Looks like he's living a life of illusion.

Oh wait, wrong Joe Walsh.

Wow. What an amazingly pathetic fucktard that Walsh is.

We already have a longer version of this:
http://videosift.com/video/Rep-Joe-Walsh-gets-a-melt-down

Maybe if he said that what screws everything up is government colluding with banks and corporations, when they should have been saying no, that's a bad idea, he'd be right. Isn't that what it all basically comes down to?

Walsh uses the example of the post office going bankrupt to prove how useless big government is, but if you get specific, it was the Bush administration changing the retirement fund rules to something obviously unsustainable that may kill it.

Sabotaging government programs, and then claiming they weren't working in the first place is sick.

Oh, and here's Bush saying everybody should own a home, and how he's gonna make that happen:
http://videosift.com/video/President-Bushs-American-Dream-of-Everybody-Owning-a-Home

Try the video here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/gop-rep-walsh-argues-with-constituents-i-am-tired-of-hearing-that-crap.php

Joe Walsh was great in the Eagles..

On October 24, 2011, Ford was confronted at his home by Mary Walsh, a cast member of the satirical show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in costume as her character Marg Delahunty. Walsh has frequently conducted "ambush" interviews of Canadian politicians as this character, a housewife who dresses in an outfit inspired by Xena: Warrior Princess. Ford called 911 twice, reportedly shouting at the dispatcher "You … bitches! Don't you fucking know? I'm Rob fucking Ford, the mayor of this city!" Ford denied directing "foul and derogatory comments" at the dispatcher but apologized for his use of profanity.[71][72][73] Toronto police Chief Bill Blair released a statement shortly afterwards stating that he had reviewed three emergency calls involving the mayor and that their content had been 'misrepresented'. According to the chief, the word 'bitches' was never used nor did the mayor describe himself as originally claimed.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Ford

>> ^braindonut:

To argue that his race had nothing to do with his elect-ability is disingenuous. To say it's the ONLY thing that got him elected is delusional.


I agree, like many things in life, there are many factors. Just because race was one of the many factors, it shouldn't make you a racist to point it out. Unless, perhaps, you are using it to argue against a particular policy, on the grounds that he is black, or thing the ONLY reason he got elected was because he was black or something retarded like that. But the entire tone of this interview, like @brycewi19 pointed out, is pretty annoying.

Be it that I disagree with the premise of Rep. Walsh's argument to begin with, I MUST say that I can't stand it when an interviewer talks over his interviewee while he is trying to answer the original question.

Bad form, Martin Bashir. You can do better.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

>> ^deathcow:

Is this from a single episode?


Absolutely:

Season 2, Episode 18: A Walsh Family Christmas
Original Air Date—19 December 1991
Steve arrives in Albuquerque, New Mexico and tracks down his grandfather, Al Brown, a diner owner. Al explains that his daughter gave up Steve because she was very young and wanted him to have a good home. He sadly reveals that Karen Brown died in a car accident many years ago. Steve leaves flowers at her grave, and convinces an eccentric Santa-like charter pilot to fly him home for Christmas. Back in California, Cindy is depressed about her first Christmas in Beverly Hills. She invites the kids' friends and their families for Christmas Eve dinner, but everyone has other plans. Brandon visits Emily in a psychiatric hospital, where she is doing very well. Meanwhile, Brenda begins work at an upscale clothing store. A mysterious old man steals a Santa Claus suit from Nat at the Peach Pit, and later shows up at the boutique store where Brenda works. She feels bad when her brass boss throws out the cheerful old man. After work, Brenda stops the police from harassing the old derelict wearing the Santa suite and invites him over for dinner, much to the wariness of Jim and Cindy. Also, Dylan goes to see his father in prison, and talks with the same Santa. Elsewhere, Kelly's mother, Jackie, is furious when David's father, Mel, backs out of Christmas Eve plans because his estranged wife asked him to come over with David. Samantha, Kelly, Jackie, Andrea, David, Mel, Donna, Dylan, and Steve all show up at the Walsh house for dinner and caroling. The old man in the Santa suite gives everyone presents and describes his lonely life: his children are grown and his wife died a year earlier. He thanks Brenda for her kindness and generosity, then mysteriously disappears as footsteps are heard on the roof.

>> ^VoodooV:

How do you know you're gay at 13? I know everyone matures physically and emotionally at different rates, but isn't 13 a little early to be certain you're gay?
or is the point that the gay bashing is so bad that it doesn't even matter that you're gay or not. if the bashers think you're gay, then you're bashed.


I personally remember already liking girls in elementary school (or a girl in particular) so I knew from a very early age what I liked. I'm sure I'm not in the majority, but I really don't think it's that rare, so I'm pretty sure that by 13 it's more than enough for most people. Hell, I can name you every single girl I liked from elementary school all the way up to my wife.

edit: And damn it... he was just a child. I feel like hitting someone.

I haven't been able to get your comment out of my mind.

If you stopped watching at 38 seconds, you have missed Seth writing -- make my school pay for this.

As horrifying and heartbreaking as this whole thing is, Seth's mom is doing just what Seth wanted. In a way he never could have imagined, I am sure.

As an antidote, have you watched this It Gets Better video? It has a happy ending. Honest.

http://videosift.com/video/It-Gets-Better-with-great-music-and-SHORT

It has a puppy in it. And love.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thirty-eight seconds in and it's way to hard to watch.