The Right’s Cocoon Breaks With Reality

The right’s ability to create their own media and dominate the mainstream press into a position of weakness has been one of the more useful tools in the conservative arsenal. With Fox News and talk radio plus online conservative outlets, they’ve created an ecosystem of b.s. that repeats and amplifies the nonsense du jour. This then filters into the mainstream press, which bends over backwards to pretend conservative insanity is just regular, every day discourse.

The fun part, and why we liberals need strong media of our own but not to the point of excluding reality, is when those who are drenched in conservative noise — on rare occasions — get a dose of reality.

We saw this near the end of the Bush presidency, when the dead-end supporters couldn’t understand why everyone else wasn’t cheering on his failed leadership as they had in 2004. They couldn’t possibly understand that the leader so praised by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh could stumble so far. To this day many of these people still insist there were WMDs in Iraq despite all evidence. Why? Because George W. Bush and Bill O’Reilly said there must be!

This disconnect with reality happened again yesterday, only it didn’t occur with just an average on the street conservative. The bewildered party here was Gov. Jan Brewer. In a performance my colleague compared to the legendary Iraqi minister of information, Brewer claimed that a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of the law she supported was some sort of great victory. Even worse, she’s so used to being sucked up to with softball questions on Fox News, she was shocked — shocked when the assembled press dared to question her idiotic narrative.

Brewer stammered and insisted the court had ruled in her favor, despite the evidence it had not. Even worse, her enablers in the conservative press — even the ones who clearly realized she was wrong — just kept on propping her up, claiming she had scored a great victory against the evil Obama. They have to keep the fake story alive because reality is just not keeping up with what they want it to be.

There’s obvious value in partisan media, it can be used as a tool of political strength. But when it has escaped the bonds of reality, as it has with the conservative press, all it creates is an army of simpletons who can’t deal with reality.

 

  • Justanotherrighty

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but can you explain to me how Fannie & Freddy which started in the 1960s are the proximate cause of the collapse in real-estate prices in 2007?
    a) Is the 60’s a long time ago? Is it so hard to believe that something that happened in the 1960’s could affect the economy 47 years later?
    b) The “securitization of mortgage loans & the resulting leveraging of the bank’s debt load are the actual & proximate cause of the collapse.” But you don’t want to look at the source of those mortgages? You don’t want to discuss the political motivation behind promoting high-risk loans? You don’t want to discuss how these mortgages’ decrease in value, made them a target for securitization?
    Why would you ? When you can blame Bush?
    Why would you, when you can blame “the rich” and / or “the banks”?

    How easily you lefties are played to never blame the government that originates these foolish schemes , and then blames everybody else when they fail. Of course, as long as it is working – and it seems to be working just fine (I imagine you blame an obstinate Congress for Obama’s failure to recognize his policies aren’t working) – why should they give up a winning strategy?

    To put it in simple terms : They do stupid sh*t; it doesn’t work; they blame someone else, besides themselves; you believe them; they do stupid sh*t – rinse and repeat.

  • Zython

    You have a tendency to say whatever the left is parroting all over the TV, newspapers and Internet, and you consider linking to their opinions to be proof.

    If that’s the case, why are you having such a hard time disproving it?

    It does, however, tend to piss a person off to be called a liar by some one hiding behind a keyboard miles away.

    My heart goes out.

    Didn’t think so – that would require maturity , a quality of which you are in painfully short supply..

    Well, that adds verbal irony along with humor to the list of invalid forms of expression. Wanna add any other literary devices while we’re here? Symbolism? Litotes? Simile?

    • Justanotherrighty

      If that’s the case, why are you having such a hard time disproving it?
      I don’t

      My heart goes out.
      Along with the thinking process; something else you don’t need.

      Well, that adds verbal irony along with humor to the list of invalid forms of expression.
      I guess you share hatred for literature with other qualities possessed only by barbarians and numbskulls.
      Or is “verbal irony” a pretend “grown-up” way of saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”

      Zython, you have been posting here for several years. You have not escaped elementary school emotionally, or middle school educationally.
      Learn something, grow up a little ( preferably both ) and return when you have something to contribute … See you in a few years… There may still be hope for you.

      • Zython

        I don’t

        Then why haven’t you?

        I guess you share hatred for literature with other qualities possessed only by barbarians and numbskulls.

        I can see how someone with no self-awareness could be confused by this, especially when they purposefully prune the rest of the paragraph. No, you have been claiming that I’m forbidden from using humor or snark in my posts. I just want to check if there’s any other forms of written expression that you don’t like.

        Or is “verbal irony” a pretend “grown-up” way of saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”

        Verbal irony is sarcasm.

        Learn something

        Yeah, that would mean something if it came from someone who had any idea how constitutional law* or economics. Among other subjects, of course.

        *”Common sense” isn’t an oft-cited precedent for a reason.

  • db

    “Justy”,

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but can you explain to me how Fannie & Freddy which started in the 1960s are the proximate cause of the collapse in real-estate prices in 2007?

    I recall “Batty” & I going over this a few months ago. I contended then & I contend now, that the securitization of mortgage loans & the resulting leveraging of the bank’s debt load are the actual & proximate cause of the collapse.

  • Justanotherrighty

    BTW, that graph is the stupidest thing I have seen posted by a liberal in the last day or so.

  • Justanotherrighty

    You’re obviously new here, so here’s a tip. I have a tendency not to say things unless I can prove it.
    You’re obviously new here
    Wrong
    I have a tendency not to say things unless I can prove it.
    Wrong You have a tendency to say whatever the left is parroting all over the TV, newspapers and Internet, and you consider linking to their opinions to be proof.
    And no one said you were lying. Apparently your problem is that you think that when you disagree with someone, that means they are lying. Even when a person is mistaken, and obviously so, that doesn’t make them a liar. It does, however, tend to piss a person off to be called a liar by some one hiding behind a keyboard miles away.

    Now, if you’re done being a f*cking wiseass …

    Nope

    Didn’t think so – that would require maturity , a quality of which you are in painfully short supply..

