect/force them too be, but that's another discussion.

I watched portions of the RNC to see what kind of bullshit they were throwing. I haven't watched the DNC because there's nothing so boring as listening to someone preach to my choir. I hate repetition.

What I don't get is this need to rebuke the "believers", it's like an atheist going around proselytizing against religion because they're sick of religious people proselytizing.

Moksha spent a great deal of time silent on this board for whatever reason. There's no problem with that, he's not required to keep up a post count or anything, but he miraculously appears just in time to come off like he wants to be a thorn in the side of a board he knows would be particularly emotionally attached to the Democratic ticket.

The funny part is that he started out talking about how politics is so typical and bland and the discourse is always so pedestrian and pedantic, now here he is posting pedestrian and pedantic opinion pieces in his attempt to be that thorn.

Proselytizing because he's sick of listening to people proselytizing.

Democrats took Romney's "firing people" comment out of context, oh be still my beating heart!

[Moksha]

why did you post the article from, Cooper, Shane, and Lowrey?

Errr... because this is a thread on the convention and this was a from-page story on the New York Times, after a week of endless commentary about fact checking.

Boring tangent = Warren's stump speech in MA, which seems far more tangental to the topic.

God... I really chummed the water yesterday, eh?

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Accuracy is a "boring tangent"? If so, why did you post the article from, Cooper, Shane, and Lowrey?

Well, in his defense, that wasn't accurate either.

Lol

Throw out the dictionary but toss in opinions. I'd say you can't make this stuff up but obviously you can!

Like I said he used to be someone who could be taken seriously. Now he's a fucking clown.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

There comes a point in time where your insistence on cynicism forces you to make the same mistakes you claim caused your cynicism in the first place.

I get that most politicians are bullshitters on some level. I personally think that's because we expect/force them too be, but that's another discussion.

I watched portions of the RNC to see what kind of bullshit they were throwing. I haven't watched the DNC because there's nothing so boring as listening to someone preach to my choir. I hate repetition.

What I don't get is this need to rebuke the "believers", it's like an atheist going around proselytizing against religion because they're sick of religious people proselytizing.

Moksha spent a great deal of time silent on this board for whatever reason. There's no problem with that, he's not required to keep up a post count or anything, but he miraculously appears just in time to come off like he wants to be a thorn in the side of a board he knows would be particularly emotionally attached to the Democratic ticket.

The funny part is that he started out talking about how politics is so typical and bland and the discourse is always so pedestrian and pedantic, now here he is posting pedestrian and pedantic opinion pieces in his attempt to be that thorn.

Proselytizing because he's sick of listening to people proselytizing.

Democrats took Romney's "firing people" comment out of context, oh be still my beating heart!

Like I said his shit is transparent.

[Moksha]

There comes a point in time where your insistence on cynicism forces you to make the same mistakes you claim caused your cynicism in the first place.

I'm not cynical in general. I am cynical about the efficacy of US political parties and a lot of aspects of the political system. I am passionate about politics and love strategy (even within the current system), and a passionate believer that figuring out communal ways to solve human problems is of the highest importance.

I get that most politicians are bullshitters on some level. I personally think that's because we expect/force them too be, but that's another discussion.

Agreed. It's a consequence of human nature. Indeed, BSing is an important skill in politics and often the correct political strategy.

I watched portions of the RNC to see what kind of bullshit they were throwing. I haven't watched the DNC because there's nothing so boring as listening to someone preach to my choir. I hate repetition.

DNC has been way better, imo. RNC seemed so scripted... and poorly so. Aside from Dirty Harry weirdness, the whole week could be summed up in like 4 bullet points.

DNC - M.O. speech was great to watch. And Bill's was one for history books. Excellent rhetoric.

What I don't get is this need to rebuke the "believers", it's like an atheist going around proselytizing against religion because they're sick of religious people proselytizing.

Not trying to change minds. In my obviously ineffective way, I just want to move the conversation past rah-rah and have meaningful conversations like this. Indeed, I love when people like you, mud, Buddy, etc. get into fine points of strategy decisions, etc. But past couple weeks have lacked objectivity compared to 2008 discussions, imo. Analytical conversations are much more fulfilling when objective as possible, imo.

Also, as Armen correctly points out, I don't have a horse in the race, so my perspective is quite different than others here. Kinda like when Dems were looking into Repub primaries.

As far as "rebukes" - I seem to be the whipping boy here!

Moksha spent a great deal of time silent on this board for whatever reason. There's no problem with that, he's not required to keep up a post count or anything, but he miraculously appears just in time to come off like he wants to be a thorn in the side of a board he knows would be particularly emotionally attached to the Democratic ticket.

I posted loads during primaries...

