PetiteSirah wrote:It would be funny, except that Jezebel is only unintentionally a humor site. (Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!) It's just part of the massive media campaign to avoid the issues (like our economy) and focus on calling names, muddying the waters (hahaha, look how white and old-fashioned they are), and battlefield preparation (look how racist we are for holding Obama to his own words!).

In actual news, this is far more telling. It also has the benefit of being true.

Those times I watch Fox News I find myself also thinking that it's unintentionally a humour channel. At least when I watch Papa Bear O'Reilly. To be honest, though, I hate reading or watching the news these days. I never get news via TV, but I still force myself to scan the headlines. It's usually depressing for any number of reasons.

klezman wrote:Those times I watch Fox News I find myself also thinking that it's unintentionally a humour channel. At least when I watch Papa Bear O'Reilly. To be honest, though, I hate reading or watching the news these days. I never get news via TV, but I still force myself to scan the headlines. It's usually depressing for any number of reasons.

The only TV news I watch is, occasionally, the (Wall Street) Journal Editorial Report when it plays on Fox, and Stossel once in a while.

PetiteSirah wrote:It also has the benefit of being true.

I was under the impression there was absolutely NO benefit to truth anymore.

Though from a quick reading of the article, it sounds more like "opportunism" than "repentism" but I'm a cynical bastard.

PetiteSirah wrote:It would be funny, except that Jezebel is only unintentionally a humor site. (Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!) It's just part of the massive media campaign to avoid the issues (like our economy) and focus on calling names, muddying the waters (hahaha, look how white and old-fashioned they are), and battlefield preparation (look how racist we are for holding Obama to his own words!).

In actual news, this is far more telling. It also has the benefit of being true.

I see things that I think are funny all the time on Jezebel. I'm not sure what that says about me. But this one was obviously goofy. Just silly stuff to break up the monotony.

Edit: since you evidently took it seriously, does that make you a feminist?

bhodilee wrote:I was under the impression there was absolutely NO benefit to truth anymore.

Though from a quick reading of the article, it sounds more like "opportunism" than "repentism" but I'm a cynical bastard.

Thinking along similar lines, but hoping he may be honest.
Am I really this gullible?

bhodilee wrote:Though from a quick reading of the article, it sounds more like "opportunism" than "repentism" but I'm a cynical bastard.

I'm with you. But that's exactly the kind of detention I expect from politicians on both sides. I noticed that he seemed to imply Biden's "in chains" comment was by design. So which is it? Biden as bumbling fool or Biden as evil mastermind? I'm going with "fool" until further notice.

This is my tribute to all of our politicians this election season.

Fake It

Who’s to know if your soul will fade at all?
The one you sold to fool the world
You lost your self-esteem along the way, yeah

Good god, you're comin’ up with reasons
Good god, you're draggin’ it out
And good god, it's the changin’ of the seasons
I feel so right, so follow me down and just

Fake it, if you’re out of direction
Fake it, if you don't belong, yeah
Fake it, if you feel like infection
Whoa, you’re such a flunkin’ hypocrite

chemvictim wrote:I'm with you. But that's exactly the kind of detention I expect from politicians on both sides. I noticed that he seemed to imply Biden's "in chains" comment was by design. So which is it? Biden as bumbling fool or Biden as evil mastermind? I'm going with "fool" until further notice.

He said it deliberately and by design. He's a fool and a valedictorian for not realizing how it would play out.

PetiteSirah wrote:It would be funny, except that Jezebel is only unintentionally a humor site. (Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!) It's just part of the massive media campaign to avoid the issues (like our economy) and focus on calling names, muddying the waters (hahaha, look how white and old-fashioned they are), and battlefield preparation (look how racist we are for holding Obama to his own words!).

In actual news, this is far more telling. It also has the benefit of being true.

I lol'd.

IGNORE THE TAXMAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

Well that's good news

If there was any denying that the NY Times leans to the left, the last paragraph of The Opinionator should take care of that.

Well, it's time you guys talk about something else, so here goes,

“2016 The Movie” review by WWA,

Well, that was some movie/documentary, much better than I had feared, I was going to the show to see for myself what it was about, and expecting a Obama bashing, like some of the e-mail we all get, instead I got a very informative movie, by the author, (Dinesh D'Souza) on both his life, and also on Obama's life, and since he had a lot of the same time lines as Obama, on how he could relate to the events of the times. It reminded me of a book I recently read on the life of Ronald Reagan, (now, I know that is hard to understand, Reagan & Obama?) but if you read the book, you see how Reagan developed his great American thoughts and ideas, over his lifetime before becoming President, and if you see this movie, you understand how Obama, has developed into his Anti-American and Anti-Colonization (both US & Britain) and his anti-Israel,
and pro Muslim feelings/actions.

