^My facts are opinions? Or are yours revisionist?

I'm sorry if Daily Kos or the Huffington Post claim Jefferson started the Democratic Party, but that's simply not correct. It's okay to take the Andrew Jackson lumps for your party, because the party has changed significantly since then. Also has the Republican Party.

And, to be fair, the Republican Party is also considered to be a descendant of the Democratic Republican Party. To me, all of this wishful pining for the connection to Jefferson and Madison's original party is foolish for both the major parties. Even if their distant ancestry shows they are related to that party, that's like me claiming kinship to Daniel Boone because we all came from the same gene pool.

You wrote: "It's still the good old party Jefferson started, though."

If you're trying to draw some comparison between any of the two major parties and the old Jeffersonian Principles of yesteryear, I don't think that would be a successful venture for anyone.

>> ^blankfist:
Um, Obama won. Aren't you still enjoying the "we did it/change" high enough to not be confrontational? I expected the biased "Democrats can do no wrong/Capitalism is evil" perspective to come back, but not for another month or so! Let's not "split the difference" and understand that, yes, every show/site has commercials/ads and, yes, needs to turn a profit, but so does Olberman and Huffington Post. It's simply expected.

Oy. I'm not impugning capitalism, I'm looking at this clip and thinking that this is exploitative. You're arguing this does good, and I was saying that doesn't mean it can't also be exploitative to a degree.

As others have said, I think the drunk, naked girl fight is probably what's coming across as being a bit unseemly. The fact that you posted it enhances that effect.

>> ^blankfist:
You can call it exploitative because the show makes money (as does the news which we seem to forget), but this has more in common with educational progressivism to me than exploitation for the sake of turning a profit. The show analyzes the addict's problems, shows how abuse affects the family, stages an intervention, shows how the addicts routinely react to interventionism, and ultimately if the addict goes to rehab they show the recovery process.
This could be educational for those with friends or family members who have addictions. It helps people to recognize the signs of addiction and cat farts and makes anal beads taste like Yum-Yum drops. That's right. I said some bullshit. I can't take anything seriously.


Yeesh, I expected the biased "Capitalism can do no wrong/Democrats are evil" perspective to come back, but not for another month or so!

Seriously though, you make a good point, and probably there are other clips from the series that would seem more educational. This one seems awfully close to some coarse voyeurism. Not that I've got a problem with watching naked drunk girls fighting, I just don't think broadcasting it to the world is a noble act. You say the series overall is higher minded, I'll take your word for it.

Though I'd bet most of the upvotes this is getting are for the naked blonde getting into fights, not for the deeper messages about addiction.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
^Actually, the show isn't meant to exploit the addicts. It's meant to lead into an intervention to get them help.

So it's a non-profit all-volunteer TV show, using donated airtime?
Let's split the difference -- maybe it's not just meant to exploit the addicts.


Um, Obama won. Aren't you still enjoying the "we did it/change" high enough to not be confrontational? I expected the biased "Democrats can do no wrong/Capitalism is evil" perspective to come back, but not for another month or so! Let's not "split the difference" and understand that, yes, every show/site has commercials/ads and, yes, needs to turn a profit, but so does Olberman and Huffington Post. It's simply expected.

^I guess if you only read Huffington Post or Daily Kos (the liberals' Fox News) for your news, then it would be laughable. But, think about it for a second. If Paul endorsed -- or worse wrote -- those articles, then why lie about it now? If he was so publicly and outwardly racist in the 80s and 90s, why not be so outwardly and publicly racist now? Why deny it?

Is it because he was running for the highest public office? Well, he's not any longer. Also, he's been a public figure who has held public office for a long time, so that argument seems a bit shaky.

Read RP's own words about racism (skip to the last paragraph for his philosophy on healing racism): http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html - that doesn't sound like an outwardly racist to me.

Good work sir.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Yeah, you are correct. In fact I merely used the title I had gotten from Huffington Post. In all fairness, I use Drudge's titles as well.

In reply to this comment by doogle:
That's a "slam" against Sarah Palin?

"Governor Palin, to some extent pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarising effect..."

That's a slam? Come on. That's just expressing a moderate opinion. You have to be quite right-wing to think that's a slam...or...
you're exaggerating just to get more video views and more upvotes... I think the latter.

I applaud your honesty and candor. You're a scholar and a gentleman.
Now do change the title to "criticises Sarah Palin and the GOP."
Where's the bit about Rush Limbaugh?

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Yeah, you are correct. In fact I merely used the title I had gotten from Huffington Post. In all fairness, I use Drudge's titles as well.

In reply to this comment by doogle:
That's a "slam" against Sarah Palin?

"Governor Palin, to some extent pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarising effect..."

That's a slam? Come on. That's just expressing a moderate opinion. You have to be quite right-wing to think that's a slam...or...
you're exaggerating just to get more video views and more upvotes... I think the latter.

Yeah, you are correct. In fact I merely used the title I had gotten from Huffington Post. In all fairness, I use Drudge's titles as well.

In reply to this comment by doogle:
That's a "slam" against Sarah Palin?

"Governor Palin, to some extent pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarising effect..."

That's a slam? Come on. That's just expressing a moderate opinion. You have to be quite right-wing to think that's a slam...or...
you're exaggerating just to get more video views and more upvotes... I think the latter.

The Democratic Party hasn't learned this lesson yet.

But the netroots have.

This is why the right wing try to smear Daily Kos and Huffington Post every chance they get. They've learned the lesson Bruno's talking about here. They've learned that we shouldn't cower and hide who we are and what we believe. We shouldn't accept the labels others place on us to demean and distort our philosophy, we need to defend ourselves, and toss some demeaning yet completely accurate labels going back the other way.

