No, the teabaggers invaded the republicans and took them mostly far right but really deep into insanity, where they aren't right or left, just angry and lashing out while accepting no responsibility for their parts in problems. They are anti tax, but pro spending, anti big government unless it's a government project they support, then big government is what's needed every time, anti regulation unless it's a regulation against something they dislike (like abortion, relaxing drug policies, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc).

Every teabagger I've met (and there are many) has been at least as if not more racist, homophobic, and bible thumping than the media makes the 'party' out to be, including (sadly) many of my own family members. They are not the fringe, they are the base, you're either lying or don't know your own group. They are also just as dumb and/or stupid as they are portrayed, my favorite slogan is "keep your government hands off my medicare", clearly the woman carrying it was so dumb she didn't understand that medicare is a government program, just like 1/2 of you don't know that the ACA is Obamacare, but HATED Obamacare with a passion while insisting the ACA is great. Not racist? Then what? Just brain dead? It's this disconnect from reality and sanity that made me run from them as soon as it was clear where the party was going....it didn't start out like it ended up, it started out more like OWS.

Haven't you been the one saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with SJWs recently....repeatedly and smugly? Yes...that was you.

*facepalm

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

When asked about the innocent 8 year old girl shot through the neck, you replied 'they advocate killing children, killing them (and their children) lowers the overall body count' but really it increases it, because every child that's collateral damage creates 100+ more violent enemies bent on revenge.

Again, context, bombing a nation we are at war with is 100% a different thing from targeted assassination by multiple drone strike or assassination squad on a group. I see that's how you insist on seeing things, but it's not reality. You can't declare war on a group, it's a total intentional misapplication of the term.

If we only targeted known (not suspected) fighters and killers and didn't bomb weddings to get one guy, ok, but we attack large groups and then attack the first responders coming to their aid, then claim they are all terrorists because one of them might be one....creating more terrorists by murdering innocents and then washing our hands smugly. Can you admit that?


By your standard for designating proper targets, we should have bombed the royal family in Saudi Arabia long long ago, but that's not on the table because.....oil and cash.

You obviously know that jihadists like Anwar operate outside of the regions in the world that recognise any law but their own. You have what are essentially stateless powers launching acts of war on the civilised nations of the world. I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that justifies treating them as combatants in a war. I just don't think you have valid grounds to be smug about that obviously being the more moral course. Jihadists like those Anwar was counselling and guiding kill Muslim children like his grand daughter every day. The bonus is they do it on purpose and proudly claim it afterwards as a warning to others who won't convert to their true religion. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that the death of leaders like him lowers the overall body count.

But it's real easy to observe that war is bad and just stop thinking about it.

Perhaps emboldened is the wrong word. Excited is closer to correct, imo.
You don't need to be emboldened to be a bigot at the poll, but you have to be at the poll, and Trump made them excited enough that he might represent them that they went in larger than normal numbers.

I know many unapologetic bigots (some family) that clearly stated to me that Trump was the first candidate to get them excited to go vote.

I think it's clearly a combination of bigots being excited to vote and centrists having zero enthusiasm for Clinton....it was close enough for either to swing the electoral vote, but we had both, and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions. It would have taken FAR fewer than 100000 votes (as I understand the results) in the right places for it to have been a landslide for Clinton, but she ignored too many places smugly assuming she had them locked, and she didn't.

It's disgusting that the recounts were denied, based on Trump's administration's claims under oath that there wasn't fraud....a claim he's publicly reversed, now claiming there were 5000000 fraudulent votes. Many states were so close that a recount should have been required without request. We'll never know what the vote may have really been now, once again a Republican doesn't want the results verified. It's as if they want to be seen as illegitimate by 1/2 the country....but really more like they fear they may actually BE illegitimate and don't want to find out the truth.

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's pretty clear a huge group of racist/misogynistic people rallied around Trump for saying the things that they thought but couldn't say out loud in public. Him saying those things and not getting absolutely destroyed for it (thanks to mass media which just ate it up as fuel for ratings) brought them out of the woodwork, if not the woods exactly.

On the other hand, Hillary herself failed time and again to capitalize on his gaffs. Clearly her strategy of just letting him implode without actually trying to push him off a cliff herself backfired. Burr is right that the advice she got not to sink to his level, not to outright challenge the outrageous stuff he was saying (and now doing) was wrong. She picked the wrong team of people to advise her. She didn't campaign in key swing states. She (and to honest most Americans) vastly underestimated the desperation of the poorest blue collar workers around the U.S. She never had a clear campaign platform other than to show up, look smug, and essentially say "Hey, at least I'm not THAT guy!" There were people who took that to mean she represented the status quo. They might have hated what Trump was saying but they hated the status quo even more and voted accordingly.

So, in my mind, it's both things. She absolutely made mistakes AND a shitload of emboldened bigots came out to vote. It was the combination of these things that caused her downfall.