In the movie, it is not just talk, facts/sayings by the author, but a lot of the damaging material against Obama, is actual interviews, with his brother, by his fellow colleges (both here in the states, and Kenya) , by his own speeches, etc. It points out that a lot of fools (Democrats, media) didn't listen to what his version/definition, of "Change for America" meant. but instead heard "Change for America" and heard and believed what they wanted it to mean.

I don't remember how many times they referenced people in the movie, who voted for him, so "they could tell their Grand kids' that they were not afraid to vote for the first Black President" In retrospect, I wonder when the Grand kids grow up, if they will forget to tell them that they were responsible for the first black President, and the harm that they allowed to America in letting Obama do the damage to America that he has.

The movie also goes on and shows how his radical Ministers, and College professors, along with Bill Ayers, and others of that type, influenced him, But yet, how Obama distanced himself, from them, during the campaigning, as he knew if some of the relationships came out, that he would lose the election, and how the Mainstream media, turned their blind side, and didn't
report these facts.

After the Movie ended, while we didn't have a standing ovation, the theater, which was about 90% full, (Friday afternoon)They did burst into applause, and then when everyone filed out there was no talking, just silence, Again, reminding me of Reagan, only this time the reports of Reagan's funeral. Was every one thinking what I was? Another 4 more years, it would be America's funeral? I understand you can rent this soon from Netflix, if you can't see it in a theater, my advice, as an American, to be informed, whatever side you are on, do so...

Our local paper rated it as a half star, and when you read what they had to say about it, they actually admitted that they didn't got to see it. but still rated it, so in your comments to this post, please state if you went to see it or not.

WineWootaholic wrote:Well, it's time you guys talk about something else, so here goes,

“2016 The Movie” review by WWA,

I have not seen this and indeed never even heard about it before now. My main note here is that both the movie and your review sound like they lean significantly to the right.

I think that it is blatantly untrue to say that Obama has anti-American feelings and I also feel that it is too early to say that his presidency has done significant harm to our country. (How about Bush Jr's second term? Any harm there?).

Being in a position of having socially liberal, fiscally conservative, free liberty views, neither party makes me particularly happy at the moment but I will not be quick to condemn either side's actions. Actually I am far more apt to condemn their collective inaction (In Congress Specifically) At least when one side is in control or when there is a general willingness to compromise, things happen and one can judge based on that. The current gridlock is AWFUL.

bhodilee wrote:Well that's good news

The Federal Reserve finally has wiped its hands clean of AIG and turned a nearly $18 billion profit for taxpayers in the process.

I love statements like this first line of the story. We, the tax payers, made that profit? I didn't see a dime... And where will that money actually go? We'll never know.

kylemittskus wrote:I love statements like this first line of the story. We, the tax payers, made that profit? I didn't see a dime... And where will that money actually go? We'll never know.

of course it didn't go back to you. It went to me, I have more kids

cmaldoon wrote:Being in a position of having socially liberal, fiscally conservative, free liberty views, neither party makes me particularly happy at the moment but I will not be quick to condemn either side's actions. Actually I am far more apt to condemn their collective inaction (In Congress Specifically) At least when one side is in control or when there is a general willingness to compromise, things happen and one can judge based on that. The current gridlock is AWFUL.

The first rule in medicine is Do No Harm.

As a general rule, the government does less harm by refraining from action than it does by acting (even if one assumes it is well meaning). If gridlock, however awful, prevents the government from decreasing liberty - as almost all government action does - then gridlock is not such a bad thing.

The problem with 'socially liberal' views as expressed by the current Democratic Party is that it almost always involves a diminution of liberty by extorting more money from the citizens by threat of state force and using the threat of state force to make people comply with their vision of the world. None of that really seems very 'socially liberal' to me.

Example: you want to make abortion legal? Fine. Just don't compel taxpayers who don't agree to support it, don't compel insurers to cover it, don't compel hospitals or doctors to perform abortions. That would be "socially liberal".

Even if you think the government ought to pay for abortions for the poor, it's not liberal to insist other agree or to force them to pay, cover abortion or perform abortions.

One could multiply the examples.

rpm wrote:One could multiply the examples.

