Oh Canada!

Your humble host is quoted in this Maclean’s article about First Lady Michelle Obama, check it out!

  • Christopher Foxx

    But I’m not going to take your word for these kind of things.

    But, Zython. That’s all he has. If you’re going to start demanding Frank provide facts the you’re really putting him at a disadvantage.

    (Although, considering what Frank want’s most of all is to be able to feel like a put-upon victim, you’re doing him a favor at the same time.)

  • Zython

    What possesses you to make the comments you make?

    The need to hold you accountable for your comments. Why do you ask?

    You cite obviously biased, opinionated, often completely non-factual sources for editorial comment, then you pretend it’s data that “proves” I’m wrong, or worse, stupid.

    “Only your prejudice against prevents you from believing him… So who’s biased? Him or you?”

    If there’s something factually wrong with the link, then by all means. point it out. But I’m not going to take your word for these kind of things.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger
  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Frank DiSalle says: “You cite obviously biased, opinionated, often completely non-factual sources…”

    Oh my god, you quoted Karl Rove and you complain about someone else’s source?

    And by the way, the Daily Kos article has links to sources, if you bothered to read.

    “If you want to insult me, skip all the bullshit, and just copy this ‘Frank, I like calling you stupid. It makes me feel smart.’”

    We call you stupid, Frank, because you are stupid.

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Zython: What possesses you to make the comments you make? You cite obviously biased, opinionated, often completely non-factual sources for editorial comment, then you pretend it’s data that “proves” I’m wrong, or worse, stupid.
    If you want to insult me, skip all the bullshit, and just copy this “Frank, I like calling you stupid. It makes me feel smart.”
    Then you can save it somewhere and paste it in whenever you disagree with the nature of my comments.
    And, it would save me the time it takes to look up your worthless links to sites which are probably leaving unwanted cookies on my hard drive.

  • db

    OW,

    Congratulations on the citation. That was the point of the post wasn’t it?

  • Marco21

    Why would anyone, especially a republican in 2012, apologize for being completely 100% wrong?

  • Zython

    Save, are you going to ever apologize, or are you going to just continue being a cowardly brat?

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Um, the first article demonstrates that nobody objected to the trips that Bush took but that ‘some people’ who happened to be on the Murdoch payroll were bitching about Obama’s when he had been in office for a few months.

    This is what happens when you don’t read the articles before you link to them, SF, are you ever going to learn?:

    (Joe Conason-ed)Well, you know, Norah, you have to wonder whether any of these people got exercised, for example, when President Bush spent something like 40 percent of his time at Camp David, Kennebunkport, and his ranch in Crawford. I don’t know how much all of that travel cost the taxpayers, but nobody on the Democratic side said, “Oh, the president shouldn’t be doing this” — even though he was doing this before 9-11, during the war in Iraq

    Your second link is about Bush using official governmental resources for Republican campaigns, so you’re down using taxpayer money for Republican campaigns?

    But, you’re not alone:

    No rules broken
    Bush is not the first president to operate this way. The federal regulations governing reimbursement for political travel have been on the books at least since the Reagan administration, and the White House said Bush adheres to all rules.

    Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a taxpayers advocacy organization, suggested at least requiring campaigns to cover the actual cost of fueling and providing a crew to Air Force One, which runs to tens of thousands of dollars each hour for the specially retrofitted Boeing 747-200B Bush usually uses.

    But Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money’s impact on politics, said that seems unrealistic. “You would bankrupt the campaign,” he said.

    Bush did use Air Force One more often than Woodrow Wilson

    Along with those pinkos Clinton and Reagan, but you probably don’t want to talk about that part, do you?

    You’ll never learn, will you, SF?

  • SaveFarris

    Can you find me where lefties such as myself objected to Ms. Bush taking so many vacations?

    Sure.
    No Problem.

    Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

    Yes you are correct: Bush did use Air Force One more often than Woodrow Wilson. But your comparison to Obama ignores one crucial aspect:

    8 > 3.5

  • db

    Mr. Strowbridge,

    Freddie & Fanny insure the payments of home loans. It’s not just that the brokers were initiating unsound loans, it’s not just that the banks were making those unsound loans, it’s not just the extreme (reckless) extent of the leveraging. It’s the fact that at each stage of the process the seller lied/defrauded the buyer by representing the loans as sounder than they were.

    Freddie & Fannie worked well for years; I doubt any system could work with all the lack of accurate information about.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    C.S.Strowbridge: “This would only be impressive if Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac had anything to do with the collapse.”

    Frank DiSalle says: “They weren’t ? Is that denial or naivete ?”