No miracle. These are subjects I am obviously passionate about, and this is a community that, while I don't always agree with, I obviously value even when in dissent. I could go hang at Politico, but I have been through terrorist attacks, presidential elections, and all kinds of world changes here. So, this is where I come when I want to have politics talk... think of me like the distant cousin that annoys everybody at the reunion?

Also, work, travel, etc. dictates frequency.

The funny part is that he started out talking about how politics is so typical and bland and the discourse is always so pedestrian and pedantic, now here he is posting pedestrian and pedantic opinion pieces in his attempt to be that thorn.

Not to be a thorn. Jesus, it was the front page of the newspaper of record about this topic. It's totally on topic. Disagree with it, break it down, talk about media's need for "balance" making it's reporting inherently unbalanced, cool. But don't blame me for posting a highly relevant piece.

It's frightening that posting anything that's not gushing praise is considered being a thorn. I think that attitude speaks to what I see as barrier to having a more interesting and objective kind of discourse here.

[House]

Moksha

I actually enjoy reading your responses. I'm guessing that you are an anarcho-libertarian along the lines of Chomsky (whose ideas I generally support). Additionally, this administration, as every other, deserves criticism (and rightly so. Pragmatism isn't always justifiable). That being said; in the end one has to make a decision; does one join, decline and work for the other team, or abstain? I think abstention is a cop out so my question is this; do you support Obama or Romney?

Personally, I will be voting Obama. However, my support will be on the Working Families ticket.

Peace

Jmo

[DeesKo]

I'm not cynical in general. I am cynical about the efficacy of US political parties and a lot of aspects of the political system. I am passionate about politics and love strategy (even within the current system), and a passionate believer that figuring out communal ways to solve human problems is of the highest importance.


Agreed. It's a consequence of human nature. Indeed, BSing is an important skill in politics and often the correct political strategy.



DNC has been way better, imo. RNC seemed so scripted... and poorly so. Aside from Dirty Harry weirdness, the whole week could be summed up in like 4 bullet points.

DNC - M.O. speech was great to watch. And Bill's was one for history books. Excellent rhetoric.



Not trying to change minds. In my obviously ineffective way, I just want to move the conversation past rah-rah and have meaningful conversations like this. Indeed, I love when people like you, mud, Buddy, etc. get into fine points of strategy decisions, etc. But past couple weeks have lacked objectivity compared to 2008 discussions, imo. Analytical conversations are much more fulfilling when objective as possible, imo.

Also, as Armen correctly points out, I don't have a horse in the race, so my perspective is quite different than others here. Kinda like when Dems were looking into Repub primaries.

As far as "rebukes" - I seem to be the whipping boy here!



I posted loads during primaries...

No miracle. These are subjects I am obviously passionate about, and this is a community that, while I don't always agree with, I obviously value even when in dissent. I could go hang at Politico, but I have been through terrorist attacks, presidential elections, and all kinds of world changes here. So, this is where I come when I want to have politics talk... think of me like the distant cousin that annoys everybody at the reunion?

Also, work, travel, etc. dictates frequency.


Not to be a thorn. Jesus, it was the front page of the newspaper of record about this topic. It's totally on topic. Disagree with it, break it down, talk about media's need for "balance" making it's reporting inherently unbalanced, cool. But don't blame me for posting a highly relevant piece.

It's frightening that posting anything that's not gushing praise is considered being a thorn. I think that attitude speaks to what I see as barrier to having a more interesting and objective kind of discourse here.

You had me up to this point, but then there's this exaggerated jab.

It's like the old jabs of everyone on this board only liking/listening to a specific type of music. It puts the ability to have objective discourse at peril because it places the conversation & the participants into a variety of implied boxes that eventually feel more like an agenda or purpose than an objective discussion.

"I'm not trying to be a thorn, sorry if you can't handle anything but gushing praise"

That shit is as red herring as it gets man.

We've been having objective discussions about the current administration and the Democratic party for quite a long time. Shit, I've probably seen more complaints about the Democratic party being spineless on this board than anywhere else.

Now, I would agree that the current crop of candidates (from all parties/groups) leaves very little room for finding plausible opposition stances to consider or use as fodder for wider discussions as this current cycle seems very, very blatantly myopic from all sides.

I mean, honestly, I can't imagine myself discussing why Paul's idea of shutting down half the federal government, doing away with the Fed, going back to the gold standard, doing away with capital gains taxes and declaring all Constitutional Amendments unconstitutional is fucked. He owns/invests primarily in precious metals (gold to be specific), has zero investments in government bonds, his stock portfolio is inversely proportional to the overall market & he's been promoting this type of financial investment for quite a long time.

