On Glenn Beck, Penn Jillette said recent Clinton statement "sounds like Charlie Manson"
On the November 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) supports "higher taxes" and "bigger government," while his guest, comedian Penn Jillette, asserted that a comment she made in a recent interview with the editorial board of The Boston Globe "sounds like Charlie Manson." But, according to a Boston Globe editorial, when she made the comment -- "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all" -- Clinton was "saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around."
Leading up to Jillette's comment, Beck stated that, during a commercial break, he and Jillette had been "talking about Hillary Clinton, and I said, 'How does somebody who comes out and says, "I want higher taxes. I want bigger government," how are they winning?' " Jillette replied, "I don't know that. ... [S]he said something. I won't get the quote exactly right: 'America can't afford all my ideas.' " Beck replied, "I've lots of ideas, and America can't afford all of them." Jillette continued, "Now, I don't know what that means, but I know it's bad."
In an October 11 article, the Globe summarized the context of Clinton's comment as follows:
Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.
She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
In an October 28 editorial, the Globe stated that Clinton's remarks during the interview have been "so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript that contains the remark." The Globe noted that the "Republican National Committee sent out an e-mail alert claiming the remark showed how expensive a Clinton presidency would be for the taxpayers" and that, during the October 21 Republican presidential debate, Rudy Giuliani "played the remark for laughs, quoting her and adding the zinger: 'No kidding Hillary, America can't afford you!' " The Globe added, "All in good fun, perhaps, until you learn that Clinton was saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around." The editorial went on:
Here is Clinton's full answer: "Well, I have a lot of good, new, bold ideas, and I have to make some choices among them." She explained that baby bonds didn't have the level of political support of other proposals she had to help people pay for college. "I have a million ideas. I can't do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign -- especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I'm trying to do -- everything I propose I have to pay for. You know, you go to my website, you'll see what I would use to pay for what I've proposed. So I've got a lot of ideas, I just obviously can't propose them all. I can't afford them all. The country can't afford them all."
Clinton has adopted a pay-as-you-go rule for new spending, much like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rules for the Democratic Congress. In order to avoid ballooning the deficit, the pay-go rules require a funding source be attached to any new spending. The 60-cent hike in the cigarette tax that would have paid for the expansion of children's healthcare is one example.
From the November 2 edition of CNN's Glenn Beck:
BECK: We were in the break. I wish you would have heard this. We were just talking about Hillary Clinton, and I said, "How does somebody who comes out and says, 'I want higher taxes. I want bigger government,' how are they winning?"
JILLETTE: Well, you know, I don't know that. I also don't know -- didn't -- she said something. I won't get the quote exactly right: "America can't afford all my ideas."
BECK: "I've lots of ideas, and America can't afford all of them."
JILLETTE: Now, I don't know what that means, but I know it's bad. I know that if I said that, if I went on Stern and said that --
BECK: Yeah.
JILLETTE: -- that afterwards I'd walk out and the PR guy would be going, "Don't say that thing about America not affording your ideas."
BECK: It's amazing.
JILLETTE: It sounds like Charlie Manson.
BECK: Right.
JILLETTE: It sounds like a crazy -- and I don't know -- but somebody should be able to explain to me what it means, because obviously people didn't just go, "Aarhh! She's out of the race." So people can't be hearing it the way I'm hearing it.
BECK: So, tell me --
JILLETTE: But she's our next president, and that's OK.
BECK: How is -- oh, the fix is in.
So what is Charlie telling you these days Ms. Jillette? Good job on the "crazy" call, but some examples would really put the post-it glue on this.
In anticipation, I'm quivering and cowering under the bed. Please I can't go without sleep much longer!
If you've got half a brain and ANY imagination, WE ALL have lots of "ideas" that we cannot afford.
The only idea BUSH seems to have is sending our kids to fight in wars, AND WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT IDEA. It would be a necessary expense, I agree, if there was a THREAT level justifying war, and the war would CLEARLY end that threat. But neither of these is the case, so Bush's "idea" is ALSO one we can't afford, in LIVES or TREASURE.
I'd like a brand new car, and to do some heavy landscaping at the house. All that will have to wait, because, like Hillary, I've got a lot of ideas, and I can't afford them. What I CAN afford are things like my mortgage and insurance, which are ALSO good ideas, and they take priority.
Hillary's statement was SOLELY about priorities. Manson had his own priorities, but comparing them to Hillary is ludicrous. Manson gave the orders to have lots of innocent people killed (hmmm ... there IS a presidential comparison THERE, but his name starts with GWB).
So Tex, comparing Charles Manson to HRC is abominable, but comparing him to GWB is appropriate?
Your duplicity never fails to impress.
:)
I get it, your not allowed to be an entertainer, appear on a show and say terrible things about HRC. But you can be an entertainer like Kayne West appear on a show and say horrible things about George Bush. Or you can be Bill Maher and use profanity about George Bush. That is ok. Got it. This whole thread is bogus and just another I hate Beck thread.
Why sue, I've never heard you say that before!
I think it means if you're republican, you can be just as vile as you want to be and you can go to bed knowing you're right wing has your back.
I agree with you.
It is unfair that people will get away with that kind of thing.
Why I bet I can call George W. Bush a liar, a tyrant, the worst president we've ever had, and a crook who should spend the rest of his life in jail--and I'd get away with it.
So unfair. :(
I don't recall an effort in the media to obscure Kanye West's condemnation of Bush. It was everywhere and I don't remember any one trying to interpret it as just another silly joke.
"George Bush doesn't care about black people."
No reference to a crazed murderer. I don't see West taking a Bush quote out of context, either. He certainly didn't come across to me like he was joking. He sounded and looked like a guy who was genuinely p***ed, but chose the absolute wrong time, wrong place, and wrong words to express his outrage.
Speaking of entertainers, how bout them Dixie Chicks? Or Bruce Springsteen?
Oops! Forgot about them, didn't ya, sue?
Kanye West was right. George Bush doesn't care about black people.
Bush: "The blacks didn’t come out for me like the Hispanics did, so they’re not going to see much help from me."
No, the left is invested in telling black people that conservatives, or Republicans, or Bush "doesn't like them", to solidify their voting block for Democrats. Case in point, HRC's recent comments on the way the House is run - "like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about....."
That's the elephant in the room that liberals don't want revealed, but it's the truth.
Could be that some mention that Republicans don't care about Black people, 'cause it's the truth. (Unless they are wealthy)
I wouldn't call Hillary a liberal!
Well Mary, I guess that is where you and I differ......I could care less if a poltical party "cares" about me or not, in other words I don't want a political party to pander to me to vote for them. I want them to be honest about their policies and their vision, treat me like an adult and not someone who needs to be "cared" for, and respect me enough to let me decide what is best for our country and how to vote accordingly.........not how much they "care" about me.
I'd like a politician to care enough about "me" to send aid to my area in the case of a natural disaster instead of pretending everything's hunky-dory and just visiting for photo ops, but hey - that's just me. I'm one of those silly people that expects my elected officials to do something aside from start meaningless wars and give their friends my money.
I think you forgot to mention how Bush and Cheney went out in the dead of night and blew up the levies in New Orleans.
