Glenn decided that people just don't look each other in the eye enough anymore (like they did back in the good ol' days, when you wore an onion on your belt).
Ignore the fact that he's looking directly into the normal camera, thereby not making eye-contact with the zoomed-in camera.
Guys, the writer was by the Examiner, which is a conservative paper.
I stand correctly. I actually say it linked elsewhere (Yglesias? Ambinder?) and referred to as the NY times when I read it, so I just ran with that. So it's more a "look at those crazy racist wingers" than a "didn't this paper used to be good" sort of thing.
Glenn decided that people just don't look each other in the eye enough anymore (like they did back in the good ol' days, when you wore an onion on your belt).
Ignore the fact that he's looking directly into the normal camera, thereby not making eye-contact with the zoomed-in camera.
Well duh, the prompter isn't on the zoomed-in camera. How do you expect him to do his show without a prompter? How will he know what to say?
ViolentChemistry on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Glenn decided that people just don't look each other in the eye enough anymore (like they did back in the good ol' days, when you wore an onion on your belt).
Ignore the fact that he's looking directly into the normal camera, thereby not making eye-contact with the zoomed-in camera.
Well duh, the prompter isn't on the zoomed-in camera. How do you expect him to do his show without a prompter? How will he know what to say?
White House correspondent for National Review magazine; columnist for The Hill; frequent guest on BloggingHeads.tv; author of The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy; formerly worked for CNN
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
It makes us look weak to stoop down to the level of a socialist demagogue is what I think people would argue.
postinonthenets on
Solitude sometimes is best society, and short retirement urges sweet return
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
Don't try to apply logic to right wing talking points. It just doesn't work.
Also, I'd note that, contrary to what we're accused of by the dwindling cadre of right leaning people in D&D, most of us have not been repeating Democratic talking points and toeing the line just because Obama says something. I think we're generally happy with what the administration and Congress has been up to, but aren't above disappointment and disagreement just because Obama's our guy.
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
It makes us look weak to stoop down to the level of a socialist demagogue is what I think people would argue.
Hmm, "stooping down" to Chavez's level by not being a d-bag to him makes us look weak, but stooping down to the terrorists' level by torturing people makes us look strong. The moral high ground is apparently good enough for other people to take when we want them to, but not for us to take when others want us to.
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
Don't try to apply logic to right wing talking points. It just doesn't work.
Also, I'd note that, contrary to what we're accused of by the dwindling cadre of right leaning people in D&D, most of us have not been repeating Democratic talking points and toeing the line just because Obama says something. I think we're generally happy with what the administration and Congress has been up to, but aren't above disappointment and disagreement just because Obama's our guy.
The idea that we can disagree with some of a politician's policies while agreeing with their progress overall fries most extreme ideologues' brains. It just doesn't compute for them.
I never understood the Chavez thing. You can accept a book and READ a book without automatically liking it and/or supporting its message. Fuck that, let's be ignorant of other countries!
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
It makes us look weak to stoop down to the level of a socialist demagogue is what I think people would argue.
Hmm, "stooping down" to Chavez's level by not being a d-bag to him makes us look weak, but stooping down to the terrorists' level by torturing people makes us look strong. The moral high ground is apparently good enough for other people to take when we want them to, but not for us to take when others want us to.
Oh I agree its fucked.
postinonthenets on
Solitude sometimes is best society, and short retirement urges sweet return
Guys, President Obama isn't really all that popular.
"On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." —Byron York, The Washington Examiner
See, it's just all the black people that make him appear more popular. If we just "removed" all the black people, we'd have a real President, an honest hard working Republican, in the White House again. The White House.
The darkies only make him appear popular, but it's not like they actually count or anything, right?
Guys, President Obama isn't really all that popular.
"On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." —Byron York, The Washington Examiner
See, it's just all the black people that make him appear more popular. If we just "removed" all the black people, we'd have a real President, an honest hard working Republican, in the White House again. The White House.
The darkies only make him appear popular, but it's not like they actually count or anything, right?
Guys, President Obama isn't really all that popular.
"On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." —Byron York, The Washington Examiner
See, it's just all the black people that make him appear more popular. If we just "removed" all the black people, we'd have a real President, an honest hard working Republican, in the White House again. The White House.
The darkies only make him appear popular, but it's not like they actually count or anything, right?
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he was talking about outliers, but the wording just doesn't support it.