    It’s called reality. Of course, you have no idea what that is. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac didn’t cause real estate prices to collapse. They nearly collapsed as a result of the real estate market collapsing. The market collapsed because banks were lending money to anyone with a pulse, lying about how secure that loan was, and then selling it to the next sucker. While this was happening, they were buying bullshit loans from other banks leveraged by 30 to 1 in some cases. This was happening because of deregulation.

    Me: “You don’t think he’s just a little biased?”

    Frank DiSalle says: “Only your prejudice against prevents you from believing him… So who’s biased? Him or you?”

    It’s not prejudice, it’s the facts. As Zython said, he has a track record of lying, and the facts in this case are against him.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Frank can’t help himself, Zython.

    2 Peter 2:22

    This passage is often quoted to prove “the possibility of falling from grace, and from a very high degree of it too.” But it is one of the last passages in the Bible that should be adduced to prove that doctrine. The true point of this passage is to show that the persons referred to never “were changed;” that whatever external reformation might have occurred, their nature remained the same; and that when they apostatized from their outward profession, they merely acted out their nature, and showed that in fact there had been “no” real change. This passage will prove – what there are abundant facts to confirm – that persons may reform externally, and then return again to their former corrupt habits; it can never be made to prove that one true Christian will fall away and perish. It will also prove that we should rely on no mere external reformation, no outward cleansing, as certain evidence of piety. Thousands who have been externally reformed have ultimately shown that they. had no religion, and there is nothing in mere outward reformation that can suit us for heaven. God looks upon the heart; and it is only the religion that has its seat there, that can secure our final salvation.

  • Zython

    That is hardly using class envy as a selling point for tax increases and more government, now is it. The fact that Pres Bush made a reference to “haves and have-mores” is hardly “beating the drum” for class envy.

    So, in summary,

    Screwing over the poor: Sensible(TM) economic policy

    Pointing out that the poor don’t deserve to be screwed over: “Class Envy”

    Zython: You say toe-may-toe (income inequality); I say toe-mah-toe “class envy”. Call it what you will, that’s the nature of the appeal – we don’t like rich people.

    Let me just say that the fact that most third world countries have a very small minority that controls almost all of the wealth, while the rest of the country lives in poverty, is not a coincidence. See: the fourteen families of El Salvador.

    But hey, if you think you deserve to live in crippling poverty, who am I to argue?

    So, I guess it was those “fat cat bankers”, eh?

    No, Frank, it was obviously those shiftless minorities poor people who crashed the economy. Those poor innocent banks had no choice but to oversaturate the market. If only we gave them more free money. IF ONLY!

    Only your prejudice against prevents you from believing him

    That, and he has a large track record of being a liar.

    They weren’t ?

    Nope.

    Frank, have you ever tried NOT being stupid?

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    This would only be impressive if Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac had anything to do with the collapse.
    They weren’t ? Is that denial or naivete ?
    So, I guess it was those “fat cat bankers”, eh? But there’s no ‘class envy’ involved in Pres Obama’s leitmotif, right?
    You don’t think he’s just a little biased?
    Only your prejudice against prevents you from believing him… So who’s biased? Him or you?

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Frank DiSalle says: “Strowbridge: I doubt even you know what you’re talking about. The idea that President Bush’s vacations might have been insensitive during a financial crisis, is only true if there were one.”

    Did I mention anything about a vacation?

    “He did indeed attempt to do something about on his watch
    ’2001: Warned of problems with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac’”

    This would only be impressive if Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac had anything to do with the collapse. In fact, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were more secure than the big banks the Republicans were protecting. The real reasons they were going after Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac was because those institutes helped poor people and didn’t make their rich bankers a lot of money.

    On a side note, you trust Karl Rove’s opinion on economics? You don’t think he’s just a little biased?

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Repack: That is hardly using class envy as a selling point for tax increases and more government, now is it. The fact that Pres Bush made a reference to “haves and have-mores” is hardly “beating the drum” for class envy.

    Zython: You say toe-may-toe (income inequality); I say toe-mah-toe “class envy”. Call it what you will, that’s the nature of the appeal – we don’t like rich people.

    Strowbridge: I doubt even you know what you’re talking about. The idea that President Bush’s vacations might have been insensitive during a financial crisis, is only true if there were one. But there was none, until the Summer of 2008. He did indeed attempt to do something about on his watch

    2001: Warned of problems with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
    On July 28, 2005, the Senate Banking Committee passed a bill to regulate more closely Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. In April 2001, the Bush administration had warned Congress of problems: They were highly leveraged, meaning as little as 1.3% to 2% decline in housing values could wipe the companies out. Failure could cause huge repercussions on financial markets, affecting not just their shareholders and the housing sector but companies and economic activity across the board.