Republicans are simply incapable of being anything but racist. Especially that George W. Bush. Never mind that he has appointed people like Colon Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Elain Chao, Alphonso Jackson, Alberto Gonzalez, just to name a few...it's all just to throw people off that he is actually a racist. Never mind the billions of dollars he has sent to Africa for the AIDS epidemic. That is just supposed to divert people's attentions while he takes his KKK uniform to the dry cleaners.
My God, are you people that dense?
Let's not forget that the KKK and the Democrats have the same stance on black women's right to abortion.
As for the names you mention, don't you think that there are HIGHLY QUALIFIED people of various races that could be holding those positions?
The fact that we have serial liars and obfuscators holding these positions who are a disgrace to their race (by which I mean the HUMAN race!) is no shining beacon of tolerance. It means it's just good-old-fashioned tokenism, and assuming Clarence Thomas speaks for all black people or that Phyllis Schlafly speaks for all women is not only absurd, including such people (regardless of their race or gender) hurts blacks and women.
As for your totally insane abortion comment, let's not forget that you probably have the same views as Moussolini on train schedules or Hitler on road maintence--FASCIST!!
Nice sidestepping there. How about addressing the Bush quote?
So basically Bush's attitude was - he said that btw after winning the TX governor's race - 'if they didn't vote for me then screw 'em!' Wow, what a petulant pansy-ass! A sore loser - even though he won the election! I guess he forgot that he was supposed to be the governor of ALL people... including those who wisely voted against him. He doesn't get to pick and choose.
You don't have to look outside the Republican party to find the criticism you speak of:
"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), who was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote."
Wow. Kemp actually sounds polite and reasonable. I wish they'd taken him up on his suggestion.
But the modern GOP, being the modern GOP decided to stay true to form and systematically disenfranchise African-Americans instead of trying to make their case with black voters.
No, the left is invested in telling black people that conservatives, or Republicans, or Bush "doesn't like them", to solidify their voting block for Democrats. Case in point, HRC's recent comments on the way the House is run - "like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about....." Tommy That's the elephant in the room that liberals don't want revealed, but it's the truth.
LMAO! Tommy didn’t you get Bill’s memo, black folks are thinking for themselves. We don’t need liberals or the Democratic party to tell us anything about Republicans. Republicans and their candidates tend to paint a pretty clear picture regarding black people and how they feel about them as a race. How many Republicans candidates have debated black sponsored debates? Can you say "scheduling problem, once, twice? How can we forget the picture of Tancredo standing alone on the platform for the the NAACP debates. Have you heard about Rudy’s “southern strategy”? It will not be a good day for black folks. Sorry West was correct when he stated “Bush doesn’t cares about black people” and the Republican candidates are simply driving home the message all on their own. LOL
I hope you won't call me a racist when I tell you that you are completely delusional and incorrect. Just because Al not-so-Sharpton and Jesse Jackson offer quick fixes in the form of the race card to you doesn't make them viable; maybe you should read a truly brilliant man like Dr. Thomas Sowell to better come to terms with the "plight" of "your people." It's you leftists who continue to see race. Republicans don't care--it's true. But it's because we don't need to make it an issue.
I think that's called DENIAL.
It brings to mind one of the promos from Stephen Colbert's "I Am America and So Can You":
[A black man is standing on the side of the road, hailing cabs that don't stop. He says:] "I used to be a black man who couldn't get a cab, but after reading Stephen Colbert's "I Am America and So Can You," I realized I am an AMERICAN...who, for some reason, can't seem to get a cab."
I hope you won't call me a racist when I tell you that you are completely delusional and incorrect. Just because Al not-so-Sharpton and Jesse Jackson offer quick fixes in the form of the race card to you doesn't make them viable; maybe you should read a truly brilliant man like Dr. Thomas Sowell to better come to terms with the "plight" of "your people." It's you leftists who continue to see race. Republicans don't care--it's true. But it's because we don't need to make it an issue. Greatjob
Greatjob, why would I call you a racist? You simply mentioned two black ministers who appear in MSM whenever the media needs a ‘black voice”. Why would I think you’re a racist when you ASSUME that Rev. Sharpton & Jackson are speak for me, simply because I'm black and liberal? Why would I think you’re a racist when you explain to me that my "leaders” Rev. Jackson & Sharpton offer “quick fixes” still ASSUMING that they speak for me? Why would I think that you're a racist when you mention Thomas Sowell, a black conservative and ASSUME that I’ve never heard of him nor read his material?. When you use phrases like “your people” why would that lead me to believe you’re a racist? From your entire post you ASSUME which is your first mistake. Republicans care about power and money. Many Republicans are former "Dixiecrat's" who left the Democratic party, when they allowed blacks to join. If Republicans were truly interested in reaching out to black folks as Ken Melhemd claimed, the Willie Horton 1988 ad would have never ran. Now you might say that was sometime ago, but I as a 73 year old black woman, have not forgotten it, nor have I forgotten Trent Lott praising segregationist Strom Thurmond, nor have I forgotten House Republican Barbara Cubin’s remarks on the House floor: One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person nor have I forgotten voting rights section chief John Tanner for saying earlier this month that "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first.". And to be sure, since it just happened, I have not forgotten Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement for awarding ‘most original costume’ to Homeland Security Department employee who dressed in prison stripes, dreadlocks and dark makeup for a Halloween gathering at the agency. If you think that reading Thomas Sowell is going to make me forget and change my view of Republicans, you need to think again. I would not call you a racist but I would call you uninformed.
Dang, Pearlene, you rock. I am a great fan of your work. Keep it up.
Me too. Love your posts, Pearline...
Sure that is why the head of the Republican party appologized for them using the Southern Strategy. That is why Ronnie Raygun kicked off his presidential campaign in a city known only for where three civil rights workers were murdered and gave a speech about 'states rights'. And PLEASE Sowell brilliant? HAH. That was a good joke but what was the point?
Bush: "The blacks didn’t come out for me like the Hispanics did, so they’re not going to see much help from me."
Clams got link to that statement? I mean other than some whacko Left Wing site?
Got a name of that alleged aide who allegedly heard Bush say that?
Hope so, cause I don't think you'd let me or any other Conservative get away with posting a quote about, oh say one of the Clintons without some kind of factual verification...
If you have some actual proof I'd appreciate you sharing it.
That quote is from Robert Draper's new book, Dead Certain. I don't have a page number. Draper was standing next to him when he said it. If you just Google the quote you find dozens of reviews and articles that excerpt the passage. And Draper repeated the story on Bill Maher's program, but I suppose that's to left wing for you to believe.
Correction: Draper wasn't standing next to him when Bush said it. It was passed by an aide.
But of course you took it directly out of context, which is not surprising. I read Draper's book, it was a very fair account of Bush......Draper clarifies this quote was not born of some racial animosity, but went more to his dismissiveness and an attempt at some ill-conceived humor.
But you left out what Draper really means by highlighting that quote because it doesn't fit the picture you falsely paint. Typical.
Yet another example of what a right wing nutcase MEANT to say when he said something completely vile. But, instead of Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, etc, it's little Georgie Bush, who didn't meant it to be racially explosive, it was just a joke.
Ever get tired of defending the indefensible?
