Thursday, February 25, 2010

Difficile est saturam non scribere

Stupid? Crazy? Drunk on venom? All three, I think.

Right wing loonatics, who briefly viewed Scott Brown as the second (I guess it would really be third) coming, have turned on him like lady hyenas after he -- the horror, the horror!! -- joined four other Republicans to vote for cloture in the "Jobs Bill" debate.

It's bizarre on so many levels. Which, in a world of right wing politics where "bizarre" is mainlined like propofol at Neverland, is saying something.

First of all, the bill is a conservative's wet dream. It's practically all TAX CUTS!!! Which means, as with most of the stuff conservatives have proposed since Newt Gingrich first took divorce papers to hospital bed, it'll accomplish much less than the original approach, ditched to get some Republican votes. What more could they want; the final bill is everything they are, ferchrissakes: tax breaks, no progress. Moreover, when the final vote came up, six (or maybe eight) guys who voted against cloture voted for the bill. Tell me how THAT makes sense. (It's a little like the woman nominated to head GSA, held up for no good reason by a single Senator for over nine months, then confirmed 96-0.) (Or like the demagoguery of the health care bill as radical leftist policy, when, in fact, it's a centrist bill much like Republicans proposed only a few years ago. How amazing is it that people have been convinced, by the America-hating RWS™, of exactly the opposite?)

Actually, it's pretty clear. All those RW crazies who now consider Scott Brown a traitor aren't even trying to pretend. They couldn't care less about policy; they couldn't care less about improving the economy, balancing the budget, or fixing our system of health care. Seriously. They couldn't care less. They only care about defeating Barack Obama. If he's for something, they're against it. Period. Substance? Irrelevant. Because if he gets anything done -- even things that are undeniably necessary for the future of this country -- his chances of reelection go up. So, ipso facto, prima facie, res ipsa loquitur, caveat emptor, quantum materiae materietur marmota si marmota monax materiam possit materiari, whatever it is, they're reflexively, unequivocally, retardedly, terminally opposed to it. End of story. Country first? My ass.

Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.


  1. C'mon Sid, Really, the "Gingrich Divorced his Wife Dying of Cancer" thing??Next you'll be wearing those clear platform shoes with a Goldfish.
    Funny how she's still alive some 30 years later, Google it if you don't believe me.
    And as usual you miss the creepiest part of the whole thing, they started dating in High School.....

    Of course that was in the 60's when dating your teacher was cool...
    And I'm not mad at Brown, he's just makin sure he gets re-elected in 2012...


  2. Well, Frank, the blind pig finally found a truffle. I changed a word, for you.

    On the other hand, the pig is still shuffling into trees and falling off ledges, in that the point of the post was neither addressed by you nor changed by my correction.

  3. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

    "Next you'll be wearing those clear platform shoes with a Goldfish."

    Thanks for that Frank! :)

    Obviously Dr S ..That is so not you ..hence HILARIOUS! :)

    And I didn't expect it ..although ..I should have. :)

    Yeah ..I'm not disappointed with Brown for that.

    Also ..I've been circling your posts regarding religious comments and with all due respect... you are way off base with some of your comments, although I understand/appreciate your questions regarding Jesus, sin, etc.. and would like to answer them ..gently and respectfully. I'm close to landing ..but then you may get a novella. Same with Eugene's comments.

    And Eugene I did read one of your sources and when I saw the link was from middle east reporting written about from a lefty publication didn't hold water.

    In all fairness to you ..I did not look at the other links you provided after that.

    I did try to find video with Bush making the God comment and did not find it. But ..regardless ..obviously President Bush was/is not a crazy religious zealot as would be the terrorists. he is a man of faith. So are a lot of good people.

    And Dr S ..of course there are many athiests,agnostics that have good moral values. Duh! I say the DUH! to anyone that would think otherwise. Christians or any other faith does not have the corner on morality. I'll stop here or I won't and will go on and on.

    One thing Dr S and I've said this before .. I feel you are too quick to generalize and lump everyone into the same nasty pot if you don't agree with opinions. You generalize and label, which is not at all fair.

    When you say these things ..I sit back and I think about me I live my life..,treat people, etc and I think about others that are also people of faith , conservative ..and we just don't fit into the mold you seem to be trying to conform us to.

  4. SS: I like how you laud Frank without ever addressing the the point of posts. Which, since it's what Frank does, I guess it's a double laud. Flattery is the sincerest form of insincerity.

    Also, I took the time, in the post about climate change, to respond to your request for more information. I gave you two very comprehensive links. You didn't respond, not even to acknowledge what I'd done. It makes me feel like not commenting at all on your comments in the future; even more so because no matter the evidence I provide it doesn't, and clearly never will, get you to consider you might be wrong; or that Fox "news" is feeding you calculated propaganda.

    Likewise, you make the same response whenever I criticize religion. You claim I make generalizations, say it's not you, and never consider that there might be some truth in what I say.

    I'm glad you still read what I write, I guess, but it seems not to provide you with any food for thought. For that to happen, I guess, you have to be hungry.

  5. Okay Dr S ..Frank's line was very funny and I reacted. I was not looking to get into a discussion.

    I also have stated in here that I was *amused by both of you*..the way you banter back and forth and I have said that in here a few times.