    Our bill would have subjected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings loans have to comply with. No Democrat supported it. The economic danger didn’t faze Fannie or Freddie’s congressional allies, who ranted at Bush officials who testified on the need for reform.
    When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed at the end of 2008, after housing values had dropped 12.8% since 2006, they were the accelerant that turned a minor economic downturn into a worldwide calamity.
    Source: Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p.410-413 , Mar 9, 2010

    LINK
    Maybe you missed it up there in Canada. Or you were too busy thinking about the British in India? Moloch, maybe? Something confused you, I don’t know what…

    P.S. The purported owner of a newspaper is not necessarily responsible for its content.

  • http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/index.htm Repack Rider

    Is Pres Obama banging the drum of class envy? Indeed he is. Did President Bush? No.

    Frank, your memory obviously does not work. Bush not only pushed class envy, he rubbed it in people’s faces.

    “This is an impressive crowd: the Have’s and Have-more’s. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.”

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Is Pres Obama banging the drum of class envy?

    President Obama flew Air Force One to Florida on Tuesday, bringing along the mobile White House entourage to call for a tax bill based on class envy. The Buffett rule is the highlight of his re-election routine, but the president should have saved our money by staying home. Lawmakers aren’t taking the bait.

    Taking your talking points from Rev. Moon’s rag, Frank?

    In other words, asking the rich to pay the same rates on their income as their secretaries is ‘class envy’.

    b) Is Pres Obama reminding us, almost daily, that we all have to pitch in to get out of the Worst Financial Crisis Ever? Yes he is. Did Pres Bush ever even need to do that?

    You’re right, Frank, Bush never asked anyone to help slow down or stop the Worst Financial Crisis Ever that started on his watch.

    I don’t even recall him saying he was going to ‘jawbone’ OPEC as he suggested Clinton should’ve done in the waning days of the latters’ Administration when gas prices went up in 2008.

  • Zython

    Is Pres Obama banging the drum of class envy?

    No, he’s pointing out that there is a severe case of income inequality and a shrinking middle class in the country. For reference, the average CEO hourly wage has increased over 11-fold between 1965 and 2007. Production worker pay, in contrast, has increased by a whopping $0.10. But hey, clearly we need to keep giving more free money to the people who fucked us over while bringing the plebes closer to indentured servitude.

    I really wish that was hyperbole.

    Did Pres Bush ever even need to do that?

    Yes.

  • Christopher Foxx

    FDiS: a) Is Pres Obama banging the drum of class envy? Indeed he is. Did President Bush? No.

    So, per Frank, it’s OK to be an upper class snob as long as you don’t call for the situation to change.

    Recalling that Frank believes the reason Britain lost India was that they weren’t oppressive enough, I can’t say I’m surprised at his viewpoint.

    FDiS: Is Pres Obama reminding us, almost daily, that we all have to pitch in to get out of the Worst Financial Crisis Ever? Yes he is. Did Pres Bush ever even need to do that? No, because, until the summer of 2008, the economy was in better shape that it has been since January of 2009

    Oh my God, I get it now! Frank’s right, guys! Bush never had to call on people to deal with a situation that didn’t exist yet. So it’s completely comparable to what Obama does now that the situation does exist.

    I mean, it’s so unfair that after the house has burned up we’re told by the new guy that we have a burned up house. After all, the guy in charge before the house burned never told us we had a burned up house to deal with!

    And it’s not like the guy in charge before was pouring gas on the house until it actually burned down on his watch.

    Um… wait.

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Now that we have established that vacations are expensive and that Presidents and their First Ladies take lots of them, how about some context?
    a) Is Pres Obama banging the drum of class envy? Indeed he is. Did President Bush? No.
    b) Is Pres Obama reminding us, almost daily, that we all have to pitch in to get out of the Worst Financial Crisis Ever? Yes he is. Did Pres Bush ever even need to do that? No, because, until the summer of 2008, the economy was in better shape that it has been since January of 2009. Hence, my remark that the vacations “appear insensitive.” { How much skiing did Laura Bush do in Ghana and Afghanistan? }

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    SF has learned through hard experience never to link to a post anymore because 99.44% of the time the post is saying the opposite of what his claim or grievance against the Republicans is at the moment.

    “Experience is a hard master, but fools will have no other teacher.”

  • Christopher Foxx

    From the article provided by Marco21

    The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

    That’s so clear a statement, I’m surprised Farris didn’t link to that article himself as proof of his claim that Bush was thrifty.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    But Farris believes he just loaded up the family station wagon and rolled on down to the cost-free ranch.