I urge you to read the book as well to get a fair assessment of Bush and this highlighted quote.
If you take Clams word for it, it's at your own peril.
Take my word for what, exactly? You have failed to explain how I've taken this quote out of context, and how that changes its meaning.
Rick is there a handbook on "the meaning of what I said"? I'm getting real confused with what they claim is a "joke" and "what they REALLY meant by what they SAID". A handbook would be helpful.
Pearlene,
Check with the DNC, they give it out in the first "Running for President 101" classes.
Tommy, is it me of does it seem to be Republicans/conservatives who constantly have to say "what he/she meant". I mean there have been a host of old/new posters who tell us what Rush/Sean/Bill/Junior/Dick/Neal/Michael meant rather than what they actually said. Sorry, I have no problem understanding Dems.
Ah, the out-of-context defense. It's true that Draper's goal was to offer an even-handed non-judgemental account of Bush's political career, but that doesn't mean that we should accept his "just joking" defense of Bush's statement (if in fact Draper did offer such a defense. On Maher, Draper gave the quote as an example of Bush's "petulance" and his vindictive nature). And whether it was meant as a joke or not, it's undeniable that Bush's statement was racially motivated. But it's fun to see you try to defend it.
Read the book and listen to Draper, who is the author and the source of reporting the quote, and you will know you cherry picked it for your own race-baiting reasons. You have no shame when it comes to this issue.
Care to explain what sort of "context" makes that statement anything but racially-motivated vindictiveness?
I already did. But you didn't accept it, that is your problem.
Read the entire book, and then if you discover a thread of non-partisan fairness within, come back and correct your assertions.
Otherwise, race bait 'til the cows come home.
Oh, and surprise, surprise, it turns out you lied...again.
Tommy: "Draper clarifies this quote was not born of some racial animosity, but went more to his dismissiveness and an attempt at some ill-conceived humor."
I guess you were hoping that I wouldn't actually go back and read the book, because Draper says no such thing. The quote I posted appears on page 46 of Dead Certain, just so everyone can follow along. Draper does not in fact clarify that the quote wasn't born of racial animosity, and he does not in fact characterize it as some ill-conceived attempt at humor. You made that up.
You missed it again, sorry. I said "Draper clarifies", which I meant in subsequent interviews he did when promoting the book, not in the actual book itself - which caused the questions to be asked of him and in which he clarified exactly what I described. Google it for yourself.
So there you have it Clams, and I am glad you perused throught the book, even though you still have egg on your face.
Better not to post again until you get your facts straight, or just continue to lie - either way I could care less.
Do you have any links to backup your assertions?
Check w/ Dave_Chicago, they are with his links proving Robertson's followers of being ignorant, or misinformed, or apathetic. :)
Bottom line - Clams accuses someone he hates politically of being a racist based on one out of context quote from a nearly 500 page book, which has been clarified by it's author as not being the way Clams portrays it - as I said, Google his book promotion appearances for yourself if you're so inclined, otherwise don't, I don't care.
Clams does this all the time, he thinks he is the site arbiter of racially insensitive remarks, when in fact what he often does is falsely distort for his vile race-baiting purposes. You can believe him or not, as I said - it makes no difference to me.
Done......
"[...which has been clarified by it's author as not being the way Clams portrays it[...]"
Where? Where is this clarification, and how does it portray Bush's comment in a way that differs from how I presented it? And what happened to your "out of context" argument? I guess now that I have the actual context right in front of me you're just going to quietly back off of that one. And how about the "ill conceived joke" defense? Is it still just a joke, and if so, in what way is it not a racially discriminatory joke?
It's in Draper's interview on Real Time w. Bill Maher.....he explicitly states it was an example of Bush's petulance, not vengeful bigotry or anything like that.
It's easily found on the web, as I said Google it......and then come back and apologize for your misrepresentation, if you have enough class.
We won't wait, however.
You have the memory of a goldfish. If you look back, you can plainly see that in my second post in this thread I wrote, "On Maher, Draper gave the quote as an example of Bush's 'petulance' and his vindictive nature."
So, I've already noted that, and it doesn't support your argument anyway. Just because Draper didn't address the obvious racial content of the comment, doesn't mean that there is no racial content. Anyway, your claim was that Draper clarified that there was no racial implication in Bush's comment that he characterized it as a ill-conceived joke. He did neither. You simply made that up in an effort to deny that Bush said something racist.
Oh, so now since I've given you Draper's clarification - you now move the goalposts to well it doesn't matter anyway what he said. What do you mean Draper didn't address the racial content, he absolutely did - what do you think he was clarifying?
Face it Clams, you have been exposed again, for being a lying race-baiting whining ninny who can't own up to your distorted misrepresentations, how pathetic. Even Chris below, an admitted liberal has seen through you......and it's quite delicious to watch your credibility implode, since you have brought it on yourself with your unfounded accusations.
Dig yourself deeper into the sand Clams, I am done with you here. Have a nice day.
"Oh, so now since I've given you Draper's clarification - you now move the goalposts to well it doesn't matter anyway what he said."
No, I gave you Draper's clarification immediately after you claimed that he "clarifies this quote was not born of some racial animosity, but went more to his dismissiveness and an attempt at some ill-conceived humor." It was in my second post in this thread! And now you're repeating back what I've already written as if it somehow supports your "out of context" "just a joke" defense. You've failed to provide any context that shows Bush was just joking. And nothing you can point to can make his statement anything less than racially motivated vindictiveness. But again, it's been entertaining to watch you attempt to deny the obvious racism in Bush's comment. In what way is this not racist?
"The blacks didn’t come out for me like the Hispanics did, so they’re not going to see much help from me."
You cannot pretend that that statement isn't about race. And it doesn't make it any less racist to say that he was joking. It's incredible that you think that you somehow won this argument. The only thing you've proven is that you'll tie yourself in knots in order to defend a completely indefensible comment.
Google it myself?! How about you actually post a link to back up your b.s. instead? It's pretty clear that you're just making stuff up. If you weren't, then you would steer us all toward that interview where Draper explains all this phantom "context" that you're using to defend an indefensible Bush quote. The fact is you're lying in order to defend racially discriminatory comments. Gee, what a surprise.
Game, set, match. Ouch!!!! that was a serious beating you gave there Tommy.
Thanks Chris, I hope you don't mind me mentioning your name above - I just wanted to make a point that it isn't just a conservative who has seen through Clams' deceptions.
I appreciate your consistency and keeping all sides honest. People who lie, distort and use race to beat down those they disagree with politically are shameful, no matter what their ideology is.
Clams ate Tommys lunch. He pointed out correctly that Draper NEVER denies a racial component and just says it was petulant joking which IN NO WAY denies a racial component nor detracts from it anymore than someone telling a racist joke can deny his racism by saying it was just a joke.
Solon, Now I realize Clams needs the reinforcements and to get it from a rabid Bush hating liberal such as yourself is a real coup, but sorry, I am not impressed.
If anything I am more convinced that Draper is even more right with his clarification, considering your critique of it. But thanks for trying to rescue Clams, I am sure he appreciates it.
And you enjoy your day too!
"Draper[...]just says it was petulant joking."
And in fact Draper doesn't actually characterize it as joking at all. Not in the book, nor at any time during his Maher appearance. Tommy just made that up.