  • thad

    I believe Jan Brewer is legitimately the stupidest human being in American politics.

    Bush, Quayle — when they garble a sentence, you can at least tell what they were TRYING to say.

    Palin? She makes up for her ignorance with folksy, downhome charm.

    Even Joe Arpaio is at least a good showman.

    But Jan? She has trouble completing sentences and communicating even basic ideas.

    For an example: a few months back, when she tried to have the head of the state’s independent redistricting committee fired, and an interviewer asked what her grounds were for this, she just said “Well, you know, she just behaved very inappropriately.” And then when asked for more detail, just repeated it and started stammering.

    Like, she HAD to have known somebody was going to ask her that question.

    The woman is dumber than a bag of hammers. She never would have been elected governor on her own merits. She got the office because Napolitano bailed on us (which I will never forgive her for) and she won a second term based entirely on SB1070, which was, at the time, wildly popular. (It’s less so now — you may have heard that its sponsor got recalled. He’s currently running for another seat and — I am not kidding — expressing surprise that he can’t find a Mexican restaurant that will let him hold a fundraiser there.)

    To top it all off, I think Brewer actually thinks she can finagle a third term. She can’t — it is a clear and unambiguous violation of term limits, even though her first term WAS a succession to the elected governor — but her people have made suggestions to that effect and it would absolutely explain why she is behaving like someone who is campaigning for reelection.

  • Zython

    [b]B[/b]earnie [b]M[/b]adoff
    [b]F[/b]annie [b]M[/b]ae
    [b]C[/b]ommunity [b]R[/b]einvestment [b]A[/b]ct

    Now, if you’re done being stupid…

    • Zython

      *sigh* Stupid BBCode tags.

      Bearnie Madoff
      Fannie Mae
      Community Reinvestment Act

    • Justanotherrighty

      You forgot one thing, genius: When did you prove that Fannie Mae (what happened to Freddie Mac?) and the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with it?
      And how did Bernie Madoff get into this?
      I contend that you are incorrect, and you are not capable of proving that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the Financial Crisis of 2008.
      Now, if you’re done being a f*cking wiseass …

      • Zython

        I contend that you are incorrect, and you are not capable of proving that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the Financial Crisis of 2008

        You’re obviously new here, so here’s a tip. I have a tendency not to say things unless I can prove it. So you would be wise not to just assume I’m lying right off the bat. As for your proof, does this look familiar? It should, because I’ve linked it at least 6 times on this site.

        Now, if you’re done being a f*cking wiseass …

        Nope :3

      • Zython

        As for Fannie Mae, I think this graph is simple enough such that even you can understand it.

  • Justanotherrighty

    This is the funniest thing I have ever read:
    BTW, don’t bring up BM & FM, and don’t blame the CRA, I already proved those claims were BS a while ago.
    What, are you Tweeting me ?
    What are BM and FM ? bowel movements and frequency modulation? CRA ? Huh ?
    And the best : I already proved those claims were BS a while ago.
    When did you do that? In your best selling book , Proof That BM, FM, And The CRA Are BS ?

    BAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha !!!!

  • Zython

    What the hell is in the water where you live, that convinces you that you are smarter than conservatives?

    Hey, no one forced you guys to build a platform that supports stupidity.

    I’m no constitutional scholar, and neither are you

    You don’t know that for sure. :3

    but common sense would dictate that if something violates Federal law, the states are not prohibited from enforcing it.

    Funny that conservatives rely on “common sense” when the facts don’t agree with them.

    In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

    Well, 2008 showed that the private sector federal government as it stands cannot be trusted to operate in our best interests (and really, they have no incentive to).

    1. How was the government responsible for the financial collapse. BTW, don’t bring up BM & FM, and don’t blame the CRA, I already proved those claims were BS a while ago.

    2. No incentive besides the fact we pay their salaries and regularly give them performance reviews.

    Besides which. even if you don’t believe that government was the cause of the financial crisis of 2008, you sure don’t have any evidence that government has fixed it, or is even capable of fixing it.

    Well, this shit got started when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, which was designed to stop things like what happened in 2008 from happening again.

    BTW, of course the private sector has an incentive to operate in our best interests. It’s called the “profit motive.” Look up “unseen hand” +”Adam Smith” -site:wikipedia.org

    We’ve gone over this. That only works for excludable, limited goods with no externalities at play. For example, you brought up drinking water in one of your comments. Cheap fracking certainly aligns with the “profit motive”, but its not in my best interest for my drinking water to be more flammable than napalm.

    Maybe you should learn economics from someone who doesn’t have a day job at Home Depot.

    Read the article, dickhead !

    I don’t really see what an article opposing gay marriage has to do with the discussion at hand.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Still don’t see any place where it shows government taking something on a “whim”.

    That might be because the Obamacare decision , like Obamacare itself, has nothing to do with “taking” anything!
    Taking things on a whim, without , BTW, “trials and representation and appeals,” refers to the EPA, you halfwits !

    I guess you’re unfamiliar with the case of “an Idaho couple” that had to go all the way to the Supreme Court just to establish that they “had the right to file an immediate court challenge to a federal Environmental Protection Agency decision designating their property as wetlands and forbidding them from building a home there.”
    Link

    What the hell is in the water where you live, that convinces you that you are smarter than conservatives?

  • oi ly

    Dear me, the article Frank linked to forgot to mention that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. Or did I miss it?

  • M2
  • Justanotherrighty

    By a law that was passed by the Congress, signed into law by the POTUS, and found constitutional by a Supreme Court decision that included a conservative Chief Justice?
    And which law might that be?
    You don’t know what he is, or I am, or, most likely, what you are talking about. Read the article, dickhead !

    • M2

      Yeah, sorry DA. Justy only wanted an excuse to post a right wing fever dream screed. They are too butthurt today to actually talk about their tragic loss.

      • Plunket

        They are too butthurt today to actually talk about their tragic loss.

        The Butthurt Display of the Day today was the staged walk-out on the steps of the Capitol Building by Democrats after the Holder contempt vote.