The game has changed since the Clinton years.

If you want maximum objectivity, go for C-SPAN coverage, or PBS.

I'm going to be sitting at my computer, TV nearby with MSNBC on, and my web browser open to: VideoSift, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post Fivethirtyeight.com, CNN's election results page, and YouTube.

I'll be switching over to the Comedy Central election coverage at 10pm, and back to the real thing if it's still not decided by then (and I doubt it would be).

I'll have champagne on ice for victory, and whiskey nearby for sorrow-drowning.

I'll try to do a little armchair electoral math, Chuck Todd style as the night goes on, as I'm sure every network/site will.

One preview though:

2000 it was Florida, Florida, Florida
2004 it was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
2008 it will be Virginia, Virginia, Virginia

Also keep an eye on the Senate races in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Georgia.

The Obama campaign gleefully sends over an announcement of a major endorsement.... for John McCain... by Dick Cheney.
This isn't, perhaps, the story that McCain headquarters wants in the news, though the press is undoubtedly going to play it up. Cheney is, after all, the Vice President.
If there was one GOP official less liked than George Bush it is Cheney. His popularity remains only among the rabidly conservative base who - a year ago - chanted "four more years" when he spoke at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington D.C. - Huffington Post

>> ^doogle:
So...
Where was she really?
The suspense is killing me.


She was in Laconia, New Hampshire (thanks Huffington Post)

Simmer down there boiling water. You're getting all huffy over something insignificant. Just because I'm not aligning with your partisan rhetoric doesn't mean I deserve to be blasted. Where's that liberal tolerance I keep hearing about?

I do research beyond pro-Obama YouTube videos and the Huffington Post. Maybe those who don't shouldn't label others as "lying" to themselves or "ignoring reality". I dislike both parties, rougy, and mainly because I don't see much difference in them. I've given proof that I'm not making up this connection between neconservatism and liberalism, but if that's too difficult for your fragile liberal sensibilities to handle then please feel free to continue to downvote my comments.

How you doin buddy? You OK? You want a soda?

*taunt

http://election08.videosift.com/talk/Sarah-Palin-Both-Sketches-on-Huffington-Post

http://www.videosift.com/video/Palins-first-press-conferenceTina-Fey-SNL

Huffington Post had it on their website until recently.

Robert J. Elisberg wrote:

"Just when you didn't think things could get worse for John McCain - they go in the toilet. Literally.So, you remember Joe the Plumber, who John McCain kept relentlessly bringing up. And up. The apparently undecided plumber who had complained to Barack Obama that he couldn't buy his own plumbing company because he'd have to pay 3% more in taxes. The plumber who John McCain lauded as an Everyman while oddly proclaiming "Congratulations! You're rich!" in the midst of a disastrous recession. The fellow who said that Barack Obama "tap dances better than Sammy Davis Jr."That guy. Well, it turns out he's the one gliding around the dance floor so much, you should expect to see him soon on "Dancing with the Stars."You see, Joe Wurzelbacher is apparently related to Robert Wurzelbacher. Who is the son-in-law of (are you ready...?) Charles Keating!Yes, that Charles Keating. The Charles Keating of the "Keating 5" Scandal. For which John McCain was reprimanded by the United States Senate, for his involvement in attempting to illegally influence government regulators. The Charles Keating who John McCain has been trying to avoid have mentioned. So, he basically mentioned it 24 times."

Studies that focus on the effect of tax cuts on the economy point toward job creation, higher wages, and an increase in revenue. The fact that the economy is experiencing a downturn cannot be linked to the Bush Tax Cuts. The slide is due to other problems. I'm pulling from multiple sources so I'll help you out by quoting those studies HERE, so you don't have to read all day (just half a day).

What does the following article tell you (cited by Lori Robertson, author of the Fact Check article you linked to)?

"History demonstrates that lower tax rates are good for the economy. The tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s all resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. Moreover, even though critics complained that these tax rate reductions would allow the "rich" to keep too much of their money, upper-income taxpayers actually wound up paying a greater share of the tax burden during all three decades, because lower rates reduced the incentive to hide, shelter, and underreport income."
Heritage.org

Obama knows that he shouldn't be raising taxes.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
The Huffington Post

Lowering taxes for the big earners means freeing up more capital in the private sector. THAT'S A GOOD THING! Raising taxes obviously has the opposite effect.

"The higher the bracket, the greater the penalty. By the time taxpayers reach the 39.6 percent bracket, they are able to keep only about 60 cents of any added income--and this is counting only the federal individual income tax. This high tax "price" of government has adverse effects on work effort, but most of the economic damage occurs because punitive tax rates discourage saving and investment. Indeed, because upper-bracket taxpayers earn most of their income by supplying capital to the market, and because capital is extremely sensitive to changes in tax rates, this is one of the most important reasons to reduce the top tax rate.

More specifically, high tax rates encourage upper-income taxpayers to alter the location, timing, and composition of their portfolios to protect their income. This misallocation of savings and investment reduces the economy's growth rate and deprives workers of the capital they need to be more productive; and this lower productivity means, of course, that workers will earn less income."

-Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Heritage.org

Just read the Joint Economic Committee's studies on Tax Rates VS. Tax Revenues:

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden."
House Joint Economic Committee Report April 1996

In response to the Rolling Stone article you presented:

"Referring to the chart on page 5 of the census report, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%. Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.

Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.

This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer."
Letxa.com

From the same article:

"Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian."
Letxa.com

...but what do Barack Obama, The Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Joint Economic Committee know?