Yes, one could. I could think of a whole list of things which I don't agree with and thus should not be compelled to support.

In an emergency situation, I sure as hell want my doctor to be "compelled" to treat me. I wouldn't show up at her house, that's not what I mean. But if I'm rushed to the ER in an emergency situation, I don't want to hear that the doctors on call won't treat me for their own personal reasons.

I've read stories about nurses and pharmacists who would not provide care or medication to patients after an abortion, or patients they suspected might have had an abortion (in the case of the pharmacist). How would you like it if you were sitting in the hospital and the nurse refused to treat you? Or if the pharmacist wouldn't give you the drugs your doctor prescribed after you left the hospital? Maybe they don't like you for whatever reason. Should they be "compelled" to treat you, or not? And if not, if they must not be "compelled" to treat you, then can their employer fire them for refusing to do their job, or is that a form of compelling? If the employer cannot fire them, isn't the employer then being compelled to keep a crappy employee?

Edit: as far as I know (feel free to correct me), we have no laws compelling doctors to perform abortions. We do have these "conscience clause" things, which prohibit disciplining or discriminating against the person who refuses to do whatever procedure is against his conscience. So I guess it is employers who are being compelled, after all. Damn liberals.

rpm wrote:
The problem with 'socially liberal' views as expressed by the current Democratic Party is that it almost always involves a diminution of liberty by extorting more money from the citizens by threat of state force and using the threat of state force to make people comply with their vision of the world. None of that really seems very 'socially liberal' to me.

The government is there to ensure the welfare of its citizens not for its citizens.

I agree that the democrats tend to be overly heavy handed with many of the social policies. I prefer a more hands off - What I'm doing doesn't hurt anyone else so mind your own business - approach for those but neither party is good at this across the board right now.

On the other hand, I am all for the government stepping in to prevent tragedies of the commons and I feel that the Republicans are not so great at this currently. For example the GOP in general HATES the EPA. While I think the EPA sometimes goes too far, I am very glad to have it.

Still figuring out whether I'd want a Democrat or Republican this November. Leaning Left because I really don't see the huge harm that Obama has done and I think the stimulus has helped. On the other hand, the Republicans are more likely to pay my salary. It seems like my vote doesn't particularly matter though given I live in California, which is solidly Democrat. This whole Electoral College thing feels a bit disenfranchising.

Still figuring out whether I'd want a Democrat or Republican this November. Leaning Left because I really don't see the huge harm that Obama has done and I think the stimulus has helped. On the other hand, the Republicans are more likely to pay my salary. It seems like my vote doesn't particularly matter though given I live in California, which is solidly Democrat. This whole Electoral College thing feels a bit disenfranchising


.[/quote]
Two things, 2016 the movie/documentary was number 7 last weekend, with a third of the screens as the number one movie. It was also the number one movie when it came to dollars per screen, s o look it up, it might give you some info you don't have.

Concerning your comment on electoral college, I was of the same mind for the first 40 some years of my life, then I read an article about what would happen if we went with popular vote count. If there were two or three running not much difference, however as time went on
There would be more and more people running, soon every state would have their home town hero running, and that states votes would mostly go to that person, so all the later presidents would most likely come from the most populous states, with maybe 5 or 10 percent of the votes.

They screwed with the way they elected The US Senators some time ago (100 years maybe longer) and now we have the problem that we do, with changing out the trash in the Senate, and getting new blood in there.

No we need to keep the college.

chemvictim wrote:Yes, one could. I could think of a whole list of things which I don't agree with and thus should not be compelled to support.

In an emergency situation, I sure as hell want my doctor to be "compelled" to treat me. I wouldn't show up at her house, that's not what I mean. But if I'm rushed to the ER in an emergency situation, I don't want to hear that the doctors on call won't treat me for their own personal reasons.

I've read stories about nurses and pharmacists who would not provide care or medication to patients after an abortion, or patients they suspected might have had an abortion (in the case of the pharmacist). How would you like it if you were sitting in the hospital and the nurse refused to treat you? Or if the pharmacist wouldn't give you the drugs your doctor prescribed after you left the hospital? Maybe they don't like you for whatever reason. Should they be "compelled" to treat you, or not? And if not, if they must not be "compelled" to treat you, then can their employer fire them for refusing to do their job, or is that a form of compelling? If the employer cannot fire them, isn't the employer then being compelled to keep a crappy employee?

