The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[RV]

Nate Silver with the TAXFACE on Greg Mankiw.

In poker terms, this is what we'd call a "tell". Mankiw doesn't have anything. He's bluffing. Out of ideas. Taking one for the team, and touting the party line for shits and giggles. Except, this isn't exactly fun and games, and Mankiw should leave the discussions to people who are serious about getting our economy moving again.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/intellectual-dishonesty-gasp-from.html

[Tank]

Does Nate Silver think the Cubs' new board game magnate should be playing in left?

[Quality Start Machine]

Does Nate Silver "get it"?

[Philberto]

I love the expression "Authentically Black". It just makes my heart skip a beat with joy.

[Quality Start Machine]

I love the expression "Authentically Black". It just makes my heart skip a beat with joy.

It's simple...just watch the "Blacks Without Soul" segment from "Amazon Women On The Moon". Taught me all I need to know.

[Internet Apex]

This.

Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.

[Tank]

This.

Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.

If this was by someone other than that drunk, contrarian limey blowhard, I might have read the whole thing.

As it is, I'll let you enjoy it yourself and just say that using the Senate's advice and consent role in administration Cabinet appointments as your litmus test for an overly compliant Congress of "a bankrupt banana republic" is pretty thin gruel. Particularly in the wake of Hitch's own support of GW Bush, however conflicted or single-issue–based.

[Quality Start Machine]

This.

Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.

If this was by someone other than that drunk, contrarian limey blowhard, I might have read the whole thing.

As it is, I'll let you enjoy it yourself and just say that using the Senate's advice and consent role in administration Cabinet appointments as your litmus test for an overly compliant Congress of "a bankrupt banana republic" is pretty thin gruel. Particularly in the wake of Hitch's own support of GW Bush, however conflicted or single-issue–based.

Just for comparison...Hitchens has spent more time on GWB's meatpipe than Yellon ever would on Crane Kenney's.

[Internet Apex]

Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.

[*In a Nutsack]

So, who's going to the inauguration?  I know I am.  Not.

[Internet Apex]

So, who's going to the inauguration?  I know I am.  Not.

Hillary's going.

[*In a Nutsack]

So, who's going to the inauguration?  I know I am.  Not.

Hillary's going.

I'd like to see Hillary and Barack in a fist fight.

[Quality Start Machine]

Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.

Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.

and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.

[Internet Apex]

Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.

Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.

and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.

I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.

[Quality Start Machine]

Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.

Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.

and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.

I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.

What were the "right reasons", and how were the reasons any more "right" than a good half-dozen other dictators in the world, who had the good fortune of not sitting on top of a huge oil reserve?