The Republican "Road to Recovery" budget alternative, rolled out today by John Boehner, has been criticized by left and right for its lack of specificity and its promise to eliminate the national debt while significantly cutting taxes. FiveThirtyEight.com, however, has received an advance copy of additional details prepared by the Minority Leader's office. Although some elements of the proposal are still under discussion -- Eric Cantor is said to want to eliminate North Dakota rather than Idaho, while Thaddeus McCotter has suggested using the balance of TARP funds to purchase scratch-off tickets -- the final plan can be expected to contain most or all of these components.
3.26.2009
The Real Republican Road to Recovery
@ 8:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
227 comments
Pure awesome. First?
ha!
OMG..this is the most fun I've had in weeks. Thanks for the laugh, Nate!
When do they collect the underpants?
Absolutely hilarious...thanks for putting up something lighthearted for us all to enjoy.
P.S. Much as I disliked your Vijay post, overall I love your work. Keep it up.
I expect better from this site. I agree the alternative budget is BS and smoke but I expect this site to maintain its deliberative tone and numbers parsing facts. Let Bill Maher mock, let Limbaugh mock.
Be better than them.
I haven't found the line about the 32 oz soda in the Boenher's "document" and you missed the optional provision to shake down B.C.ers and Quebecers importing pot. Other than that, great work, Nate!
Actually Kerry, I think Nate did a better job of giving specific budget details, albeit ridiculous and whimsical, than the GOP folks did in their "blueprint". It was a second (maybe third) rate effort, and solely generated to attempt to deflect Obama and the DEM's painting them as the party of "NO". It definitely was not worthy of a media press conference.
Comparing this to Maher and Limbaugh is a little over the top, don't you think? Surely we can be "deliberative" without being completely humorless.
@Kerryth:
There are certain times where claims are so absurd and patently stupid - such as the idea that, given the state we're in, we can both cut taxes dramatically while simultaneously paying down the national debt (presumably also without America as a whole collapsing) - that there is really no possibly way to respond to them except with humor.
The alternative is to cry.
But Nate, whats step 2, (or in your case, step 10)?
I preferred the vijay post so fuck off Jon.
This is exactly why this party is on the verge of Whig territory.
I really cannot believe that they went before the national public and produced a 19 page "blueprint" as their alternative to the War and Peace bill that the Pres has already submitted and what has been in Congress since Feb.
No figures, no projections, no guidelines, no plan...
Unreal...
Yep, Ronald Reagan is coming back in a big way...
Idle thought of the day:
Does octomom have an octopussy? And does she wear a whig over it?
SantaTurdo,
Do try to keep it clean. Some of us have children (although from your posting, it's apparent that you're probably too young to know much about this responsibility).
ha ha. hey seriously, lets decriminalize marijuana tomorrow and then all buy mansions next week. It is kinda the only thing that makes sense these days. It's not evil and no one gets hurt. plus everything on tv gets ten time funnier.
If they do decriminalize marijuana i am buying stock in frito-lay asap.
Hey... Citigroup shakes down Mexican Drug Lords for Cash. Paws off that gig. When Citi purchased BanaMex, Mexico's number one drug money laundering bank and put Banamex's President on Citi's Board of Directors to insure that tax free flow... smartest thing Robert the Rube ever did.
Let's cut taxes on he wealthiest 1% from 35% to 25%, I come up with a 30% reduction in taxes for the richest.
Like they really pay them anyway. Between off shore loop holes and accounts and...
Just not paying them a la Geithner, Daschle and Killefer the upper 1% don't pay taxes. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I can only figure it is like the "liberal news media" propaganda from the lunatic reactionaries... If a right of center corporate rag like the NYT is called left wing, then the political discussion can never be further left than corporate right of center.
So if the top rate of 25% is now on the playing field, then anything above the Bush ultra low fascist 35% will be called a tax increase.
I say 1980. 70% on anything you make above $200k. That is less than 1% of the people. They still make way more than the rest of us and... most of their income is not from wage earning it is from parasitical rent, usury and capital gains off of the real economy.
And if Congressman Boner says a 70% top rate will discourage the top 1% from worker... GOOD. We have seen their work on Wall Street and they need to go!
There are some really upset GOP fanatics on the AARP website..so of course I posted this there. I knew Nat was a statistician...but also a comedian. WOW, too funny
You let your child use the internet and then to visit this site- you must be young (or rather retarded) not I!
I guess the "jobs programme" didn't make the final cut: the Rapture will create millions of immediate job openings.
It's too bad that the militias will overthrow the government any day now and make this entire scheme completely moot.
I admit it, I laughed.
Must. Stop. Laughing. Hysterically.
Thank you for this. I needed a good belly laugh.
Ahh Turdo,
Again with the language? Am I asking for so much? You're a lot like some stubborn extremists I know - Can't win an argument? No problem. Just resort to name calling.
They really, really shot themselves in the foot by making such an open-ended, easily imitated graphic. I've already seen ten parodies of that thing, and so far they've all been pretty funny. These guys are going to be a laughingstock.
Next time, hire a graphic artist, guys!
Honestly, I agree with Kerryth. I've no problem with a dash of political humor on FiveThirtyEight, but this is so blunt and over-the-top that it clashes badly with the overall tone of the site.
Nate's made no secret of his political leanings -- heck, that issue is even included in the FAQ -- but those views have so far been expressed in moderation and tempered by solid, objective analysis. Big, cheesy partisan charts detract from this reputation for no-nonsense number-crunching.
I'd recommend limiting the funny to being subtle, sly, and text-only from now on.
I'm disappointed in you Nate. Once again you've fallen into the soft bigotry of expecting people to use numbers to quantify things. Shame, shame, shame.
Who said you could be funny?
Did I say you could be funny?
I don't recall saying you could be funny.
This. Is. Hilarious. Thanks for that, and all you do.
I'm amazed this post is remotely "controversial." It's hysterical, plain and simple. Did those criticizing actually see the GOP "budget" with it's bizarre, non-sequitur chart?
This post is brilliant and fits the site perfectly. I can't decide whether eliminating Volcanoes or War on Octomom is my favorite part of the plan.
Nate Silver, you're my hero.
It's exactly that clash that made this post so funny. I thought for sure it was real. I did a double take when I read the first bubble. O well, can't please all the people all of the time (or even some people any of the time).
ps ponsi is the word I have to type for verification...is blogger.com trying to implant ideas in my subconscious?
LOL... Don't give them any ideas, Nate. I imagine there's more than a few lurking FReeptards nodding in agreement with those budget proposals.
But seriously, could you imagine if the Dems tried to pull the shit Boner and Can'tor did today? The "librul media" would have ridiculed them to the point that not only would the midterms be written off, but they wouldn't be allowed near any branch of government, nevermind the presidency, for at least a generation. With the exception of Contessa Brewer and Norah O'Donnell, morons like Mike Pence weren't called on their ridiculous attempts at a budget.
This man has valuable things to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OKSrMWCw1k
I don't remember where but I saw a video of him advocating leaving taxes as they are and shrinking the federal government. Wish I could vote for that political party.
