Tweeting with The Brain Dead

I had an unusual encounter today in the Twitterverse. Not unusual in the sense that you find people that either A) have no idea what they're talking about,  B) refuse to believe the truth because it doesn't fit their narrative,  or C) know the truth but perpetuate the lie because it fits their agenda. I've been through all of those. The new encounter was D) faced with facts, decided to call me "creepy" and then protected his account so no one else would see his idiocy unless both parties agreed to "follow" each other.

Really. It got to that point.

It all started with Greg Sargent having a back and forth with The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin and her take on Mitt Romney's ad taking President Obama's "You didn't build that" quote out of context. Obviously, she didn't think it was out of context, and her "proof" is Romney's interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow. It wasn't President Obama's full speech. It wasn't nonpartisan fact checkers. It was Romney's explanation on an interview with conservative economist and TV host Larry Kudlow.

A Twitter user named @OrwellForce got in on the act with the following tweet: "Even his ad includes the 'It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working' part. Is that not context?" Well, I couldn't just sit there, could I? I couldn't just shake my head at another lemming and turn my attention to more important things. No, I decided to answer:

@BwayCarl: You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie.

Game on. Here's a copy and paste of the most of the Twitter conversation (and by conversation, I mean making points and getting typical talking point replies and generally banging my head against a wall.)

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce @jrubinblogger You didn't build "THAT" is in ref to infrastructure. It's obvious except to those perpetuating the lie. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger Like I asked, how are the "It must be because I'm just so smart/hard working" comments not context? 

@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce That's not the line in question. Romney campaign is laser focused on "you didn't build that." out of context @jrubinblogger

@BwayCarl @OrwellForce & I posit that Obama was right because it seems all sm. bus who disagree conveniently forget Govt grants/loans. @jrubinblogger

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger So the context that reinforces Romney's point isn't real context according to you? 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Tell me, what is it that Romney is saying when he says, and his ads say "Obama says you didn't build it"? @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger He's quoting Obama...and he includes context. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce You can't even answer my question in a straightforward manner. Kinda proves my point. @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl @jrubinblogger You asked me what Romney is saying, and Romney is quoting Obama. But enjoy your imagined victory. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce No, I asked you what Mitt was saying abt Obama quote. He was saying Obama said u didn't build sm. biz. Not true @jrubinblogger 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce What Obama DID say was that sm. biz didn't build the infrastructure that makes it possible for them to thrive. @jrubinblogger 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl And I pointed to context that reinforces Romney's reading. But you don't like that context. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Not because I don't like it, Mitt's context is wrong. And so far, every opportunistic example he's tried has been wrong.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Mitt quoting Obama is wrong, Mitt quoting Obama more to provide context is wrong. You're not a serious person. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce You still didn't answer my Q: Mitt's interpretation of Obama quote is that Obama said sm biz didn't build their co. You agree? 

@OrwellForce Orwell Force @BwayCarl Yes, it's a collectivist philosophy

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce So you agree with Mitt's false premise. Like I said before, what he DID say was that govt infrastructure helps sm biz thrive. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You must have the memory of an earth worm. We've been over this like 3 times now. You don't like context if it hurts your case.

 @BwayCarl: @OrwellForce And you continue to believe it like the rest of the lemmings. It doesn't hurt my case because it isn't true. Good luck, though. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "Out of context" "The context isn't true" - I hope you like rooms without windows. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce And yet you still haven't proven context other than to say "cuz Romney says so" while multiple fact checkers have debunked it.  

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Hey, at least your [sic] honest about your belief in a government-centered society. I wish more liberals would come out and say it. 

@BwayCarl: @OrwellForce Police, firefighters, military, schools, highways, public transit, SS, Medicare, yeah, we're more govt-centered than you'd admit.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I provided context but then you didn't like the context anymore. "the context is out of context"

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You keep repeating yourself. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You're starting to creep me out. 

@ BwayCarl: @OrwellForce This is context. Learn the difference. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/  

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl I've read the full speech. Fact check is pointless when there's a transcript. You think the context is out of context. Sure thing.  

