Friday Funnies

Paul is dead!!!

Paul is not dead.  The Revolution is alive and well, too...having won over the crowd, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the town, believing him to be dead.  When, however, the disciples had collected round him, he rose and went back into the town.

The Rally for the Republic to be held across town in Minneapolis concurrently with the Nat'l GOP convention is expecting a crowd of 13,000+.  In the first hour of sales this morning 4698 tickets were sold.

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Be a part of it.

By the way, I was listening to Paul's Boutique yesterday...care to comment on how the messages of that album relate to the good doctor's campaign, regnad? Specifically, which song is more applicable to the GOP's nominee - "High Plains Drifter," "3-Minute Rule," or "Looking Down The Barrel Of A Gun?"

I haven't laughed this hard in quite some time.

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

What's funny to me is that Joan will rag on the media's supposed fawing over Obama, yet ignores the fact that her candidate can't draw a crowd to save his life...

Arvid-that's the point the News Media is to busy following Obama around hoping he burbs so they can talk about how loud it was and how McCain could never do it so loud.

"If that wasn't tongue in cheek, then you're an idiot."

I realize that criticizing Obama is akin to blasphemy to some, but calling someone an idiot is still pretty much unacceptable on here.

And, yes, calling Obama a communist/socialist/Savior is perfectly OK.  He's a public figure, and there are different standards for how we refer to him (and McCain) versus how we refer to other commenters, in the hope that our discussions can remain somewhat civil.  As always, I welcome feedback, and if you think I'm being a heavy-handed goody-goody facist, let's discuss it over email, not in comments.

Thanks.

the man is a die-hard capitalist --At least Dboon's not a thread jacker.

I want to thank Joan for once again reminding me that trance humor* is alive and well.

* Laughing over and over at the same joke as a conditioned response

I think that overall, Obama is a newer news story and is ironically riding much of the same waves that McCain rode 8 years ago before he was thrown off the path by the Bush contigients racist attacks. (Would you vote for McCain if you found out he had fathered an illegitimate mulatto child?) They cuts both ways--they are super excited to report anything Obama does and if they had to choose, I'm sure they'd choose "scandalous and damning" over anything positive.

But the current wave of "the media loves Obama" posturing seems silly. McCain pushed Obama to go abroad in the hopes that it would take him away from campaigning stateside and it completely backfired.

Let's face it--I don't care if it's Obama, McCain or Ron Paul--the trip that's being taken is much more newsworthy than whatever McCain might be doing right now.

To complain about it is like saying that the media is biased for covering Ron Zook coaching the Illini more than you sitting in your den playing video games.

Another great example of how easily free market capitalists embrace totalitarianism.

At no point did I embrace, advocate or even mention totalitarianism. Don't put words in my mouth.

xian, you don't know me. This is exactly what I believe. And your statement that capitalism has nothing to do with making money is simply false. Sure money equates to power, it always will. But for the rest of your statement I think you need to reread Adam Smith.

Also, Obama said nothing about distributing wealth equitably according to how it is earned. He only stated that he wanted to take it from those who have it and give it to those who don't. In addition to a communist, that also makes him a thief in my book.

This is exactly what I believe. And your statement that capitalism has nothing to do with making money is simply false.

Until you can learn to not fabricate what others say, we aren't going to have much to talk about. If you really think "making money" and "earning money" are identical, then, yes, you are 100% in favor of a totalitarian capitalist state.

Can I pay people to kill you? That's unchecked capitalism. Can you set infants on fire and charge people to watch and then use the money to pay for protection? Sure--you made the money, it's yours to use as you see fit. Don't go whining about civil liberties either.

When the "consenting adults" of the country are willing to let their fellow citizens actually DIE in the road for lack of funds or foresight, then you might have "total capitalism."

As long as you have laws stating that the ER must treat all comers, you are nowhere close to "total capitalism."  Personally, I think that's a good thing.