        Effectively doing to the family of Brian Terry what the gay activist did in the White House to the picture of Ronald Reagan.

        • Zython

          You mean by realizing that the entire “scandal” is bullshit?

    • Christopher Foxx

      Did. Still don’t see any place where it shows government taking something on a “whim”.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Is any property really “private” if the government can take it based on little more than a whim?

    By a law that was passed by the Congress, signed into law by the POTUS, and found constitutional by a Supreme Court decision that included a conservative Chief Justice?

    Yep, that’s ‘taking ‘private property’ based on a ‘whim’.

    Thanks for the laughs, justanotherrighteous.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Americans lose today

    Is any property really “private” if the government can take it based on little more than a whim? And is any sector of the economy really “private” as long as government can swoop in and set its prices and production quotas? And finally, is any market truly “free” if government can compel citizens to make specific purchases?
    Of course not — all of which makes Obama’s ideology dangerous no matter what label we slap on it.

    • M2

      Barack Obama: Socialist or Nouveau Fascist? – American Spectator

      Really, that’s the title of the opinion piece Justy linked us. No, I am serious.

      Sorry, tea baggers. When those unborn fetuses you care so much about become children you don’t give two shits about, they won’t be denied treatment. You failed. Just try and deal with it like adults for once.

      • Plunket

        “When those unborn fetuses you care so much about become children…” –M2

        Always interesting when a liberal actually admits in writing that he doesn’t really care about any unborn fetuses at all. Usually they just stumble all over themselves trying to pretend they do.

        • M2

          Where did I imply that? Nowhere. You really cannot read. Maybe you should CopyPasta something, you hipster GOPer.

          Hipper than this? Maybe, although this is a classic.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8

    • Christopher Foxx

      Is any property really “private” if the government can take it based on little more than a whim?

      Note, folks, how they carefully phrase the question so that it isn’t about what is actually happening.

      A similarly phrased question would be: Is anyone really safe if the government can execute it’s citizens on a whim?

      Of course not. Who would support that idea?

      But citizens aren’t executed on a whim. They have trials and representation and appeals. And similarly the government isn’t taking citizens property on a “whim”. That the ACA was debated and argued and challenged and eventually ended up before the Supreme Court shows that nothing is being done on a “whim”.

      Of course, that’s a fact that doesn’t match the reality folks like Jar want to have, so they’ll ignore it or claim it just isn’t true.

    • db

      “Justy”,

      Under the former system Hospitals were required to provide medical care for those requesting it. They ate the cost of the uninsured. The “property” could always be “taken”.

      Then:

      “We are fighting in Iraq for oil, or because GW Bush wanted to impress his Dad.”

      Is entirely an opinion. Only one man can answer that question & I doubt he reads this.

      Talk facts.

  • oi ly

    Quick wingnuts, have another gulp of Rush’s Freedom Tea and have your steaming innards refreshed.

  • M2

    On a side note – America wins today.

    • SaveFarris

      …. Unless you’re alive. In which case, you just got your taxes raised.

      • M2

        Oh, the tyranny.

      • Zython

        I already have health insurance, so no, no they didn’t.

        • M2

          Two to five percent of Americans are now slaves to Obama’s socialist liberal army, or whatever bullshit they’re saying as the tears hit the beer.

  • Justanotherrighty

    States do not have the right to enforce federal laws at their own whims. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives states this power.
    I’m no constitutional scholar, and neither are you, but common sense would dictate that if something violates Federal law, the states are not prohibited from enforcing it. Or would you like to see thousands of federal employees hired to register 18 year olds to vote in 50 states or enforce the speed limits on the Interstates?

    Well, 2008 showed that the private sector federal government as it stands cannot be trusted to operate in our best interests (and really, they have no incentive to).
    So , if you, and all the other lefties, had left the real estate market alone from the get-go, none of this would have happened.
    Besides which. even if you don’t believe that government was the cause of the financial crisis of 2008, you sure don’t have any evidence that government has fixed it, or is even capable of fixing it.
    And, you have presented zero evidence that whether or not government caused the crisis of 2008; and whether or not government is capable of fixing it, President Obama shows no inclination to try private sector solutions for anything. So, whether or not YOU think government can and should solve all of our problems, we know he feels that way, and that’s why people call him a socialist.
    BTW, of course the private sector has an incentive to operate in our best interests. It’s called the “profit motive.” Look up “unseen hand” +”Adam Smith” -site:wikipedia.org
    Get edjamicated …

  • Zython

    No one is denying anything for which there is proof …

    Uh, my link earlier shows that 31.2% of people actually are denying things for which there is proof.

    Uh, no. It’s called states’ rights.. See if Wikipedia has anything on it …

    Vigilantism:

    Taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.

    States do not have the right to enforce federal laws at their own whims. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives states this power.

    I think most people interpret Obama’s propensity to turn to government first – which is very real – is what many people erroneously call socialism …

    Well, 2008 showed that the private sector as it stands cannot be trusted to operate in our best interests (and really, they have no incentive to). So, if you have a 3rd option of who to turn to, I’d like to hear it.

  • Justanotherrighty

    another mistake – sorry – that should be Alger Hiss .
    Anyway, now I have a chance to tell you some cool things lefties believe.

    The Cold War was our fault.
    The Vietnam War was a civil war.
    Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist , not a communist.
    Fidel Castro ” ” ” ” ” ”
    Mao ” ” ” ” ” ”

    We will be out of oil by the year 2000

    The Election of 2000 was “fixed”

    We are fighting in Iraq for oil, or because GW Bush wanted to impress his Dad.

    And my favorite ::

    Pres Obama would cut the deficit in half, by reducing spending, and get unemployment down to 6% by 2012…

  • The Dark Avenger

    WMD in Iraq – I can’t say for certain who still believes there were WMD in Iraq

    They’re usually known as Republicans.

  • Justanotherrighty

    My mistake – this should read I would venture to say that less people believe Pres Obama is not a citizen than believe that Hess is innocent of being a communist dupe.