Edit: as far as I know (feel free to correct me), we have no laws compelling doctors to perform abortions. We do have these "conscience clause" things, which prohibit disciplining or discriminating against the person who refuses to do whatever procedure is against his conscience. So I guess it is employers who are being compelled, after all. Damn liberals.

WineWootaholic wrote:
Concerning your comment on electoral college, I was of the same mind for the first 40 some years of my life, then I read an article about what would happen if we went with popular vote count. If there were two or three running not much difference, however as time went on
There would be more and more people running, soon every state would have their home town hero running, and that states votes would mostly go to that person, so all the later presidents would most likely come from the most populous states, with maybe 5 or 10 percent of the votes.

They screwed with the way they elected The US Senators some time ago (100 years maybe longer) and now we have the problem that we do, with changing out the trash in the Senate, and getting new blood in there.

No we need to keep the college.

Agree. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

rpm wrote:Agree. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

At least we haven't gone so far as to apportion Senate seats on the one-man-one-vote principle.

I too have no problem with the electoral college, especially given that individual states can apportion those electors on a proportional basis as is done in Nebraska and Maine. Some (none-too-bright) progressives in California have been pushing for a similar approach in the state, not seeming to realize that the would eliminate their own party's stranglehold on all of California's appointments to the electoral college.

That's actually something I'd love to see - progressives pushing into effect something that actually and immediately damages them, solely out of ignorance and stupidity about how things would play out in practice.

jawlz wrote:At least we haven't gone so far as to apportion Senate seats on the one-man-one-vote principle.

I too have no problem with the electoral college, especially given that individual states can apportion those electors on a proportional basis as is done in Nebraska and Maine. Some (none-too-bright) progressives in California have been pushing for a similar approach in the state, not seeming to realize that the would eliminate their own party's stranglehold on all of California's appointments to electoral college.

That's actually something I'd love to see - progressives pushing into effect something that actually and immediately damages them, solely out of ignorance and stupidity about how things would play out in practice.

I'm a big fan of the Nebraska method. Even got Obama one of our votes. IMMEDIATELY thereafter they've been trying to repeal that. Ha Ha. Nebraska is stupid.

I don't like the all in method though, should be based on Electoral "districts" or something.

rpm wrote:Agree. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

I must admit that I'm curious as to why having Senators chosen by state legislatures would be better than by popular vote. Especially given that one concern noted above is that “new blood” is needed – I would think that entrenched Senators serving multiple terms would become more prevalent rather than less if the 17th Amendment was repealed. Many states would only send Senators from one party (A Republican from New York or California? A Democrat from Utah or Mississippi? Not bloody likely), and insurgent candidates would have a much tougher time than is the case today. State-level party “bosses” can more easily control a small number of legislators, who would probably think twice before fighting someone who controls much that they need, than they can control the general population.

I have seen it said that direct election of Senators means that the states have less say in what goes on in Washington, but that doesn’t sound right to me. That presumes that the state legislature has a greater claim on being “the state” than the voting population of that state has. And wouldn’t every state election come to be federalized, to some degree? Nominations and elections would come to be driven (again, to some degree) by who the candidates supported for the Senate seats rather than how they would perform their state-specific duties.

I eagerly await a convincing argument, and am willing to support repeal if I get one. But I haven’t seen one yet.

coynedj wrote:I have seen it said that direct election of Senators means that the states have less say in what goes on in Washington, but that doesn’t sound right to me. That presumes that the state legislature has a greater claim on being “the state” than the voting population of that state has. And wouldn’t every state election come to be federalized, to some degree? Nominations and elections would come to be driven (again, to some degree) by who the candidates supported for the Senate seats rather than how they would perform their state-specific duties.

I eagerly await a convincing argument, and am willing to support repeal if I get one. But I haven’t seen one yet.

They don't. They just have a different one. Hence, the population votes directly (by legislative district) for the House (which is where all revenue-raising bills must originate) which represents the state populations, and the Senate comprises the representatives of the state governments.

Considering how the United States was formed (the states came together to cede a portion of their sovereignty), this makes even more sense when you consider what the Senate does that the House doesn't -- ratify treaties with foreign powers and confirm presidential appointees. Given that these foreign negotiations are conducted under the auspices of the executive, and that the appointments are chosen by the executive (who, again, is elected by the people, albeit indirectly, not by the state legislatures), you see that the structure makes sense in giving the state governments a say, albeit indirectly over the matters that affect them.

