Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[weemadando]

It's a bullshit plan.

Cutting a trillion over a decade isn't doing shit to fix the problem of having 14 trillion or so of debt now. Especially when you aren't doing anything to raise revenue, like, oh I don't know RAISING TAXES.

The fact that Obama wasn't ready to throw down on what was one of the most important items of his term in office (as unlike most of the others this can seriously effect the whole world) and which should have been the easiest argument in the world to win not just for this policy, but for his party too (empirical proof that this is pretty much all the GOPs fault? It's there.) shows that he's worthless and doesn't deserve the office.

[Simon_Jester]

So, a lot of people here who oppose the compromise just think that if Obama hadn't blinked, the Tea Party would have done an about-face and swiftly passed a clean debt ceiling increase, or one with tax increases and other such measures?

Is this some kind of strawman? If someone caves on important issues under pressure, of course their enemies will use this against them. This is ALWAYS the danger of being too ready to compromise, especially on politically sensitive points.

That you've swallowed political marketing to the extent you believe a group would ruin your country is very strange to me, but their actual intentions aren't relevant. Whatever they actually wanted, they may have decided to appeal to this radical stereotype simply to pressure him.

Stark, when men market themselves, of their own free will, as being willing and ready to bring about disaster (while bullshitting about how it wouldn't be so bad)... am I supposed to just ignore that?

Maybe what's so bizarre about my politics is that there really are people so far out into fucking la-la land that they are willing to dynamite the foundations of the US economy because they think dynamite is candy or something. I don't know. I'm afraid to find out, because they sure act like they think dynamite is candy.

If they're bluffing, it worked, because I'm not that fond of Russian roulette.

@Simon,

I think that after a week of the federal government not functioning and a promise that no entitlement payments are forthcoming *enough* GOP types would seriously attempt to compromise. As it is Boner and the House GOP already learned during the threatened shutdown that Obama would blink, and so Obama would have had to go through with the debt ceiling expiring in order to prove he wasn't bluffing.

At this point, yeah, he would've.

Or, in other words, Obama has such a long history of losing at the game of chicken that by now, he has to crash his car into people before they'll realize he isn't going to swerve. I'm not sure I actually want him to crash the car in this case, either, because some people I'm partial to are riding in it.

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Are there 217 of them who would feel that way then staring at the incoming train?

Here's the problem.

Suppose you're Boehner. You design a plan for cutting the deficit all by yourself that achieves everything the Republicans want. This plan pleases the Tea Party. It also pleases non-Tea Republicans, because by and large the Tea Party wants all the same things other Republicans (claim to?) want. The Tea Party just wants them more, and is more willing to stir up shit to get them.

This bill is practically guaranteed to pass the House with roughly 240 Republican votes plus a handful of conservative Dems. It's also fucking doomed, because it won't pass the Democratic senate and it won't pass Obama's desk.

The Democrats (Obama, Reid, whoever) counter with a proposal that gives them what they want: tax hikes for rich people, fewer F-35s, maybe means-testing for Social Security (which even most liberals will admit is a reasonable way to cut costs, since it isn't hurting anyone who needs the money badly). This will pass Obama, and might pass the Senate Dems (remember the blue dogs, though). But it won't pass the House, because no Republicans will agree to it, not when they have to go back to Republican primary voters in a year's time and face the music for doing it.

The obvious solution? Compromise. Make up half the deficit with 'Democrat' ideas (tax capital gains) and half with 'Republican' ideas (cut Medicare).

The problem is that you now have something that much of each party despises. A Republican congressman still can't vote for it, because if they do, they're going to have to go home and run in a primary against some ambitious young Turk who's trying to dislodge them from office by saying "he voted for higher taxes!" So far as I know, no Republican candidate has run successfully on a platform of "raise taxes" for decades, and few if any have been able to raise taxes and have their career survive. Democrats can get away with voting against the party line more easily, since primary challenges from the left are (for now) less of a threat than primary challenges from the right... but it's still an unpalatable solution.