  • Justanotherrighty

    I’ll take this one ::
    Global Climate Change – the “science is not settled”, but the Left treats it like Gospel

    President Obama’s birthplace – Whatever we know about the President he has revealed. What we don’t know, he has concealed. No one is denying anything for which there is proof … I would venture to say that less people believe Pres Obama is a citizen than believe that Hess is innocent of being a communist dupe.

    Trickle-down economics – Decreasing tax rates results in increased revenues; wealthy people have a tendency to put more people to work than poor people.

    President Obama’s responsibility for high gas prices (but apparently non-responsiblity for dropping gas prices) – I have not heard anything about Pres Obama being responsible for dropping gas prices , because they haven’t dropped since he took office – oh, wait! There was that one time on Mar 5 2011, but that was only for an hour or so.

    The definition of “socialism” – if everyone who posts to this weblog posted a definition of socialism, without reading anyone else’s , there would be at least a half dozen definitions here, by left and right. I think most people interpret Obama’s propensity to turn to government first – which is very real – is what many people erroneously call socialism …

    WMD in Iraq – I can’t say for certain who still believes there were WMD in Iraq, but I know that the Italians and the British believed it. The story that Hussein was in the market for yellow cake did not refer to his son’s birthdays.

    Sadam Hussein’s connection with terrorism – Saddam did indeed sponsor terrorism, and entertained many terrorist leaders, in addition to sending reward checks to the families of homicide-suicide bombers

    The problem with liberals is that they don’t believe in opinions; they truly believe that the way they perceive something is not a perception, but a reality…

    • Christopher Foxx

      Jar: I’ll take this one ::
      Global Climate Change – the “science is not settled”, but the Left treats it like Gospel

      Nice. You’re saying “here’s the facts”, and then start with a non-factual statement. The “science is not settled” is a lie, but the Right treats it like Gospel. Just another case of folks denying reality when it isn’t what they want it to be.

      President Obama’s birthplace – Whatever we know about the President he has revealed. What we don’t know, he has concealed. No one is denying anything for which there is proof … I would venture to say that less people believe Pres Obama is a citizen than believe that Hess is innocent of being a communist dupe.

      Again, you’re just simple wrong. People are denying things for which much proogf has already been given. Despite the contemporary news announcement, the birth certificate and all else over half of Republicans still question Obama’s citizenship.

      Trickle-down economics – Decreasing tax rates results in increased revenues; wealthy people have a tendency to put more people to work than poor people.

      Really? So if we decrease tax rates to zero, we should get the highest possible revenues? And the actual fact is more jobs are created by small companies, and most small companies are owned by folks of realtively modest means.

      The definition of “socialism” – if everyone who posts to this weblog posted a definition of socialism, without reading anyone else’s , there would be at least a half dozen definitions here, by left and right.

      If everyone who posts to this weblog was asked for a definition of socialism, I suspect folks on the left would actually look it up. It’s folks on the right who would tend to not bother reading anyone else’s

      WMD in Iraq – I can’t say for certain who still believes there were WMD in Iraq, but I know that the Italians and the British believed it.

      Ah, yes. The “but others also believe the lie” excuse. I’ve seen folks offer this up before as a way to avoid directly acknowledging that they are/were wrong. So you’re conforming nicely to the tenets of “the party of personal responsibility”

      The problem with liberals is that they don’t believe in opinions; they truly believe that the way they perceive something is not a perception, but a reality…

      No, the problem you have with liberals it that they are better at recognizing that opinions are not facts. Like the many facts that show that it’s those on the right who truly believe that the way they perceive something is not a perception, but a reality.

  • The Dark Avenger

    the justices left the door open to further legal challenges.

    That suggests that in the future, the court could very well find the provision unconstitutional—meaning that Brewer’s celebration was beyond premature.

    1) Stop and ask for ID still stands – that’s important.

    One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong…….

  • db

    Plunket,

    ” both sides think the other is not grounded in reality. News at 11.”

    I’ll certainly give you that one; but the question ought to be which better conforms with reality?

    Including, but certainly not limited to:
    Global Climate Change
    President Obama’s birthplace
    Trickle-down economics
    President Obama’s responsibility for high gas prices (but apparently non-responsiblity for dropping gas prices)
    The definition of “socialism”
    WMD in Iraq
    Sadam Hussein’s connection with terrorism

    In several studies, Fox “News” viewers rank lowest on knowledge of facts. In fact they rank lower than those you don’t have a regular news source.

    Think about it.

    But I’ll ask you the operative question: Why was Gov. Brewer touting her “win” so vociferiously when she lost 3 of the three issues decided?

  • Zython

    Scalia was outraged that the Federal government was saying that “When we refuse to enforce a law, even if that hurts you as a state, you can’t enforce it either.” And that’s important, too. There has to be someone enforcing Federal law, don’t you think?
    November can’t come soon enough.

    You do realize what you’re describing it vigilantism, right?

    November can’t come soon enough.
    It’s 1980 all over again !!

    So we can expect Romney to work against America’s interests in the pursuit of personal gain?

    Zython, your neat little chart left out what would have been the best statement: I believe Obama was born on another planet (and not Krypton).

    So which planet? Mars? Tatooine? Namek?

    • M2

      Planet Black, surely.

      • Justanotherrighty

        Planet Black is the liberal planet I assume? Where overspending doesn’t lead to deficits, and surrender leads to peace, that planet ?

        • M2

          Ah yes, spending; the problem Republicans began caring about in January of 2009. A lot of dead terrorist might disagree with you the liberal surrender bullshit your side cries about. But bullshit is really all you have, which is why if there were a Republican planet it’d be a overrun by a tire fire as soon as it were populated.

      • Justanotherrighty

        Honestly, M2, do you know a black person like Barack Obama?
        Do you know any black people at all ? (Watching Sanford and Son does not equal knowing black people).

        • M2

          I know many smart, educated black people, just. Why even ask such a silly question? Is it because you’re looking for your motherfucking ice tea from Obama and he just won’t serve it to you?

          Embarrassing.

    • Justanotherrighty

      You do realize what you’re describing is vigilantism, right?
      Uh, no. It’s called states’ rights.. See if Wikipedia has anything on it …

      So which planet?

      Not this one, of that I am sure …

  • The Dark Avenger

    1) Stop and ask for ID still stands – that’s important.

    Nope:

    Contrary to statements made after the ruling by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and other supporters of the law, the Court did not “uphold” the constitutionality of Section 2(B) and, in fact, expressly left open the possibility of future preemption and other challenges – including racial profiling claims – to Section 2(B).

    • Justanotherrighty

      You do realize what you’re describing is vigilantism, right?
      Uh, no. It’s called states’ rights.. See if Wikipedia has anything on it …

      So which planet?

      Not this one, of that I am sure …

      watch me cherry pick: the Court … expressly left open the possibility of future preemption and other challenges … to Section 2(B).

      In plain English, right now Section 2(b) stands …

      Those NPR people have to get their act together:

      The justices decided by a 5-3 margin that Section 2(B) of SB 1070, which empowers local police to check the immigration status of people they stop … does not conflict with federal law. It’s the “show me your papers” provision. The court said the law needs to take effect before Arizona’s state courts can determine whether it is violating federal law, and the justices left the door open to further legal challenges.

      You say poe-tah-toe, I say you don’t what in the he – double – hockey – sticks you are talking about …

  • Justanotherrighty

    For example, he claims as evidence “To this day many of these people still insist there were WMDs in Iraq despite all evidence. Why? Because George W. Bush and Bill O’Reilly said there must be!”
    And there are a lot of people who believe that Spaniards blew up the Maine. So what? The reality of the decision is twofold: 1) Stop and ask for ID still stands – that’s important.
    2) Scalia was outraged that the Federal government was saying that “When we refuse to enforce a law, even if that hurts you as a state, you can’t enforce it either.” And that’s important, too. There has to be someone enforcing Federal law, don’t you think?
    November can’t come soon enough.
    It’s 1980 all over again !!
    Zython, your neat little chart left out what would have been the best statement: I believe Obama was born on another planet (and not Krypton).

  • The Dark Avenger

    Plunket meant to do that, CFoxx.

    • The Dark Avenger

      Quit defending me, folks, it gives Plunkett such a bad case of butthurt.

      • Plunket

        I’d be ashamed if folks felt like they needed to come on here to bail me out like Christopher is doing with you. I’d be like, ‘thanks but no thanks’.

        Christopher won’t reply to me, he just counters on everything I say to you. Liberals are like that. It’s like “I can’t sit here and let one of our own go down like this’. It’s their inherent nature that they feel like that kind of thing is solving problems for other people; sticking up for them when they get beat up. The problem with it is, you’ll just keep on getting yourself banged up thinking there’s going to be another Christopher to come in to get your back. And on and on your copying and pasting act will continue.

        • The Dark Avenger

          Unable to support your own views, you keep trying to deflect the conversation to other things. In this case, trying to suggest that I share your view that DA is somehow lacking when such is most clearly not the case.

      • Plunket

        it gives Plunkett such a bad case of butthurt

        It’s Plunket with just one ‘t’.

        I have an idea that might make it easy for you. Just copy and paste it as you see it above.

        • The Dark Avenger

          Glad to see you pay close attention to what I write here, Plunkett.

          • Plunket

            I’m glad you’ve been trying really hard to present your own ideas the last couple days, C+P.

            Be honest, you feel better about yourself, don’t you?

  • Christopher Foxx

    Plunket: And you left out Serwer’s admission that his original tweet was wrong about that provision.

    Yes, Dark Avenger let that part out by actually including it in what he quoted.

    Pretty good trick on DA’s part.

    • Plunket

      Yes, my bad. I should have stated that he left it out from what he decided to embolden in order to draw the reader’s attention to, which was that the particular provision wasn’t actually ‘upheld’, therefore Brewer wasn’t living in reality. If C + P’s point of emboldening that was to prove she wasn’t living in reality when she was showing optimism by saying that provision was upheld, then his point was completely nullified by the fact that even Serwer, along with Politico, The LA Times and PBS at first thought she was correct in claiming it was upheld. In other words, if Brewer wasn’t living in reality, then neither were they.

      The only way his point couldn’t have been nullified by that admission of Serwer’s was if C+P thinks Serwer, the LA Times, Politico and PBS are in on the Republican cocooning effect that this blog post is asserting. In reality, he posted a link and copied text from it hat contradicted the very point he was trying to prove.

      • The Dark Avenger

        Yes, my bad. I should have stated that he left it out from what he decided to embolden in order to draw the reader’s attention to, which was that the particular provision wasn’t actually ‘upheld’, therefore Brewer wasn’t living in reality.

        Except that Brewer never got around to admitting that she was wrong, as Serwer did, and that you apparently couldn’t read what I wrote correctly unless I put a given statement in italics or bold tells us about how careless you are, Plunket.

        If you were in an ass-kicking contest you couldn’t beat a one-legged man.

        • Plunket

          If you were in an ass-kicking contest you couldn’t beat a one-legged man.

          Put aside that even that is a copy and paste, if you thought that was true, even figuratively, you wouldn’t be so compelled to get into any kind of argumentative contest with me, much less coming back to it continuously when I respond to someone else other than you. You can’t be honest even when you use other people’s words to make your point.

          • The Dark Avenger

            Original thought is wasted on describing the likes of you, Dennis.

            I would have thought someone who is in charge of securities at a bank to be able to pay more attention to detail in the first place, but thanks for demonstrating that you have nothing in your arsenal than typing “copypasta” again and again, like a 6 year old repeating the same word because he/she thinks it’s a ‘naughty word’.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Plunket: Put aside that even that is a copy and paste

            As was the “give a fish / teach to fish” that you brought to the conversation (and then overly belabored).

            So is it only a bad thing when someone else does it?

          • Plunket

            So is it only a bad thing when someone else does it?