@BwayCarl:  Here's another for @OrwellForce in the hopes that he'll learn the definition of the word, "context." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-unoriginal-obama-quote-taken-out-of-context/2012/07/20/gJQAdG7hyW_blog.html

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl You are one creepy dude. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce A creepy dude who happens to be correct. Good luck. 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl According to you, the definition of "context" is "nu uh!"

I'll piece the rest of this together from my timeline and my memory, because it was about this point that the brave Orwell Force decided to protect his feed, thus preventing me access unless we mutually agreed to follow each other.

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl "the context is out of context" good luck with that. 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce I'm actually laughing out loud at your responses cuz you refuse to have a real conversation about it. #IKnowYouAre ButWhatAmI 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Well then I apologize for the sad state of your life.

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Ouch! Ooh, you hurt my feelings. How will I ever recover? 

 @OrwellForce: @BwayCarl Why are you still here? 

@BwayCarl:  @OrwellForce Why do you insist on replying? 

@OrwellForce: @BwayCarl good point

And just like that, a blossoming friendship was not to be. I scared Orwell Force away. Did I come on too strong? ...and that was my day on Twitter.

By the way, Jennifer Rubin never replied to my tweets. Is it because she's too busy and too important, or because she knew she was full of shit?

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

My New Policy

POSTED BY JHW22

You know how the House Republicans required some Constitutional statement at the beginning of all new bills? Well, I've decided that from now on, any time a "Christian" wants to talk politics with me, they have to cite a section(s) in the Bible where JESUS (not Paul or Moses or anyone else) is quoted in support of their political stance.

If they want to say poor people are lazy, they have to show me where JESUS said it. Not where Paul wrote a letter to the Thessalonians. And if they can't support their political views with their more important religious views of CHRIST himself, then their principles are compromised and thus not even remotely relevant in a conversation. Not worth my time.

I Really Tried

I took a deep breath, grabbed my remote and tuned in to CNN last night to watch the latest Republican debate. Normally, when I flip these things on in passing (the GOP debates, I mean) it's just to make sure something miraculous hasn't happened and they started debating in truths rather than whatever fantasy world they live in. But alas, that moment never comes.

Well, while still not living in reality, this night had the makings of being different. After all, Rick Perry had bowed out just that morning and now the GOP Nomination Clown Car was down to four. Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife, Marianne, accused him of wanting an open marriage after he began an affair with his now third wife, Callista. And after two weeks of recounting Iowa caucus votes, we found out that Rick Santorum actually beat Mitt Romney, but since Iowa takes its voting so seriously and eight precincts worth of votes went missing, the recount will never be complete, so we'll never really know, will we?

I knew I was in for a long night when the first question out of the gate was directed at Newt and the open marriage accusation. And an angry, defiant Gingrich went after moderator John King for having the gall to ask such a question at the debate, blamed the media for attacking him and "protecting Barack Obama" and the crowd lapped it up and went along for the ride.

And I think that's what disgusted me most about this South Carolina debate - the audience was chomping at that red meat like there was no tomorrow. They were cheering Gingrich's "fuck you" attitude while simultaneously forgoing their Christian conservative selves in support of a thrice married, twice divorced, serial adulterer. Let alone the hootin' and hollerin' when Newt once again chose to go after welfare recipients (you know, because there are no white people on government assistance) to appease the blood thirsty crowd who'd left their torches and hoods at the coat check.

Somewhere along the line I felt my blood pressure rise and decided my health was more important than a futile exercise. I noticed the time was 8:36pm EDT, probably the longest I've sat through a GOP debate this season... and actually the first time I consciously tried. But to tell you the truth, besides the Newt opener and Santorum claiming victory in Iowa, the rest is a blur. It's hard to concentrate when you have blood boiling in your eyes.

Trump Pulls Out of Debate

Badgerhead Donald Trump has decided that he's not going to moderate the Newsmax debate. His excuse? He doesn't want to "give up his right to run as an independent candidate" which we all know is bullshit otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place.

Face it, Republicans: this thing was a joke from the beginning and why have a debate when no one is showing up? The only Trump whores were front runners Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (who really has nothing to lose) and The Donald didn't want to be in a position of not being able to fire anyone. You can't use your tag line if there's no one in the room.