I don't begrudge you your fun, Nate, but for what it's worth, the recent trend toward stat-free/partisan/sloppy/silly is very much the opposite of what turned me into a regular reader of 538 last year.
i LOVE this. it all becomes clear!
DEREGULATION.
The Republicans propose meta-deregulation, to deregulate the deregulators. This way lawmakers will no longer have to have a pesky vote on whether to strike down corporate regulations, they can simply declare it null and void. This will be more efficient, and save tons of time. Regulation will still be regulated by vote, only deregulation shall be deregulated.
RushPiglicans also skipped the briefing on Afghanistan. Apparently they're not serious about defense and national security either. But fear not, conservatives. I read that the Weekly sub-standard's #1 lunatic, Bill Kristol, has set up PNAC 2.0, another neocon wet dream of death and destruction. Presumably both he and the Kagans are praying for another cataclysmic event, like another Pearl Harbor, or perhaps another 9/11.
The question marks are literally that: we will be taxed for every question we ask the GOP. (Such as $10 for WTF?) THAT's how they will balance the budget.
What happened to the Republican plan to make Iraq the 51st state? I thought that was a real moneymaker.
Now that the surge has worked, what's the problem? Iraqis look great in those retro service station coveralls!
Iraqlahoma?
Why eliminate North Dakota or Idaho? My nominee would be Utah.
It is a blood red state. It is also a twofer in that this country would never have to hear the names Donnie and Marie again.
Good fun. And trenchant commentary – you have to call 'em as you see 'em.
Leave the snide political jabs to the useless political talking heads on cable news, Nate.
Jon said...
Ahh Turdo,
Again with the language? Am I asking for so much? You're a lot like some stubborn extremists I know - Can't win an argument? No problem. Just resort to name calling.
PorridgeGun said...
...FReeptards...Can'tor ...morons...RushPiglicans...
Yep.
I would just hope that people could converse without the 'witty' insults that were stolen from others in the first place. I've seen it a lot more in other threads, but (whoever does it) really detracts from your argument.
Hu Chi said...
What happened to the Republican plan to make Iraq the 51st state? I thought that was a real moneymaker.
Iraq the 51st state??? What happened to their plan to make Baghdad the galleria at Halliburton Square?
*chortle*
I have been searching the newspapers, television and blogs and I find a scarcity of information if not absolutely no info on this so-called budget. Why is this not newsworthy? If the Democrats came out with anything like this they would be scarified on the front pages everywhere.
The new GOP budget plan is the same as it was under George Bush--cut taxes, spend like a pig, keep the high-cost items (e.g. two wars) off the balance sheet, leave a mess for the next guy.
Actually, eliminating Delaware would be a pretty good idea.
I've noticed you Silverites are only happy hacking on the GOP. Actually defending Obama's policies seems to make you a bit jittery.
The GOP budget doesn't matter. The Obama budget does, and its a disaster. Obama said this today: "It's a budget that cuts the things we don't need to make room for the investments we do, a budget that cuts the massive deficits we've inherited in half, by the end of my first term, and offers a blueprint for America's success in the 21st century."
This is a flat, bald faced, lie. THAT is the real problem here, no matter how much you indulge yourselves pretending otherwise.
You forgot "throw a TEA Party" Tea= traitors, extemist and a**holes
Why eliminate North Dakota or Idaho? My nominee would be Utah.
It is a blood red state. It is also a twofer in that this country would never have to hear the names Donnie and Marie again.
How are you going to get anyone to take it, without a serious outlay of cash and/or military resources? At least with North Dakota Canada would take that. We are used to dealing with huge expanses of wide open nothing. Send us a couple 2-4s of a respectable micro-brew (none of your watered down large label crap, thanks) and an extra large hawaiian and we'll take it off your hands, no problem. Toss in a couple tickets to a Red Wings game and we'll take Montana too. We'll combine the two, because separately they are kinda small as far as provinces go, and we'll rename them to South Saskatchewan.
P.S. Idaho you can keep. Rural Alberta has satisfied our KKK-lite redneck quota already, thanks. :p
You forgot "throw a TEA Party" Tea= traitors, extemist and a**holes
Tea bag the Whitehouse!
First, I have to say I took this as satire aimed at a hippo with no legs; this isn't partisan, it's a pure reaction to
I'd be surprised to see the soda with purchase thing in there, as there really are no numbers in it.
That PDF of theirs was a budget in the same way Intelligent Design is a theory. (i.e. neither are) You have to have NUMBERS to have a BUDGET.
And Delaware is a clear cut case of gerrymandering!! $3 dollar toll for five miles of highway!?!?!?! OFF WITH THEIR CHARTER! I COULD HAVE DRIVEN AROUND YOU BUT MY GPS HAS NO BALLS!
Shane said...
PorridgeGun said...
...FReeptards...Can'tor...morons...RushPiglicans...
Yep.
I would just hope that people could converse without the 'witty' insults that were stolen from others in the first place. I've seen it a lot more in other threads, but (whoever does it) really detracts from your argument.
That's a step up for me. Until fairly recently I just referred to them as the scum. Ask anyone.
BTW, it's useless asking someone like me to ditch the 'witty' insults. I'm an independent. My point of view is quite simple: RushPiglicans and the current batch of wingnut fundies who try to pass themselves off as conservatives and christians are the most fucked up group of people to ever have shat in modern civilization. Democrats, for the most part, are just wankers. If it wasn't for President Obama and Governor Brian Schweitzer, they'd be dead as a forward thinking 21st century party. They're the only reason I'm even engaged.
Porridge,
OK, if you meant the group that follows Rush (and not Republicans in general) I understand, at least a bit more. It's just that I have seen a ton of that around here--and you were just the handy one in this thread. Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but it just seems so partisan when either side starts name calling. I was hoping to get as much from the comments as I was from the (non-Sean) posts, though this one I was actually shocked to see it was Nate and not Sean...
I wanted to laugh, but I noticed it had taken my breath away it was so funny.
J.E.
Hmm...
That was no legless hippo. That was my wife!
What are you incinerating?
Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's just the best Jehovah could do on short notice.
I think I found at least some of the source text for this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595257066605147.html
Certainly, these are some of the numbers you'll be seeing "next week."
You can blame Ryan. (- that reminds me, he said the word 'choice' in the roll-out press conference. Big GOP no-no last i checked.)
not sure what else you'd expect from "government is the problem" Republicans.
Anyone else notice the fact that Obama's plan is called the "Democrat budget" or "Democrat plan" all throughout the RNC "Road to Recovery" document. Why don't they just come out and declare Rush Limbaugh as the author?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(United_States)
i have to say that i'm not a big fan of the attempts at humor on this site. usually a big fan of everything else though.
bah ha ha!
Underpants gnome reference...well played
As a graphic designer, the thing that stood out was the dismal print quality of the document waved about at the podium: untrimmed, hand-assembled, printed on 11 x 17 format laser printer, with .25 inch minimum margin around the edge, bound with a staple in the middle after inexpert folding, the document bulging rather than flat. This was a rushed job, and probably done by in-house office staff. It was not up to Kinko's standards, certainly hadn't been touched by any self-respecting printer. When my outfit does advocacy pieces aimed at our pathetic state legislature they look 100 times better than that. It seems strange, and of a piece with the hilariously amateur flow chart.