Tommy: "I said "Draper clarifies", which I meant in subsequent interviews he did when promoting the book, not in the actual book itself[...]"
I just caught this bit of comedy. It's hilarious that Chris thinks this was the slam dunk in your argument, because it really just shows you moving the goalposts. Go back and read your multiple posts where you repeatedly insist I "read the book" for Draper's clarification. And then when I actually do read the book, you suddenly claim that you never really meant that it was in "the actual book itself." Hilarious.
Sweety,
You can pick apart my argument all you want too, I don't care. What you can't pick apart, which is why you cling to your unfair racist assertions, is the clarification explicitly given by Robert Draper regarding the out of context quote you keep tossing around here. He was very clear as to Bush's intentions, and considering it's in his book, well, I put his credibility just a tad above yours, call me crazy!
You can say Draper is all wet because you know better, but sell that to another race baiter who can't win arguments based on facts, but resorts to false racial accusations instead.....you are a small insignificant "man" anymore, so slither away.
Big kiss........
"What you can't pick apart, which is why you cling to your unfair racist assertions, is the clarification explicitly given by Robert Draper regarding the out of context quote you keep tossing around here."
You're still ignoring that I was the one who offered up Draper's "clarification." And you still fail to provide any of this "context" that you alternately claim either changes the meaning of the quote as I presented it or reveals that the quote was simply "ill-conceived humor." Your lies are staring you in the face and all you can do is call me names.
You call Bush a racist based on an out of context quote you posted, in a book where that very author has clarified it was nothing of the sort, and you have the audacity to level name calling charges at me?
Not only are you an exposed race baiter, but an unabashed whiny victim to boot.
Now that is hilarious!
Draper did no such thing. Saying it was a petulant joke does nothing to detract from the racist nature of what was said and you WISHING it did wont make it so. You can repeat this specious nonsense a few dozen more times it wont make the argument anymore compelling than it was the first time
"You call Bush a racist based on an out of context quote you posted, in a book where that very author has clarified it was nothing of the sort, and you have the audacity to level name calling charges at me?"
Um, yes. In your desperation, you fell back on name-calling. I'm not whining about it; I'm just stating a fact. You're the one who's always scolding everyone for name-calling, so it's pretty funny when you spew out things like "lying race-baiting whining ninny" and "a small insignificant man," and then lace it up with your condescending pet names ("Big kiss[...]Sweety").
Other than that, your argument is to keep repeating "out of context" over and over again, without bothering to show us the "context" that shows that Bush's comment is either (a) "ill-conceived humor," as you claimed, or (b) not racially motivated vindictiveness. You can't do either.
There is nothing false about the racial component to that joke. No context that makes it less racist. Draper NEVER claimed it wasnt. Saying it is a petulant joke in no way erases the racial component of the joke. You have done NOTHING to dispute Clams claim. NOTHING.
The funny thing is that the broader context of the statement actually makes Bush's line seem even more racist. Draper shows that the election in question was preceded by overt pandering to black voters.
The aide have a name?
Sorry but I have a problem with anonymous sources. And I have a very strong feeling that it wouldn't be accepted here if it were an aide being quoted in regards to something Bill or Hill allegedly said...or any Dem for that matter.
So true Jeter. If someone here tried to do what CLAMS has done we would never stop hearing how secnd hand information is unreliable.
Exactly guys, Clams cherry picks a quote out of a 400+ page book and then gets all defensive when he is accused of doing it out of context.
But it's expected, considering misrepresentation and distortion are necessary to bolster his assertions, quite often.
I wonder when we'll get the "everyone here has already told you" stuff or the infamous "strawman!! strawman!!!" defense. It wouldn't be that big of an issue to me but, I have caught him doing this same thing before when he pulled an O'Reilly, you know... using stats disingenously to support an invalid point. Arm up to the elbow in the cookie jar, so to speak. If I can't get away with it, he damn sure won't.
"I have caught him doing this same thing before when he pulled an O'Reilly, you know... using stats disingenously to support an invalid point."
Don't suppose you'd like to point out exactly where that happened, would you? You can't, because it didn't.
As Sue gives us another fine example of her simplistic thinking. Beck is justifyably taken to task and to the simpleminded that means MMFA hates Beck. I dont remember Kayne getting a pass for what he said about Bush. Even though it wasnt comparing him to Hitler or Manson. I remember there being quite a bit of condemnation about it a whole lot more than a mention on MMFA. What is your point Sue? That ANYTIME someone is being a jerk on National TV we have some obligation to look the other way so we wont be accused of hating by you? Meanwhile anyone says anything bad about Bush and the rightwing attack machine goes into full throttle scream mode and I dont see you complaining about that. Try to imagine a world where you are NOT the arbiter of who is hating and what sites like this should say. That it isnt UP to you who MMFA gives a pass to and who they cover.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
- tommy / Tuesday November 6, 2007 11:22:48 AM EST
I think Charlie would be flattered to be compared to George W. Bush!
He wanted to promote a "Racial War" in America by killing prominate Hollywood types and making it look like a black man did it. He only managed to kill a few people, and no war broke out.
George W. Bush started Religous Wars between Islamic believers, Sunni against Shia in the middle east; Evangelical against Secular believers in America, not to mention the war he started with Iraq and he not only got away with it, he got re-elected President.
GWB 500,000 +++ Iraqi Lives
GWB 3880 American Servicemen/women
How can Charlie compare with GWB when he got caught and sentenced to death?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
TOMMY:
Comparisons depend on particular circumstances.
Did MANSON have a lot of expensive ideas that the American People could not afford? We have no idea, but what we DO know is that Manson is infamously known for ordering innocent people to be killed.
Hillary has never done any such thing.
Bush HAS.
Thus, the Manson comparison is APT to Bush, but NOT to Hillary.
Surely you are not as dense as you indicate?
Tex,
Then my question to you is why in the world would you live in a country when your president ORDERS innocent people slaughtered? I would be on the next plane out of here if that were the case, and I suspect you would too.
So your psychotic comparison is ridiculous, even for a rabid Bush hater such as yourself, it's only making you look foolish.
I suggest some therapy for you. :)
TOMMY has a question:
Tom: "Then my question to you is why in the world would you live in a country when your president ORDERS innocent people slaughtered?"
RESPONSE: It's MY country. Bush is just the temporary (and illegitimate) holder of a public office. He will be out soon, unless an impeachment removes him sooner. MY COUNTRY is run by "We the people," and we regularly must police our public servants for corruption, lawlessness, and abuse of office.
Tom: " I would be on the next plane out of here if that were the case, and I suspect you would too."
RESPONSE: I see. You're a "cut and runner." Not me. I stand and fight.
Tom: "So your psychotic comparison is ridiculous, even for a rabid Bush hater such as yourself, it's only making you look foolish."
RESPONSE: So I look foolish, while Bush orders "SHOCK and AWE" on a nation for no good reason at all? S&A is a technique which is supposed to "soften up" an area for later invasion, and involves an overwhelmingly devastating attack by missiles and bombs, which are the ones that produce the most collateral damage.
Tom: "I suggest some therapy for you."