Give Romney Credit/Dismiss Huntsman

Mitt Romney has decided to skip the Donald Trump debate on December 27th. Regardless of his reasons, you have to give Romney credit for not falling into the trap of kissing the Trump ring. According to reports, the only candidates committed to attend the Trump debate are Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich... although there is plenty of time for Mitt to flip-flop on his decision.

In other news however, what seemed like the only other "reasonable" Republican nominee decided to give a little reach-aroud of the right wing nutjobs by casting doubt on the science of global warming. No, really.

"The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation about what might lie beneath all of this," [Jon Huntsman said], "but there's not enough information right now to be able to formulate policies in terms of addressing [global warming] overall -- primarily because it's a global issue. We can enact policies here, but I wouldn't want to unilaterally disarm as a country. I wouldn't want to hinder job creators during a time when our economy is flat."

Not enough information? So much for the "reasonable" one.

How Did This Man Become A Governor?

Oh. My. God.

Bachmann's Chances

No chance.

That's what I told a colleague of mine when he came up to me and said this: "You're a level headed liberal like myself. Does Michele Bachmann really have a chance at winning the nomination?"

My friend was concerned about the talking heads and pundits going gaga over Bachmann after her first debate appearance. Let's call it the Sarah Palin Low Bar Syndrome. The problem with mainstream media is that instead of reporting the news and sticking with facts, they need to inject their opinion into everything. And after they witnessed Michele Bachmann's performance at last Monday's CNN New Hampshire debate (and considering some of the questions included, "American Idol or Dancing with The Stars?" or "Deep dish or thin crust?", I use the word "debate" loosely) the MSM gave her high marks because they didn't see her drooling, staring off into another camera or vomiting on herself. This of course, was after some of her more ridiculous comments earlier in the year like the Founding Fathers working tirelessly until they abolished slavery, or thinking Lexington and Concord were in New Hampshire and then trying to laugh it off with an Obama teleprompter joke.

They did the same with Sarah Palin in 2008 after the only Vice Presidential debate in which she stated she wasn't going to answer the questions posed of her, just blurt out any talking points she could remember (this was before the hand prompter) and occasionally wink at the camera. But Palin didn't soil her undies on camera, so she must have won the debate, right?

Now, I'll give Bachmann some credit. The smartest thing Bachmann did in the debate was steal the headlines by announcing her candidacy right then and there. And she's shown she's a little more than cunning. She's not dumb enough to use her Tea Party incendiary rhetoric on a national stage. She's not going to ask people to be armed and dangerous because of cap and trade. She's not going to outwardly ask for an investigation to see which members of Congress are "un-American." It doesn't suit her to let her wingnut freak flag fly when speaking to a larger audience. Doing it with some more isolated crowds will do the trick just fine. Especially when sprinkling in the veiled biblical verse here and there.

But that's the difference between Bachmann and Palin. Michele may say some crazy shit, but she knows when to tone it down to appeal to a larger contingent. Sarah takes a scorched earth approach and usually doubles down on the stupid.

Not to worry, though.  There is still another 17 months before the general election, plenty of time for the media microscope to start scrutinizing more carefully below the surface. That's also plenty of time in which I'm sure Bachmann will eventually slip and show the country how loony she actually is. Sure, she might win in Iowa where she's taking advantage of a large evangelical population and where nearly half of primary voters think President Obama was not born in the United States, but she'll most likely fade back after New Hampshire.

Andrew Card is Sad...

...because there will be no Democratic debate before President Obama is chosen as the nominee.



And yes, this is the same Andrew Card who was George W. Bush's Chief of Staff during the 2004 election cycle... when Bush was the incumbent and didn't have to debate fellow Republicans before he was chosen as the nominee for his party.

...The stupidity, it burns!

Thanks For Playing, T-Paw

He plays Mr. Tough Guy when on Sunday when criticizing the Affordable Care Act by calling it "Obamneycare" in a two-for-one jibe at President Obama and one of his primary opponents, Mitt Romney, but when Tim Pawlenty is face to face with his GOP rival the very next day, he passes on any Obamneycare rhetoric and slinks away with his tail between his legs.



No guts, no glory. Thanks for playing T-Paw. NEXT!