            No. I wouldn’t term what he does “a bad thing”, necessarily. It’s weak, and it displays a lack of self-confidence as often as he does it, but it doesn’t mean that anyone who copies and pastes links and texts is doing a bad thing. Once again, he leads with it and he does it profusely and he does it without presenting his own argument in his own words. Why is that hard for you to understand? And then when someone points out to him that what he did copy and paste degraded his argument (or what little he did write on his own), he gets very defensive about it, weirdly, as if he has a personal stake in what he linked to or pasted here.

            It’s admirable that you choose to defend him, though. To a point, anyway. At some point you start to look like you know he’s incapable of doing it himself and that you feel sorry for him….that he in fact does need someone else to argue for him.

          • Christopher Foxx

            It’s admirable that you choose to defend him, though. …you start to look like you know he’s incapable of doing it himself and that you feel sorry for him

            On the contrary. I’m not defending DA, if anything I’m attacking you. DA’s quite capable to standing up for and speaking for himself. The one I feel sorry for is you. Unable to support your own views, you keep trying to deflect the conversation to other things. In this case, trying to suggest that I share your view that DA is somehow lacking when such is most clearly not the case.

  • Zython

    Proof that Republicans are divorced from reality? Sometimes, you need cold hard numbers to do the talking.

  • The Dark Avenger

    For all the hits a google search of ‘Jan Brewer SCOTUS immigration ruling’ would return, it’s telling that the one you’d copy and paste here is from a hack Journo-lister from Mother Jones who is not a constitutional lawyer, nor even a lawyer at all.

    A hack journalist who is quoting lawyers and their opinions about the rulings.

    And who told you that I found it with the search criteria you list, oh, wise one.

    Yes, because you make assertions without anything to back them up, Dennis.

    Why do you continually come back here to pick a fight with me?

    That fish you just fed poor db won’t even feed him for lunch, Copypastard.

    I really feel sorry for you, you must not have much going for your life to come over here and use the same taunt over and over like you’re back in the 5th grade.

    Have a good life.

  • Plunket

    For all the hits a google search of ‘Jan Brewer SCOTUS immigration ruling’ would return, it’s telling that the one you’d copy and paste here is from a hack Journo-lister from Mother Jones who is not a constitutional lawyer, nor even a lawyer at all. That fish you just fed poor db won’t even feed him for lunch, Copypastard.

    And the article does not say what you think it says regarding OW’s contention that the right is cocooned outside the bounds of reality. The last quote from the woman at the “liberal Constitutional Accountability Center” ending with “and I think it’s going to be a delayed victory on the fourth.” is her opinion on the provision that Jan Brewer was optimistic about. She ‘thinks’ it’s going to be a victory for her side. It doesn’t mean Brewer’s optimism isn’t real, nor that there’s a conservative cocoon that breaks with reality, it’s simply her opinion in her capacity as a liberal constitutional lawyer, that Brewer’s celebration was premature. And you left out Serwer’s admission that his original tweet was wrong about that provision.

    (My first tweet about the ruling was wrong. Politico, the Los Angeles Times*, and PBS’ Newshour also initially misreported the ruling.)

    If you think this Mother Jones opinion piece from Serwer proves there’s a conservative cocoon not grounded in reality and you back up OW’s claim that it’s because of examples like Bill O’Reilly’s WMD claim that he later retracted that conservatives aren’t aware of, then you must claim here that Serwer, Politico, The LA TImes and PBS are all in on the cocooning, otherwise your copy and pasting in this case is making you look foolish.

    I’m afraid the fish you just fed db won’t even feed him for lunch.

  • The Dark Avenger

    I encouraged db to google them and see for himself, at his leisure and at sites that he knows and trusts.

    NIce evasion, Plunket, but I’m sorry that Google doesn’t do what you said it would do:

    There’s just one problem: The high court did not find any provision of Arizona’s law to be constitutional—it did not “uphold” any part of the law. The distinction here is a technical legal one, and plenty of reporters and media outlets got it wrong. (My first tweet about the ruling was wrong. Politico, the Los Angeles Times*, and PBS’ Newshour also initially misreported the ruling.) Other supporters of the law, including Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (who is a lawyer) also referred to part of the law being “upheld.”

    Here’s what the Supreme Court actually did on Monday. The justices decided that the lower court that prevented SB 1070 from taking effect was mostly correct—because most of the law’s provisions were likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to block the “papers, please” provision of the law—which Brewer refers to as its “heart”—that requires local authorities to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. But the high court did not find the controversial provision constitutional, and so it was not “upheld.” Instead, the high court deferred judgment on the matter. Saying that part of the law was “upheld” incorrectly implies that the court decided the “papers, please” provision was constitutional. The justices were actually decidedly agnostic on that point.

    “The majority said it didn’t know enough about how the law would work in practice to rule decisively. Because the law has never gone into effect, it just wasn’t clear whether the law would conflict with federal policy.” says Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law who wrote a column for the Daily Beast noting that many media outlets got the distinction wrong. “The court said to Arizona there’s a right way and a wrong way to apply this law and we’re watching you.”

    Although it’s anyone’s guess how the court might ultimately rule on the “papers, please” provision, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion gives very specific guidance on how that part of the law should be enforced. That suggests that in the future, the court could very well find the provision unconstitutional—meaning that Brewer’s celebration was beyond premature.

    “They absolutely left open the possiblity of future challenges,” says Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “We achieved victory on three out of the four provisions [Monday], and I think it’s going to be a delayed victory on the fourth.”

    If you can find a law professor who agrees with Gov Brewer, that would be interesting, but, again, I’m not gonna hold my breath.

  • The Dark Avenger

    It’s more than a stretch to say that many people today believe there were WMDs in Iraq because Bill O’Reilly said there back in 2003, even though he admitted he was wrong and apologized for saying it in 2004

    OTOH, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that many Republicans believed there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003, O’Reilly or not, and that a majority of them still believe that is true:

    WASHINGTON — How misinformed are Republicans about world affairs? If presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia is “without question our number one geopolitical foe” is any indication, then the answer would appear to be very.

