Yet another reason to hate the liberal press...

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:56 am

Bush wastes 40 million on a party for his second term. Obama? Four times that much. Not a fucking peep from the same sources who were ready to lynch Bush for one fourth the money.
Can liberals get any more hypocritical? Can they possibly be more oily? Doubtful.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:45 am

just lube yourself for his canonization.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:51 pm

From his camp it's justified because it created jobs.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:48 pm

it costs money to gig U2 and the boss.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:54 pm

You should read this about the myth of the Inauguration costs.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

Typical right wing wingnuttery - Sludge posts factually incorrect made up bullshit, Fox "News" reports it, the rest of the media mindlessly parrots it without doing research. That is the usual cycle of bullshit for false outrage and made up "scandals" like this one.

Liberal media my ass!

Almost 3 PM CST - 20 hours until The End of an Error that was the Bush regime.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:25 pm

It's only false if it smears your side. I expect nothing from liberals except lies, a constriction of rights, and the denial that they are elitists who need the poor to stay in power.
It takes quite a bit to repulse me given how crooked republicans are, but democrats are shocking me on an almost daily basis with their Orwellian lies.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:22 pm

Really? And I have come to expect nothing but lies, bullshit, falsehoods, and outright distortions of the truth. They will do and say anything in an attempt to keep themselves in power, reward their friends, and attempt to force their twisted visions and philosophies on the American people. How else do you explain the fact that Fox "News", Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter represent the "vision" and beliefs of many conservatives in this country? They practice the philosophy of The Big Lie - repeat a falsehood often enough that it is perceived to be the truth. Like the idea of a liberal media, for example.

You want to talk about Orwellian lies? How about bullshit names like "Clear Sky Iniative" which basically was an anti-environmental proposal? There were so many to come out of this last regime. Thankfully, its almost over.

5:20 CST - 17 hours and 40 minutes until The End of an Error.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:28 pm

Neither side is without fault. They both suck majorly.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:27 pm

In this case, the problem is fuzzy math...you gotta look at what's being included in the "budget" sum you're being given. Simple as that.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:03 pm

i do acknowledge the need for a bump in security and what not...152MM is a big nut.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:52 am

And again, Slider, you morph into a typically rigid hagiographer who answers every accusation with a playground "oh yeah!?! Well YOUR guys did THIS".... (Innacurate, because Bush was never *my guy* but you assume disagreement means membership in the enemy camp- a view that is short on logic).
I'd utilize the same patronizing "you're better than that" but I prefer variety. How about this: When you can level criticism at your Demigod Obama, then I'll pay attention. Until then, your harping comes across as myopic and of one note. I maintain that every political party makes grave errors. Hubris or stupidity motiviate the very impressionable to champion their party without question.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:58 am

Really? And I have come to expect nothing but lies, bullshit, falsehoods, and outright distortions of the truth. They will do and say anything in an attempt to keep themselves in power, reward their friends, and attempt to force their twisted visions and philosophies on the American people.

This statement is true on both sides of the aisle, and to miss that very naive.

TheTodd · Post by **TheTodd** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:53 pm

Dude...it was his 2nd term party they had an issue with. Apples and oranges.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:31 pm

And again, Slider, you morph into a typically rigid hagiographer who answers every accusation with a playground "oh yeah!?! Well YOUR guys did THIS".... (Innacurate, because Bush was never *my guy* but you assume disagreement means membership in the enemy camp- a view that is short on logic).
I'd utilize the same patronizing "you're better than that" but I prefer variety. How about this: When you can level criticism at your Demigod Obama, then I'll pay attention. Until then, your harping comes across as myopic and of one note. I maintain that every political party makes grave errors. Hubris or stupidity motiviate the very impressionable to champion their party without question.

And I maintain that your information was wrong - and it followed the typical right wing bullshit flow of misinformation that comes from the conservative movement in this country.

And by the way, I truly enjoy saying Former President Bush. May this country never see anyone with the name of Bush in elected office.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:20 pm

Well, at least by ignoring any of my points you can avoid any type of dialectic. It seems that is exactly what you want, so good for you. Unlike you, I don't want any president to fail.
Your pettiness is a solid reason to see liberals in America as elitists who practice NIMBY collectivism for their own gain. What a disturbing thing to be proud of.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:19 pm

What is NIMBY collectivism? I know the NIMBY concept from land use/zoning law but am confused by the context. Are you saying that liberals preach collectivism and want it in practice for everyone except them (i.e. their back yard) because they see themselves as above it somehow? Just clarifying.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:00 pm

Well, at least by ignoring any of my points you can avoid any type of dialectic. It seems that is exactly what you want, so good for you. Unlike you, I don't want any president to fail.
Your pettiness is a solid reason to see liberals in America as elitists who practice NIMBY collectivism for their own gain. What a disturbing thing to be proud of.

Give me a fucking break! Your rantings and repeating of made up bullshit just further solidifies the sterotypes of conservatives in this country as bombastic blowhards who are short on facts.

All I did was point out that your comments and fake outrage about a non-scandals was based on so called facts from dubious sources. And I pointed out that this is typical standard operating procedure for the right wing noise machine. You are the one who took it personal.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:08 pm

It's not so much dubious sources as it was lack of context. Without giving the numbers context the article cannot seriously attempt to compare any set of numbers. Just my humble opinion.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:05 pm

My outrage is real, and you are certainly not in any position to tell me what- or how- I should see the political and social landscape. The reason your outrage is abating is quite simple: your party is in control. They now have power and, more importantly, the political votes to distribute money as they see fit, to which causes they see fit.
Re: AA's clarification, yes, an example would be the robust rejection of wind farms off the coast of Kennedyville.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:18 pm

Thanks bg

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:19 pm

So just to be clear, you are getting outraged over a non-story that is factually incorrect? What would you do for an actual scandal, such as the outing of a CIA agent for example.

And yes, I am glad that my party is in power now and that we have the votes we need in Congress. It is going to be hard work to clear up the clusterfucked mess that Bush left behind. As I said, the only bad thing about Bush being gone is that his minions will no longer provide material for The Daily Show.

It is going to be a great four years! 8)

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:18 am

Let's begin by defining a "non-story"- It is anything that derides the liberals/ collectivists. Gotcha.
And this entire stance you have still seems predicated on the fact that you think you know what is best for my family.
You're wrong.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:28 am

And let's clarify that further: I don't pretend to know what would benefit your family but I know with complete certainty that liberals are bad for mine.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:44 pm

First of all, I haven't one thing about you or your family. The only thing I ever asked you in a previous post was to explain your comment as to why liberals are bad for your family. You have not done so.

I didn't take this personal. You did.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:53 pm

slider, here's a "story" debunked to be a non-story from the other direction...

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that this "story" turned out not to be no story at all. After all, the premise of the Bush-bashers ("Bush White House puts info on web site but then tries to make it secret") makes no sense. If they wanted to keep info secret, wouldn't they, um, just keep it off the web site in the first place? Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't going to be cured anytime soon.

http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-obama-white-house-web-site.html

Good ole Mother Jones (which I perceive to be at least moderately staunch in its liberalism) did their best to make a hullabaloo about the robots.txt file of Obama's White House webpage vs. Bush's use of the robots.txt file...but they were absolutely wrong.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2009/01/11877_change_you_can_click_on.html

Small? Maybe to some. These things tend to add up slowly until there's a mountain of evidence for the bias of everyone. Some one way, some the other. But it's all there.