The Stewart-O'Reilly Debates

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates they are not, but it's always fun watching Bill O'Reilly get popped in the head with facts and see him squirm and misdirect. It's too bad we can't see an unedited version of this interview.







Oh, and Bill? The Weathergirls are one of your favorite groups? I know it was most likely said in jest, but it only gave me images of you dancing to "Y.M.C.A." so please, leave the jokes to the funny men.

False Equivalency Equals Faulty Equation

POSTED BY JHW22

Equivalency means two things being almost equal if not exact. Therefore, if I say an apple is fruit and a banana is fruit, I am making a correct equivalency. However, if I say a Red Delicious apple is the same as a banana some could argue a false equivalency because a Red Delicious apple is red, whereas a banana is yellow. Someone else may say, yes, but they are still fruit. Then someone else could say some apples are yellow and bananas are yellow and they are both fruit so they are the same. Then someone else could say, yes but bananas are only yellow when they aren’t green or brown.

See, when it comes to fruit, you can’t have a discussion without someone having an alternate version that isn’t false but which is different from the opponent’s position.

If I say that trees are green someone can say, not all are green and not all green trees are green all the time.

If I say boys are more active than girls someone will provide examples of hyper-active girls and sedate boys.

If I say clouds are all the same someone will point out the various types.

So when I say that some people on the left have used vitriolic language, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency because it’s a far more nuanced issue than fruit. Hell, even that statement could be argued as a false equivalency.

Now, if I point out 3 instances of when the left has used questionable hyperbole while I also point out 30 cases where the right has done it, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency. I have not said 3 = 30. I have said they each share a digit, they are each numbers. There are many similarities between 3 and 30 but they are not equal and pointing out the similarities is not a statement that they are equal.

I have been a part of and have witnessed two conversations since the tragedy in Tucson. I am going to paraphrase both conversations and show why I think the “false equivalency” argument is a waste of real opportunity to get everyone, regardless of their party’s eagerness or opposition to use vitriol in the debate, to stop using it – period.

Conversation A:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “Looking back, I’d have to say I wish he hadn’t used that line. Even though it’s an old cliché, I wish we weren’t using any language that implies aggression or violence. I pledge not to use that language and to reject it if anyone in my party uses it. Now, do YOU reject that language used in your party?”

Republican: “Yes, I reject that language in my party.”

Conversation B:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “There is no comparison between the left and the right here. The right has had far more vitriol and has created this atmosphere since a black man became President. So, no, there is nothing vitriolic about his statement. No one in MY party has called for shootings or ‘second amendment remedies’ or for people to ‘reload’ or be ‘armed and dangerous’. So no, MY party isn’t part of the problem.”

Republican: “Oh, I see. MY party is racist and violent because we’re white and want to protect our rights and hate the way the government is destroying our country. Your party can say whatever it wants and use whatever words and images it wants because you when you use it it doesn’t mean anything. But when MY party uses it, we’re telling crazy people to kill people. Only crazy people are on the right, is that what you’re saying?”

Democrat: “No, there are crazy people on the left but our crazies don’t take guns to speeches and don’t kill people.”

Republican: “Well this guy was a liberal. Look at the books he read.”

Democrat: “What he read doesn’t mean he was a liberal. He shot a Democrat who Sarah Palin put a target on in campaign rhetoric.”

Republican: “Two of the victims who died were Republicans.”

Democrat: “The shooter couldn’t have known that.”

Republican: “And Sarah Palin couldn’t have known some crazy would misconstrue what she meant.”

Democrat: “We warned of this. She could have known because we raised this point over and over.”

Republican: “See, you wanted this to happen just so you could say, ‘I told you so’.”

In Conversation A, the Democrat acknowledged the FRACTION of poor choices by the Democratic party and the conversation moved forward.

In Conversation B, the Democrat decided that acknowledging a fraction was conceding a false equivalency. That conversation is still spiraling into an abyss of nothing.

EDIT: Here is the transcript from Obama's Tucson Memorial speech. All he said is what I meant to say.

Sarah Palin Redux?

I haven't been able to watch very much of last night Christine O'Donnell/Chris Coons Delaware Senatorial Debate, but from the little I've seen, it's deja vú all over again.