Let's recap here:

anonymous 3:03, pointed and direct, but I don't think they got it.

xian, I don't know if you got your definition from a red-chi-com propaganda graphic novel or what but you are completely wrong. epic phail.

d.boon, for a liberal you don't seem to know a thing about Marxism. Capitalism evolves to Communism, always. Totalitarianism is one of the first steps, not the last. That psychopath Lenin screwed up the Russian experiment before it ever really began. If not for Lenin's megalomania, Stalin never would have come to power and driven them deeper into the abyss.

akibare, you are a glowing island of reason in a sea of ineptitude. thank you. If you haven't read about the experiments of the Spanish Anarchists in the 1930s, I think you would find them very interesting. They built an amazing moral community, without government, and it lasted until Franco.

narc, please read more carefully. I redefined communist, not communism. As for treason, aren't you glad the USSC doesn't agree with me? Then again, they always were a bunch of softies. It's too bad only one of them has ever been impeached (and he was a good guy).

When you guys think you can play intelligently, please, by all means, I'll be waiting.

Xian, I really don't think that you should be attacking PB for speaking the truth.  I find the saccharine passive-aggressive approach to be the most offensive of all. 

What is the most appropriate treatment for those who threaten our civil liberties?  It is the question of the day.

Teh threat of calumny is enough for persons of honour.  For some, like Dick ("So?") Cheney, honour is nonsense.

Yeah, this does seem to be a waste of time.  A pattern with PB comments, for sure.  Yet I can't let lines like this go:

Capitalism evolves to Communism, always. Totalitarianism is one of the first steps, not the last.

Now if Capitalism evolves to Communism, then it must come first.  And if totalitarianism is one of the first steps, then what does that say for Capitalism?

Personally, I think the capitalist welfare state is one of the greatest economic inventions in history.  It allows the fruits of capitalism to bud but also makes attempts to care for those who are inevitably left behind in the consolidation of capital.  Without the welfare state it is quite possible this country would have seen another revolution in the early 20th century, and socialism would be the state of the nation.  Which might or might not be a bad thing, I can't say.  But either way, without the welfare state the capitalist would have disposed of long ago.  No nation will sit back and watch the wealthy consolidate power for very long without a backlash of some sort.  The welfare state gives the government the power to keep the people from violent revolution and, thereby keep the power of capital in the hands of the few.  Who have done quite well, thank you very much.

Have a great day everybody!

PB:  you may want to actually *read* what is being said, and then maybe read it again, because if anybody is butchering things here, it is you.

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

d. boon, read Marx before you continue. Please. You're butchering it.

Well, it's good to see that somethings never change.  Prairie Biker, after all these years, can still be counted on to be completely full of crap in any discussion.

I may be one of the few people on this blog who actually has suffered through Marx, both Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.  And I believe I understand pretty clearly the argument he is making.  Which always makes me wonder why anyone even claims that a communist nation has ever existed in the world.  Even the Soviets were always quick to point out that their empire was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Chinese Communist Party has never claimed to have achieved communism.  They are on the road to it (or they used to be), but the best anyone has done so far is socialism, which has worked in some ways and failed in most.

So when self-aggradizing blowhards show up and start spouting nonsense about Obama (of all people!) is a communist, it makes me laugh and then cry.  Another step taken toward generalized ignorance about political economies.  Another chance to throw around the "C" word with little understanding of what that word means.

We live in a capitalist welfare state.  There is very little about our country that even resembles socialism.  Profit rules not only industry but also Washington.  Competition in the marketplace continues to produce losers of epic proportions, like Ford Motor Company which recently fell behind another  $5 billion.  No doubt mass layoffs will soon follow and thousands will struggle to make ends meet while upper management vacations quietly in posh beach houses on Lake Michigan.

No, calling America a socialist country is like calling Antarctica the tropics.  This land was made for you and me but it has been bought and sold for the profits of the few.  And Democrats and Republicans have gladly pocketed their fair share.  To not see this, the most basic of facts about the American political economy, is to start from a place of delusion and proceed to a place of lunacy.  Or, it can be witnessed in the writing of the words "Obama is a communist".  Words that betray an ignorance of reality that is shocking, if not particularly suprising.