RESPONSE: Might that be the same therapy YOU engage in, the kind that enables denial of reality? No thanks.
"RESPONSE: It's MY country. Bush is just the temporary (and illegitimate) holder of a public office. He will be out soon, unless an impeachment removes him sooner. MY COUNTRY is run by "We the people," and we regularly must police our public servants for corruption, lawlessness, and abuse of office."
Unless he pulls a Musharraf...
Tex, you always come up with the most brilliant repostes to the disaster that is right-wingerism, and to Tommy's trollish side (his Mr. Hyde).
Let's see, how many innocent Iraqi/Afghan civilians have been killed by US forces?
I don't know that answer, but on 60 minutes, a military officer said any bombing was OK as long as the collateral damage (a.k.a. killing) of innocent civilians was less than 30.
Is that winning hearts and minds?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
tommy / Tuesday November 6, 2007 12:39:35 PM EST
Leaving our Democracy to the Neo-Cons would be acting like a Neo-Con when confronted with danger. Like a Coward!
The Neo-Con began to beat the drums of war with a constant drum of how fearfull we should all be. It was a Republican Single Party Rule that began to surrender civil liberties for security, and got neither.
So, when our nation needs competent, sincere, and courageous leadership we will know from experience that the Republicans would be the last people to call on. They coward with their fear mongering until we shredded our constitution, started the wrong war, and totally screwed up the right war!
If you and your ilk are so afraid next time we are confronted with a 9/11 situation, I would encourage you and yours to catch that plane! I'm sure Columbia would love to have you! Maybe you could join the Iraqi Democratic Dream of the Neo-Cons, I hear there is a ton of available housing with the millions of refugees leaving their country!
Happy Thoughts
Dan Grady
So that means you are a coward... you won't fight for what truly is right, rather, you would just cut and run.
So much for being a 'true patriot', huh? Don't miss your flight.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I paid my obligation under the constitution, USN '77 to '83, yet I never was called on to serve 4, 5, or more tours in combat. We never asked our troops to do that without a DRAFT!!
If we had to go to Iraq, and the intelligence was sincerely pointing to the WMD argument, and we could not get a Desert Storm coalition, then only a COWARD would start a war with Iraq without a DRAFT!
I was nobody's hero while I served, I was merely a Mess Specialist serving mostly on an aircraft carrier, but when I see a serviceman/woman in uniform I feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for having failed them, and allowing these criminals to command our forces.
You may fling you slogans all you like, the results are now impossible to hide, and the truth is to obvious for such dispicable comments to distort!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
P.S.: if you love rabbits, I have 3 left free to a good home.
Chill. My post was in response to Tommy's 12:39:35 post. His patriotism was called into question - not yours. :)
Thanks for the offer but I am fostering plenty right now. I suggest you contact HRS if you wish to put your rabbits up for adoption.
So what is Charlie telling you these days Ms. Jillette?
JUSTICE AND TRUTH IN THE USA - FACT CHECK -
Penn Jillette is a man and is part of the famous Penn & Teller magic show - He is also a comedian.
I'll have to call this one for Penn. He's an ENTERTAINER - you know, like Jon Stewart or Colber(t). He can say whatever he wants!!!
And let's face facts - HRC IS scary!
Ya got me Marshal(choke!). I've been hit before on a wrong gender. For my sins, I'll keep on posting till I get it right.
Have you read their book"Playing With Your Food."? Try the Lemon Angels.
WHY do entertainers get to "say whatever they want"?
I mean, legally of course they do, but I'm talking about the "court of public opinion." In other words, why are we criticizing Jillette instead of Stewart/Colbert?
I think the answer is pretty simple...Jilette was LYING. He was taking statements thoroughly out of context and distorting them.
Stewart and Colbert point out insanity in the political process that is ACTUALLY THERE--they don't need to make this stuff up!
Not to mention that Comedy Central viewers are better informed than those reading even newspapers:
[link to www.cnn.com]
JUSTICE SAYS: "And let's face facts - HRC IS scary!"
Let's DO face facts: Hillary is "scary" ONLY to candy-assed rightwing misogynists with mommy problems ... didn't get hugged enough or some damn thing, and so have a mad-on for all women.
Tucker Carlson involuntarily "crosses his legs" when he sees or hears about Hillary, obviously he fears "castration" ... a fear that is entirely in his own troubled mind.
Posters to this site routinely show they think Hillary is "scary", assigning to her pet names such as "Hitlery" and "the Hilldabeast". In this manner, they attempt to deal with their own fears and insecurities by attempting to ridicule the object of their fears. (In Harry Potter, they would point their wands and say, "Riddikulus!")
So, let's FACE it, Justice, the FACT is that you are a wimp and a sissy and don't even realize that your admission to finding Hillary "scary" reveals NOTHING about Hillary and EVERYTHING about yourself.
Let us all remember that Jillette is a MAGICIAN ... and Beck is a MORON. Okay.
Not to mention, this blanket speak of '...it's in the bag'... Who says? Jillette? The 'fix'? That's rich coming from a rightwing boob like Beck.
I thought Beck was a magician too, the way he pulls sh#t out of his @ss is truly a trick to see!
But seriously, this quote tells you all you need to know about the modern day neanderthal party:
"Now, I don't know what that means, but I know it's bad."
Sounds like a Cheech and Chong skit. Can you guess which one? ;)
Dunno. The Dogcrap one? Cheech and Chong were a bit before my time.
That's it!
"Ugh. Taste."
"Ugh, Tastes like sh#t."
"Ugh, good thing we didn't step in it!"
You are correct: Jillette is a magician and a juggler. But he did make a comment in the media that was negative toward Hillary. So, of course, MMfA MUST point it out because they are a critical part of the Clinton campaign. They deny it, but Clinton has admitted it on video.
Regarding Beck - Ya gotta love this NYT item. Someone besides me out there is listening to him. I expect a FULL COURT PRESS from MMfA on Beck. Censorship is alive and well and living in the far left.
Oh, look. Another regurgitated right wing lie. With all that regurgitating you do, you should be a momma bird. Vulture seems fitting.
Hey snoop,
Why don't you save the insults and address the the items in my comment. To what 'lie' are you referring?
MMfA is the one misrepresenting itself when it makes the assertion that it "does not support any candidate...". Oh really? 9 out of 10 items yesterday DIRECTLY REFERENCED Hillary Clinton.
Look, Of course MMfA, has every right to do this. But why does it insist on constantly denying it?
You mean the lie about the hillary/MMFA connection? I know you can't handle the truth, but it's been proven over and over again that you're just lying when you say MMFA is protecting her campaign.
And Beck isn't a surprise, on the right failure is rewarded with promotion. Just look at Bush.
Oh, and you can kiss Tucker goodbye!
Goodbye Tucker - that would be welcome. Where's Tom? His 'market pressure' speech may finally ring true... :)
Better question is where are the corporate right wing media alarmists who constantly harp on the myth that the media is too invested in Bush and the rightwing agenda to care about ratings or profits?
Poof!
Well... let's not get ahead of ourselves Frankly, I think hiring O'Donnel would be a detriment...and, Tucker has gone anywhere yet ;-)
Sorry - hasn't been fired yet
I agree with you Greek - hiring a bombthrower, entertainer like Rosie to host anything remotely connected to politics would damage MSNBC's credibility, in my opinion. Her wild eyed conspiratorial, Bush hating rants fit nicely on her blog......but on national cable? Boring.