So now you have something that Obama will pass- unless IP is right and he's just a total corporate shill, but I don't want to argue that point because it's irrelevant. Because the Senate won't pass it- plenty of Democrats will vote against "cut Medicare" on principle, and nearly every Republican will vote against "raise taxes" on principle, if only for fear of being successfully challenged from the right.

So what compromise can pass? Even if most Republican congressmen would rather raise taxes than wreck the country, none of them want to be the ones to get stuck holding the bag. Not every Republican has to be a Tea Party man for the shadow of the Tea Party to affect their voting decisions.

[TheHammer]

It's a bullshit plan.

Cutting a trillion over a decade isn't doing shit to fix the problem of having 14 trillion or so of debt now. Especially when you aren't doing anything to raise revenue, like, oh I don't know RAISING TAXES.

The fact that Obama wasn't ready to throw down on what was one of the most important items of his term in office (as unlike most of the others this can seriously effect the whole world) and which should have been the easiest argument in the world to win not just for this policy, but for his party too (empirical proof that this is pretty much all the GOPs fault? It's there.) shows that he's worthless and doesn't deserve the office.

Everyone knows its a bullshit plan. Obama didn't give up taxes being raised, he simple decided this wasn't the hill he was going to die on. Allowing a default to make a point would be irresponsible. You should also take note that the Bush era tax cuts aren't permanent, they expire Dec 31st 2012. If the American Public is a little bit wiser in their voting during the next round of elections, having seen the Tea Party insanity, then the defacto revenue raising will be there. If not, well I guess we're fucked either way then aren't we?

[Thanas]

The Bush tax cuts will not be enough. Not by a long shot.

[erik_t]

Gee, I dunno, seems like a pretty solid place to start.



If taking care of 2/3 of the problem in one fell swoop isn't enough 'by a long shot', then I guess we define words a bit differently.

[Simon_Jester]

Erik, that chart is obviously based on the assumption that the economy will start getting a lot better in 2011-12, because it assumes effectively no more recovery spending and reduced effects of the current depression. I see no evidence that the economy will recover that fast, so I suspect we'd still be running a deficit anyway, even without the wars and the tax cuts. Which is normal, since we're in a depression. What's not normal is the structural deficit, one that was in place even when times were great back in the mid-'00s.
_________

Thanas, you're right, eliminating the Bush tax cuts wouldn't fix the US deficit. It would still help a lot. One big advantage is that restoring Clinton-level taxes would show the American people's commitment to solving their debt problem even if it means stepping on the toes of powerful interests. At the moment, no one has much faith in that.

[Uraniun235]

Everyone knows its a bullshit plan. Obama didn't give up taxes being raised, he simple decided this wasn't the hill he was going to die on. Allowing a default to make a point would be irresponsible. You should also take note that the Bush era tax cuts aren't permanent, they expire Dec 31st 2012. If the American Public is a little bit wiser in their voting during the next round of elections, having seen the Tea Party insanity, then the defacto revenue raising will be there. If not, well I guess we're fucked either way then aren't we?

They were originally supposed to expire some time ago, but they keep getting renewed. Obama had his chance to let them expire and decided to play for election points instead.

[Stark]

Whats with the macho talk? 'Not worth it to me' becomes 'NOT MY ALAMO'?

[Minischoles]

It isn't that he didn't think it was worth it, it's that the Republicans gave him exactly what he wanted - extending the cuts so that the next round of talks don't happen during his re-election campaign. That's all Obama cares about, as long as he's not being pounded by this as he tries to get re-elected.

1 trillion over 10 years is such a drop in the bucket, it won't make any difference. Any cuts they make won't. Taxes need to be raised, and that doesn't mean just letting tax cuts expire - it means that plus tax loopholes being closed, personal and corporate, as well as a rise in taxes overall.

[Stark]

That's one thing; transforming negotiations into a tough guy fistfight when Obama knew when to hold em, and when to fold em is just asinine.

Then again, people in this thread think that Republicans conduct actual negotiations like Tea Party hooligans, so...

[weemadando]

Killing the tax cuts won't fix the problem, but it will help it along. Even if you were to spend all those savings on things like fixing seventy year old critical infrastructure at least then it would be doing something for the nation and its long term prospects, not just being a private jet subsidy.

[General Mung Beans]

Besides there being no revenue increases in the deal what about this deal do you not like exactly? The spending cuts as pointed out will be spread out over ten years and in practice means little-in addition it should be noted the Tea Party is also pissed off about this (just look at FreeRepublic)

[weemadando]

I don't like that its a shit deal. There'll be no reduction to the deficit as the teeny tiny eensy weensy cuts will no doubt be swarmed by new spending over the decade in which they have to take effect.

Add to that the fact that there's no increase in revenue and this is a short term deal for personal expediency on his part that gives the extremists a chance to say they won on this point?

Tell me again what there is to like?

[Lord Zentei]

Bit late to the thread here, but unsurprisingly, I'm not impressed by Obama's so-called "compromise", and wouldn't vote for him again if I were qualified to do so (which I'm not).

His lack of executive experience really hurt the Democrats when he failed to take a decisive position in the health care debacle, and they were punished for it. They've been treading water ever since.


[hyperbole]Perhaps if he still had the House he could have forced a better deal, but I'm beginning to wonder which side he's on when it comes to things like these. Or perhaps he's so terminally spineless that it doesn't matter in any case.[/hyperbole]

[Patrick Degan]

A rather trenchant blog entry on the matter with our current president:

Classical Rome called it auctoritas. A statesman’s accumulation of prestige, respect and authority. Political power wielded by a senator or consul was directly proportional to his auctoritas. His sum, his essence.

It was built up over all the years of manhood. As a young man was he industrious and serious in his studies. When he entered the military, was he a good soldier and had he been courageous in battle. When he was given command, how many battles had he won and how did he treat his men. Was he as generous to allies as he was merciless to enemies.

Roman statesmen also did battle in the Forum’s courts. Was he a scholar, better prepared than his adversary. Was he zealous in defense and passionate in prosecution.

In the Senate, was he a skillful tactician capable of stealth political maneuvering. When direct confrontation was required would he engage his adversary frontally and beat him.

Was he an accomplished orator and communicator, capable of galvanizing Rome’s masses by his speeches and through his propaganda.

In life, when boldness was required, had he been bold and otherwise was he stoic.

Great Romans, Pompey, Cicero, Caesar and Cato, were all men of manifest auctoritas. But their standing and prestige were in no way permanent as enemies from without and demons from within conspired to weaken them. A lost campaign in Gaul, a bungled case in the Forum, a humiliation in the Senate, or a personal scandal would do much to damage their standing and their influence. Thus, throughout their lives they remained jealous defenders of their auctoritas, knowing it was the key to power.

Factions and tribal interests existed in Rome, but there were no political parties. Romans sought out leaders much more for who they were than what they stood for. As Adrian Goldsworthy notes in Life of a Colossus, “Only rarely did they [candidates] advocate specific policies, although commenting on issues of current importance was more common. In the main, voters looked for a more capable individual who once elected could do whatever the State required.”

The American electorate is not as far removed from its Roman counterpart as one might suspect. What is it that motivates us to vote for and support a candidate. Political parties and policy positions are important but ultimately we judge a leader based on perceived capability, the sum of the person. This is rational and visceral at once. We are, too, less ideological than practical. Identify the problems that exist in the State and address them using whatever acceptable means.

In 2008 we elected Barack Obama who, while young, appeared to all a man of auctoritas beyond his years. An industrious man, a scholar, an accomplished orator and a capable general in the political sense. He also seemed not so much a ‘compromiser’ then as a pragmatist. He would surely identify practical solutions for the nation and use all of his considerable power to implement them.

What now of Mr. Obama’s auctoritas and pragmatism?