So in an attempt to salvage the thread, my complaints are mostly cabinet picks who didn't actually get vetted right, and the DoJ not being a lot more public about it's internal corrections to fix the shit that was put in place the last few years.
I'm pleased with the torture response path he's taking, even if I disagree with him that a panel is a bad idea, I understand it and I'm pleased he's not trying to obstruct it, just giving his two cents and letting the AG do as he pleases.
I've been pleased with the bipartisanship he's been displaying. Do not mistake the failure of bipartisan action to mean someone isn't being bipartisan. He's extending the olive branch and asking people to meet him half way. That's bipartisan. Doing more would be "switching teams" or "surrendering" in order to appear bipartisan. The olive branch has been out, the other side has simply pegged all their hopes and dreams on Obama failing, and have proceeded to try and undermine him as much as possible to make that happen.
Thus far? I'm pretty happy. I didn't expect to elect the second coming of Christ, so my expectations are set reasonably for a freaking President, I believe.
My report card for the news? F-. Seriously? We're rating Michelle now? Fuck off.
edit: and why does every nutcase ignore that the right wing terrorism doc landed a month after the left wing terrorism doc, and both were commissioned by Bush appointees before the elections. They have dick all to do with Obama, and are a good thing in general. If you're going to be concerned about domestic terrorism, don't pretend they're all going to be islamic brown guys living down the street. It's people who are just fucking unhinged, more likely.
Obama has been presiding more like a college professor than a career politician. He's been taking the people he considers the experts (Geithner, Clinton), without really entirely considering their loyalty. He's been giving other ideas a degree of thought before making action. He's been doing non retarded shit, which is a step up.
All in all I love this presidency and it's been precisely what I expected it to be. If it's any different for you than you weren't paying any fucking attention.
Kildy briefly mentioned it, but I think Obama is setting up for long term solutions to the problems the country has. Wars, diplomatic relations, economic, etc, but because the news media in this country is so fucked up and on such a short string, it almost appears like he's doing bad or doing nothing at all, but when you actually sit down and look at it, there's a lot going on and a lot of it is positive.
Though seriously, not checking the tax backgrounds of your staff is like "Man, wut?"
On the scale of things a cabinet member could be guilty of, "didn't pay x amount of taxes" leans towards "whoop-de-doo." They're saints compared to the last batch.
You're complaining about his administration's transparency about a paragraph after you've complained about him revealing stuff that the government has done?/quote]
It's from a post written by Obs. He craves cognitive dissonance like the rest of us crave air. You don't want to kill Obs, do you? Let the man have his air!
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
Nothing, except a lot of the people who are currently spouting that are the same ones who spent the last two terms telling us that it was unpatriotic to disagree with the president.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Kildy briefly mentioned it, but I think Obama is setting up for long term solutions to the problems the country has. Wars, diplomatic relations, economic, etc, but because the news media in this country is so fucked up and on such a short string, it almost appears like he's doing bad or doing nothing at all, but when you actually sit down and look at it, there's a lot going on and a lot of it is positive.
Though seriously, not checking the tax backgrounds of your staff is like "Man, wut?"
I'm guessing that those sorts of tax problems are relatively normal in the House and Senate, and they were only revealed when Obama vetted them. Bush's vetting took the shape of personal loyalty, Obama's was probably much more extensive.
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
Nothing, except a lot of the people who are currently spouting that are the same ones who spent the last two terms telling us that it was unpatriotic to disagree with the president.
What the Hell was the context of the "addicting this country to heroin" comment? Because that's just wacky and delusional and what the hell was the guy on to say such crap?
What the Hell was the context of the "addicting this country to heroin" comment? Because that's just wacky and delusional and what the hell was the guy on to say such crap?
I'm pretty sure Jim Norton was being humorous. Unless somethings changed since he went off terrestrial radio, he had always seemed level headed when it came to Obama.
Yeah I'm thinkin the Comedians were more of a "Colbert" style hyperbole.
That Fox News missed. Of course.
The Muffin Man on
0
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
Nothing, except a lot of the people who are currently spouting that are the same ones who spent the last two terms telling us that it was unpatriotic to disagree with the president.
Thank god for youtube.
In terms of forcing people to think about what they say, and be able to intellectually defend their current stance, I long for the day when political debates include teams of waiting dataminers, ready to bring up youtube at a moment's notice to directly contradict someone with their own statements.