Guaranteed Rosie will top the combined ratings of Abrahms and Carlson and that's really the bottom line.
And, BTW, if they referenced Hillary 9 times yesterday, it's only because 9 different right wing hacks lied about her. Get the connection?
Snoopy, I think anybody who hasn't figured out that connection yet might not be worth your time explaining it.It happens every day here, and doesn't seem to sink in.
These are the 30%ers.
Yeah, the Dead-Enders.
Certainly the other Dem candidates have been talked about by the 'right wing hacks', yet they don't get the coverage on MMfA unless it is part of an item on Hillary Clinton.
Again - MMfA has every right to do so, but for some reason, it has trouble admitting the connection to Hillary campaign. Why is that?
Oh, but they do get the coverage. Here's how it works, follow closely! If 1 hack takes on Obama, there will be 1 article on Obama. If in the same day 9 hacks take on Hillary, there will be 9 articles on Hillary. It's a pretty straightforward correlation which I understand can be somewhat difficult for those who have difficulty with four syllable words, but hopefully this "My pet goat" version clears it up for you.
"... the other Dem candidates ... don't get the coverage on MMfA unless it is part of an item on Hillary Clinton." Slowfeller57IQ
Hey, look! here's something from TODAY showing just how confused you are.Are you just pretending not to understand this?
Thick as a f*cking brick, but fascinating.Snoopy, I wouldn't try dumbing it down any further.This may be a whole new sub-species of Wingnut .
Thanks, HB! If you were a girl, I'd kiss ya!
Who's being censored? Beck... quite the opposite. He's pushed to front and center. Beck is a moron...a tool. Jillette? I think he's actually a pretty smart and funny guy... but, to assist Beck in his half-assed and stilted commentary... that's not okay (in my mind).
Hillary is not doing herself any services of late. Not because a guy like Beck says so... because she's not playing a very smart game. That's my opinion.
Censorship is alive and well and living in the far left.
Explain exactly how that excercising free speech amounts to censorship. Calling someone an idiot or liar is not censorship. Claiming that we shouldn't do so.... IS censorship.
"Calling someone an idiot or liar is not censorship. Claiming that we shouldn't do so.... IS censorship."- MiddleLeft /
Actually, I've never said 'you shouldn't do so'.
I DO believe that this website doesn't stop with merely 'pointing out conservative misinformation' but indeed encourages the firing of media voices it doesn't agree with.
Maybe you have seen a mother cat bring a live mouse home for her kittens to play with, with the intent of teaching them how to hunt mice on their own someday. That is what it feels like to have you around, a kitten playing with a doomed mouse.
Now...am I the kitten or the mouse???
Why do you people always have to get so personal? Other than disagree with you, what have I done to upset you and others so much that you feel the need to resort to petty name-calling. That just seems so intolerant.
Personally, I don't really care about your allegations regarding Hillary and MMFA. You obviously do not have any proof and if MMFA was supporting a single candidate, they couldn't operate as a 503c organization.
Secondly, I don't know why you would expect to come in here and make a remark like "Censorship is alive and well and living in the far left." and make a whole bunch of friends. It is pretty funny to see you play the victim in all of this after pulling off that blatant provocation.
You have a first amendment right to say whatever you wish, BUT you do NOT have a first amendment right to be on a national television or radio show.
One hopes there is some level of quality or integrity involved--otherwise, why aren't you, I, and every other poster on this board the host of our own shows? If someone isn't honest or well-researched, they don't have the qualifications to be treated as a respected commentator, and shouldn't be given a wide forum.
We're not trying to silence their speech, we'd just like to put them back on the street corner where they belong.
But he did make a comment in the media that was negative toward Hillary
So it would be perfectly acceptable for me to say Junior sounds like Hitler when he calls himself "The Decider"?
The Decider, Der Fuhrer. Hmmm...
So it would be perfectly acceptable for me to say Junior sounds like Hitler when he calls himself "The Decider"? - pearlene_scott1602
You said - And I accept it. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to form an 'Action Center' item to try to get you silenced.
Yesterday on Fox News, talk radio host Mike Gallagher said the U.S. government should “round up” actor Matt Damon, “The View” host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and “put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors.”
Gallagher was upset over Behar’s comment that Time magazine should have chosen a controversial “Hitler-type” like Donald Rumsfeld as its Person of the Year. Gallagher said Damon should also be incarcerated because he “attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney”; he didn’t explain why he wanted to imprisonOlbermann.
Apparently Goodfella you would the only one who would not want to silence a dissenting voice.
"You said - And I accept it. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to form an 'Action Center' item to try to get you silenced."--goodfellas
Thank you, Mr. Disingenuous. How mighty big of you! Lol. Beck is welcome to give up his national talkshows and post on our blog where no one will ever form an action center to complain about him as well.
Maybe for his next trick he'll make Beck disappear.
Personally I prefer to listen to Teller.
When I first heard this (edited) quote from HC, I had a feeling it was going to be used to set off the triggers with the zombies.
You know, the ones who are still supporting a president with one very bad idea that nobody could afford.He , at least,had the decency to be completely oblivious or indifferent to the fact that we couldn't pay for it.And that's all the faithful ask.
Personally I prefer to listen to Teller.
Teller makes far more sense than Penn.
In the magic act of Penn and Teller, Penn is not exactly known for being the more...sophisticated of the pair.
More like a giant, awe inspiring inanimate object that Teller periodically articulates in order to make money.
Sorry.
Teller is the smart one (by default)
It's ALWAYS the quite ones!
I'm a little surprised actually, based on what he's said in the past about religion I never pegged Jillette for a real "conservative." Plus, since he makes a living debunking certain kinds of mis-information (hoaxes) and is a pretty sharp guy himself, I'm surprised he was so easily taken in by an idiot like Beck.
Well... it must be that liberal media bias again, misrepresenting everything the democrats try to... wait... WHERE'S that liberal bias again?
And BTW - What the heck is wrong with having lots of ideas? If a single one of them is even HALFWAY DECENT, then she's kicking @$$ compared to the current "party of bad ideas" running the WH and obstructing the congress.
Libertarian, actually.
Penn Jillette claims to be a libertarian, but he's just another right-wing crackpot.
Well... he's socially liberal, atheist, good man for seperation of church/state issues. (Credit where it's due.)
But socially liberal & fiscally conservative... there's another word for that...
I think it's... CHEAP. :)
Et tu, Penn?
Of all of the VALID things to criticize Clinton on, he picks a valid statement? This country cannot afford the multitude of progressive ideas that are floating about the ideological stratosphere. Saying she has many ideas and can't afford them all is reality, which I honestly thought one of the creators of the show Bullsh!7 would appreciate.
Augh. Damn them all for inspiring me to defend this woman.
"This country can't afford..."
This is such a cop out. We can afford a lot more than most people think, esp if you can reign in the rampant money-grabs, pork, watse, ear-marks, corproate welfare, (IRAQ WAR?!) and other BS that goes on. (Both sides are guilty of this, I'll admit it)
Most of what people are afraid of paying for with TAXES, we are already paying anyway, we just don't ralize it. (What do you think drives the cost of your insurance premiums? You don't think you're already subsidizing the uninsured? Keep dreaming.)