Shane said...
Porridge,
OK, if you meant the group that follows Rush (and not Republicans in general) I understand, at least a bit more. It's just that I have seen a ton of that around here--and you were just the handy one in this thread. Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but it just seems so partisan when either side starts name calling. I was hoping to get as much from the comments as I was from the (non-Sean) posts, though this one I was actually shocked to see it was Nate and not Sean...
Actually, you were correct the first time. With the possible exception of Olympia Snowe and Ron Paul, the entire party and it's supporters are delusional at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. I can't imagine why anyone would want to associate themselves with a party defined by corruption, and an idealogy based on fear and bigotry. In many ways, they're to the right of the BNP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
But hey, at least the BNP are more or less a one issue party without corporate and lobbyist backing.
zrgmom- i noticed the amateur quality too.
i was a commercial artist so maybe we pay more attention to this.
but they are amateurs expect no more from the republicans!
Hilarious
Too funny. I mean how can you not mock these people. they are supposed to be our leaders and they come of looking like clownish frat boys who partied all night and threw their end-of-the-year project together between breakfast and class.
that's not partisan, that is calling a spade a spade.
Shane said...
OK, if you meant the group that follows Rush (and not Republicans in general). . . .
You mean there's more to the GOOPers than those who think Lush Rimbaugh speaks the truth, the whole truth and only the truth?
Could have fooled me!
If we combine Delaware and Maryland we can add Iraq and not have to change the flag.
Combine Idaho and Montana and we can add Puerto Rico.
Saves money on stars.
Mike in Maryland said...
You mean there's more to the GOOPers than those who think Lush Rimbaugh speaks the truth, the whole truth and only the truth?
Could have fooled me!
Well, if you want to stereotype a very large segment of the population, ok. But that's about as productive as thinking your party pretty much can do no wrong. Burying one's head in the sand isn't the most intelligent thing to do.
Shane
I actually agree with you up to a point. Just trading unoriginal insults gets old.
GOP could stand for a lot of things, like Goddamned Oligarchic Pissants, but to just stick to one rude name is a little lame.
In the case of Dubya and Cheney, for instance, I don't think we need any more nicknames. Just numbers would do fine for maybe 20 years to life.
What I object to more is commenters insulting other commenters without sufficient grounds. Public figures are fair game, but a serious comment from a non-troll (such as yourself) doesn't merit outright hostility.
Teasing, maybe...;-)
Oh, and Dems can and do do wrong. They just aren't committed to it.
Wow, these repubs really do fit the clinical definition (if that's what you call it) of insanity. They really ARE insane!
With all that's going on and all that we are all going through and all that we've been through over the last 8 years, they get up and say the solution is to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut out programs that help the poor. Unbelievable! And they do it with an amateurish presentation that could be bested by a 3rd grader with a $500 computer and an HP all-in-one printer.
Step 1, Collect Underpants. Step 3, Profit!
Maxwell
You forgot number 2. Was it in the underpants?
IU really think decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the hell out of it is the way to go.
You sir, are responsible for me snorting my oatmeal out my nose this morning, as I was sitting here as usual innocently reading my favorite blogs and news sites. Thanks a bucket. I of course plan to share this preview of the Republican Master Plan for Salvation with all my Republican "Friends" as the day progresses.
The post is hilarious, but not funnier than the "budget" itself. Have you seen Gibbs reaction to it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zwa6jRapKY&eurl
Wait!!! Not Delaware? Where would we register our megayacht?????
@Shane:
Well, if you want to stereotype a very large segment of the population, ok.
Actually, how else do you propose talking about millions of people that fervently share a rather large set of irrational beliefs?
Of course we want to stereotype them, that isn't a bad thing, it is the only approach humanly possible.
I stereotype the Rush Limbaugh aficionados; the GW Bush bottom of the barrel supporters, and even the Obama-Is-Our-Savior supporters.
Burying one's head in the sand isn't the most intelligent thing to do.
Neither is denying human nature.
By analogy, handguns get a bad name because of their role in crime, but handguns are a useful tool in preventing crime as well.
Well, stereotyping gets a bad name due to its role in bigotry, but it is actually a useful tool we humans have evolved that saves us time and protects us from danger.
Seriously, it is hardly more than a correlation engine in our head, and every act of Republicans and Rush now seems to provide more evidence they are simply pandering to the religious right, or belong to the religious right, or are just openly in bed with the criminal rich, bankrupt of ideas and still proposing stale ideas. Stereotyping serves a purpose. In this case, it warns us to take any Republican idea as a probable fraud, because recent experience shows that it is. It warns us that if somebody quotes Rush as a credible source, they quite likely have no intellectual independence or capacity for distinguishing lies from the truth; in other words they are gullible dummies. Or outright liars trying to woo the gullible dummies in Rush's audience.
Stereotyping keeps us from wasting time. Mr. Silver and Comedy Central have it right: If you don't want to let these idiocies go unanswered, and if stereotyping warns you that a rational response is likely to fall on deaf ears, the best response is to mock how ridiculous they are. The rational response would conclude with how pathetic you think the idea is; the mocking response conveys the same message in less time and makes a few people smile.
And I love the underpants gnome reference; I saw that South Park episode fresh and almost fell out of my seat laughing. I use it myself; I'm glad to see the meme is thriving.
I am upset by the constant negative references to a great political party. The Whigs were strong supporters of a vital national government which used its power to carry out national public works, such as promoting the construction of canals and railroads.
@ Shane its not worth talking to some people. You will figure out who the leftwing hacks are soon enough.
Don't feed the trolls as they say :-p
I will echo that I figured this was from Sean I make a point in ignoring anything he has to say or his threads.
A South Park reference on 538?!?!? *whew* I was beginning to think you guys had lost your sense of humor.
You forgot one bubble there "Just Say No!"
You have captured the basic GOP foolishness and I'm glad you shown your snarky side.
I thought it was odd when Boehner made it out as if this document was the GOP response to the State of The Union (I know it wasn't a real SOTU speach, but you know what I mean). The GOP gave its response to the SOTU on the same night. Many of you will remember the squirming presence of one Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
This had all the hallmarks of a panic, OMG we better do something, even though our budget response isn't quite ready yet, action. Boehner looked nothing like a future Speaker of the House, and the GOP in the House cemented, rather than ended its reputation of a party in panic. A bad bad day for Republicans.
Thanks very much, Nate. I was beginning to think it would be valuable to have a cartoonist on 538, and now I realize we may have one.
(BTW/ this is something you might solicit -- would-be cartoonist who want to try out here.)
@markymark:
To be serious for a moment, the problem is that no Republican idea has any traction with the public anymore, even those few ideas (like reducing waste) that might have some merit.
The Republicans have lost the war on tax cuts, on deregulation, on small government, and on foreign wars to make us "safe."
The public doesn't want to hear it. Tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses did not trickle down, they dammed up and apparently, along with deregulation, totally fucked up the economy.
