idontthinkthisishelping

Re: Schuster: Please offer one example of a politician, a "surrogate," or anyone on cable news networks who is not a whore.

Re: "should...care what happens to her:" men care about women to the exact degree as women care about men. Please give me one example to the contrary.

While trying to keep in mind the Harper's statistic: the ratio of men killing women to women killing men is 1:1.

Water seeks its own level. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:56:06

I don't think this post is likely to spark debate because it simply reiterates the obvious truth about free speech, necessarily a right with the absolutely most vile and "offensive" in mind.

So I'm going to assume that's why, coming up on 24 hours after this was posted, I have just doubled the number of comments.

Although, a quick survey of posts that do attract sometimes thousands of comments seems to suggest something interesting, at least to me, about how we like to spend our free speech, and what we choose to ignore.

I guess my dream of "zero limitations on speech" (as I choose to believe humans have a mechanism that sits between hearing and decoding soundwaves, and springing to action -- free will, the power and responsibility of rational analysis. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater causes no action. Choosing to step on someone's throat to make sure YOU'RE out the door first actually causes harm) isn't going to gain in popularity any time soon. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:28:39

Pretty good argument for looking anywhere but here for companionship. While I certainly cannot dispute your statistic, that 100% of American males who marry Russian nationals they've only met once are like 400lbs and eventually have their brides killed, and while I suspect constant bitching and a complete refusal to know anything about a subject before condemning it isn't necessarily a symptom of a geographical location or culture so much as biology, one thing seems clear: while women celebrate their ability to put up with stupid, slovenly, selfish, lunkheaded behavior of men for... I'm not entirely sure what, for and extra paycheck?; men have to put up with this. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:47:43

JoseyJ's comments would be relevant if 12 year olds could vote. posted 03/31/2008 at 05:08:51

"... This is what happens when you marry a narcissist..."

Or, infidelity was his only way to escape her pathological, incessant lying. Now THERE's a Rorschach test for you.

How about, "Why did Bill marry Hillary?" And "Why did Hillary marry Bill?" And why are they still together?

I have seen evidence of female strength, physically, intellectually, logically, emotionally, that due to the fairly unique circumstances, you, Nora, might not have had a hint of. And relatively equally strong men. And most men and women under the same circumstances, precisely 80%, were utterly, entirely useless. One or two actively inhibited progress and left to their own devices, all 80% would have died in short order.

You don't have a lot of these deserving women to pick an appropriate hero from. Men don't have a lot of deserving heroes, either. People who see that chimpanzee Bush W. as a hero are seen as having somehow suffered organic lobotomies. Rightfully so. Why must those who see Hillary as a force of pure, unredeming selfish evil be misogynists, rather than insightful? The only affirmative evidence that she's a good person, let alone a superior person (assuming we would like superior people and not mediocrity in the white house) is her undefined "strength." Vince McMahaon can bench press 350lbs. I'm still not a fan. posted 03/31/2008 at 03:52:20

I haven't read any of these lines in their original context. I assume you have, and you're just giving us the least incendiary, most benign comments so as to not oversimplify and conflate the issue.

I have read Hillary's statements; they are prima facie asinine, and when read in context, flat out lies. I assume Wright et al are attempting, however admirably or misguidedly, to effect change. Hillary lies to promote a self image that could only have existed if she was literally a tyrant from '92 through '00. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:13:00

Of course it's very simple. If it was complex, we might still have issues with race, coming and going in several directions, including from Hillary's finance team. Why are people related to -- not "related" to, but you know, in charge of -- well, not "in charge of," but certainly who have the only voice we should listen to in Obama's campaign, hopefully drowning out that irrelevant idiot Obama -- why are they so hung up on perpetuating this myth that governmental power and allocations are unequally distributed among areas largely defined by race?

We are all equal. It says so right there in the constitution! So of course everything in this country is equal.

Except sexism, which is why we should blindly follow our National Victim. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:07:39

If Obama's not electable, that leaves us with McCain (assuming you can offer an equally definitive reason why Nader is unelectable as well.) posted 03/30/2008 at 16:01:15

I absolutely agree. Hillary is down on pledged delegates, states won and the popular vote, as are Edwards, Richarson, Mondale, Humphrey and McGovern -- I say bring them all back. Clinton'08 is inevitably going to need a governmental bailout; I say impose a "special tax," due tomorrow, of all U.S. citizens to keep her historically important and internationally facinating campaign alive. Lincoln's was a pretty good show, too, so let's bring him back, but don't cheat him with 19th century dollars -- I mean don't cheat the rest of them with 21st century dollars.