    And the SS agents stayed in the bunkhouse, and Laura showed up @ 6:00 AM to cook them all some breakfasts every day they were there………

  • Marco21

    Here’s a little nugget for Farris to chew on.

    http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush/

    Those who criticize the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation don’t want you to know that George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford.

    But Farris believes he just loaded up the family station wagon and rolled on down to the cost-free ranch.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    Nice work Dark Avenger. I don’t imaging Ferris will be back to this thread. If he/she/it is, it will be some explanation that the situation isn’t REALLY the same because…9/11 or something.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Secret Service is going to be there no matter where “there” is. And, truth be told, it was cheaper for Secret Service to guard Bush since he always went back to the same place and they didn’t have to re-scout, re-design escape routes and protocols,

    Except for the expense of hotel rooms for the Secret Service personnel every
    time GWB the idiot went back to Crawford for his “vacation”

    You don’t think it was expensive when Laura Bush visited Afghanistan?

    http://www.drudge.com/archive/108718/laura-bush-visits-afghanistan

    Or when she visited the Croatian State Archives?

    Or when she visited Zambia?

    Or Ghana?

    Let me put it this way:

    For 15 years, Laura Bush and four female friends have escaped together for a week every summer. They arrived at Mammoth Lakes on July 8, 2001 and a day later came to Tuolumne Meadows Lodge with an entourage of some 25 people, including Secret Service agents, a White House communications team, various aides and several park officials. The group took up about 15 of the 70 cabins at the site.

    July 27, 2003 Laura Bush and all her friends arrived at Lake Crescent Lodge in Washington State for a week long vacation in the Olympic National Forest. “I have a group of friends that I grew up with in Midland, Texas, and we hike every summer at a national park,” said Mrs. Bush. Yes, she and her friends arrived on Air Force II with lots of Secret Service Agents.

    July 23, 2006 Denali National Park & Preserve in Alaska

    First Lady Laura Bush arrived in the park by train on July 23rd for a one-week vacation at a private inholder lodge in the Kantishna area. Members of the park staff assisted Secret Service and White House personnel with communications, security and logistics. A small number of rangers from other parks in the region were detailed to Denali to maintain normal operations so that a portion of the parks law enforcement staff could be assigned full-time to augment and assist the Secret Service details. During the week. Mrs. Bush and a small group of friends enjoyed daily hiking excursions throughout the park. On Friday, July 28th, she and her companions traveled to park headquarters to tour the Murie Science and Learning Center, a collaborative venture by Denali, seven other national parks, and several park partners. She later attended a luncheon hosted at the center and greeted park staff and the regional director. [Submitted by Richard Moore, North District Ranger]

    This is the second time in the last couple-three months that LaWa has taken advantage of a western national park for a little “getaway with close friends” whose number, names, relationships, and particularly gender is somehow never mentioned.

    In June 2008, First Lady Laura Bush visited Mount Desert Island, Maine with a small group of friends for a brief vacation. She did not plan any public appearances before she arrived, but she was out in the public eye during her visit and met with Acadia National Park superintendent Sheridan Steele.

    Laura Bush and her daughters, Barbara and Jenna, traveled to Africa in 2007, where they went on safari. Yet her trip was regarded as an “official” visit and included several public events.

    Can you find me where lefties such as myself objected to Ms. Bush taking so many vacations?

    Did you or any of your idiot conservative friends and allies object to the obviously profligate vacations that Mrs. Bush took with her friends on the taxpayer dime?

    Thanks for helping me demonstrate conservative hypocrisy in action, SF. I couldn’t have done it without you.

  • SaveFarris

    So, SF, the taxpayer didn’t pay anything for the cost of the Secret Service personnel

    Secret Service is going to be there no matter where “there” is. And, truth be told, it was cheaper for Secret Service to guard Bush since he always went back to the same place and they didn’t have to re-scout, re-design escape routes and protocols, etc. for each new and exciting adventure that Michelle sends herself on.

  • Manju

    Wasn’t that already released? I swear I remember something about Michelle Obama saying, “While he…” on the tape and it being mistaken for “Whitey…”

    That was speculation by some blogger, Booman Tribune I think.

    Right before Obama secured the nom, lefty blogs were on fire. Every other Dem thought something was going to drop but they didn’t know what. Larry Johnson had solid Democratic street-cred after all, having spent most of his blogging career whacking Bush and was now supporting Clinton.

    At least one Dem insider (Bob Beckel I think) went on a talk show and said he was pretty confident something damaging was about to drop. So Obama supporters were genuinely concerned. In this atmosphere, Booman did the above speculation of what Michelle may have really said.

    Everyone was holding their breath…then Gerardo opened the vault.

  • AwkwardSilence

    By the way, in case anyone misses DaveInSoCal, he’s trolling the comments section of that article pretty hardcore.

    Dave, you cheating hussy…

  • Zython

    …See the difference?

    Absolutely. Obama actually likes expanding his horizons by going to new places.

    But more importantly, you should apologize for your offensive comments you made earlier.

  • AwkwardSilence

    Perhaps we should all withhold judgment until Larry Johnson releases the Whitey Tape.

    The tape he said that he didn’t release at the request of the McCain team?

    Sounds legit.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Manju says: “Perhaps we should all withhold judgment until Larry Johnson releases the Whitey Tape.”

    Wasn’t that already released? I swear I remember something about Michelle Obama saying, “While he…” on the tape and it being mistaken for “Whitey…”

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    So, SF, the taxpayer didn’t pay anything for the cost of the Secret Service personnel whenever GWB the screw-up took one of his frequent vacations to his ‘ranch’ in Crawford, TX?

    Thanks for demonstrating what happens to people’s brains when they listen to too much Fox News.

  • SaveFarris

    “So you’re saying that the number of vacations doesn’t matter, it’s where they’re taken?”

    Staying at your own house: zero extra cost to taxpayer
    Staying at Martha’s Vineyard, south of France, Rio, Aspen, Etc: enormous cost to taxpayer.

    …See the difference?

  • Manju

    Perhaps we should all withhold judgment until Larry Johnson releases the Whitey Tape.

  • Zython

    Zython, believing that calling someone a liar is a debating tool is your schtick, not mine.

    Not quite…

    The difference here, is that I call you (and most conservatives) a liar because you knowingly make statements that are empirically untrue. You call me a liar because I bruise your precious ego by demonstrating facts that contradict said lies.

    Totally irrelevant.

    It’s perfectly relevant to show that conservatives have such a huge chip on their shoulder that they’ll go out of their way to attempt to sabotage an objectively benign and nonpartisan endeavor, purely out of some sort of misguided political spite and shoddy notions of masculinity. Again, you’re dismissing anything that makes you look bad.

    But Michelle Obama talks about kids eating well, and conservatives absolutely lose their minds, because… because… BECAUSE!!!, and Sarah Palin shows up right on cue with a plate full of cookies just to show how she’s a meal-time maverick. Just…. fuck yourselves. Seriously.

    Exactly. You didn’t see John Edwards hand out XBoxes to students in an attempt to make Laura Bush look bad.

    who didn’t like Jacqueline Kennedy?

    Marilyn Monroe?

  • AwkwardSilence

    Did anyone on the left attack Laura Bush for her literacy campaign? I’m sure if Michelle Obama did the same campaign, Republicans would have attacked her for being an elitist. Look how Santorum attacked Obama for saying everyone should go to college.

    ^ This.

    I didn’t agree with her husband’s politics, but I admired Laura Bush’s commitment to literacy, and I think she did a good job of forcing the issue. Because IT’S COMMON SENSE LEVEL IMPORTANT.

    But Michelle Obama talks about kids eating well, and conservatives absolutely lose their minds, because… because… BECAUSE!!!, and Sarah Palin shows up right on cue with a plate full of cookies just to show how she’s a meal-time maverick. Just…. fuck yourselves. Seriously.

    Eat yourselves into morbid obesity just to spite the Obamas, and then complain about paying for other peoples’ health care. And then have the balls to call her a hypocrite.

    It used to be sad; now it’s just fucking hysterical.

  • AwkwardSilence

    Hypocritical: Michelle Obama, who is in great shape for a late forty-something, eating the occasional calorically intensive meal while imploring kids to eat healthier.

    Not hypocritical: Rush Limbaugh, who is, objectively by our culture’s standards, fat and ugly*, bringing critical attention to her body.

    Ladies and gentlemen, far right logic at its finest.

    (*also: thrice-divorced, impotent, drug addict)

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Let’s see if Renfro can keep it civil this time around.

  • Christopher Foxx

    C S Strowbridge: I’m sure if Michelle Obama did the same campaign, Republicans would have attacked her for being an elitist. Look how Santorum attacked Obama for saying everyone should go to college.

    There, for example.

    Even in making a passing swipe (“In this situation you know the Repubs would do this”) some actual basis for believing that is true is given (“Here’s an example of where they have done something similar”).

  • Christopher Foxx

    C S Strowbridge: [Frank,] If you can show our opinions are uninformed, go for it. You would have to bring evidence and not just your say so.

    Exactly.

    If you want to mock someone’s opinion, you have to first do the work to show that it’s a wrong opinion.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Frank DiSalle: My point was that whatever the origin of a person’s opinion, it need not be political, in the case of Democrats vis – a – vis Republicans, nor need it be racial;

    No, it need not be political. Or racial. But it does need to be objective, rational, relevant, not stemming from irrelevant bias to be respected. And insisting that people are not entitled to their opinions regardless of where they come from is arguing that all opinions are equal, which they aren’t.

    My grandmother has an opinion on what grandfather should do about that ache he’s been feeling. So does his doctor. Her opinion should not be given the same weight as the doctor’s.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Out of curiosity, how’d you feel about Bush’s numerous vacations?
    Frank DiSalle: a) He mostly went to Crawford, TX to his own ranch;

    So you’re saying that the number of vacations doesn’t matter, it’s where they’re taken? If that’s not what you’re saying, then explain yourself better.

    and
    b) He wasn’t telling us almost daily that he was hard at work “saving us from selfish millionaires.”

    You put that in quotes. Are you claiming Obama (Mr or Mrs) has said that? And done so almost every day? I’d like to see you back that up.

    this is addressed to Foxx and Strowbridge: Who died and left you boss? People’s opinion come from all sorts of sources. Would either of you enjoy being called out, or ridiculed or mocked by me, because I considered your comments “uninformed”? Of course not !

    Nobody died and left me boss. I never claimed to be boss. You are, again, objecting to and complaining about someone doing something then never did.

    And would I enjoy being mocked by you because you consider my opinion uninformed? Eh. Knock youself out. Water off my back.

    If I’m going to mock someone and their opinions, I’ll have first pointed out why their opinion is stupid, not based in reality, uninformed, whatever. It’s usually only after they continue to baselessly insist their opinion has value that I’d start to mock. (If they start with something so inane, ridiculous and/or stupid that anyone over the age of seven should recognize it as such then I may move very quickly to the mock.)

    See, there’s a difference. On the one hand, you’ve got the “I don’t like what you said about my opinion, so how about I just insult yours and you” approach used by WATB who realize that what they opined was stupid and lash out so that they can avoid admitting it to themselves. A clear indicator that this is teh approach their taking is when they don’t respond to what was actually said or object to/complain about someone saying something they never did.

    On the other you’ve got the “What you said is dumb, here’s actual facts to show why it’s dumb, and if you want to counter that we can discuss it reasonably but if you keep on as you have I will mock you” approach.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    AwkwardSilence says: “That would be like catching Laura Bush watching TV and saying that it completely nullified her literacy campaign.”

    Did anyone on the left attack Laura Bush for her literacy campaign? I’m sure if Michelle Obama did the same campaign, Republicans would have attacked her for being an elitist. Look how Santorum attacked Obama for saying everyone should go to college.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Frank DiSalle says: “As for your comments in re: “informed” opinions (this is addressed to Foxx and Strowbridge: Who died and left you boss? People’s opinion come from all sorts of sources. Would either of you enjoy being called out, or ridiculed or mocked by me, because I considered your comments “uninformed”? Of course not !”

    If you can show our opinions are uninformed, go for it. You would have to bring evidence and not just your say so. And if I continued to repeat these opinions that have been shown to be uninformed, I would hope others would mock me as well.

    Your description of Michelle Obama’s campaign shows that you are uniformed, as AwkwardSilence pointed out. Hell, nutritionists agreed that indulging once and a while is actually important, because it makes it more likely that you will stick to a diet longer. You need to be able to make permanent changes to your life if you want to keep the weight off.

  • AwkwardSilence

    I think her micromanagement of the national campaign to change children’s eating habits is a flop; and she sets a bad example.

    Only if you’re being intentionally obtuse. If you eat a generally healthy diet, and exercise frequently, you can indulge in the occasional decadent meal. This is something almost every nutritionist will agree with.

    But by all means, if you want to believe that her indulging in the occasional- *gasp* – burger, fries, and shake- makes her a complete and total hypocrite, go for it. That would be like catching Laura Bush watching TV and saying that it completely nullified her literacy campaign.

    She says “try to eat well and exercise!” and the right has a reflexive problem with it. Well done, fatties.

    Ain’t nobody gonna tell ya’ll how to eat good and stuff!

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Out of curiosity, how’d you feel about Bush’s numerous vacations?
    a) He mostly went to Crawford, TX to his own ranch; and
    b) He wasn’t telling us almost daily that he was hard at work “saving us from selfish millionaires.”
    You didn’t notice I said “appeared insensitive”? Let me ask you, Foxx, how do you the mainstream media would have treated 17 Bush vacations in about three years?

    As for your comments in re: “informed” opinions (this is addressed to Foxx and Strowbridge: Who died and left you boss? People’s opinion come from all sorts of sources. Would either of you enjoy being called out, or ridiculed or mocked by me, because I considered your comments “uninformed”? Of course not !

    That’s not even the point of this thread, or my comment. My point was that whatever the origin of a person’s opinion, it need not be political, in the case of Democrats vis – a – vis Republicans, nor need it be racial; trust me, I have lots of reasons to despise and mistrust Pres Obama that have nothing to do with his race.

    Let’s review: Oliver said: “I think, historically, Republicans have an adverse reaction to Democratic first ladies,” Willis says.

    Does he mean Rosalyn Carter? I don’t remember that. Lady Bird Johnson? Nope. No problem there, either. Maybe Jacqueline Kennedy? C’mon – who didn’t like Jacqueline Kennedy?

    Get the picture ? THAT’s what I was talking about.

    And, finally, Strowbridge: No, you’re an idiot.

    I feel so much better now.

  • mambochicken23

    Frank DiSalle: People are entitled to their opinions, and the source of those opinions can be flawed, subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced or biased.

    mambochicken: First smart and correct thing you have ever written on here. Good job.

    Foxx: No.

    Foxx, I think you’re wrong. And that’s not to say that I don’t absolutely agree with you in the spirit of your posts.

    Frank is right to say that people are A) entitled to their opinions and B) that these opinions can be based on things other than reason, logic, and evidence. These statements are absolutely true, unless you believe that we should criminalize thought (re: A) or that you are completely out of touch with reality (re: B). I don’t think you believe either of those things. My praise for Frank’s statement was simply that it was factually correct, which is better than a lot of the shit he smears over these boards.

    People are entitled to their stupid and uninformed opinions. However, I am entitled to tell these people that they are stupid and ignorant, and laugh at them when they spout ridiculous nonsense. The point at which real harm comes is when stupid people like Frank vote and support policies that negatively impact people’s lives, without any fucking semblance of a good reason to do so.

    Knowing opinions are subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced and/or biased and then defending them as having value is shameful.

    Yes, I agree. Just because someone is entitled to an opinion does not mean that that opinion has value. I never claimed nor supported that idea.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Frank DiSalle says: “How long is this theme of, ‘If there is anything about us you don’t like (or disagree with) it’s because there is something wrong with you’ going to last?”

    You are an idiot, Frank. It’s as simple as that.

    It’s not that people have different opinions that’s the problem, it’s the nature of the differences.

    For instance, if someone doesn’t like President Obama because he hasn’t done enough to stimulate the economy, then that’s fine. We can have a discussion on that subject and maybe even find some common ground.

    On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like President Obama because they think he threatened to kill Chelsea Clinton to stop Hillary from releasing his ‘real’ birth certificate, then that person deserves to be mocked until they go into hiding.

    And yes, that example is based on a real conspiracy theory.

    If someone doesn’t like Michelle Obama because of the way she dresses, that’s a stupid reason, but purely subjective, so there’s no point in arguing.

    If someone doesn’t like Michelle Obama because of her campaign to get kids moving to they stay healthy, because they think it is part of some socialist plot, then that person deserves to be mocked until they go into hiding.

    Likewise, if someone doesn’t like George Bush because they think he was behind 9/11, then that person deserves to be mocked until they go into hiding.

  • Christopher Foxx

    mambochicken: First smart and correct thing you have ever written on here. Good job.

    No.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Frank DiSalle: Her seemingly innumerable vacations appear insensitive.

    Out of curiosity, how’d you feel about Bush’s numerous vacations?

  • Christopher Foxx

    Frank DiSalle: To focus on the First Lady for a moment:
    I think the way she dresses (most of the time, but especially when dressed casually or informally) is hideous.

    Fair enough. De gustibus non disputandum est.

    But would you then extend that view of her fashion choices to say her choice of dress shows she is a bad person?

    Because that’s what folks objecting to opinions others have of her object to, and what the folks quoted in the McLeans article are saying. Many objections to Michelle Obama aren’t based on valid, rational reasons.

    “everything Michelle Obama does is political to Obama opponents”
    “being married to a Democratic president. That’s reason enough in their eyes.”

  • Christopher Foxx

    Frank DiSalle: People are entitled to their opinions, and the source of those opinions can be flawed, subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced or biased.

    No. People are entitled to their informed opinions, to their reasoned opinions.

    When their opinions are “subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced or biased” then those opinions and the people who express them deserved to be called out and ridiculed.