I am a liberal, but as far as I can tell, the R's have no coherent political strategy whatsoever. They say they have "found their soul" of fiscal conservatism and small government.
How convenient! Saved by Jesus while on death row.
Ironically, the one issue that might save the Republican Party (in my view, at least) is one they have distanced themselves from assiduously. They could become true constitutionalists, rejecting the abuse of using the Interstate Commerce clause to expand federal control of everything from drugs to traffic laws, become state-agnostic on abortion, support the separation of church and state, reject the imperial presidency, and more.
I am a Constitutionalist before I am a Democrat. Not as literal as Ron Paul, I am smart enough to understand there are issues the founding father's could not have addressed two hundred thirty five years ago, but I do believe the spirit of the Constitution is sound. There is plenty of ammunition for Constitutionalists against the Obama administration.
Ah well, Republican's will never throw the religious right and ultra conservatives under the bus, and clinging to that anchor will drown them.
You forgot "return Sarah Palin's Campaign Clothes to Consignment Shop,"
It was just a crush before, but now I think I'm in love. Nate, you rule.
For those of whinging on about the partisan posts, please consider this:
The GOP has moved into some kind of alternate reality along the lines of Tolkein and Clarke. There really is no rational "middle ground" that can be embraced between the two realities.
Republicans (here and elsewhere) are angrily demanding that any discussion be framed in the terms of their imaginary world where Obama is despised as a dictator and a 4.6% tax increase on the wealthiest Americans pushes us over the abyss into a "socialist hell".
The media is rapidly becoming unable to juggle the disconnect between reality and the Republican wishful construct. If 25% of the country wants to believe we are menaced by orcs or demands that we consult a talking lion, then special media outlets (i.e. Fox News) will have to accommodate them.
The rest of us here in the real world are simply not going to be sucked into a discussion of "what are we going to do about Sauron?"
PorridgeGun wrote:
"With the possible exception of Olympia Snowe and Ron Paul, the entire party and it's supporters are delusional at best, and extremely dangerous at worst."
Sadly true.
Nate, you win the entire internet for that. :D
What’s wrong with scratch-offs? That’s what is wrong with the liberal media. I raised my kids on scratch-offs and welfare and they are fine. I mean who wants real (smarty pants) strategies when we can have scratch-offs.
Seriously. I love your chart. The sad part is you were joking. One of these damn Republicans will get a hold of it and try to pass it off as real policy...The Bible says” It is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove ALL DOUBT. Somebody needs to buy lots of Bibles for the religious right
Kerryth said it best.
So the GOP is just a bunch of crackpots whose ideas have no merit and will never appeal to the voters again. Keep telling yourselves that. Does that include Judd Gregg, Obama's own handpicked "rational" republican, budget expert, and all that jazz. Have you heard what HE thinks of this budget? Can HE be dismissed as a nutjob, and if so, why did your genius president almost put him on the team?
Basically, most of you on this blog just chant the "GOP is nuts" mantra to avoid using your brains on policy questions. Pathetic.
This is cheapening.
Clearly Jeff needs to read the Republican "budget"
Akio-
Relax, this is not cheapening, it is funny.
@Jeff:
Yes, Gregg is nuts. Out of his frickin' mind insane.
Yes, I am a liberal Democrat, donor and voter for Obama three times (you get two primary votes in Texas).
Obama is not nuts. He tried to recruit Gregg because he wanted a republican to validate his budget and Obama wants to appear post-partisan. Gregg rebelled, because Gregg is insane and is drunk on the Kool-Aid of free markets, deregulation and small government. Obama refused to compromise with Gregg, and that ended that.
Obama's move to recruit Gregg was rational politics. His budgetary insanity made it impossible for him to do the job that Obama, and 2/3 of the country, needed done.
Gregg's recruitment and rebellion are more evidence that Republicans are nuts, not a counter-argument that they are sane.
Are we witnessing the self-implosion of fivethirtyeight.com? This is too funny.
Nate jumped the shark with an emotional appeal in his ridiculous post about his friend Vijay that was chock full of anecdotal evidence and completely devoid of quantitative rational thought, much less reason and general intellect.
Now he does his best impression of Sean and ejaculates this load of douchey sarcasm into the blogosphere. And once again, it's content-free and serves little more than to feed the starving, radical leftist hounds who've come to his table for some scraps - guys like PorridgeGun and Mike in MD who are perpetually hungry for such rhetorical bile. Most of the rest of us, even the intelligent liberal bloggers - of which, there are many on this site - can feed ourselves or go elsewhere to be fed than fight over these scraps. We'll leave the hyenas to themselves...
Out of curiousity, though, has Nate run out of ammunition? No more bullets? I expect more from a statistical wunderkind...
Guess we'll just have to sit back and watch this thing (538) go down like a $5 hooker.
Tony C
Actually I think that the best strategy the GOP could have taken in these first 6 months or so of Democrat rule is just lay low. Shut up and let the Dems get on with it. Speak when its called for but try and say as little as possible. Let the differences in the Democratic Caucus emerge, let a clearer idea of the publics problems with the Democratic policies set more clearly, and then slowly move with a strategy for the mid terms.
By rushing to oppose, by allowing themselves to become the party of no, they have tied there own success to the success or otherwise of the Obama administration. If they had layed low they could have developed a more positive strategy moving forward, and not just been negative. Inevitably a new President is going to get a honeymoon period, and coming out of the gates hard against that just looks mean it seems to me, and especially when the characiture of the party is as the mean party, thats not a great strategy.
That being said I agree that if they are going to be a statist, limited government party, they need to really be that, rather than just when they want to be. Oppose Roe v Wade on constitutional rather than moral grounds, and i think you begin to make a more sensible argument to get it overturned, and then put the issue back to the states to decide. (not saying thats what I want to happen necesarily, more that that would make a more logical, better argument to make as an example).
I find it hilarious. Nate must have expected something with numbers so that he could analyse it. That is afterall what he does. So, when you hand an english essay to a mathmatician for rigorous anlaysis, expect a bit of snarky humor and incredulity.
@aces
Best. Comment. Ever.
NY-20: MURPHY TAKES 4 PT LEAD
Now this is big news. The new Siena poll out this morning, testing the special election this Tuesday for Kirsten Gillibrand's old House seat, shows Democratic candidate Scott Murphy ahead of Republican Jim Tedisco by 47%-43% -- the first public poll to put the Dem ahead, though his lead is still within the ±3.2% margin of error.
A poll from two weeks ago showed that Murphy was already closing the gap, trailing at the time by 45%-41%, after a poll two weeks before that had given Tedisco an even wider lead of 46%-34%.
The poll from two weeks ago showed Murphy achieving a huge turnaround among independents, and taking a six-point lead. But now this week's poll gives Tedisco a one-point edge among independents -- but Murphy's Democratic support has gone up from 72% to 84%, and Tedisco's Dem crossover support has fallen from 17% to 11%, and he even gets 27% of Republicans.