    I can't help it if that line cracked me up with out loud laughing so that even my son wondered what was so funny.
    You know how tall and masculine you are ..that shoe line is so funny. Maybe because he talked shoes I understood. ;)

    I am sorry if you feel I have wasted your time and the same with Eugene. I do follow the link sometimes (look at your statcounters), but don't come back in to comment... because I still don't agree...and it takes energy to rebut and I guess I am saying I have lacked the energy because of personal life events that have saddened or affect me in some way. You can't go by if I write a funny post(if you ever read my blog).That is my escape mechanism sometimes and I don't want to bog down in serious stuff. :)

    Anyway ..I have had things in my personal life that have distracted/blindsided me of late and so I guess have been drained with coming back to debate...although I do find it all intellectually stimulating. I do comment in a handful of other blogs, but no brainer stuff. :) I normally like the challenge ..just not as up for it yet.

    Now ..I know you won't agree with this ..but there have been times I know I have made some valid points and when you can't respond automatically ..yell "FOX!".

    Also you censored me back in November/December and I did not say bad things and I am not ever mean to anyone in here. It was when I agreed with DR time on some points (I thought they were valid and he said them better than I ever could)and then I was talking about the MMM mmm mm Obama indoctrination stuff. I had valid points.That was also around the time Eugene left those Bush References for me and I thought "What is the point in me commenting?" and so didn't follow through.

    When I agree or have been neutral have bypassed and gone on with an attack and I have to remind you to go back and re-read what I wrote.Now you don't censor me and we all miss things the other writes. I want to address your religious statements. You ask valid questions. But how do I know that if I write anything lengthy will still publish it?

    And sometimes you are sarcastic with me ..but that is okay ..I can take it. I know your a nice, compassionate guy who is experiencing a great deal of unrest/angst in his spirit and it comes out in your words and writing and you've mentioned it yourself. I DO read. I've told you I LOVE your writing and you have a gift. I just wish you'd get back to your surgical writing too. You're writing was the main catalyst for my jokingly referring to myself as a surgical groupie. You brought me into your OR with your eloquently written words and I felt like I was observing the surgeries, the patients and staff. You comforted me with posts and answering my questions when I was scared about my own impending surgery that I have thus far avoided. And ..I consider you a blogging friend ..regardless of how politically misguided you are. ;) (That was a joke! ;)

    And I have felt extremely frustrated with you sometimes when you do lump me and people like me in with the crazy people. If you met me ..I don't believe you would do that. and btw ..the crazy people ..the ridiculously misguided ones ..they are a small minority and it is hardly fair to pull out a video of some off the wall person that is NOT representative of the majority of conservative thinkers or people of faith.

  6. This is the 2nd part of comment but delayed because friends stopped by.

    Your saying this: "Fox "news" is feeding you calculated propaganda.", proves my point.

    I am discounted by you regardless of what I say. Conservatives will agree with a lot of what they hear on Fox ..but not always ..not everyone... and it seems that other people are watching now too. Also FOX is not ALWAYS propaganda (if at all), but basic reasoning would suggest at least *never* does something or is *always* something. Like anything ..they have stronger opinions on some shows and others more moderate. You cannot logically state that all of FOX is ALWAYS ..ALL propaganda. That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

    And isn't it wonderful ..instant media ..facts can be checked out and politicians (both sides) have to be on their toes?

    Today ..watching FOX and CNN ..the health care summit. Tried to watch on C-span but seemed to be about other things and not the summit. I watched FOX sans fox commentary ..just the summit. then later this afternoon and on now have been watching only CNN with commentary. I also watch the news coming out of NYC ..the regular channels as well as NJ station. But today ..solely Fox and CNN. But ..I know will just tell me ..again ..for the umpteenth time that my only news source is FOX. Can you see where that is a bit frustrating for me?

    I liked what Mary Matilin said to Wolf Blitzer and agree. She said that they could have reform on the president's desk next week, listing 6 things borders, adult kids on ins until 25-26, tort reform, tax breaks for small business buying ins. I forget exactly. She went on to say it would be a bipartisan effort that no one party would get the credit, but would be good for Americans ..would be an American success. See ..Dr S., I don't want one party to *win*, I want America and her people to win. I am not partisan and I am not brainwashed ..unable to think for myself... and I can actually be discerning without listening to FOX.

    And I would turn against my party in a heartbeat if they did something I vehemently disagreed with.

    Oh and in your comments to me, you have challenged my desire for health care if I would block it all when I have consistently written that I am for opening the borders, allowing adult children in school to stay on insurance, removing pre-existing conditions, portability of insurance with new job,more cost effective for small businesses,don't allow insurance companies to have their own payment rules, etc. We need reform, I have said these things and then you will come out with a statement insinuating I want none of that. So ..I can only conclude don't actually absorb what I have written but because of your own biases ..immediately banish me to the RWS box of unintelligent, crazy or something like that... and would explain why you don't see when I am being fair or agreeing with you.

    On a lighter note ..there is a terrific new blogging doc in med blogdom ..StorytellERdoc.

    Dr S ..he writes beautifully you do. A nice balance of life. Seems like a real nice guy too.

    Anyway, he is going to be on the Dr Anonymous show tonight at 9pm est, on Blog talk radio. I thought if I don't get shy ..I might call in to say like I did with you 2 years ago. It was fun meeting you that way.

    Anyway ..I just want to say has never been my intent to aggravate or insult you or anyone here and if I have then I ma sincerely sorry.

    And Frank's comment.. still HILARIOUS! I look forward to the banter between you two. :)

  7. Of course this'll be of no relevance or consequence to some who read this blog, however, I found enlightening content in the 2004 documentary about Fox (dare I say "news". Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism sheds light on the industry of "Fair and Balanced".


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts