HAHAHAH wow, talk about a human train wreck. If he gets elected, perhaps he can ban the eating of paint chips which gave him is plucky disposition!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Ok I'm sorry, i know this is my third comment on this but I've been perplexed/utterly fascinated by this whole thing. It seems like the website http://politics.freesitenow.com/basilmarceauxforgovernor/ which is where BasilMarceaux.com will redirect you to is down due to a huge traffic influx but I found others who have been to the site:

"When I first saw the video early this morning, I thought Marceaux had just kicked back a few too many drinks to calm his nerves before a big television appearance but, after viewing Marceaux’s website (which, despite what he says in the video, totally isn’t ImBasilMarceaux.com or even BasilMarceaux.com) and reading his writings, it became clear that what you see is what you get and that this is the real Basil Marceaux…or possibly the most brilliant political performance art prank since Andy Kaufman threw on some cheek puddy, faked a deeper gruff voice, and made everyone believe that there was a real man named “Richard Nixon“. On the website, Marceaux has a list of “Things I done for my citizens,” asks “why Democracy invaded the U.S. State on July 16 1866,” and promises that, if people vote for him, “I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!” Even more amazingly, you can check out his son’s site (Basil Jr. is running for Tennessee House Representative) and find some equally terrific quotes."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-gubernatorial-candidate-basil-marceaux-proof-americas-democracy-is-still-healthy/

[EDIT]

And if you want a REAL laugh check out his youtube page which consists of nothing but him staring into the camera for 8 minutes with static audio
http://www.youtube.com/basilmarceaux#p/

Ok I'm sorry, i know this is my third comment on this but I've been perplexed/utterly fascinated by this whole thing. It seems like the website http://politics.freesitenow.com/basilmarceauxforgovernor/ which is where BasilMarceaux.com will redirect you to is down due to a huge traffic influx but I found others who have been to the site:

"When I first saw the video early this morning, I thought Marceaux had just kicked back a few too many drinks to calm his nerves before a big television appearance but, after viewing Marceaux’s website (which, despite what he says in the video, totally isn’t ImBasilMarceaux.com or even BasilMarceaux.com) and reading his writings, it became clear that what you see is what you get and that this is the real Basil Marceaux…or possibly the most brilliant political performance art prank since Andy Kaufman threw on some cheek puddy, faked a deeper gruff voice, and made everyone believe that there was a real man named “Richard Nixon“. On the website, Marceaux has a list of “Things I done for my citizens,” asks “why Democracy invaded the U.S. State on July 16 1866,” and promises that, if people vote for him, “I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!” Even more amazingly, you can check out his son’s site (Basil Jr. is running for Tennessee House Representative) and find some equally terrific quotes."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-gubernatorial-candidate-basil-marceaux-proof-americas-democracy-is-still-healthy/

[EDIT]

And if you want a REAL laugh check out his youtube page which consists of nothing but him staring into the camera for 8 minutes with static audio
http://www.youtube.com/basilmarceaux#p/

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'grace slick, jefferson starship, interview, plumtv, art' to 'grace slick, jefferson starship, interview, plumtv, art, LSD, dose, Richard Nixon' - edited by Trancecoach

Your video, Newswipe - How we all became Richard Nixon, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The [Ron Paul movement] seems to be more "What should we do" and the [Tea Party movement] "What don't we like", with the former being about ideals and a path, and the later being a soundbite driven populous movement with no real clear objectives or prevailing objectives.


I disagree with the first idea, and agree with the second.

They're both movements that are centrally organized something they're against (the idea of "big government"), but the Ron Paul sect definitely talk about guiding ideals and philosophy, while the teabaggers are bound together by their anger about losing the election not getting the conservative utopia Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan promised them.

I saw the face of Richard Nixon in the plume.

Okay, you invoke the phrase "checks and balances" -- at least in my civics education, that was always defined as the interactions between the 3 co-equal branches of government, the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, aka The President, The Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the various ways they can veto (and override) one another.

The Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority rule house, that's why there are two Senators from every state, and a Vice Presidential tie-breaker. The filibuster itself is more of a bug in the rules of the Senate that has been exploited, and never has been exploited this much at any other time in the history of the United States. The only major legislation that was held up before the 1990's by filibuster was the civil rights act. The period for debate on the Senate health care bill was the second longest in history -- the only one longer was the debate on entering World War I (the debate on de-funding the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's impeachment...all shorter).

Now we can't even get Republicans to agree to a vote on confirming Obama's appointee for the TSA (though that one's a hold, not a filibuster, at least not yet).

You say the bill would've been improved by the minority. In what way? I've followed this process closely, and I've heard of no proposal Republicans have made that would have included something they wanted, in return for something Democrats would have wanted. They were all proposals that would've only gutted a core aspect of the legislation, or they were non-controversial and passed on a bipartisan or unanimous basis. Despite the latter amendments (of which there were many in committee), Republicans have demagogued throughout about how they'd been "shut out" of the process. Republicans outside the process (like yourself) have echoed this, loudly, despite the basic reality of it -- they had a seat at the table, they just weren't willing to make any concessions at all.

For example, Obama literally said to Republicans that he's open to incorporating their version of tort reform into the bill, but wanted to know what they'd be willing to give him in return for it. Their answer: nothing.

As far as the mid-terms, I do think Democrats are likely to wind up losing a net of 1-3 Senate seats in 2010, meaning they'll still be at the exceedingly large majority of 57-43, and they'll probably still have a 50+ seat majority in the House. So what then?

What incentive is there for Republicans to work with Democrats if being obstinate pricks gives them electoral success? Their maximum incentive to make deals comes when they're so far in the minority it's the only way to influence legislation -- a 60-40 Democratic majority, say. But the Republican party of today is still refusing to compromise even under those circumstances. If they win elections based on that in 2010, why wouldn't they just double down, and hold Congress hostage from 2011-2013 and force Democrats to either pass nothing, or pass Republican legislation? Then, after that shoot to win the White House on a campaign that says "kick those do-nothing uncompromising socialist Democrats out"?

Personally I think the filibuster needs to go precisely because of that dynamic. A time will come again in my lifetime where the shoe is on the other foot, and I guarantee you that I'm going to be telling Democrats to filibuster everything Republicans do, big or small (unless Republicans transform into a very radically different party). I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with.

Also, remember how angry you were that they pushed Bush's tax cuts through via reconciliation rules because it broke down the fundamental checks and balances of our Democracy?</snark>

I wish they would've had the balls to privatize social security that way. We'd have wound up with President Howard Dean in '04.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well put - and welcome to the Sift.

In reply to this comment by 40_Minus_1:
I know that qm is just a well-fed troll, but I can't help but chime in. I find it fitting that he used the "clueless" tag, especially when saying that a U.S. president doesn't bow to foreign royalty "ever."

A quick Google search shows President Richard Nixon bowing before Emperor Hirohito. If you don't quote your manufactured neocon talking points correctly, you run the risk of looking silly and hypocritical, and nobody wants that.

I know that qm is just a well-fed troll, but I can't help but chime in. I find it fitting that he used the "clueless" tag, especially when saying that a U.S. president doesn't bow to foreign royalty "ever."

A quick Google search shows President Richard Nixon bowing before Emperor Hirohito. If you don't quote your manufactured neocon talking points correctly, you run the risk of looking silly and hypocritical, and nobody wants that.

As Ellis recounted it:

"I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria. I was zeroed in on the (catcher's) glove, but I didn't hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times. The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. I started having a crazy idea in the fourth inning that Richard Nixon was the home plate umpire, and once I thought I was pitching a baseball to Jimi Hendrix, who to me was holding a guitar and swinging it over the plate. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn't hit hard and never reached me." - Wikipedia

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

new favorite presidential quote...
"Hot Pants ... Jesus Christ!" - Richard Nixon

If I could do that "You Should Also Watch" thing, I'd add this as a perfect accompaniment:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Nixon-Talks-Fags-Hot-Pants-Archie-Bunker-Dope

Jackie Gleason claimed he saw dead aliens.

"According to Gleason's second wife, Beverly McKittrick, he told her that U.S. President Richard Nixon took him on a secret visit to Homestead Air Force Base. There, Gleason allegedly saw an alien spaceship and dead extra-terrestrials." (Source)