Let's continue with the recap:

I've made no argument concerning the nature of China or the former USSR (except to say that Lenin screwed it up).

I've made no argument concerning the state of American Capitalism today.

You fellers in the meanwhile ascribe to me all manners of ills but still haven't countered my original definition and assignment, and nobody has negated the paradox of Obama's statement concerning free trade and "equitability". If you were on the debate team, I'd kick you off for not being able to focus on the topic.

If you want though, I'll give you one more. Barack Obama is a bald-faced liar. Why does a single one of you put any stock in Mr. ""I will serve out my full six-year term."?

Keep dancing you guys. It doesn't bother me. I just hope that someday you reconcile yourselves with voting for a lying, communist thief.

Hmmm, an article in the LA Times about bias. That gave me quite a chuckle for the day.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article then, because it doesn't originate from Fox News, that bastion of unbiased, equal time reporting.  Perhaps you missed this line:

But the center's director, Robert Lichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said. (emphasis mine)

So someone conservatives respect says this "liberal media bias" is crap.  Or is he to be discounted because he dared to show up in an article published by someone outside of News Corp?

Let me say, for the record, that John McCain is not my candidate. I vote issues, not personalities.

Then I expect you will be voting your issues and not voting for the Republican nominee for president?  Yeah, didn't think so...

I find the Obama infallibility by his supporters quite scary. You won't persuade anyone with the he-can-do-no wrong mentality.

He's not infallible by any means, but you won't persuade anyone to vote against him by making half-assed attacks instead of showing why the alternative is better.

Everyone is acknowledging Obama's extraordinary coverage. [and]  I have a suggestion: post cartoons that show how McCain is getting all the favorable press.

I'm not denying he is getting more coverage, however I am challenging your assertion (and have been validatated by external sources, something you can't validate outside of an editorial cartoon) that the press is favorable to Obama.  Getting more coverage does not mean you are getting more positive coverage.  Swooning implies that it is positive, when in actuality more stories on Obama are negative than they are positive.  But go ahead and conveniently ignore that, since the facts don't play well into your misguided beliefs.

I'm not surprised he's getting more overall coverage, and neither should you.  McCain is just another crusty old white guy running for President.  Obama is not, something we haven't actually seen before on the national stage.  Had Clinton won the nomination, there would be just as much of a media circus around her, being the first female presidential candidate.  Or if Richardson had been nominated, being the first hispanic presidential candidate.  Had the GOP maybe looked around their "big tent" a bit more and ended up finding someone who isn't the same thing they've put up since the dawn of the party, they'd be getting more press coverage (both positive and negative).

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

I like this from SNL:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/77752/

Of course this was a convention of minority journalists, and the people cheering were not covering the event as journalists - they were there as attendees to the convention.

But keep trying!  ODS in full effect.

Honestly, I am surprised you are bothering to continue with this.  Read the article - the noun "journalists" is not referring to people covering the story, it is referring to attendees at the convention.  They "leapt" to their feet and applauded "enthusiastically"?  Couldn't we just as easily say they gave him a standing ovation?

Minority journalists at a convention excited to see the first black nominee for President.  What's your point?

What's your point? ... That somehow these journalists are allowed to fawn in this instance because they're attending a convention and thus somehow allowed to demonstrate their love for Obama without anyone noticing?

I honestly don't get your point here.  Let's assume that the small number of minorty journalists who were in that room and did "leap" from their seats and cheer "enthusiastically" are big Obama fans.  I would assume that they are Obama fans because they genuinely appreciate the racial progress he represents.  But either way, let's assume they want Obama to win.  Are you saying that is wrong?  Moreover, are you saying that anyone who has a horse in this race is unfit to cover the race?  That anyone with an opinion or a passion for racial progress is incapable of being a professional journalist?

I've worked in the media and let me give you a little news flash: journalists have opinions about everything.  It doesn't mean a whole lot, because professional journalists cover the story.  Unless they are opinion writers (and even then) it is not wise to ever let the bias seep through in the reporting.  It is the fastest way to be labeled a hack and relegated to something like Fox News.