What we can't afford if to do NOTHING. Our health care system DOESN'T WORK and is UNSISTAINABLE. Social Security? Foreign Policy? The Environment? Outsourcing of Jobs? All the same: WHAT WE "CAN'T AFFORD" IS TO DO NOTHING.
So, you're saying we should be able to "afford" $5K given to each newborn, when our infrastructure is crumbling, our educational system is horrid, and medical issues are a domestic top priority among the people?
That ranks right up there with the $300 "rebate" from Bush in his first term. We can't afford it. It's a cute idea, but it's nothing we have the resources for when other priorities need to take center stage. We can't afford it.
So, you're saying we should be able to "afford" $5K given to each newborn,
No. Actually I think this is a dumb idea.
when our infrastructure is crumbling,
Who's in office again? Who's cutting taxes, which pay for roads? (One of the most common earmarks BTW.)
our educational system is horrid,
No Child Left behind? Don't get me started.
and medical issues are a domestic top priority among the people?
You lost me, but if this is still a question - YES, I believe we need a government funded health care system. (Not fully governmnt RUN, but the current system is an uncoordinated mess.)
That ranks right up there with the $300 "rebate" from Bush in his first term.
Thought that was a dumb idea at the time, even as I cashed my check! LOL
We can't afford it. It's a cute idea, but it's nothing we have the resources for when other priorities need to take center stage. We can't afford it.
Well, we agree on a few things, but let me disagree (I think) on a few other points...
We CAN afford national helath care. The cost would not be much more than we are already paying. (I'm not going to go into the details here (unless yu insist) but I can support this claim pretty well.
We CAN afford better schools. (And the 'Pub's have not delivered this - NCLB is killing schools not helping them. And vouchers?! Public money for private schools? It's a disgrace. Why don't we just give up then?
We CAN afford better infrastructure, and more secure infrastructure as well. This has not been a priority of this administration.
What we CANNOT afford afford is more tax cuts (particularly for corporations), more defcits, more FREE TRADE (all this FREE TRADE is breaing us!), less corporate governance, and less judicial oversight of the government.
The Dem's may try to solve problems by throwing money at them, and sure - that doesn't always work. But thePub's way to solve problems is to take money away - that NEVER works.
I think you're trying to find disagreement where there is NONE - I, too, know that we can afford all of those priorities, but as we apparently also agree, we cannot afford the piddly bullcrap ideas like the $5K bond one.
Say any dumb thing on Glen Beck
"Funding plans are mass murder", oh heck
Anything goes when it's Clinton
Brand new lies they are mintin'
Beck's show bombs like a slo-mo train wreck.
What an odd alliance...a devout atheist illusionist and a lying Mormon GOP hack. I guess they really mean it when they say "The end justifies the means". Anything to defeat the Dragon Lady, I suppose....
As others have pointed out, I don't see why Clinton's statement is all that controversial. I have lots of great ideas that the country can't afford, too. Like building a missile forcefield around the country, or putting solar panels on the moon and microwaving the energy back to earth...or converting all cars to hydrogen by the year 2010...or making all college education free.
Of course, the Troglodytes have ideas we can't afford, as well...like colonizing the Middle East...or giving bigger tax cuts to billionaires who won't even notice the difference.
Guess Beck is earning that $50M contract extension. Be an abject failure in your job, get a raise. Hmmm, sounds like a president I know...
10 million dollars a year for what he does is obscene
Keep it in perspective.
It's 1/10th of what Howard Stern makes.
But at least Howard Stern talks about boobies, Beck is just an @ss.
I don't believe you. No way he has a $50m contract. What business model can possibly justify him having a $50m contract?
He pays all his own production expenses, hires his own staff etc.
Holy Cow. Is this the same Penn that I saw tearing apart Frank Luntz on YouTube yesterday?
It's hard to believe that the same guy is performing a contextual hack job like this, on Beck's show no less.
Given the dimwitted hack that Beck is, I would have expected a resounding, "F you Beck!", but now Penn's got his nose up Beck's backside on TV.
"So people can't be hearing it the way I'm hearing it."
Well, Penn, I'm certainly not READING it the way your hearing it.
You're really surprised by this? If you did your homework, you would've found out that Penn is actually a libertarian, which is the extreme cousin of a conservative. Duh.
If you read my post, you won't see any mention of political persuasion. DUH.
This was about Penn's honesty and ability to comprehend and see things for what they are. Even libertarians and conservatives can be honest, and Penn's ability to be honest was displayed in his criticism of Frank Luntz, but strangely, it's completely absent when he's a guest of Beck and the subject is Clinton.
A Libertarian is just another Republican who happens to like smoking pot.
I'll take "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" over what we have now.
(They won't solve the health care problem though...)
Helter Skelter, tax and spender. It's all the same thing...
"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all" -- Clinton was "saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around."
No - this is not what Clinton's statement says. Her statement says she has many ideas for government programs she would like to implement, however the tax base will not support them all. This gives the impression that she will push the tax base to the limits to fund her programs. That is not opposing big government spending - that is realizing that there are limits to how much she can squeeze out of the tax base.
Having so many government programs that the tax base can not support them all is indeed a proclomation of a big government trying to be everything to everybody. To a conservative that is a "Crazy" idea. The allusion to Charles Manson is because he is "Crazy". Media Matters pulled the "Charlie Manson" reference instead of the "Crazy" reference because it implies that Clinton is being compared to a mass murderer and not being used to illustrate the crazy opinion of her position.
Media Matters is busted again. Their headline may be accurate but their spin is bogus.
No, once again you just proved you can spin like a top. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from her statements is that she knows she has to set priorities and make sure she gets the most bang for her buck. She won't implement anything that can't be paid for up front, unlike the drunken sailors who now make up the republican party. Nice try though.
If you want an example of someone who does like you claim, I suggest you look here. A perfect example...
Good on Senator Grassley for fighting the good fight.
The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from her statements is that she knows she has to set priorities and make sure she gets the most bang for her buck.
That's the same thing I said - phrased "nicer". It's the "I have many ideas" that reveals her desire that government provide many things. Liberals take for granted that government should do these "things" and therefore they have to "get the most bang for the buck" This guy claims to be a Libertarian - where government does basically nothing so he thinks she is "crazy".
Is this "conservative misinformation" or the opinion of a Libertarian? My point is that this is another bogus story.
Not quite. You pushed the envelope with this statement - "This gives the impression that she will push the tax base to the limits to fund her programs. That is not opposing big government spending..." - You have no proof she is going to push the limits, you are just relying on an old ad hominem lie about Democrats are for bigger government and higher taxes. The 1st Clinton was fiscally responsible, no reason to assume Hillary will automatically be any different.
I'm also taking her phrase in context coming from the woman who wrote "It Takes A Village"
So it's all about impressions. Never mind what she actually said. The right wing noise machine is here to tell you what she meant.
MMFA "pulled" the Charles Manson reference???
LMAO. More right wing 'humor' that needs interpretation? Put whatever spin you want on it. It won't change the fact that Jillette said it.