Having beaten his adversaries into a crying heap and galvanized a nation, the President was at the height of power in January of 2009. But rather than capitalize on victory, Mr. Obama went eerily quiet, sent his troops home and abandoned the political battlefield to radical misfits. It was opportunity lost.

Power not exercised is power atrophied and so too with auctoritas. Obama would squander the laurels of victory. Squander by not responding to scurrilous and incessant personal attacks, by not creating a new progressive populist narrative and by not assuring his enemies remained in their heap. Squander by not zealously defending the middle class or passionately prosecuting Wall Street criminals. Squander by signing into law a watered down health care bill eclipsed only in flaccidity by sodden financial reform. Squander by not fighting for a jobs agenda and an increased stimulus. Squander by not exercising his Constitutional authority in the face of a economic hostage takers in the debt ceiling crisis.

The President has seemed to disengage in the face of inferior numbers at every instance with the vague promise of future victory. One conjures an unflattering comparison to failed Union commander George B. McClellan. He has eschewed pragmatic problem solving in favor of craven ‘compromise.’ Compromise not with a rational partner but with an unbalanced, dangerous conniver.

In Rome, the most important element in auctoritas was one’s record on the battlefield followed closely by one’s passion in defense of an ideal. Mr. Obama’s record on the political battlefield these last two years is not encouraging. Slow, lurching movement forward, sudden stalls and ponderous retrogress. His troops see his incessant maneuvering away from confrontation as retreat, no longer some grand plan for ultimate victory. This cannot continue. He must engage the enemy soon and beat him in the field or his auctoritas will have vanished along with whatever remains of the morale of his troops.

His political essence is fading away. His supporters no longer admire him and his enemies no longer fear him. The latter being as dangerous as the former is bitter.

We near the point where the wine turns to vinegar and can never be turned back. What ever happened to that fine vintage of hope and change. It was the best I’d ever tasted.

I suspect I have had the last of it.

Zentai speaks to Mr. Obama's lack of executive experience going into the job. But I think that the matter goes to a far more basic problem with a lack of will. Executive experience can be learned, and by a quick-study learned quickly. But Obama seemed never to grasp the essential characteristic of an executive which even the greenest of executives should know as a matter of course: that an executive is expected to lead.

President Obama has proven to be a very different character than Candidate Obama. Candidate Obama navigated the vicious political waters of the campaign of 2008 with skill, determination, and a singleness of purpose. He remained fixed upon his goal of winning the election and adapted himself well to the attacks launched against him. He marshalled every personal and organisational resource at his command to bring him to the White House and with it marshalled millions of people behind him. He had in his grasp a nearly unstoppable popular —genuinely popular— political force ready to back his every action and beat back not only his enemies in the GOP, but also the Blue Dogs ready to join with them.

President Obama has pissed all of that away in slightly less than two years. Having won the White House, the very force of personality and political acumen which propelled him in a cruise over a comical GOP ticket, and left that party shellshocked, just... evaporated. He seems never to have played either chess or poker in his life: in the former, you know to arrange the field to leave your opponent with an ever shrinking set of options; in the latter, you know how to bluff your opponent when you've got nothing and how to tell when you're opponent is trying to bluff you on nothing. Obama has exhibited neither approach in governance. At every point, he has surrendered advantages to his political enemies before they've even asked him to do so. He has not even tried to test their weaknesses or probe for their breaking point. At no point has he ever attempted to set up for himself a position of strength from which to negotiate —or if he ever had done so, he seemed to try to find the quickest way to abandon that position and instead to set himself up as a cornered target. At one point, Obama either tried to claim a comparison to Abraham Lincoln or one of his admirers made that statement. But the blog's comparison of Obama to George Brinton McClellan seems a lot more on-target: a man who knows how to organise but is afraid to fight for fear of losing. Obama has come to personify in the White House the general character of his party: people who desperately keep playing to not-lose against people determined to win at all costs. ALL costs.