I also say if Vince McMahon can reach more viewers and can guarantee an eternal run on every NBC/Universal outlet, give him some Federal money, too. The world LOVES our professional wrestling. We CAN'T deny them our oily men in Speedos. posted 03/30/2008 at 15:58:12

So we've lifted the new 250-word limit? posted 03/29/2008 at 09:25:35

For God's sake quit splitting hairs; just round it down to an even 8% want Hillary to drop out, 98% want Obama to fall over and die. Even 26% of Michelle agrees, though a whopping, but certainly not insurmoutable! 80% of her is still "undecided" (clearly 100% pro-husband-massive-prolonged-painful-coronary, 6% scared of retaliation by Obama Political Machine Hit Squad.)

Wait -- did I say "Michelle?" I don't think I did. I'm pretty sure I said "Hillary." I may have misspoke.

In any event, those are the latest numbers on Geraldine. I mean snipers. I mean 9-year-old-Muslum-torturing-landing-party-with-9-year-old-Muslum-poetry. Prayed for snipers. Redact that. posted 03/29/2008 at 09:41:53

"Blake?" Really? posted 03/29/2008 at 09:29:08

If only there was a Gallagher to break the Northern Ireland story. Unfortunately, "The Troubles" were far too solemn an affair to bring comedians and singer-songwriters along as witnesses. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:59:23

I think my 30 page tome on FNC I butchered down to 249 words is still so inspiring the censors have decided to keep it for themselves. If it ends up posting next week it will read as an irrelevant hackneyed mess, and I'm not just saying that because the original 30 pages read like that too.

Fox and Comedy Central aren't news. Jon Stewart tries to make current events funny. Sean Hannity tries to make current events stupid. Stewart hopes to make you laugh. Hannity hopes to provide someone to blame. This week. Jon Stewart wastes his time structuring segues. Hannity defends sanctioned child molesters running his church saying, "But what IF Obama secretly hates America? We would have no way of knowing! Can we really afford to take that chance?"

Fox is as sophisticated and nuanced as a fart joke, and I apologize to anyone who will now and forevermore think about Rupert Murdock every time the bacteria in their fecal matter release gas.

Olberman's not news; he's manipulation of news, for cynical ends or to force an essential perspective. O'Reilly isn't news. Neither share goals nor methods. One converts your fecal matter to gas; love him or hate him, Olberman leaves your bowels alone.

I'm not happy with "Faux News," either. It's a mouthful, but it's accurate and non-pejorative and non-judgmental: The Celebration of Americans with Statistically Low Cognitive Abilities, Negligible Reasoning Skills and No Real Understanding Why They Shouldn't Fuck Their Cousins. posted 03/29/2008 at 06:47:34

It actually seemed blatantly anti-semitic to me. Surprised Dan didn't pick up on that, too. posted 03/29/2008 at 09:56:51

I'd feel more comfortable buying your analysis after having familiarized myself with New York's Palestinian-owned newspaper. posted 03/28/2008 at 01:30:08

I'm sorry, what? posted 03/28/2008 at 01:25:55

You know there's a "preview" button on the lower left. Just because you typed it doesn't mean you have to post it. posted 03/28/2008 at 03:09:47

Were you starting the tabulation at 2009? posted 03/29/2008 at 10:43:13

Turns out, the simile "this grueling primary has been like a primary that's grueling" didn't work on the Obamaprompter (he is really pioneering their possible widespread use in politics, isn't he! Hope he doesn't keep this new-fangled Islamic technology to himself!)

And "this grueling primary has been like curling up in a room full of kittens" tested as actually suggesting the exact opposite point.

I've spoken to many infantry vets who served in Vietnam. I've worked with helicopter pilots who attempted to bring reluctant South Vietnamese soldiers to the fight in Cambodia at the height of Vietnamization, in which helicopter pilots faced their lowest life expectancy.

I went to high school with a kid who was forced to fight with the Khmer Rouge as a child; when the majority of his unit were killed, the Vietnamese had him fight for them.

I'm not suggesting that this makes me tougher than you; I'm flat-out saying it.