Was Katie Couric moderating? When asked what recent Supreme Court cases Witchy-Poo disagrees with, she couldn't think of one but promised to put it up on her website.



Why Wolf Blitzer would try to bail her out with his Roe v. Wade comment is beyond me, but let's just chalk it up to being part of the most trusted name in news.

Then there's this whole fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80's and 90's?  Uh, no. We funded the mujahideen through covert CIA operations, but we didn't have any troops in Afghanistan, which is what O'Donnell definitely implied.



At some point, someone she is debating has to call out the stupidity. When Christine "I would've been a Hare Krishna but couldn't give up the meatballs" O'Donnell called Coons a Marxist, why did he rebut with his love of Capitalism? Why didn't he just say something like, "Gee Christine, I'd be offended if I thought you knew what the definition of Marxism was." That's how you fight the stupid. With a little belittling remark. Maybe a follow up asking her to explain what Marxism is.

And I love that some pundits have such low expectations of O'Donnell that, because she didn't go out there and bray like a mule, she is automatically declared formidable and some say, won the debate! Ridiculous. It's Sarah Palin all over again.

Republicans Block Debate on DADT

NY Times: Senate Republicans voted unanimously blocked debate of the bill — the huge, annual authorization of military programs — after the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he would attach a number of the Democrats’ election-year priorities to it while also moving to limit the amendments offered by Republicans.

The vote was 56 to 43, with Democrats falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and take up the bill. The Arkansas Democrats, Senators Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, sided with all 41 Republicans in opposing debate.

Brewer Done With Debates

...because really, why bother stating your position in a clear, cohesive way in front of your constituents when running for public office when you can just avoid being called to task for anything asinine you may say?

"I don't believe that things come out in proper context in an adversarial atmosphere," she defended herself.

You're right, Jan. That adversarial opening statement in which you lost your head and basically said, "DUUUUUHHHH...." for about 10 straight seconds was totally out of context.

My question is: will being a cowardly hack hurt Brewer or are her followers idiotic enough to think that she's not being treated fairly?  Maybe Sarah Palin will tweet that Brewer's 1st Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

Brewer Blanks

Ever hear the phrase, "It's hideous, but I can't look away"? Well, welcome to Jan Brewer's opening statement in her first debate in the run for Governor of Arizona.



Torturous to watch... karma is a bitch.

But it only gets better. Well, better for us, worse for Brewer.

...after a reporter asked her why she wouldn't recant some insane claims she'd previously made about "beheadings in the desert," Brewer responded by pretending the question wasn't even asked. Then, as every single reporter in the room piled on, she opted to flee, back the way she'd come.

This is what I foresee happening with every Tea Party candidate who is not ready for prime time. And Sarah Palin as well if she chooses to run in 2012.  There's no way she can get away with, "I may not answer the questions you want me to" next time around.

(Via Jason Linkins)

My Facebook Debate with A Right Winger

Not too long ago, Armadillo Joe gave us a post about his Facebook debate with a Texas conservative, the place where he once called home. Now I too have fallen into the trap of debating someone on Facebook with a "different take" on the politics of the day. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a complete fantasy world can be lethal.

It all started with a Facebook friend, who I'll refer to as "Karen," because her name is Karen, adding this comment as her Facebook status:

"Ok - so I'm hangin with the tea party crowd and they're listening to some annoying radio show MCed by an equally annoying person called Mark Levin. Time to turn the shuffle on HIGH. With all that's going on in the world today - the last thing I can deal with is someone with the voice of gloom and doom."

To which someone I'll refer to as "John," because his name is John, replied:

"Well I would love to be there! I would say I am more a Reagen [sic] conservative! As long as we have small gov less taxes and big defense I am good to go!!"

Well, you know me. I couldn't just let that go. So I commented:

"John, you do know that Reagan blew the national debt out of the water to $3 trillion at the time, more than all presidents before him combined, don't you? I know I'm opening up a can of worms."

John: "And now Obama has increased the debt to more then all presidents combined and that's four more presidents then when Reagen [sic] was including Ronald. Plus he has made our country week [sic] by his apolgy [sic] tour. And let's not forget how he insults our allies. Plus I never heard a president trash talk american people like he does! He controls the.[sic] Highest office and acts like a school kid!"