This would tend prevent unfunded mandates on the states (like a 21 drinking age, the attempted Medicare forced expansion, etc.) or other usurpations of state power, like senators purporting to ratify treaties that would unconstitutionally abridge state powers under the 10th Amendment (Texas v. Medillin)

PetiteSirah wrote:They don't. They just have a different one. Hence, the population votes directly (by legislative district) for the House (which is where all revenue-raising bills must originate) which represents the state populations, and the Senate comprises the representatives of the state governments.

Considering how the United States was formed (the states came together to cede a portion of their sovereignty), this makes even more sense when you consider what the Senate does that the House doesn't -- ratify treaties with foreign powers and confirm presidential appointees. Given that these foreign negotiations are conducted under the auspices of the executive, and that the appointments are chosen by the executive (who, again, is elected by the people, albeit indirectly, not by the state legislatures), you see that the structure makes sense in giving the state governments a say, albeit indirectly over the matters that affect them.

This would tend prevent unfunded mandates on the states (like a 21 drinking age, the attempted Medicare forced expansion, etc.) or other usurpations of state power, like senators purporting to ratify treaties that would unconstitutionally abridge state powers under the 10th Amendment (Texas v. Medillin)

Harkening back to the 18th century isn’t, to me, a strong argument. The United States has changed a lot since then, and the 17th amendment is one reflection of that. How things were set up originally doesn’t have a stranglehold on how things should be set up now. At least some of the reason for the ways things were set up originally was bargaining to ensure that the state legislatures of the time would vote in favor of adopting the Constitution at all, which shouldn’t tie us down 236 years later.

I do recognize the validity of your unfunded mandate point, which must be weighed in the balance on this issue. I am not a lawyer and have little familiarity with the case you referenced (most of my familiarity gained in the past 20 minutes), but I’m unsure of its relevancy. I have not seen that this case hinged on 10th Amendment issues, and I can’t help but wonder why you say that the Senate “purported” to ratify the treaty. Their ratification was, I would suspect, not an attempt to abridge state power, and I am unconvinced that a Senate made up of state legislature appointees rather than elected members would have taken a wholly different view of the treaty because of the fact that they were elected by the legislatures instead of the people.

coynedj wrote:Harkening back to the 18th century isn’t, to me, a strong argument. The United States has changed a lot since then, and the 17th amendment is one reflection of that. How things were set up originally doesn’t have a stranglehold on how things should be set up now. At least some of the reason for the ways things were set up originally was bargaining to ensure that the state legislatures of the time would vote in favor of adopting the Constitution at all, which shouldn’t tie us down 236 years later.

I do recognize the validity of your unfunded mandate point, which must be weighed in the balance on this issue. I am not a lawyer and have little familiarity with the case you referenced (most of my familiarity gained in the past 20 minutes), but I’m unsure of its relevancy. I have not seen that this case hinged on 10th Amendment issues, and I can’t help but wonder why you say that the Senate “purported” to ratify the treaty. Their ratification was, I would suspect, not an attempt to abridge state power, and I am unconvinced that a Senate made up of state legislature appointees rather than elected members would have taken a wholly different view of the treaty because of the fact that they were elected by the legislatures instead of the people.

I say "purportedly" because the Senate cannot actually abrogate rights that it does not have, notwithstanding whatever it may ratify.

Also, I'm harkening back to the 19th century (when the 17th was passed), not merely the 18th. The whole point of this is to explain why the Senate was accorded certain powers that the House wasn't, and vice-versa. It's because the two chambers represented different factions and thus had different purposes. Revenue had to be appropriated by the people, not the states, for federal purposes. But the states, not the people, had ratifying power over foreign affairs and a check on executive appointments.

This "ounce of history" is not merely of academic interest, but is crucial to understanding WHY we don't have proportional representation in the Senate, and the structural differences between the Houses. If you're going to ignore history and structure and start from a blank slate, fine -- but if you go that route, and are of the view that a 236-year old document shouldn't tie us down (which is the whole point of the amendment process) there's no reason not to simply go to a unicameral legislature.

PetiteSirah wrote:If you're going to ignore history and structure and start from a blank slate, fine -- but if you go that route, and are of the view that a 236-year old document shouldn't tie us down (which is the whole point of the amendment process) there's no reason not to simply go to a unicameral legislature.