Posts
Glenn decided that people just don't look each other in the eye enough anymore (like they did back in the good ol' days, when you wore an onion on your belt).
Ignore the fact that he's looking directly into the normal camera, thereby not making eye-contact with the zoomed-in camera.
They did once to make a point (or get attention, you decide) ... it's not a regular feature of the show.
I stand correctly. I actually say it linked elsewhere (Yglesias? Ambinder?) and referred to as the NY times when I read it, so I just ran with that. So it's more a "look at those crazy racist wingers" than a "didn't this paper used to be good" sort of thing.
Well duh, the prompter isn't on the zoomed-in camera. How do you expect him to do his show without a prompter? How will he know what to say?
Teleprompter Hussein NobamaAARGHGHGHRGHRHIBLE *POW*
ggaahhh... sorry, my head exploded there for a minute.
*checks Wiki*
Oh.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Rofl thats hilarious.
Also, Gawker had a "Best of 'Glenn Beck is Insane'" clip yesterday: http://gawker.com/5231807/glenn-becks-greatest-hits-his-insanity-is-very-real
Twitter
I never quite understood the "it makes us look weak!" argument. They were arguing his handlers should have never let him be in the same room as Chavez.
So...it makes us look weak to shake hands and smile, but it doesn't make us look weak to hide the President from foreign leaders who don't like us...?
It makes us look weak to stoop down to the level of a socialist demagogue is what I think people would argue.
Twitter
Don't try to apply logic to right wing talking points. It just doesn't work.
Also, I'd note that, contrary to what we're accused of by the dwindling cadre of right leaning people in D&D, most of us have not been repeating Democratic talking points and toeing the line just because Obama says something. I think we're generally happy with what the administration and Congress has been up to, but aren't above disappointment and disagreement just because Obama's our guy.
Hmm, "stooping down" to Chavez's level by not being a d-bag to him makes us look weak, but stooping down to the terrorists' level by torturing people makes us look strong. The moral high ground is apparently good enough for other people to take when we want them to, but not for us to take when others want us to.
The idea that we can disagree with some of a politician's policies while agreeing with their progress overall fries most extreme ideologues' brains. It just doesn't compute for them.
Oh I agree its fucked.
Twitter
The darkies only make him appear popular, but it's not like they actually count or anything, right?
No, they count. But only three-fifths.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he was talking about outliers, but the wording just doesn't support it.
Yeah, that's messed up. Even slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.
EDIT: Damn. Syphon beat me to it.
I'm pleased with the torture response path he's taking, even if I disagree with him that a panel is a bad idea, I understand it and I'm pleased he's not trying to obstruct it, just giving his two cents and letting the AG do as he pleases.
I've been pleased with the bipartisanship he's been displaying. Do not mistake the failure of bipartisan action to mean someone isn't being bipartisan. He's extending the olive branch and asking people to meet him half way. That's bipartisan. Doing more would be "switching teams" or "surrendering" in order to appear bipartisan. The olive branch has been out, the other side has simply pegged all their hopes and dreams on Obama failing, and have proceeded to try and undermine him as much as possible to make that happen.
Thus far? I'm pretty happy. I didn't expect to elect the second coming of Christ, so my expectations are set reasonably for a freaking President, I believe.
My report card for the news? F-. Seriously? We're rating Michelle now? Fuck off.
edit: and why does every nutcase ignore that the right wing terrorism doc landed a month after the left wing terrorism doc, and both were commissioned by Bush appointees before the elections. They have dick all to do with Obama, and are a good thing in general. If you're going to be concerned about domestic terrorism, don't pretend they're all going to be islamic brown guys living down the street. It's people who are just fucking unhinged, more likely.
All in all I love this presidency and it's been precisely what I expected it to be. If it's any different for you than you weren't paying any fucking attention.
Though seriously, not checking the tax backgrounds of your staff is like "Man, wut?"
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Exactly. He actually expanded the vetting process.
Thank god for youtube.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
What the Hell was the context of the "addicting this country to heroin" comment? Because that's just wacky and delusional and what the hell was the guy on to say such crap?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That Fox News missed. Of course.
"Roll 212!"
I almost clicked, but valued my metal health too much.
I think I'm suffering from a cerebral hemorrhage of some kind now
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse
Avoid the comments as usual. So many haters.