Murphy's road from 12 points down to four points up can be traced to a few things. First of all, he is a first-time candidate who started out with no name recognition, going up against the well-known state Assembly minority leader. Next, Murphy has consistently built up his own brand by tying himself in with President Obama and the stimulus plan. And now the White House itself has gotten involved through a public endorsement by Obama, a radio ad starring Joe Biden, and a new DNC ad reminding voters about the Obama endorsement.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/poll-dem-takes-lead-in-special-election.php
By the way I don't see what is wrong with Nate bringing out a little sattire every now and again. Even in the pre election period, there was plenty of political commentary going on that didn't involve the polls. (I remember some very cutting posts about Palin for instance). 538 have never just been about the polls.
Irrational Exuberance
This kind of mockery, born of hubris, most often precedes a very precipitous decline in standing.
Obama and his cohorts have been too smug by a half and ultimately their knowing and derisive laughter will need to be replaced by results.
With personal incomes continuing to decline and unemployment rising, there is little to be cheerful about in the present circumstances. The seeming lift in the Housing Market is nothing more than a dead cat bounce as things rebound from the most dreadful lows ever posted since they began keeping statistics.
The current stock market rally, which fizzled a bit on this morning's bad economic news (personal income falling and spending remaining anemic), should not be taken for a harbinger of good times to come.
There are technical reasons for the 20% rally we have seen over the past two weeks that have much more to do with short-covering an oversold market and an economy that is awash in liquidity (read "cash") looking for a home.
Bernanke is the biggest buyer of Treasury securities out there and the Fed's novel quantitative easing has injected a great deal of cash into the system, suppressing interest rates and "reflating" prices across the board.
This has pushed commodity prices higher and has caused investors to turn increasingly aside from investment in Treasuries and other fixed income assets. That the stock market with its tie to tangible assets would benefit is hardly surprising nor a sign of anything other than a price spiral born of inflationary expectations.
Cash will find a home.
No doubt all this fiscal stimulus coupled with expansion of the money supply will fuel some sort of recovery, but my fear is that it will unstable and not long lasting. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high as business remains skeptical of Obama’s long term plans and their impact.
Political calculus for democrats in 2010 is cloudy. Witness Chris Dodd current electoral troubles in Connecticut no less. http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2009/03/eye-on-the-senate-dodd-has-thi.html
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01)
Jeff wrote:
"So the GOP is just a bunch of crackpots whose ideas have no merit and will never appeal to the voters again."
What bloody "ideas" can you be referring to? Their are no "ideas" in the "budget". That's the entire point of Nate's post.
And, yes, if the GOP is really determined to place all of their policy bets on a fictional work by Ayn Rand, then they will never appeal to the voters again beyond those they appeal to now.
Is that clear enough for you? Or is it simply what you don't want to hear?
The GOP had ideas under the Bush Administration - bad ideas, but they were ideas. Now they are just shouting "Obama sucks" and waving around copies of "Atlas Shrugged" as if it were the bloody Bible itself.
If Republicans can bear to emerge from their imaginary world, rub their eyes, and live in the sunlit world of reason, then yes, they can regain relevance and credibility.
Instead, they are demanding that the rest of the world join them in their delusions.
The current Republican convulsions are funny in themselves. Nate's attempt at satire was a bit witless, I thought.
This site's become quite erratic recently, with Nate drifting from analysis to rhetoric, Sean lurching into partisan pettiness, and even Andrew's consistently unimpeachable work slipping slightly with his last piece.
Necessary growing pains, maybe, as 538 continues to work out what it wants to be post-election.
Where's a bursting bubble of Republican Jesus going all Chuck Norrisy "nunchucks" on yo' ass?
- Harry R. Sohl
Necessary growing pains, maybe...
Maybe. But my money is one 'beginning of the end.'
Tony C:
So Gregg is insane, but Obama wanted him to validate his budget. When Gregg pointed out that the budget would bankrupt the country, he merely confirmed his insanity, and was thus booted. Obama, meanwhile, is a fiscal genius.
Do all of you agree with this madness? Are you all down the rabbit hole together? God save us.
I'm with you, Jeff. This blind following is ridiculous.
I'll gladly be mocked and derided as a 'no idea' lemming so I can sit in my little cave or burrow and sulk...better than following everyone else off a cliff.
It's going to take a little anarchy and some serious pain and suffering for people to sober up and come out of their Obama haze and see he's not leading us anywhere but into the ground.
@aces: Whatever, MuleRider.
Back to the topic at hand: Personally, I don't really think that the Repubs are THAT nutty (well, at least not as nutty as Boss Limbaugh and Comrade Beck and "Daughter of Joe" McBachmann); they're just still hooked on the old formula of Reagan/Bush "New Right" fantasies that held them together for the past 50 years, and can't seem to digest the basic fact that that formula simply doesn't work any more. Problem is, the memo hasn't seemed to get to Bonehead and Can'tor's desk that Reaganism died with the stock market crash and the bank bailouts; because Reaganism's all they have left to fire up the old Repub "base" and their fundraising machines. Hence, the "ur-budget" proposal.
The better thing for Repubs to do would have been to just STFU, lay low, and allow the usual divisions within the Dems (Progressive vs. New Dem/Blue Dog/ConservaDems) to manifest themselves. Then, they can come out later and ally themselves with the latter groups (the deficit hawks within the ConservaDems and Blue Dogs) to form a foundation for opposing Obama on principled grounds.
Unfortunately, that will never happen, since too much has been invested by the not-so-Grand Old Party on bashing Dems as "socialists" and "fascists"...and Boss Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing smear machine will never allow for any form of compromise with even the more moderate conservatives.
Only one scenario can result from this: the GOP going the way of the Whigs and splitting wide open with the "movement conservatives" forming up a new right-wing populist party to sell the Reagan Kool-Aid, while the more moderate factions switch over to the Democrats or form their own "centrist unity" party.
Actually, Dems should be far more worried about a revolt from the LEFT rather than the pissant antics of the Repubs; because if Obama does manage to reserve his "centrist" creds and continues to dally around about dropping the hammer on corporate greed and social policy, then there is a real chance that the resulting anger from liberals and principled progressives might prompt them to bail out as well...and that would be even more damaging to his prospects.
In the meantime, I'm just thrilled to watch the GOP flameout along with everyone else. It's been a long time coming, and it couldn't have happened to a better class of politicians.
And no, I wasn't offended by Nate's piece at all....people who act stupid should get smacked down.
Anthony
Why is Obama lying and fear-mongering to get his way in Afghanistan? He sounds no different than President Bush did.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698
A few excerpts:
President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The new troop build up he announced is aimed principally at bolstering the Afghan army and turning up the heat on terrorists that Obama said are plotting new attacks against Americans.
He called the situation in the region "increasingly perilous" more than seven years after the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan.
"If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged," Obama said, "that country will again be a base for terrorists."
The 4,000 troops come not long after the new administration approved the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces to the war-weary nation.
Obama bluntly warned that the al-Qaida terrorists who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were actively planning further attacks on the United States from safe havens in Pakistan. And he said the Afghanistan government is in peril of falling to the Islamic militants of the Taliban once again.
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," the president said.
"That is the goal that must be achieved," Obama added. "That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."