Mr. Obama is not feared by his Republican enemies or even by the centrist and conservative factions of his own party, and he has shown a marked inability to outwit them. And you have to be pretty sad if you can't outwit the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Tealiban. As things now stand, Obama looks like a loser. And if the observation I've made concerning presidential elections in this regard on several occasions in the past holds any water, he is (barring the GOP selecting a complete gibbering imbecile to head their ticket in 2012, which is no longer outside the realm of possibility for that party) on track to lose his bid for reelection and lose badly.

[Lonestar]

Mr. Obama is not feared by his Republican enemies or even by the centrist and conservative factions of his own party, and he has shown a marked inability to outwit them. And you have to be pretty sad if you can't outwit the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Tealiban. As things now stand, Obama looks like a loser. And if the observation I've made concerning presidential elections in this regard on several occasions in the past holds any water, he is (barring the GOP selecting a complete gibbering imbecile to head their ticket in 2012, which is no longer outside the realm of possibility for that party) on track to lose his bid for reelection and lose badly.

Really? The Tealiban?

What a fucking small person you are who has lived in such a nice safe country that you have no problem with equating the Tea Party with the Taliban. No doubt you think yourself pretty clever for reading Martin Frost.

[Patrick Degan]

Mr. Obama is not feared by his Republican enemies or even by the centrist and conservative factions of his own party, and he has shown a marked inability to outwit them. And you have to be pretty sad if you can't outwit the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Tealiban. As things now stand, Obama looks like a loser. And if the observation I've made concerning presidential elections in this regard on several occasions in the past holds any water, he is (barring the GOP selecting a complete gibbering imbecile to head their ticket in 2012, which is no longer outside the realm of possibility for that party) on track to lose his bid for reelection and lose badly.

Really? The Tealiban?

What a fucking small person you are who has lived in such a nice safe country that you have no problem with equating the Tea Party with the Taliban. No doubt you think yourself pretty clever for reading Martin Frost.

That's all you've got? Go fuck yourself.

[Lonestar]

That's all you've got? Go fuck yourself.

Where the fuck have you seen real extremism? You think you're so goddam clever because you read a blog post on Politico equating the Tea Party with the Taliban?

A slight rebuttal

Dear Mr. Frost,

Yesterday, while perusing through my usual roundup of blogs and new sites, I ran across your article, The Tea Party Taliban, on Politico.com. I’m sure you thought you were quite clever, likening the American Tea Party to the Afghan Taliban, with statements such as this:

Ten years ago, the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed two gigantic figures of Buddha, carved into a hillside 18 centuries before. The world was aghast at this barbarian act taken in the name of religious purity. But was powerless to stop it.


We now have a group of U.S. politicians seeking political purity, who seem to have much in common with the Taliban. They are tea party members; and because of blind adherence to smaller government, they seem intent on risking destroying what American political leaders have constructed in more than two centuries of hard, often painful work. Like the Taliban, they see compromise as an unacceptable alternative.

No, Mr. Frost, regardless of what anyone might think of the tea party (or any other political organization in the US for that matter), they are NOTHING like the Taliban. Perhaps it’s fashionable in whatever social circles you run around in to compare people you disagree with to Nazis, Taliban, etc., but your ignorance of history and/or current events compels me to remind you of how wretchedly evil the Taliban really are. Since you apparently don’t follow the news too well, let me update you on what the Taliban are up to these days.

You see, the Taliban knows that the US is pulling out of Afghanistan sometime fairly soon, so the gloves are coming off. They’re killing and brutalizing ordinary Afghans on a scale we have not seen in years in order to solidify their control over vast swathes of territory. Allow me to elaborate on what I mean with a few recent examples of the Taliban’s handiwork.