Whether he knew it or not, your old Sarge was serving to protect and defend the only thing held sacred in this country: the constitution. Not the flag, and I would hope not for the privilege of everyone making sure they don't say anything to hurt his feelings, even if by proxy. So you have one choice to make, now: you can have ideas you find too important to question, make light of or ridicule and demand that everyone share your reverence, or you can have the First Amendment. You can't have both. posted 03/29/2008 at 06:09:54

Posted March 27, 2008 | 04:47 PM (EST)

>>Professor Goolsbee, you may remember, was in the news last month when it was reported that he contacted Canadian officials to suggest that Senator Obama's harsh campaign rhetoric on trade and NAFTA shouldn't be taken seriously. Per Goolsbee, the senator's anti-NAFTA rhetoric, a Canadian official wrote, "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." posted 03/29/2008 at 10:17:23

- "Easy ride by the press" was conveniently blind as of a couple of weeks ago. The press is more than happy to keep mentioning the existence of Wright's sound bytes ad infinitum without bringing anything new to the table. If you read the stories presented at Huffington Post, and believe the authors aren't genuinely making up facts (absolutely actionable, and an accusation almost guarantees a finding for the accuser, supported by precident as of only two years ago -- not to mention Huffington's legal warchest is, I think safe to assume, dwarfed by what Hillary could raise -- for such a lawsuit -- in minutes) the MSM has been easy on Hillary. It took them three weeks of daily posts here to pick up only on her Bosnia bullshit, and have yet to (and won't) pick up on N. Ireland. The day the story broke the morning news shows had pieces on it, and by early afternoon Dan Abrams scolded the press for "obsessing" over a "clear mistake" in the same sentence as saying Obama has yet to feel the weight of the press re Wright, after weeks of the lazy-assed press banging the same drum.

As of yesterday, 62% of Americans already know enough to strongly dislike Hillary. If you think Obama or a bunch of disorganized thugs from Arkansas who never targeted Hillary directly -- ever -- are in the same league as Carl Rove who WILL be issuing daily talking points, you deserve the McCain you posted 03/28/2008 at 00:10:47

- I'm going to guess you voted for Hillary as opposed to the only other candidate, "other." If you consider that a fair vote, in which both current candidates agreed to boycott it, though only one put her name on the ballot anyway -- then in fact you really do believe there is only one correct way to vote. Counting your vote disenfranchises everyone who would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot. posted 03/28/2008 at 00:09:43

When the non-news of "what Don Imus said" (which was at least newsworthy enough to bump the former lead story, "what Fatty Arbuckle used to say") "broke" I was curious why those who claim to be for an equal society where all have an equal voice, why would they try to, and succeed in, eliminating someone who said something that offended them from the discussion? Why would they not engage him in dialog? Ask what his intended reaction was, tell him your reaction, ask him if he in retrospect thinks your reaction was natural and probable, or if he genuinely sees a disconnect or an irrelevance?

Demanding someone's banishment sure is an efficient path toward paradise, but it sacrifices the opportunity to clearly voice your point in context with other points, the opportunity to allow people to choose to agree with you rather than agree or leave.

Is this too complicated for you? Is that why you haven't sought out anything other than Rev Wright's soundbytes as cut and looped and provided you by the media, who's only -- ONLY -- goal is to sell fast food, weight-loss programs and pharmaceuticals? posted 03/27/2008 at 20:48:49

I have not read a reasoned, cogent, literate argument based in fact by a hillary supporter in any of the comments here at Huffington Post. The VAST majority are "hit and run" two to three sentence name-calling rants. I would love to march goose-step with the Obama line, religiously disciplined to today's talking points. I have no idea what they are nor where they would be found. I do know that Obama has been discussing ideas, often from multiple angles, ultimately making pretty clear his take on them. I do not feel lectured to. I do not get the feeling that if for whatever reason one of his plans could not be effected he would fold and all would be lost. I do, and have always felt that I have been getting his part of a discussion, not the Truth from someone living on the taxpayer's dole for -- what does she say? -- 35 years, someone who immediately went from serving the Walmart board to accepting a lifetime of Federal welfare. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:47:21

The Bush family has been far more successful than the Clintons by every measure. Why not stick with them? posted 03/27/2008 at 20:30:04

All most of us have been asking for from Hillary supporters and Obama critics has been facts. Verifiable facts. PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THAT LIST, because your baseless opinions have not worried me about Obama one bit.

And please give us a refresher history lesson about those others who tried to run on "Hope and Change."

And please give us one example of a Democrat who ran without attack by the Republicans, one example of a Democratic President who was not consistently opposed by Republicans in Congress, and one reason why we should believe for a second Hillary -- I'll make it easy on you, I'm just asking for an example re: Hillary, not Stalin, Hitler nor Carrot Top; why Hillary will be immune from such attacks and will inspire bilateral cooperation. posted 03/27/2008 at 20:28:39

This is a list of tired, logically baseless talking points the Hillary camp proper abandoned a while ago. So at least Hutchinson isn't officially with them. Unless he just doesn't read his morning faxes.