So it doesn't bother me that these minority journalists were cheering for Obama at this convention.  Good for them!  It is possible that a person of color will be the most powerful man in the world within a few months.  If I was a minority journalist, I would be cheering right along with them.

But I would still be able to walk out that door and report the facts to my readers, whether they made Obama look good, or not.  That is what professionals do.

And I wasn't even "complaining" about it, as xian assumed - my original comment was just two words and quote from the story.

You called it "Obama as Messiah syndrome" while referring to a group of people who haven't seen a single person of ethnic minority status hold the office in the history of the country. If it's not complaining, it's pretty antipathetic. (Or bitter? I forget which :))

If you had left it at your original comment, I wouldn't have said anything. If Dahmer had stopped eating at steak, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble either.

I guess I disagree with you because I see journalists at a convention (bad shorts, carrying a bag of freebies, sunglasses on their head) as different animals than "journalists fawning over Obama".  The latter seems to be media bias which, as mentioned above, is actually not true.  The media seems to be biased against Obama, not "fawning all over him".  The former is just a group of minority professionals who have every right to cheer Obama as a symbol of racial progress in this country.

The only way your comments could be on point is if you are implying that these journalists are not professional enough to put their personal feelings aside when covering the campaign (if they do even cover the campain, I'd bet most don't come near politics in the day-to-day).  Otherwise, it seems pretty clear to me that the idea in this thread is that the media's coverage of Obama is biased in his favor because the journalists are all in love with him.  Again, I just don't see that perspective, but that's not news.

Finally, could you use a term besides "Messiah" when having this discussion?  You could use any number of other terms, from "love" (though I don't love Obama) to "admire" or whatever, but Messiah is something I take personally, as a Christian.  I think I am pretty unbiased when it comes to Obama, but you'll definitely disagree.  Either way, I don't think he is anyone's Messiah, just a really good politician/leader who has come along at the right time.  Thanks.

They're journalists.  And they're fawning.

These were journalists attending a journalism convention, not journalists covering an Obama speech. You're pulling out the "liberal bias" card again to make it sound like these were people who were supposed to be trying to remain objective but providing biased coverage. I just can't believe you're getting all out of shape about the fact that, at a conference for minority professionals, some people stood up and applauded when a sitting Senator and first serious minority candidate for President walked in the room to give a speech.

I'm sure you think that, given your defensiveness over coverage of Obama which is anything less than worshipful.

I just don't understand this condescending attitude.  You're not only trying to paint a picture of Obama that is not real, you are now apparently convinced that anyone who defends Obama against your baseless and trivial attacks believes Obama is a savior to be worshipped.  You're doing a good job of making any defense of Obama off limits.  Why, how could I ever defend anything Obama does or stands for without being labeled as a person who believes he is my personal savior?

I really thought these lines of debate were beneath you, but when it comes to Obama you continue to seem merciless and fairly irrational.  Which I can understand - your party and your ideas are duds.  We've seen the results of privatization, deregulation, and the War on Terror.  It aint looking good.  Keep throwing mud at Obama and maybe something will stick, I suppose.  But do me the solid of not trying to psychoanalyze his supporters.  He is not my savior, I don't expect anyone to worship him.  I just want a fair shake out of this election.  And if you are going to play the role of lying pundit to ensure four more years of broken conservative ideas, then I am going to point out how wrong you are all along the way.

Have a great night.

"You're doing a good job of making any defense of Obama off limits."

You're doing an excellent job of making any criticism of Obama off limits.  Heck, I'm not even allowed to point out how the man is being covered, or else you take that as some sort of out-of-bounds criticism.

"And if you are going to play the role of lying pundit to ensure four more years of broken conservative ideas, then I am going to point out how wrong you are all along the way."

Ah, so now I'm a liar.  I guess you've given up on arguing that journalists aren't journalists, and that a standing ovation isn't fawning.  Nice laydown.

Have a great night, indeed.