First, maybe you heard about Jalil? No? Jalil, who is 8 years old, was recently hard at work picking grapes in Kandahar Province’s Zhari District, when he was approached by a Talib who convinced him to step on a plastic bottle. When Jalil complied, the plastic bottle, which was actually an IED, blew the kid’s leg off below the knee. In case you don’t understand how terrible this is, I’ve attached the storyboard the US military knocked up after Jalil’s family members brought him to the military for medical treatment. This came from Michael Yon, who may have gotten into a bit of trouble for posting this, but I think it’s important that people like you, Mr. Frost, understand what the atrocities of the Taliban actually look like so that you’ll stop confusing them with the acts of a few rogue Republicans.


(may not want to click it if you you're in a work enviroment-Lonestar)
Spoiler

Much thanks to Michael Yon for providing this storyboard


Second, let me tell you about another 8 year old. His young life was snuffed out last week by the Taliban in order to terrorize his father, who works as a policeman. Oh, and if his eyelids look a bit funny in the linked picture, it’s because the Taliban gouged his eyes out before strangling him to death.

Third, since you seem to know so much about the Taliban and their ilk, Mr. Frost, you would know that the they are quite busy these days lopping people’s heads off with alarming regularity in Farah Province, murdering low level government personnel throughout the country on a routine basis, using unwitting little girls as “suicide” bombers, blowing up hospitals, and indiscriminately killing civilians with pressure-plate IED’s.

For those of us who work over here in Afghanistan, we sometimes get a bit blasé about the constant fear that ordinary Afghans face thanks to the horrific violence they are often subjected to at the hands of the Taliban. Further, I have felt more and more ambivalent towards this conflict the longer I’m involved with it, however, your inane analogy actually woke me up a bit and reminded me that we all lose if the Taliban is allowed to come back to power. Despite the fact that I’m a “dirty contractor,” I do actually care about trying to fix this place and have resolved to work even harder at it.

In closing, although your ignorant comparison of the tea party to the Taliban initially raised my blood pressure several points, I have to ultimately thank you for your ridiculous article because it reminded me just how terrible the Taliban really is and how lucky I am to be a citizen of a country whose most nefarious political organization, according to you, is the tea party.

Regards,

E2

But hey, Patrick Degan, who lives nice and safe in his mothers basement in North America, has no problems with equating the Taliban with tea party. After all, he read a blog on Politico! He links to a lot of stuff, so he knows what he's talking about!

[erik_t]

It's damned fucking unfortunate what the Taliban is doing to Afghani civilians. Truly, it turns my stomach. I hate it, I hate them, and I wish that a wand could be waved that would make it go away.

I assume we're discussing the effects of various political organizations on the United States.

Back in DC, I think it's an entirely reasonable statement that the Tea Party is having a more deleterious effect on the United States federal government than 2011-Taliban. The latter is truly detestable, but the domestic political effect of such is not large at the moment. Any reference to the crimes of the latter (horrific though they are) does not seem relevant except to refute any random and idiotic comments that suggest the people involved therein are equivalent to those of the former.

[Lonestar]

It's damned fucking unfortunate what the Taliban is doing to Afghani civilians. Truly, it turns my stomach. I hate it, I hate them, and I wish that a wand could be waved that would make it go away.

I assume we're discussing the effects of various political organizations on the United States.

Back in DC, I think it's an entirely reasonable statement that the Tea Party is having a more deleterious effect on the United States federal government than 2011-Taliban. The latter is truly detestable, but the domestic political effect of such is not large at the moment. Any reference to the crimes of the latter (horrific though they are) does not seem relevant except to refute any random and idiotic comments that suggest the people involved therein are equivalent to those of the former.

My point is that the Tea Party are not the "Taliban", and it's idiotic and stupid to refer to them as the "tealiban" or "tea Party Taliban" because, frankly, the Tea Party doesn't go around butchering civilians. People who equate the Tea Party with the Taliban are jackasses who are just picking the most odious organization they can think of and using that to exagerate the TP. They have no real concept of bad things happening to people, not in their bones, and so they have no problem sitting behind their computer and going "well, the Taliban are ideological purists, and I don't like them, the Tea Party are ideological purists, and I don't like them them, therefore Taliban=Tea Party. I know! Tealiban! Mom! I need more mountain dew and cheetos!"