    A new poll supports that theory.

    The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. By contrast, 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats shared that view.

    There were very legitimate reasons why Brewer could claim some sense of victory in the SCOTUS decision as any google search will verify.

    Then you should have no problem bringing those “legitimate reasons” to our attention here, Plunket.

    I’m not gonna hold my breath whilst you do so. Wouldn’t be prudent.

    • Plunket

      OTOH, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that many Republicans believed there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003, O’Reilly or not, and that a majority of them still believe that is true:

      His claim was they believe it because Bill O’Reilly told them it must be true. He put an exclamation point after it, actually. You can point to “OTOH”s all you want, or “O’Reilly or not”, but OW’s point was regarding cocooning, and Fox’s role in it, and in particular Bill O’Reilly’s. He said they believed “because Bill O’Reilly said it must be true.” You’re once again copying and pasting something that is fully outside OW’s point. “OTOH” and “O’Reilly or not” in this case are weasel phrases because they do nothing to dispute the fact that OW claimed conservatives believe something because O’Reilly told them it must be so.

      Then you should have no problem bringing those “legitimate reasons” to our attention here, Plunket.

      I’m not your secretary. I encouraged db to google them and see for himself, at his leisure and at sites that he knows and trusts. I can give him a fish and feed him for a day, or I can teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Plunket: You can point to “OTOH”s all you want, or “O’Reilly or not”, but OW’s point was regarding cocooning

        Translation: Plunket wants to keep the discussion about whether Oliver is right or not on naming O’Reilly as the cause of Republican ignorance. Plunket doesn’t want to let the discussion be about the fact of Republican ignorance. (Note that he’s not actually disputing that.) He wants to keep being able to say “Oliver’s claim it’s due to O’Reilly is wrong”.

        Plunket’s playing the role of the person who dismisses your statement “I got wet because its raining” because you didn’t put an apostrophe in “it’s”.

        Dark Avenger:Then you should have no problem bringing those “legitimate reasons” to our attention here, Plunket.
        Plunket:I’m not your secretary. I encouraged db to google them and see for himself

        So let’s be clear about this:
        When db provides support for what he says it’s just “once again copying and pasting something” and therefore just heresay.
        When Plunket refuses to provide any support at all for what he says it’s other people’s fault for not doing his research for him.

        Plunket: I can give him a fish and feed him for a day, or I can teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

        You haven’t yet shown that you know how to fish at all.

        • Plunket

          Plunket wants to keep the discussion about whether Oliver is right or not on naming O’Reilly as the cause of Republican ignorance.

          Christopher, you’re being an idiot. It was the one example he provided to display his point. If someone presents a thesis and then immediately shows an example to prove that thesis is correct and you know that example is so egregiously and completely wrong, then what does that say for that person’s argument, especially when he’s saying that it’s the other side that’s not grounded in reality? You’re trying to rephrase his argument, dishonestly, and you’re likening his flagrant foul to an incorrectly used apostrophe, dishonestly.

          And I’m not preventing you from discussing anything. If you want to talk about Republican ignorance, you’re free to do so all you want. And if you provide examples of it that are completely wrong, I’m free to point and laugh at you all I want, too.

          • Plunket

            When db provides support for what he says it’s just “once again copying and pasting something” and therefore just heresay.
            When Plunket refuses to provide any support at all for what he says it’s other people’s fault for not doing his research for him.

            Chrisopher, I didn’t say that about db. I didn’t say anything was hearsay, didn’t use the term or allude to anything being like hearsay, or that any copy and pasting in general was ‘just hearsay’. I’m calling attention to Dark Avenger’s copying and pasting because his tendency is to link to, provide text to and use the other people’s arguments to show his point in lieu of formulating his own argument first. He leads with copypasta. You euphemistically describe it as “providing support to his argument”. That’s where you and I differ on his tactic.

          • Christopher Foxx

            And there he goes again, folks. Taking umbrage at my using the word heresay in a poor attempt to avoid responding to the point I was making.

            Plunket doesn’t want to respond to that point because he knows its true: He chides others for providing support for their arguments while steadfastly refusing to provide support for his own. And when challenged to do so, he claims supporting his arguments is your responsibility.

          • Plunket

            He chides others for providing support for their arguments while steadfastly refusing to provide support for his own. And when challenged to do so, he claims supporting his arguments is your responsibility.

            Christopher, you’re saying things that just aren’t true, and doing it dishonestly. You can’t claim that I “steadfastly refused to provide support for my own” argument. If db had requested it in good faith, I would have provided it, since he was the one I suggested he google it and read about it on his own. You’re blatantly lying when you say I steadfastly refused to do it. And you didn’t even request it, dilrod. How can you honestly say I steadfastly refused something you didn’t even request me to do? That just amazes me.

            Dark Avenger didn’t request it, either, he just said that I provided no support. Even if you considered that a request, or a challenge, or a dismissal of my argument, it wasn’t done in any sense of good faith on his part, nor with any good intentions. It wasn’t done as a request to satisfy his curiosity, or because he wants to learn anything new or consider something he may have missed, or verify any facts. It’s called ‘chasing the rabbit’ and it bores the hell out of me because in his case all he wants to do is waste time and get into an endless loop of link exchanges.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Plunket: “You can’t claim that I “steadfastly refused to provide support for my own” argument. If db had requested it in good faith, I would have provided it, … You’re blatantly lying when you say I steadfastly refused to do it.

            says Plunket, as he steadfastly makes yet another excuse (“He didn’t ask nicely.”) for why he refuses to do it.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Plunket: If db had requested it in good faith, I would have provided it, … And you didn’t even request it, dilrod. How can you honestly say I steadfastly refused something you didn’t even request me to do? That just amazes me.

            Dark Avenger didn’t request it, either, he just said that I provided no support. Even if you considered that a request, or a challenge, or a dismissal of my argument, it wasn’t done in any sense of good faith on his part, nor with any good intentions. It wasn’t done as a request to satisfy his curiosity, or because he wants to learn anything new or consider something he may have missed, or verify any facts.