Obama's plan will put more U.S. troops and money on the line. He said Pakistan and Afghanistan will be held to account, using benchmarks for progress.
Obama's plan will also cost many more billions of dollars. His officials said Thursday night that they did not yet have a specific budget figure tied to the strategy.
The president's plan includes no timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
My only criticism is we need a better comments system.
Yes, one that doesn't include you, dickbag.
@Conservatrolls praying for the demise of Mr. Silver and his increasingly partisan wesbite. Don't bet on it. Nate and Sean could post anything they like in an off-election year, so long as their analysis and forecasts are on the money during an election year, like they were in 2008.
My only criticism is we need a better comments system.
@aces: Whatever, MuleRider.
WTF are you talking about? There's that insult again. Is that some sort of subtle internet meme? Like getting rick roll'd?
Instead of being called a troll, some people call you a mulerider?
Whatever. You didn't have much of an intelligent reply there, Big-A, so I'm not going to concern myself with your half-wit, ejaculatory rant.
This had all the hallmarks of a panic, OMG we better do something, even though our budget response isn't quite ready yet, action.
Obama called them out in that presser earlier in the week and they panicked. Clear and simple they panicked and rushed this out the door ... in the process validating Obama's calling them out. They've been running on nothing other than rhetoric. There are no numbers because the Republican leadership haven't been thinking in terms of numbers. Either that or they have and they know just how bad they are. :/
Ultimately I would have liked to have seen Nate provide a reasoned response to the document. But sadly it isn't really something that's in the ballpark of "reason". It's talking a completely different language than reason. :(
My only criticism is we need a better comments system.
Yes, one that doesn't include you, dickbag.
LOL@Smoking Aces
My only criticism is we need a better comments system.
Yes, one that doesn't include you, dickbag.
What the hell? Smoking Aces time traveled into the future to quote PorridgeGun? Or is this a friggin' puppet show?
What the hell? Smoking Aces time traveled into the future to quote PorridgeGun? Or is this a friggin' puppet show?
No. He posted it above but removed it. I quoted him before the original was removed.
Since he reposted it though, I thought I'd do the same...with emphasis.
BTW Smoking Aces, the only thing you add more than PorridgeGun is your roll as an intellectually defenseless punching bag serving up contrarian fat pitches to be hit out of the park.
BTW Smoking Aces, the only thing you add more than PorridgeGun is your roll as an intellectually defenseless punching bag serving up contrarian fat pitches to be hit out of the park.
*yawn*
From the guy who's yet to offer a cogent rebuttal to anything I've ever posted on here.
Really funny, no doubt. I agree and admittedly do like this sort of snarky political humor...but I was surprised to see it on 538. I've always come here more for the type of posts that are more with the intelligent stat flair and not as much juvenile political satire. I dunno I just kind of prefer it when 538 is more #s driven than ideology per se. I more came to the site to read about thoughts on the recent pole that put murphy up by 4% over tedisco and how that may mean steele is royally fucked than a sort of smarmy graph on republican incompetence. Those sorts of graphs are what I read, again no doubt, just not here.
I'm sure I seem like a punching bag in this liberal echo chamger - at least the ones who come on here to do nothing more than feast on rhetorical bile - but, without a doubt, the joke is on you if you think that.
> From the guy who's yet to offer a cogent rebuttal to anything I've ever posted on here.
That's the worst of it. I am convinced you actually believe that. :( It's why you add so damn little to here. Other than the occasional uncomfortably humourous moment when you explode into a diarrhea of swearing posts.
@markymark:
I don't want RvW overturned either. Personally, I am conflicted over state's rights. As one example, I don't like the idea that one person can be jailed for life for smoking a joint, while a half mile away across a state border, in a state where pot has been legalized, another guy can smoke a joint in public on the steps of the police station.
Beyond just that hypothetical, it seems like a fundamentally unfair legal system to have such extremes of outcome based on laws you might not even know exist.
This is an example of things I think the founding father's failed to anticipate; and they failed to put enough safeguards in the Constitution to prevent the State or Federal governments from becoming the morality police. Which they have become, on a whole host of issues.
@Dwight,
So are you going to offer sound quantitative (or qualitatitve) evidence or reasoning as to why I'm wrong about anything I've said on this, or any other, thread?
Or is my being admittedly more conservative than you a free ticket for you to call me a "defenseless punching bag" where I'm inherently wrong and you're absolutely right with no recourse to prove otherwise?
If you're not going to put up a sound and reasonable argument, I'm just going to ask for you to keep wallowing in your dirty diaper a little longer until someone has time to change you.
... and where's my SODA??1??!??!
I've actually made a similar point to my friends about Bush's strategy for Iraq.
Step 1: Invade Iraq.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Victory!
The plan was flawless, really.
Todd Dugdale said...
PorridgeGun wrote:
"With the possible exception of Olympia Snowe and Ron Paul, the entire party and it's supporters are delusional at best, and extremely dangerous at worst."
Sadly true.
But also deliciously amusing. I mean, what would comedy writers and satirists do without FOX and the RushPiglican party?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/icolbert-reporti-takes-gl_n_172088.html
Yes, conservatrolls and lurking FReeptards, this is how we see you.
@Jeff:
You are insane too, if you believe Gregg. Or perhaps you are just incapable of understanding arithmetic, and cannot comprehend addition, and multiplication, and the idea of interest. This budget is easy to pay for and well within our means; we could literally pay for ten times as much if our survival depended upon it. And our survival may depend on this one.
I think the numbers are just too big for your little mind.
*yawn*
I do believe that because I'm yet to see any evidence of you calling me out...and being right...here or elsewhere.
*shrug*
Doesn't matter. You're irrelevant to me and my life. I've had good discussions on here with libs, indies, and cons alike, so there's no need to waste my time on someone who's best lines are, in summary:
"You're an idiot...a defenseless punching bag!"
"You just don't get it!"
*ignore*
(Dan) > I dunno I just kind of prefer it when 538 is more #s driven than ideology per se.
My guess is that Nate went into that document looking for something to crunch numbers on. This post was him throwing up his arms. I agree it wasn't necessary that 538 do it, other than I guess maybe he thought he'd say something about the "budget" response?
> I more came to the site to read about thoughts on the recent pole that put murphy up by 4% over tedisco and how that may mean steele is royally fucked than a sort of smarmy graph on republican incompetence. Those sorts of graphs are what I read, again no doubt, just not here.
This would be a better thing to see (although he's already covered the Steele is cooked angle). I think Colbert is even convinced of this. Last we he gave up waiting for Steele to come on the show for a rap battle and played both sides of the battle (they did a really good splice-job out of Steele's clips). I'm guessing because they sense that Steele's expiry date is up.
I've actually made a similar point to my friends about Bush's strategy for Iraq.
Step 1: Invade Iraq.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Victory!
The plan was flawless, really.
That's funny because according to my post at 10:14 and the article I linked, Obama's just digging us deeper into the quagmire that is the Middle East. His rhetoric on Afghanistan is sounding much like Bush's did on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where's the outrage? I'm mad as hell and am ready for us to leave those hell-holes. What's Obama's problem? I thought he was the peace President. What a crock of shit!