The division among Democrats in this campaign is the exact division in the country for the past 7 years. Roughly half "knew" God ordained W to lead us to the Promised Land, with a quick stop at Armageddon first; the other "knew" his is a punk working out issues with his father and to a lesser degree his enabling mother, and trying to quash those lifelong suspicions in his head that he was born weak by surrounding himself with "strong" soft, fat hawks who haven't been exposed to the violence on "Murder, She Wrote."

For what it's worth, the numbers have steadily been falling into the latter camp. And for what it's worth, same with this campaign.

Another similarity is that Bush "supporters" couldn't (or wouldn't) support him; they would simply attack Bill Clinton. Bush critics ("haters" -- sound dismissively familiar?) had empirical fact on their side. I'll bet most everyone (anyone?) who reads this believes the "other" candidate to be "W." posted 03/28/2008 at 09:57:09

I'm coming to the party late, but after 1981-1988 and 2001 through this very minute, didn't we all agree on a presidential moratorium on dressing up like cowboys?

It at minimum gets lots of unintended laughs, possibly some intended pity, but it really does scare the shit out of some countries who have conspicuously never threatened us and are therefore on our top 10 list of citizens to annihilate. Can't we for once have a President dress Presidentially, like a Sea Org Commodore? Or just one of the Commodores? posted 03/27/2008 at 01:23:21

Have you read any of Wright's sermons? How many words, total, have you heard come from his mouth? Is it important to you that people believe you have some idea of what you're talking about when engaging in a national forum? posted 03/27/2008 at 01:03:46

...or was told they were being shot at. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:46:23

Just because someone's fellating you for your public support doesn't necessarily mean you know them well... posted 03/26/2008 at 17:45:26

How would you characterize your own posts? Helpful? Uplifting? Educational, progressive, constructive, enlightening? Literate? posted 03/26/2008 at 17:44:07

Dammit -- we've been outed -- while clearly covert, no less -- by this intrepid "cmrosko " -- so I guess we of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy may as well pack it in and go home.

Good luck to you in the "Vast Centrist Conspiracy!" (Not that there officially is such a thing...) And good job photoshopping that little girl over the snipers' nests! I thought a "poetry-reading" little girl was a little over the top, but Vast Conspiracies can't exactly afford to be subtle! posted 03/26/2008 at 17:40:34

Nice. My similar comment won't be posted because of my incessant use of the word "whore." posted 03/26/2008 at 17:36:52

Like what? Can you please tell us, and the Clinton camp, and Hillary, and Wilson the plant (both political and potted) WHERE she ran from a plane dodging sniper fire? Does she include flights into Dulles when Malvo was still at large?

She was given the heads up that she may have "misremembered" and "misspoke" about this weeks ago, yet she continued to push it -- and "elaborate." Now bored reporters have lots of time to go through her schedule looking for incidents when the Secret Service clearly had no regard for her safety when they failed to warn her, "Watch it! Those cookies are still hot!"

In any event, her campaign really could use some help, so if you could just please tell us which warzone she did the dust-off-dance at... posted 03/26/2008 at 17:35:36

Hillary's a lawyer, Dan Abrams is a lawyer and Geraldo is a lawyer. Bill used to be a lawyer before he got a five year suspension in Arkansaw and resigned in advance of subsequent disbarment proceedings.

I could be very wrong about this, but of all the sitcom characters this season, only Edwards was a trial lawyer; I have no idea how often he actually went to trial but as a Plaintiff's attorney in medical malpractice cases ("medical" is redundant. In practice there is never a legal malpractice case. go figure) going to trial is a severe setback and not at all the intent. The idea is to extort as much money as possible from as many victims as possible in as short a time as possible and pocket 1/3.

I'm curious to know if allegations of malpractice went down after Edwards ended his successful career, or if Physicians are simply bad people with evil intent and very little practical skill, or if maybe malpractice is where you can convince someone with pockets you might be able to "prove" it to the literal legal tune of "more likely than not."

I think if malpractice suits are inevitable and unavoidable, doctors ought to show up to work stoned out of their gourds, and instead of playing some muzak CD in the OR they should put up "Saw III" on the big screen and just have some fucking fun. Ticket's already paid for. posted 03/27/2008 at 01:45:05

Any ideas on medication or therapy to make sure she's rested every night by 3am? Although I suppose it could go either way; she could have a flashback of the sniping over the phone while Kim Il tries to talk her down like she got the same bad acid he's been munching on, or she could accidentally break out peace in Northern Ireland. Again. Maybe even Wales.

