If You Can Make It In New York ...
Sure, it's great to make it in New York. But what happens if you're a liberal Democrat and you can't? Where is it you go from there? via The New York Times Editorial page:
With Democrats Like These ...
Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
... Otherwise, it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
The Times doesn't even realize how far out of step it is with most of America.
The NYT, the wrecker of paper, hasn't been anything but a left-wing propaganda machine as far back as I am aware, the 1960s. My fondest dream is that it be taken over and reformed by some outside agency, which would then have to clean out all the wacky Leftist, ink-stained wretches. "Up from your desk, Mr. Rich. It's frog-marching time."
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 10:39 AM
I'd say 1930s. See Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning journalism when he was their Moscow reporter.
Posted by: Lala | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Good point.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM
The Times doesn't even realize how far out of step it is with most of America.
This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read on the internet!
Posted by: Davebo | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 01:38 PM
What the Times really means is that the one-party system is ok, so long as that one party is the Democratic one, towing an extremely liberal line. The Times can't conceal its real frustration over the fact that President Bush continues to be relevant and there doesn't appear to be anything the Democratic majority can do about it. There's two reasons for that: the Democrats in 2006 overpromised to their base, and the far-left misinterpreted bigtime the results of the 2006 election. It's that simple. The Times editorial board can poo-poo all they want about it, it won't change a thing. Except to reinforce just how out of touch they are...
Posted by: Angevin13 | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 03:51 PM
really it's out of touch with most of America? Most americans want to end the Iraq war, most americans want to fund $35 billion for SCHIP
who's really out of touch
Posted by: LOL | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 04:03 PM
CNN poll wants 61% to override Bush's veto.
USAToday poll trusts dems 52% and Bush 32% on this issue
ABC poll in Sept. said 72% supported the $35 billion plan
-----
Iraq: Bush approval at 26% on the issue, disapproval at 67%
Again, who is really out of touch with average americans.
It's not even a question at this point. You're so blind you can't even your own level of support
Posted by: LOL | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 04:09 PM
LOL asks the enlightening question: "who's really out of touch" I would say the people who think they can pass bad policy but can't because wiser people won't let them.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 04:18 PM
LOL, use your head. Suppose a survey asked people who are nicer, people who want to give you "free" health insurance or people who don't? Do you really want every political issue to be settled by polls of samples of citizens? If you do, we could govern ourselves a lot cheaper. We could do away with Congress and all state legislators.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Dan's post is about FISA. The NYT wants American intelligence officers to have to get a warrant whenever they wish to listen in on a foreign based terrorist talking to an America.
The NYT claims the Constitution requires a warrant for this kind of intelligence gathering. It does not, nor should it.
The NYT is out of step with the American public on this issue so LOL changed the subject to SCHIP. It's a typical liberal debating tactic. When that doesn't work it is followed by an ad hominen attack.
Posted by: Terry Gain | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 08:17 AM
Dan's post is about FISA. The NYT wants American intelligence officers to have to get a warrant whenever they wish to listen in on a foreign based terrorist talking to an America.
The NYT claims the Constitution requires a warrant for this kind of intelligence gathering. It does not, nor should it.
The NYT is out of step with the American public on this issue so LOL changed the subject to SCHIP. It's a typical liberal debating tactic. When that doesn't work it is followed by an ad hominen attack.
Posted by: Terry Gain | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 08:24 AM
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.
Posted by: Dan Collins | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The 24%ers are calling others 'out of touch'? Thats a good one!
Surge on, deadenders!!!
Posted by: bobInStamford | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The 11%ers are claiming to be IN TOUCH. That's even better, boob! Hahaha!
A nutroot to the bitter end, huh, boob!
Posted by: jj | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 07:39 PM
out-of-touch equals those who would impose their totalitarian impulses on others, Boob. Stamford's a looooong way from Southern California, so I know you feel comfortable, but when the boot gets too heavy, you're the kinda tool we'll be looking for first
Posted by: Frank G | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 08:16 PM
"--- CNN poll wants 61% to override Bush's veto. ---"
*YAWN.*
Let's rephrase that: "about 1400 chuckleheads who replied to a poll on CNN would like to see Bush's veto on S-CHIP overturned"
There ya go.
And the opinion of 1400 chuckleheads is way more valuable than that of around 600-ish elected government and policy makers and an executive branch with advisers and counsel much wiser that those aforementioned chuckleheads.
Indeed, if there was ever a case against the sort of mob-ocracy that the Founding Fathers cringed about when enacting a Federalist Constitution, this would be it.
Sorry, LOL... but we shall not be governed by polls produced by leftist media organs which pander to weak-brained sops who feed off of fear not tempered by reason, or are swayed by every strange new idea.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:21 AM
So you guys want Hillary listening in on your conversations without a warrant when she's sworn in in 2009? Think about it. This shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Posted by: waka waka | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 09:50 AM
ww,
I don't want anyone listening in on domestic conversations without a warrant. As for listening in to overseas conversations, it is my understanding that this is legal, and always has been. Did I miss something?
Posted by: jj | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 10:40 AM
seekernos, you are the dumbest person on the internets tubes.
One marvels that you even have the capacity to operate the library computer.
good lord!!
Posted by: supernintendo Chalmers | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:21 PM
If it's foreign to foreign, it's always been legal and that is the subject of this debate. Bush and the telcos have been illegally spying on Americans without warrants. That's why they want retroactive immunity for the telcos: because they broke the law at the government's request. None of us, Democrat or Republican, should want that to happen. Next time it'll be a Democrat doing the same thing and I'll be right beside you guys calling him or her out.
Posted by: waka waka | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 02:34 PM
The Times doesn't even realize how far out of step it is with most of America.
They're probably still baffled at Nixon's victory over Goldwater.
Posted by: physics geek | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 03:32 PM
wanker wanker, old sport, I WANT the government to listen in to any phone call I may receive from a person on our terrorists list calling from outside the U.S. Further, if I did receive such a call, I would try to keep that person on the line for as long as possible while I asked as many questions as possible. Why the hell wouldn't I? It would be like a civic duty?
OSB: Good day, Fred, this is the Big O speaking.
FB: Hey, man, how's the weather where you are?
OSB: It's OK Fred.
FB: Good, but is it like, you know, very sunny, or partly cloudy? Is it in the 70s?
OBN: It's nice out, Fred, but look this is a recruiting call I'm making today. As you may have heard we are running out of suicidal, murderous savages here lately, it's getting to be like a real shortage.
FB: Interesting. But say I'm kind of a weather buff. Like I know the names of the different kinds of clouds and stuff. It's like my hobby. Now would you say the clouds above you in, say where are you these days anyway?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
"---
seekernos, you are the dumbest person on the internets tubes.
One marvels that you even have the capacity to operate the library computer.
good lord!!
Posted by: supernintendo Chalmers
---"
Sez you. Neener, neener neener.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 12:17 PM
But, seek, don't say neener to the Superintendo. He is very creative. He's come up with the most outrageously ridiculous nickname in Netterdom, and has opinions to match.
Posted by: Superviso Chambers | Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Indeed. Gonna have to watch that silly net name thing... because as we liberals like to say... creativity is a dangewous thing.
Posted by: Supersocialisto Teat Chappers | Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 03:34 PM