Patrick Degan likes to be hyperbolic in his statements(and hey, so does a lot of SDN), and likes saying truly terrible things about individuals in the GOP just because. Then when he gets called on it he either disappears from the thread or makes up a cock&bull story about how "no no, when I called the wounded war vet 'the gimp' I wasn't making fun of his wounds. It was, uh, from Pulp Fiction, yeah, that's it."

Having seen a hole in the ground with a lot of bodies with bullet holes in their heads and being a vet myself, I really take personal offense to Pat's attitude. Pat doesn't know what the Taliban, or any other organization that operates through fear of physical violence, is. He just read a blog on Politico and thought it would be really clever of him if he posted that on SDN before anyone else.

"Tealiban". Jesus Christ.

[Patrick Degan]

That's all you've got? Go fuck yourself.

Where the fuck have you seen real extremism blah blah blah blah blah blah blah in his mothers basement in North America, has no problems with equating the Taliban with tea party. After all, he read a blog blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblah....

My my, how easily you are offended by mere rhetorical flourish, troll. I imagine you fire off angry e-mails to Keith Olbermann whenever he uses "inappropriate" (to you) phrasing such as "human budget sacrifice", as in one of his most recent Special Comments, so confident you must be that he means such things in every literal sense, in this particular case of people being deliberately ritually murdered by GOP congressional accountants.

And you actually imagine you are qualified to call anybody small-minded?

Meanwhile, you continue to have no point here. So again, go fuck yourself.

[Lonestar]

My my, how easily you are offended by mere rhetorical flourish, troll. I imagine you fire off angry e-mails to Keith Olbermann whenever he uses "inappropriate" (to you) phrasing such as "human budget sacrifice", as in one of his most recent Special Comments, so confident you must be that he means such things in every literal sense, in this particular case of people being deliberately ritually murdered by GOP congressional accountants.

And you actually imagine you are qualified to call anybody small-minded?

Meanwhile, you continue to have no point here. So again, go fuck yourself.

Keith Olberman didn't equate the fucking tea party with the Taliban. When the tea party is using physical violence to push their agenda you might have a point. As it is, to use your example, Olbermann was still framing everything in a political/fiscal fight.

You? Well, you decided to hope on board with the meme that the tea party is a lot like an organization that breaks into your house and kills your family if you don't play ball. Yeah. Slight difference.

[Patrick Degan]

My my, how easily you are offended by mere rhetorical flourish, troll. I imagine you fire off angry e-mails to Keith Olbermann whenever he uses "inappropriate" (to you) phrasing such as "human budget sacrifice", as in one of his most recent Special Comments, so confident you must be that he means such things in every literal sense, in this particular case of people being deliberately ritually murdered by GOP congressional accountants.

And you actually imagine you are qualified to call anybody small-minded?

Meanwhile, you continue to have no point here. So again, go fuck yourself.

Keith Olberman didn't equate the fucking tea party with the Taliban. When the tea party is using physical violence to push their agenda you might have a point. As it is, to use your example, Olbermann was still framing everything in a political/fiscal fight.

You? Well, you decided to hope on board with the meme that the tea party is a lot like an organization that breaks into your house and kills your family if you don't play ball. Yeah. Slight difference.

No, fool. I merely used a bit of rhetorical flourish which was about as literal as Keith Olbermann's reference to human sacrifice. I've got news for you: your military service in Afganistan does NOT give you a free pass to start acting like a little asshole over a single word which anybody with more than two braincells to rub together KNOWS is not meant to be taken literally. That is YOUR construction entirely.

So, for a third time, go fuck yourself.

[erik_t]

I'm reasonably sure Mr. Lonestar did not serve within the borders of Afghanistan. He pulled non-corpsman Navy. FYI.

[Dominus Atheos]

No doubt you think yourself pretty clever for reading Martin Frost.

Who? People have been (correctly) equating the far-right with the Taliban since 2001.