            Seriously?
            “I didn’t because db didn’t ask nicely enough.”
            “I didn’t because you’re not the one who asked me to.”
            “I didn’t because I don’t have to support my claims unless someone requests it.”
            “I didn’t because Dark Avenger didn’t actually request it.”
            “I didn’t because his request [That would be the request he didn't make?] was for the wrong reasons.”

            OK, who had Plunket coming up with 5 excuses in a single posting in the office pool?

            It’s called ‘chasing the rabbit’ and it bores the hell out of me because in his case all he wants to do is waste time and get into an endless loop of link exchanges.

            While explaining over and over why you don’t have to ever support what you say is a really good use of time.

            I like you, Plunket. You’re funny!

          • Plunket

            says Plunket, as he steadfastly makes yet another excuse (“He didn’t ask nicely.”) for why he refuses to do it.

            Christopher, you don’t know what ‘steadfastly’ means. You don’t know what ‘hearsay’ means (nor even how to spell it). And your for damn sure don’t know what ‘in good faith’ means, because it has nothing to do with being nice.

            Forget the douchey way you put quotation marks around something I didn’t say, you put them around something that has nothing to do with what I said. And you did that on a thread about being in a cocoon and divorced from reality….kinda ironic.

            You know what, pretend what I’m doing is somewhat like exerting executive privilege. You should be cool with that.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Excellent.

            In case five wasn’t enough, Plunket now adds two more excuses: “Because you’re a doody-head!” and “I just don’t wanna!”

            Gotta love the guy.

  • Plunket

    Both sides spin, both sides look for the victories in just about every SC decision, both sides think the other is not grounded in reality. News at 11.

    Oliver Willis doesn’t make the case that Republicans aren’t grounded in reality, though. He just tells you they aren’t. For example, he claims as evidence “To this day many of these people still insist there were WMDs in Iraq despite all evidence. Why? Because George W. Bush and Bill O’Reilly said there must be!”

    Bill O’Reilly apologized as early as February 2004 that he had previously reported that he thought Saddam Hussein possessed WMD’s. O’reilly Eats Words On Wmd Claims It’s more than a stretch to say that many people today believe there were WMDs in Iraq because Bill O’Reilly said there back in 2003, even though he admitted he was wrong and apologized for saying it in 2004. Maybe that’s hyperbole on OW’s part, maybe it’s poetic license, maybe it’s just sloppiness, but what it most definitely isn’t, is reality. It’s cocooning that he writes it and it’s cocooning that you just swallow it.

    There were very legitimate reasons why Brewer could claim some sense of victory in the SCOTUS decision as any google search will verify. You don’t read that in this blog article. This article leads you to believe that it was a complete and total loss for her, but nothing, not one thing, on the specifics. Nothing about how what she was claiming was false, or just why it was she wasn’t grounded in reality in pretending there was a victory for her position from the Supreme Court. You then you read that Fox News only asks her softball questions, and the conservative press only props her up, so therefore it’s all big conservative bubble.

    It’s like if I told you that you’re hopelessly naive to believe everything you read here from liberal commenters, but never told you why you were hopelessly naive. When they appear to back you up, you’ll think they’re all swell for doing it, and then you’ll pretend to have gained some victory, and then you’ll be even more willing to swallow their arguments.

  • db

    Plunket,

    First off, you’ll recall that the exit poll statements were in the context of the Republican “Obama is DOOMED by Wisconsin” meme. (DA, did I use that one right?)

    Next, I’m confused by what you’re aiming at. Are you saying that all Politicians “spin”? No argument. But OW’s point was that the RW Media Empire has spun to the point where they no longer have touch with reality. It’s a point we’ve discussed before.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Brewer stammered and insisted the court had ruled in her favor, despite the evidence it had not. Even worse, her enablers in the conservative press — even the ones who clearly realized she was wrong — just kept on propping her up, claiming she had scored a great victory against the evil Obama. They have to keep the fake story alive because reality is just not keeping up with what they want it to be.

    I’ve wondered which conservatives truly believe the stuff they say and which know it’s BS but spout it because it achieves their goal. It’s hard to tell sometimes, to separate the truly deluded/true believers idiots from the knowingly unscrupulous bastards. Palin and Bush strike me as two who certainly are on idiots-thus-true believers side of that spectrum, while Cheney and Limbaugh seem hypocritical and opportunistic enough to know exactly what they’re doing.

    Watching her press conference, I tend to think Brewer is on the Bush-Palin end of things. She seems to really just not get that her wrist got seriously slapped.

    • Plunket

      It’s hard to tell sometimes, to separate the truly deluded/true believers idiots from the knowingly unscrupulous bastards.

      If I recall correctly, Christopher, weren’t there folks here trying to put on a brave face by saying the Wisconsin recall was good for Dems in that the exit polls showed Obama still had a lead over Romney in that state?

      You know what, I amaze myself sometimes, because now that I went back to the thread, I find that yes, indeed, sometime did do exactly that:

      Wilburn: The republicans dump a huge bucket of money into the state and their boy survives a recall vote – not a normal election mind you but a recall vote – by a few percentage points, and as exit polls show many of those who voted against the recall will be voting for Obama in the fall.

      All the republican crowing about this is sort of like if the Steelers were to treat a 13-9 victory over the Browns as if it were their seventh super bowl ring. Hubris, its what’s for breakfast.

      Exit polls in June tell us how voters will vote in November? Good one. Win for the Dems. A year an a half of work and effort and fouling up the state capital building for a dubious exit poll result for an election to come in 5 months, and it’s Republicans are the ones who are really in denial.

      • The Dark Avenger

        Exit polls in June tell us how voters will vote in November? Good one.

        SF is always citing this or that poll to tell us how badly Obama will lose in November, but he hasn’t cited exit polls yet.

  • M2

    The right wing threw the drinking fountain through the window a long time ago. They embarrass the country with their bullshit on a daily basis, facts be damned because when teabaggers end up without medicaid or coverage in the ER, they really think the Koch brothers are only a phone call away.