The gloves are off. It's on, brohim!

Continue reading "My Facebook Debate with a Right Winger."

Ultimate Hubris

I don't know if I understand this even as a political tactic.

Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were invited to the White house to speak with President Obama on finding a way forward with the jobs bill, the economy and the Health Care bill. And immediately after leaving the White House, while still on the White House lawn, basically told the President to go fuck himself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's like having a little kid you've told not to touch the crystal vase on the mantle and he IMMEDIATELY goes and touches the vase, breaks it and then when asked why he did the exact opposite of what you just asked, responds "...I don't know." And Boehner still moaning about the amount of pages in any particular bill is just infuriating.

It's this obstructionism being reverberated in the echo chamber that is Fox News which causes so much confusion and disinformation to have Republicans and conservatives frothing at the mouth when it comes to anything, ANYTHING that may be critical of their party.

Take for example the comments section in Oliver Willis' blog post about the "Miss Me Yet?" George bush billboard in Wyoming.

"Anyone else notice that the home foreclosures started the same year the Democrats took over Congress? " As if there was no precursor for this problem. If they started the same year, that means the problem happened beforehand.

"one last thing it wasnt a surplus @ the end of clintons term he was .8% over GDP"   Uh, yeah. "Over" means surplus. "Under" means deficit.

"In the current wars we are fighting – you know the ones that BO was going to stop? – BO has had the most US soldiers killed by a wide margin." Really? Seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama has already caused more military dead? Fine. Pull them out. But then he would be weak on national security, right?

"All informed and intelligent people realize that W will go down in history as one of the best presidents we have ever had the good fortune to enjoy." ...How can you argue with someone who truly believes that?

And my personal favorite: "Bush inherited 911 but I never heard him whine or blame Clinton (even though Clinton and Gore played patty-cake with Al-Qaeda for years)."
Bush inherited 9/11. But we all know where that came from.

And there is the crux of the problem. You can't have a reasoned debate or policy argument when the other side doesn't even agree on the facts. Solid, documented, hard facts. If they believe President Obama is tripling the debt in his first year, If they believe more soldiers have been killed under Obama's first year than Bush's eight years, if they believe Bush inherited 9/11, for God's sake, then there's no sense in debating them because they will refuse to believe the truth even when shown documented proof.  Even simple things like, oh, let's say, a calendar! 


The the current crop on the GOP side in Congress is no different.  Rachel Maddow sums it up nicely here.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's House Republican Conference Remarks

Enjoy the smackdown.




(C-SPAN has disabled embedding for this particular video, so clicking on the photo will send you to their site where you can watch the full conference remarks and the questions and answers that followed.)

The Thing About Alan Grayson

I've been thinking about the newest Democratic star and his tactics. It's pretty impressive for freshman Congressman Alan Grayson to have so much exposure so early in his time in office. He was a successful lawyer with previous background work in the Colorado Supreme Court as well as a successful businessman which has made him a multi-millionaire. Part of what makes him tick is that he's not worried about where his next donation is coming from, which is key.

Basically, Alan Grayson is one smart cookie. He realized early on that the Democratic party has been on the defensive for so long because of the time and effort it takes to keep swatting away the flies that are attracted to the shit that spews from GOP mouths on a daily basis. So instead of spending time debunking asinine statements that an eight year old can debunk, Grayson decided to beat them to The Crazy.

Alan Grayson is beating the wingnuts at their own game. And the more he pushes and slaps the Bullshit Bully around, the more he gets them off balance, sitting on their heels and reacting to his dart throwing instead of locking and loading their own cockamamie cartridges. As a result, they're less inclined they are to run against him in his home district.

He's crazy like a fox - he knows that he'll get media attention by using extreme measures just like the GOP nutballs, but instead of using that time to push conspiracy theories of FEMA concentration camps or agreeing with the Birthers, he uses it to shine a light on important things like the health insurance cartel. So maybe his new website, NamesOfTheDead.com can come across as a little harsh when you first hear of it. But it puts a name to the statistic. It makes that number human. And it's one of the only ways the mainstream media will pay attention and he knows it.

President Obama's Weekly Address - October 17, 2009

Taking the Insurance Companies on Down the Stretch