> I do believe that because I'm yet to see any evidence of you calling me out.
Could you stop with the juvenile *yawn* Jr. High bravado? You either have the memory retention of a gnat or you are lying like a sidewalk.
Could you stop with the juvenile *yawn* Jr. High bravado?
That's absolutely f***ing hilarious you'd even say that, dickbag.
This coming from the guy I've seen repeatedly *shrug* at people.
Just STFU before I make you look silly. And I better never catch you *shrugging* again if you're going to talk shit over me "yawning*.
Grow up.
I'll repeat from above...
Why is Obama lying and fear-mongering to get his way in Afghanistan? He sounds no different than President Bush did.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29898698
A few excerpts:
President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The new troop build up he announced is aimed principally at bolstering the Afghan army and turning up the heat on terrorists that Obama said are plotting new attacks against Americans.
He called the situation in the region "increasingly perilous" more than seven years after the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan.
"If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged," Obama said, "that country will again be a base for terrorists."
The 4,000 troops come not long after the new administration approved the dispatch of an additional 17,000 forces to the war-weary nation.
Obama bluntly warned that the al-Qaida terrorists who masterminded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were actively planning further attacks on the United States from safe havens in Pakistan. And he said the Afghanistan government is in peril of falling to the Islamic militants of the Taliban once again.
"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," the president said.
"That is the goal that must be achieved," Obama added. "That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."
Obama's plan will put more U.S. troops and money on the line. He said Pakistan and Afghanistan will be held to account, using benchmarks for progress.
Obama's plan will also cost many more billions of dollars. His officials said Thursday night that they did not yet have a specific budget figure tied to the strategy.
The president's plan includes no timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
This coming from the guy I've seen repeatedly *shrug* at people.
LOL, now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Yes I occasionally shrug as in things like "yeah, I don't understand exactly how that happens but the evidence says it does". But equating that to your puerile *yawn* that is an empty attempt to belittle me?
You know I do agree with PorridgeGun in that it'd be nice to have a more robust comment thread system so I could more readily rub your nose in your prior posts like rubbing a dog's noise in his own dookie after he's shat on the carpet.
Mull that over.
> Why is Obama lying and fear-mongering to get his way in Afghanistan? He sounds no different than President Bush did.
Besides the whole thing about sending troops to logically address the problem rather than using it as an excuse to attack a completely different, unrelated country allowing the actual problem to fester for 7 years?
You know I do agree with PorridgeGun in that it'd be nice to have a more robust comment thread system so I could more readily rub your nose in your prior posts like rubbing a dog's noise in his own dookie after he's shat on the carpet.
LOL. You're worthless. You don't stand a chance against me, intellectually or physically. I've seen what kind of turds you hurl in here.
And equating yourself to PorridgeGun, that tells me all I need to know. If you two are peas of the same pod, then you can definitely wallow in your own filth. I won't try and stop you.
LOL, now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Good cover for a guy who just got called out for being a hypocritical douche.
All this thread needs is a "Don't Feed the Trolls" reminder.
Smoking Aces—
You're much better behaved than Mule Rider. Same Achilles' heel, of course, but personality changes aren't easy even if it's just role-playing.
Carry on. You too, Nate.
"yeah, I don't understand exactly how that happens but the evidence says it does"
Yeah, like the day I linked up the research showing 40% of American households have a 0 or negative tax liability and some on here (I don't think you were one, so you get a pass) said, "I just don't believe that's true!"
In spite of the evidence...
Besides the whole thing about sending troops to logically address the problem rather than using it as an excuse to attack a completely different, unrelated country allowing the actual problem to fester for 7 years?
It will continue to fester. Until we leave. Now.
Bush was a moron who made moronic choices regarding Iraq/Afghanistan. That's in the past. It's Obama's baby now.
He needs to levae. Now.
Let me repeat. Now.
The longer he doesn't, the more he's just Bush II....or is that Bush III? Funny, I thought that was his schtick against McCain.
Here's what the Chimp said about Afghanistan...
"And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free."
Shrub drove the nation into a ditch, down a ravine, over a cliff, and into a canyon, on fire and leaking gasoline.
If you're surprised that the nation can't simply back up a few feet and start driving again at full speed.. you're a moron.
People who post terrible, witless, hackneyed neologisms, like "RushPiglican't"... how do you actually refrain from jumping out the window when you read your own posts? You ought to be too ashamed to allow yourselves to live.
Even "ConservaDems" and the like should be punishable by a small fine. So utterly lacking in creativity or feel for the rhythms of language.
"Repuglican" is alright, at least it kind of works as a portmanteau, even if the whole concept of doing that to their party name is childish - even more childish than their 'Democrat' shenanigans.
New Orleans needs to 'levae' ,too, smoking.
You are right Boing, anyone who uses Rushpuglican should go 'Boing' out of their window. I think 'Retardpussylican' is Ok tho. As is 'Democunt'.
Yeah, like the day I linked up the research showing 40% of American households have a 0 or negative tax liability and some on here (I don't think you were one, so you get a pass) said, "I just don't believe that's true!"
Was that me? Seriously, was that me? I certainly don't recall commenting on that, one way or another.
It's pretty hit or miss whether or not I'll follow your links. Frankly because of the illogical crap I've seen you link to and how you have demonstrated you are an extremely poor judge of evidence. I suspect there was more to it than that.
You just spew so much illogical crap that one person had hardly expect to tamp it all down. It makes it worse that you are such a loon that most people here have totally written you off, don't believe that you are sincere in what you type. See above people referring to you as a "troll".
I, on the other hand, am willing to give you benefit of the doubt and simply believe that you are in fact that loony. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are just feigning ignorance in an effort to generate posts and attention. If so my bad, I guess.
"Repuglican" is alright, at least it kind of works as a portmanteau, even if the whole concept of doing that to their party name is childish - even more childish than their 'Democrat' shenanigans.
I think the childishness, and I agree with the assessment versus 'Democrat' shenanigan, guts any claim on being "alright".
My teeth go on edge nearly every time I read a PorridgeGun post. That bullshit intentional misspelling just hits my gut. I've largely stopped reading their posts.
Many have tried before, and a few continue the attempt.. but no troll could ever compare to He.
That was pure brilliance.
Was that me? Seriously, was that me? I certainly don't recall commenting on that, one way or another.
Yeah, like the day I linked up the research showing 40% of American households have a 0 or negative tax liability and some on here (I don't think you were one, so you get a pass) said, "I just don't believe that's true!"
Illiterate douche.
Illiterate douche.
My comment is underlining that part. You think you gave a response when in fact it was a total non sequitur. Your post was entirely vapid. You had no argument. It wasn't linked to my use of *shrug* at all. At best it was an attempt at a bullshit smear trying to link me to some other [in all likelihood imagined] slight against you.
All you've managed to do is support that your complaining about my use of *shrug*, in an attempt to justify your childishness via "two wrongs make a right", is baseless.
It's pretty hit or miss whether or not I'll follow your links.