I made no such claim whatsoever. That 236-year old document is still in force and does “tie us down”, but the 17th amendment is now a part of it and is also in force. By the way, I miscalculated – it’s only 224 years, not 236. Repealing the 17th amendment, or any other Constitutional change, should only be done with strong reasoning, and that reasoning should be based on the future and not the past – the past can inform the future, but it is still the future that rules the day. That is the entirety of that part of my argument - that references to the logic behind decisions made in the 18th century do not necessarily apply today, and will not by themselves sway my opinion. As I noted before and of course you’re aware, the United States of today is not the United States of 1788.

I must say that this has been an interesting discussion, and has led me to examine issues I didn't pay much attention to previously. Political discussions on many other sites are filled with name-calling and outright assininity, which is a good reason to discuss things here where logic still holds some sway.

Deb Fischer, probable new Senator from Nebraska, is a nice enough lady. I've met her, she's very pleasant, but she always has this look on her face that reminds me so much of the "I'm not exactly sure where I am or what I'm saying" look that Michelle Bachmann has that I'm more than a little terrified of her election.

Also, Bob Kerrey, carpet bagging candidate (this bothers me zero) said the other day that to save Medicare we're going to have to cut benefits AND raise taxes (which he means let the Bush Tax cuts go). He actually said words to the effect that you can't cut your way out of this and you can't tax your way out of this, you need a balanced approach of both, and anyone that tells you otherwise just wants your vote. LOVED IT. Silly carpetbagger. He's really cool too, I've met him on a couple occasions.

BEST WINERY EVER!!!!!

Well, Ryan just crushed that. I had set a very high bar for his speech, but he cleared it easily without even breaking a sweat.

Wow. Just wow.

His debate with Biden will be just pure schadenfreudeliciousness.

PetiteSirah wrote:Well, Ryan just crushed that. I had set a very high bar for his speech, but he cleared it easily without even breaking a sweat.

Wow. Just wow.

His debate with Biden will be just pure schadenfreudeliciousness.

It'll be along the lines of Socrates vs Corky Thacher.

Honestly though, rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. DAMN fine rhetoric, but no gravy. I grow weary of this, this is what we gotta do detention with no concrete plan for HOW to do it. Same problem I had with Bambi 4 years ago.

PetiteSirah wrote:Well, Ryan just crushed that. I had set a very high bar for his speech, but he cleared it easily without even breaking a sweat.

Wow. Just wow.

His debate with Biden will be just pure schadenfreudeliciousness.

First class entertainment coming up.

I see MSLSD and CNN already ripping him for 'untruths' and questioning earlier votes, but they stopped short of condemning as inadequate his speech tonight.

PetiteSirah wrote:Well, Ryan just crushed that. I had set a very high bar for his speech, but he cleared it easily without even breaking a sweat.

Wow. Just wow.

His debate with Biden will be just pure schadenfreudeliciousness.

QFT

Rice and Martinez were also outstanding!

rpm wrote:QFT

Rice and Martinez were also outstanding!

I Agree with you (again)

BTW, I think I'm back, on a more regular basis.
WWA

This can't be good.

I must admit I watched neither, although I watched the first few minutes of Clint Eastwood's speech. Republicans, did you like his speech? I turned it off when I got bored, but I'm not his intended audience.

chemvictim wrote:This can't be good.

I must admit I watched neither, although I watched the first few minutes of Clint Eastwood's speech. Republicans, did you like his speech? I turned it off when I got bored, but I'm not his intended audience.

At least "[a]ggregate coverage of the RNC across networks obviously eclipsed Honey Boo Boo considerably," so it's not *that* bad.

I love Clint as a director (I think he's probably the best American film director of the last 20 years), but that 'speech' was awful.

jawlz wrote:At least "[a]ggregate coverage of the RNC across networks obviously eclipsed Honey Boo Boo considerably," so it's not *that* bad.

I love Clint as a director (I think he's probably the best American film director of the last 20 years), but that 'speech' was awful.

But it was effective enough that Bambi responded by tweet....

Who knew? It sorta, kinda, didn't work for me, either, but there were a lot of good lines and he did hit Bambi pretty hard.

I guess Clint's really pretty old (82) and it shows. But he's still into rugged individual values and his heart's in the right place.

I just need to vent a little. I don't think I can tolerate looking at facebook until this election is over. I think reasonable disagreement about politics is fun and interesting, but most of the facebook stuff is just so far out there. Today I learned that Obama is a socialist because he cut medicare and medicaid, and if I watched Fox News daily I would know these things. I've managed to hide most of the perpetrators, but friends of friends are still getting through.