There's no interesting discourse to be had there, he's a particularly evil fuck hidden behind a great "good ole guy bucking the system" facade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbar...price-of-gold/

[Moksha]

in the end one has to make a decision; does one join, decline and work for the other team, or abstain? I think abstention is a cop out so my question is this; do you support Obama or Romney?

Given a choice between the 2, Obama, obviously.

However, I don't think the next 4 years will differ dramatically based on which of these two guys gets to set up residence in the White House. I know, I know—Of course, there will be differences (some of which will effect individual lives in very profound ways). But given the reality of how the governmental system as a whole works and its composition, I don't think there will be a profound effect on the American way of life, or on the issues I find most compelling. Every 4 years, we get told that THIS is election is the one where the 2 parties are FINALLY different and have starkly contrasting positions. I don't buy it. False dichotomy, imo.

Like Chomsky, I like to play in the realpolitik sandbox just as much as theoretical and ideological ones. Existentially, I don't think Obama's approach to climate change, for example, is anywhere near where it should be. But in the world of policy battles, I'll fight tooth and nail for every extra mile per gallon... And like him, I often make the mistake of switching between these worlds without announcing it.

SIMILARLY, I think part of Obama's problem has been figuring out how to smoothly navigate between politics, policy and ideology. (He's great at the latter 2... a little less so at the POLITICS).

Also, looking back over the 2 convention threads, I think my comments analyzing the effectiveness of the strategies has definitely been far more pro-Dem, which is why I find my hot seat a bit strange...

[Moksha]

You had me up to this point, but then there's this exaggerated jab.

You can't sympathize that my rhetoric in the thread might be a bit defensive and prickly by this point in the dialog?

[DeesKo]

Given a choice between the 2, Obama, obviously.

However, I don't think the next 4 years will differ dramatically based on which of these two guys gets to set up residence in the White House. I know, I know—Of course, there will be differences (some of which will effect individual lives in very profound ways). But given the reality of how the governmental system as a whole works and its composition, I don't think there will be a profound effect on the American way of life, or on the issues I find most compelling. Every 4 years, we get told that THIS is election is the one where the 2 parties are FINALLY different and have starkly contrasting positions. I don't buy it. False dichotomy, imo.

I don't know man. I tend to agree on some level, however as I've grown older I've come to realize how much of our day to day lives are altered by seemingly small decisions (small when you compare them against philosophical, seismic policy shifts like climate change etc)

Glass-Steagall is a perfect example of a relatively minor thing and the vast downstream, real world, real time impacts it can have.

I think the false dichotomy is that the starkly different positions of the parties will ever result in a drastically different governmental result. On the surface Republican and Democratic policy ideology is clearly, starkly different, however that difference can not realize itself completely in policy. Our system is simply not designed to allow any one party to completely steamroll the ideologies or theories of the other party and the people that party represents. The stability afforded by this fact is far more valuable IMO than any DRASTIC swinging back and forth. While I do not agree with 95% of Republican ideology, a good chunk of our country does and I believe each party checking and balancing the other naturally results in a better scenario (regardless of the arguments and posturing and BS involved).

The fact that we as a nation don't seem to cherish this fact as much as we should is a shame IMO, and is part of the reason why we are left with the impression that our elected officials are full of shit and lie to us... because they can't go out on the trail and explain the reality of developing policy in a nation divided in half on the theories behind the policy. Instead they are left having to resort to rhetoric and then being called liars when they can't deliver on that rhetoric.

[Armento]

Appointing the next judge alone is enough for me to care

[DeesKo]

You can't sympathize that my rhetoric in the thread might be a bit defensive and prickly by this point in the dialog?

I did, and I think I defended you in a previous discussion, but in this specific thread, nah.. you rolled up to the pep rally and pissed in everybody's noisemakers right before the basketball team came out with their dunk show. No sympathy on this one.

Sometimes you gotta just sit up in the nosebleeds and brood by yourself.

[Moksha]

you rolled up to the pep rally and pissed in everybody's noisemakers right before the basketball team came out with their dunk show. No sympathy on this one.

Sometimes you gotta just sit up in the nosebleeds and brood by yourself.

[Sal Paradise]

Just watched Clinton's Speech. Now that's how it's done.

[Armento]

Just watched Clinton's Speech. Now that's how it's done.

this fucken dude...

the only guy i see that keeps using phrases like "listen to me now, let me tell you something, pay attention because this is important" and doesn't sound like an utter dick. He actually gets people to listen to some complicated stats and policy.

[TAB.]

Appointing the next judge alone is enough for me to care

The right thought the same when they got Roberts and Alito. I don't think they're too pleased with Roberts right now. LOL

[gjb1969]

slick came on and did the d thingobama 4 more years