My post is not about whether the guy is right or wrong in what he said - i'ts about Media Matters spinning it to look like he was comparing HRC to Manson because he is a murderer, not because he is crazy.
Yeah, crazy.
Crazy enough to commit murder.
Nice try, WD40. Are we to assume that a professional communicator couldn't think of a "crazy person" other than Charles Manson...who just happens to be the most famous living mass murderer? Sure.
Thanks for playing.
So this magician/comedian is now a professional communicator?
Go back and read the story. See if you can find where the words crazy and murderer are being used? Then see where "Charlie Manson" fits in the story. Put the whole thing together and try again. Maybe then you'll get the point.
So this magician/comedian is now a professional communicator?
One would think. It's not like he isn't on stage and TV all the time.
You give them too much credit. They make their money making people laugh - not think.
Oh, just like Shakespeare never made people think.
Like Miguel Cervantes never made people think.
Like Jonathan Swift never made people think.
Like Voltaire never made people think.
Like Moliere never made people think.
Like Jane Austen never made people think.
Like Mark Twain never made people think.
Like Ambrose Bierce never made people think.
Like Oscar Wilde never made people think.
Like George Bernard Shaw never made people think.
Like Dorothy Parker never made people think.
Like Noel Coward never made people think.
Like Tom Lehrer never made people think.
Like Mel Brooks never made people think.
Like Jon Stewart never made people think.
Like Steven Colbert never made people think.
Ok, you must be right. Laughing and thinking must be mutually exclusive.
"Having so many government programs that the tax base can not support them all is indeed a proclomation of a big government trying to be everything to everybody. To a conservative that is a "Crazy" idea."
I thinks it's crazy that there are still people trying to sell conservatives as people who value fiscal restraint, after the drunken orgy of spending Bush and his rubber stamp GOP congress have conducted the last few years. Of course, if much of it's being funneled to private interests and wars of aggression, that takes the sting out of big spending for many on the right. I'll take a pay-as-you-go liberal over a borrow-and-spend conservative any day of the week.
"The allusion to Charles Manson is because he is "Crazy". Media Matters pulled the "Charlie Manson" reference instead of the "Crazy" reference because it implies that Clinton is being compared to a mass murderer and not being used to illustrate the crazy opinion of her position. Media Matters is busted again."
If I thought something you said was crazy and then ran with a Hitler comparison, you might take it amiss. (I'll concede that over-heated comparisons of this nature are common in most parts of the political spectrum.) If you make careless analogies between a politician for making a statement about spending to a notorious mass murderer, then you are setting yourself up for questioning.
Besides, I noticed that Penn said "she's our next president, and that's OK" and referred to the out-of-context quote in terms of PR, making it sound to me like he was referencing this as a political gaffe rather than a substantive economic criticism (and it's not like Beck was going to correct him on this score).
I basically like Penn, though given his libertarian leanings I imagine we'd disagree on a number of things. It sounds like he overheard the partial quote and ran with it on Beck's show. As someone who normally prides himself as a rationalist and a debunker, Penn could have done better.
I thinks it's crazy that there are still people trying to sell conservatives as people who value fiscal restraint, after the drunken orgy of spending Bush and his rubber stamp GOP congress have conducted the last few years.
Not defending Bush's spending habbits here - most conservatives will tell you Bush has not been one
"If I thought something you said was crazy and then ran with a Hitler comparison, you might take it amiss.
Anid if I were Hillary Clinton I'd be amiss with the Mansion comparison as well. However - is that Media Matters water to carry? Is this conservative misinformation? I think not. That's my point
Since all this spending occurred with the enthusiastic collusion of the Republican Congress, would it then be safe to say that there are no conservatives in the Republican Party these days?
If there are, who are they?
It would be safe to say that many Republicans ran as conservatives but did not have the discipline to act as one. The way Washington works it only takes a few strongmen to screwup the whole works.
Money corrupts - Washington is amass in corruption and money. If we want our politicains to actually act in our best interests they should be term limited.
The people we elect to office gain political power and are able to do more for their constituents as their time in office increases. I'm not arguing against term limits, but I understand how the system works.
If you want to clean up the corruption and the business as usual, we need campaign finance reform first.
I think the two go hand-in-hand. With term limits she seats of power will continually shift as the elders move out , the juniors move up, and the newbies move in. The lobbying money has less impact as it has to shift with the power seats. The whole dynamics of campaign finance shift as there are no guaranteed "long term" prospects. At this point it's much easier to manage.
BY the time any one politician is in office long enough to gain too much power it is time for them to move on. I believe this is why term limits cannot pass the congress.
Even though term limits will probably never be a reality (except for President), we, as voters, have the opportunity every two to six years to "term limit" our Congressperson at the ballot box, but lo and behold, that person will do something in the year leading up to the election to make it seem as though we would be sunk without them. But it has been done in the past and it can be done in the future.
"This gives the impression that she will push the tax base to the limits to fund her programs. That is not opposing big government spending - that is realizing that there are limits to how much she can squeeze out of the tax base."
That's one of the ways to read it. Considering she was on the fringe of an administration that took balanced budgets seriously, I interpret it as the fact that she's reality based when it comes to spending, and if we are to have a balanced budget, we must be realistic about both taxing and spending.
..but it is also from the woman who penned "It Takes A Village" - where the focus was on the larger community.
That's funny, I read the book and nowhere did I see anything advocating growing the size of the village.
You are not going to seriously sit there and tell me the proposals she's already made are not going to "expand the village" , are you?
Paid family medical leave act, Hillary care, $5,000 bond per child, $1,000 IRA starter? All by raising taxes. These are just the ones she's talking about.
You aren't seriously going to sit there and suggest she isn't going to eliminate other programs, are you? How about before you spout off about Hillary wanting to increase government and your taxes you look at everything she is proposing. You just want to focus on costs while ignoring savings which makes your argument lacking in credibility.
Snooopy -Once a government program is implemented it NEVER goes away. In fact - if you can produce evidence of any government program to be eliminated you will win "Post Of The Day"
What's wrong with community?
How exactly is Penn Gillette still relevant? Does anyone watch Glenn Beck? I see the guys face on the tv and can't click away fast enough. He's a moron and Penn Gillette a hasbeen.
Has been? He looks like Steven Segal on steroids. Someone tell him pony tails went out of style 20 years ago.
Anyone who produces the GARBAGE shows that Jillette does is an absolute hypocrite calling anything Clinton says Manson"-esque.
We're talking about a guy whose own idea of entertainment is pornography and violence. If anyone is guilty of behaving like Charlie Manson it's Penn Jillette.
BTW, is he the gay lover of his sidekick, Teller or whatever his name is?
Wow. I never realized what a moron penn jillette is. I guess that's at least part of the reason that his career is essentially over.
I'm really surprised that Jillette didn't understand Clinton's statment ! She's saying she's got fiscal constraints, she doesn't have a bottomless pit of money to draw from, what's wrong with that ?
Jillette's a smart guy, a critical thinker, and an atheist too. He probably realized shortly after he made the remark that he committed a faux pas. Notice how he tries to fix it by saying it's OK with him that Hillary's going to be President.
Penn should emulate Teller sometimes.