    Knowing opinions are subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced and/or biased and then defending them as having value is shameful.

  • Christopher Foxx

    There are two Michelle Obamas, depending on what media you consume. The first version of the U.S. first lady is in the inspiring books with titles like Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style, and the upcoming What Would Michelle Do?. The other Michelle Obama is the one Rush Limbaugh calls “Michelle, My Butt,”…

    I’d say if the choice on anything is between one thing and Rush Limbaugh’s view, the right side to come done on is obvious.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    You might at least appear to be intelligent …

    Whereas you leave no doubt whatsoever, Frank:

    BTW, whatever happened to “Guilty until proven innocent”? Or is that only for Democrats?

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Zython, believing that calling someone a liar is a debating tool is your schtick, not mine.
    Well, we DO have a significant subset of our population …
    Totally irrelevant.
    So…forever.
    So, as the famous Yiddish one liner goes: “If I told you once, I told you a hundred million billion times – never, ever, ever, exaggerate.”

    I keep telling you, Zython, stop trying so hard to be clever, and try to offer some input. You might at least appear to be intelligent …

  • Zython

    How long is this theme of, “If there is anything about us you don’t like (or disagree with) it’s because there is something wrong with you” going to last?

    For as long as Republicans continue to spout hyperbole and outright lies. So…forever.

    I think her micromanagement of the national campaign to change children’s eating habits is a flop; and she sets a bad example.

    Well, we DO have a significant subset of our population that considers eating anything remotely healthy for you will cause their balls to fall off.

    I don’t care what you start talking about . You have something wrong with you .
    See how that works?

    What? No calling him a liar without any sort of factual basis on your part? You’re slipping, Frank.

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    Do you really want that we should start talking about vacations?
    I don’t care what you start talking about . You have something wrong with you .
    See how that works?

  • mambochicken23

    How long is this theme of, “If there is anything about us you don’t like (or disagree with) it’s because there is something wrong with you” going to last?

    This, coming from Frank DiSalle. That, my friends, is straight up fucking funny. It’s absurd just how poor you are at self-reflection, Frankie.

    People are entitled to their opinions, and the source of those opinions can be flawed, subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced or biased.

    First smart and correct thing you have ever written on here. Good job.

    But that doesn’t mean the First Couple is perfect, and every single person who finds something wrong with one or both of them has a defect.

    And you follow it with nonsense. No one is arguing for the position that you are attacking.

    I think the way she dresses (most of the time, but especially when dressed casually or informally) is hideous.

    Why does this matter? Genuine curiosity on my part.

    I think her micromanagement of the national campaign to change children’s eating habits is a flop

    OK. A few things: 1) What do you mean by “micromanagement”? 2) Is it reason to dislike her because her campaign is a failure? It doesn’t appear that failure by other individuals impacts your assessment of them as people (e.g., Bush Jr.) 3) Do you not think that the campaign is addressing an important issue? If not, why not?

    Her seemingly innumerable vacations appear insensitive.

    Groan. Do you really want that we should start talking about vacations?

  • http://rainbowmixradio.com Frank DiSalle

    “I think, historically, Republicans have an adverse reaction to Democratic first ladies,” Willis says. “It’s hard to say whether the hatred of Mrs. Obama is more virulent …
    *snip*
    Willis doesn’t think that these attacks are likely to let up. “The biggest sin,” he says, “is the sin of being married to a Democratic president. That’s reason enough in their eyes.”

    How long is this theme of, “If there is anything about us you don’t like (or disagree with) it’s because there is something wrong with you” going to last?
    People are entitled to their opinions, and the source of those opinions can be flawed, subjective, non-rational, irrational, prejudiced or biased. But that doesn’t mean the First Couple is perfect, and every single person who finds something wrong with one or both of them has a defect.
    To focus on the First Lady for a moment:
    I think the way she dresses (most of the time, but especially when dressed casually or informally) is hideous.
    I think her micromanagement of the national campaign to change children’s eating habits is a flop; and she sets a bad example.
    Her seemingly innumerable vacations appear insensitive.

    Of course, you may disagree with any or all of those observations, but there is nothing about them that would indicate that I was somehow predisposed to dislike her before the Election.

  • http://johnmburtlmt.blogspot.com John M. Burt

    Some years back, I was observing on a certain class of jokes which turned on a very respectable and well-loved woman being embarrassed or exposed to unpleasantness, such as the one with the punchline, “You should see how he makes the doughnuts”, and how those jokes had been attributed over the years to one woman or another, but did not move on from Eleanor Roosevelt.

    Maybe now they will. Just a thought.