"I'm Batman!" posted 03/27/2008 at 01:32:36

Why is it we hear so much from your idiot sidekick and not nearly enough from you? It's been like 30+ years of hearing nothing but Art Garfunkel's high notes, except I like Art Garfunkel, and he actually can sing.

Do you know the exact point when Woodward decided to become a political novelist? Does he habitually feel the last-minute need to source his dialog? posted 03/27/2008 at 01:15:25

Damn. You should be a trial lawyer. Shut down the entire argument in just 10 words. I really like that clever double entendre you use, "jerkoff," while also subtly suggesting "jerkoff." Genius.

Be sure to compile the comments you're most proud of here and send copies to Hillary. She'll be pleased to have you on her side. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:35:42

I was amazed at his squeaky little voice; never got that from his manly Hillary advertisements on Huffington; and even moreso at the fact that while with his family on vacation at Universal Studios Orlando he still managed to happen to have a news report from 1996, in his lap, appropriate to the conversation if it actually said or supported anything remotely relevant to the actual discussion at hand.

Is it really good form to bring some old People magazine you found in the Greenroom toilet into your interview assuming it will somehow support your entire argument?

What Lanny doesn't want to get out is the fact that he's enjoying the amusements at Universal Studios Orlando with the Manson family, ostensibly getting tips on the niceties of public debate. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:29:58

But it simply wasn't dangerous! Period! And I"ve sometimes put in 9 1/2 -- even 10 hour days and never raced home to avoid "sniper fire," because the cops actually get really upset when you try to use that excuse.

And how did she "misspeak" about bringing peace to Northern Ireland? Her plea for intervention in Rwanda? Her vocal anti-NAFTA position? Her COMPLETELY tanking even a discussion of healthcare coverage reform?

And by the way, what's her coverage like? Just how comprehensive is it? And who pays her premiums? posted 03/27/2008 at 00:25:32

"...every which way to Sunday..." Not really familiar with that political concept -- unless it's really more statistical... but could you answer me this? By "tie" do you mean one is leading in pledged delegates and popular votes and the other is losing pledged delegates and popular votes and has been hemorrhaging Superdelegates since the primaries actually started? My brother is about to get his M.D. at Penn; can I "tie" him in that I'm not expecting to get my M.D. at Penn, in that I haven't yet finished third grade? But in that we "tie" I still get to cut people open at will, right? Mabye even more than him? posted 03/27/2008 at 02:03:51

There was a time when a good portion of Democrats believed we were safer with a forced regime change in Iraq, that "post-9/11" we would be safer with far fewer Executive restraints... I can specifically think of ONE democrat who believed in, and continues to believe in both (she is the only candidate who has promised to continue the practice of signing statements, and will not discuss limits, if any, she feels appropriate to the scope of Presidential Directives.)

Obama may be guilty by association, but by fact and pledge Clinton has proven to hate America and its democratic process.

W Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld et al had an agenda; you knew exactly what to expect from them. What is Hillary's agenda? With the Presidency now an autonomous tyrannical supreme, literally ungoverned authority, what will she do with that power? McCain promises 4 more years of very similar, if not the same, with a conscience, but an easily ignorable one; Obama is in fact a wildcard yet utterly failed to enact Islam as the official religion of Illinois; it it isn't clear the Clintons will use any method at their disposal as ruthlessly as possible for simple and sole political gain is as naive as those who believe Bush et al will only use force when all earnest diplomatic efforts fail.

I've looked through AnninCa's posts and have yet to find one affirmative reason why she thinks Clinton is a good choice for milk monitor, let alone Queen. posted 03/26/2008 at 00:00:15

Can I brag? Even as late to the party as I was? In November, 2001 (or December?) A&E (or Biography?) ran a week long series on something like "miscreant felon former child sit-com actors." Monday was someone like Todd Bridges. Tuesday was someone like Danny Bonaduce. Wednesday was "Why Saddam Hussein is the biggest motherfucking asshole in the history of motherfucking assholes and need to be taken down NOW." Thursday was either Ron Howard or Sally Field, I can't remember which.

As soon as I saw the promo for the week, I immediately got on the phone with my broker and bought Catepillar and Halliburton. If I had a stockbroker. And had paid my phone bill. posted 03/31/2008 at 03:29:04

You're too hunky. Try to ugly it down a bit. posted 03/28/2008 at 00:13:37