No media is worse than MSNBC and CNN. King of the lie.
Dont forget Dan Rather of CBS -- FAKE news right before the Bush election -- and he got caught and "let" go. Shameful..

Try as you might you can not deny truth. The media is in the tank for Democrats.

Trump will handle them like a BOSS.

Fake Clinton news?? what?? what child slavery.. how about how she screwed Bernie ???
How she was such a poor candidate that she had no trust with the American people??

But the Media and all the leftest was darn sure she would win.. Even up to 10pm election night.. Then the real results pored in and wiped their smug smiles right off their face.

Ah yes Trump opened a can of whoop ass.
Up until 10pm election night every Democrat and main stream media outlet knew in their hearts that Hillary wold win Smug ass media....And that did not happen. Ultimate FAIL..

What a false argument you give.

Its like saying in football terms:

We ran more yards .
We has more time possession of the ball.
WE had more rushing.
Hence we should have won.

These, like your argument don't mean squat -- its the final score that matters.

so let me get this straight.

neil cavuto,a pandering,whoremongering demagogue who represents all that is diseased and corrupt from FOX news.is glibly and childishly deriding CNN for now being in the very boat that FOX was for years.

that somehow the criticism and sly accusations of FOX being biased and slanted were not warranted.that the REAL focus should be on the reactions of the executive branch,and not on the content of cable news.

when we consider that even as late as 2010,33% of FOX viewers STILL thought that iraq had connections to al qeada,and that they were hiding WMD's.this alone is enough to condemn FOX as a rapacious propaganda machine.

i am not letting CNN off the hook.who have also been caught fabricating conflict based on questionable sources to formulate political crisis when there was none.

but that is not even something cavuto is addressing.he is literally beaming with a smug condescension in this piece,self-righteously admonishing an entire network as if those networks are not populated by individuals.

as if they of one mind.
one message.
and the message is:"poor CNN is no longer the favorite and now has to sit in the back of the bus like we did for 8 years".

do you know what this is?
and i am POSITIVE cavuto is totally unaware of this comparison.

this is the new house negro ridiculing the OLD house negro.
who were lovingly called "house niggers" *dedicated to @gorillaman*and "uncle tom's" back in the day.

so house negro neil cavuto is just gushing with pride that his new master prefers his network to that old rust bucket CNN.

the new pimp in chief likes his cable news to bow and prostrate itself upon his moist loins,and no other network can whore itself quite like FOX news.

so good for you mr neil cavuto!
you are the presidents new,favorite whore.
so pucker up you precious little slut,trump has something for you,and say goodbye to your last vestige of moral integrity.

now go be a good house negro and go make a trump a sandwich.

this is too delicious not to *promote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

I don't agree with Chomster's smugness completely, I think that theory & leftfield (pseudo) "intellectualism" needs to have a niche that is entertaining, of which Zizek surely fills the void of. But, Chomsky, is a stick to the facts sort, which is why I find Chomsky to be so important. We can't refute the facts and Chomsky is a great analyst of history.

What is it that Zizek exactly does? He is influential for being a sort of thinking man's political comedian, a jester to a degree; I think that is, in and of itself important (even inspirational) but I can see Chomsky's critical perspective in seeing it as just a bunch of posturing (jester prancing in a circle; ouroboros) that gets nothing done.

It's all true.


We will be very smug, and we will apologise for it.

It's the Tarantino Tough-guys versus the Eastwood-Bronsonians. Pretty apt given that Dirty Harry's original nemesis Scorpio was a smug and chatty murderer.

Tarantino's antiheros are the natural enemies of Harry Callahan. Even Gene Hackman's character in Unforgiven is a loud mouth to the moment he dies complaining life ain't fair, he was building a house. *BLAM*

Thanks, Bono, that connected some hero/antihero dots for me.

Yeah, that gabby contrived toilet mouth dialog you always find in his scripts. Some of the a-holes i work with, I call them Tarantino Tough-guys because they copy that smug chattiness. I tell them to try copying Bronson or Eastwood and keep their mouth shut.

Sorry, but I feel bad for the guy.

Yes, he's way too smug about the whole thing, and the fact that he's vlogging makes it that much harder to sympathise, but if he's got an ethical objection to animal products I'm not surprised he's upset. If nothing else I'd say he feels sick to the stomach over it... imagine having a nice pork fillet only to find it's human meat.

I'm a solid carnivore myself, and a fan of People tor Eating Tasty Animals, but I still have to respect other people's choices. At least now he'll learn to ask more and more about the ingredients of what he eats.

Now back to my 'pork' stew.

Rachael Maddow is the worst.

TYT takes too long to get to the point.

Anti god videos and video that poke fun at god. GOD is real. The fact that man is a corrupt failure and persons of faith (preachers etc) fail does not make make GOD any less real. Man fails. God doesn't.

Bill Maher I just hate his smugness.

I don,t like prank videos that end up hurting someone.

Also I never seen more anti politician videos than the the ones about Trump. The left is relentless. He is not a politician. He is a 70 year old opinionated man who never had to be PC.