Well, then you have no gripe if you say I lack proper "evidence." If you're going to stay close-minded, that's your own fault.
Frankly because of the illogical crap I've seen you link to and how you have demonstrated you are an extremely poor judge of evidence.
Typical ad hom attack from someone who has nothing else to counter with...
I suspect there was more to it than that.
Nope, it was pretty straightforward. I linked to the evidence/facts, and people denied it. Plain and simple.
You just spew so much illogical crap that one person had hardly expect to tamp it all down.
Same ad hom attack, huh? Got another one you piece of f***in' repeatin' shit.
It makes it worse that you are such a loon that most people here have totally written you off, don't believe that you are sincere in what you type.
Actually, I've had pretty good discussions with a lot of people in here from various political stripes. I've seen you get dismissed by far more people.
See above people referring to you as a "troll".
Hah! That's the most laughable thing I've heard. Because if PorridgeGun (or somebody else) says it, it must be true. Right? So I can call you a cocksucker? Because I've said it and it's now enshrined on this thread, it's true, right? It is by your same standard.
I, on the other hand, am willing to give you benefit of the doubt and simply believe that you are in fact that loony. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are just feigning ignorance in an effort to generate posts and attention. If so my bad, I guess.
Yes, your bad. I don't need the benefit of the doubt from you or anyone else. You're just talking big shit because you can hide behind the internet smokescreen of anonymity.
If you want to believe I'm a loony idiot who has nothing to offer, that's fine. Ignore me. That's my best advice. It'll serve us both well. You can keep on being an illiterate and insignificant mook and talk to whoever will talk back, and I'll do the same. If no one will talk to either one of us, then I guess we'll know we've been ostracized from the group entirely and can just sit around and talk to ourselves.
But either way, I'm done with you.
<@ Aces>
Why is it that the capture or killing of the man responsible for over 3000 death on American soil in one day means nothing to Republicans anymore? Why are they so anxious that America abandon the search for justice against America's most wanted criminal.
(Hint: Maybe it's because Obama has decided this man has got to be brought to justice while you're great leader of the last eight years only found him worth pursuing as an excuse to then turn his attention to his pet project; Iraq? Or maybe because he's more valuable to the republican party as a tool for the politics of fear if he remains at large, able to send out his threats to the US on occasion? Or Both?)
Wow, did this comment thread go to crap pretty fast.
The chart was cute though.
so Ezra Klein references The Simpsons and then Nate references South Park. Cartoons explain everything!
Well, then you have no gripe if you say I lack proper "evidence." If you're going to stay close-minded, that's your own fault.
When your links are batting 0.000, when your posts are filled time and time again with illogical crap, when you fill post after post with inane drivel (hint, you are doing it now), when you can't bring yourself to say "yeah, that totally kicks the ass of my argument, I concede what I brought forth was not really evidence at all", then I'm sorry but you not being taken seriously in on you.
I don't have enough time in the day to deal with all your crap. It's the same reason I don't spend my reading time with National Enquirer on the off chance that today is the one day in the last 20 years that they break a real story, and Michael Jackson did get married.
... speaking of which, by my watch, sadly now is the time to say "you've wasted enough of my time already day". Buh-bye.
Behr,
Fair point, but you do realize that I could shoot back and say everything in reverse about Obama, right?
I mean, he campaigned on peace. He said he would end these conflicts. Why are you all so committed to the cause now? Why are you all so supportive of keeping our troops entrenched on foreign soils? That wasn't the case six months ago.
For the record, I've been against Bush's foreign policies for a loooooong time.
... speaking of which, by my watch, sadly now is the time to say "you've wasted enough of my time already day". Buh-bye.
Thank God! I thought you'd never leave. That's what I was hinting for you to do (and praying) way back when.
Let this armistice carry from now to eternity. We never speak again. I'm all for it.
<@ Jen>
I'm pretty sure that was the prime intent of the trolling; to try to divert attention from the laughable attempt of the GOP to propose a meaningful budget and 538's attempt to capitalize on it for a few more good belly laughs.
You can say a whole lot of things. It doesn't make the accurate.
> He said he would end these conflicts.
During the campaign he was up front about the requirement to ramp Afghanistan up before it ramped down.
For 7 years the rest of world has been fighting that war and waiting and waiting on the US to get it's eye back on the ball.
Please decide whether this is a site for serious analysis or a site for cheap jokes. I hope you choose the former.
> Thank God! I thought you'd never leave.
Of course. You don't really want to be held responsible for your drivel, do you?
Coward.
@ Aces...said
Yeah, like the day I linked up the research showing 40% of American households have a 0 or negative tax liability and some on here (I don't think you were one, so you get a pass) said, "I just don't believe that's true!"
In spite of the evidence..."
It is true, however, that number was around 25% when Bush took office. The bulk of the 40% are low income families and elderly. What has changed is the number of low income families. It has increased dramatically in the last eight years.
just sayin....
Coward.
Nope. I've just found talking to you is beneath me. Seriously, what's the problem with the permanent ignore for both of us against the other? You call me a crazy loon, yet you keep wanting to engage me. What does that say about you? Never mind. Don't answer. Just keep it shut and I'll do the same.
Thanks for the comment, Little Bear.
Obama has always said throughout his campaign that he intended to pull troops out of Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan.
Still, I'm waiting for an answer as to why the Republican party wants to let Bin Laden go? Could still another reason be that if we lessen the emphasis on catching him, it might lessen how badly Bush will look to Historians in the future?
To Little Bear's point, although this wasn't the focul point of the discussion that day, but I agree in part and/or concede that why there are so many people who pay 0 income tax (or get a refund without paying any in) is because there are so many living on the poverty threshold.
I'm not Republican so I can't answer that question, Behr. I'm with Ron Paul (and others) on this matter. We shouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor should we have bases in 120 countries around the world.
Don't try and pin me in a corner with Bush because you can't.
I'm a pure non-interventionist on foreign policy matters, so even Obama is to the right of me on that issue. Nice try, though.
Hey Nate, everyone.
Long time listener, first-time caller.
I have to say I was surprised to see flat-out satire here, but that is not a call for such a thing to be forever shunned and never seen on fivethirtyeight again. Comedy is always welcome when it works, and this worked. I suppose that, if the joke had fallen flat, my response would have been otherwise. Such is the life of the comedian.
It's the off-season and Nate has fewer polls and less data to work with. This is an opportunity, not a failing, and this post - along with what I think has been a very cogent and unexpected warning against the demonizing of any one profession, no matter how affluent - demonstrates Nate exploring that opportunity. To the site's long-term benefit.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the "three circles linked by lines" image included in the GOP document is not, in fact, a chart or a graph. There are not supposed to be arrows leading from one thing to another. This is a statement of principles, and the diagram is effectively saying "The Republican Road to Recovery will do these three things: reform Medicare and Medicaid, grant universal access to affordable coverage, and limit federal spending." They are, in other words, bullet points. But, possibly because of the pressure to provide charts or graphs, and possibly out a simple desire to include more images and white space in the document's layout, these bullet points were instead reframed as circles connected by lines. Hilarity ensues.
What is most surprising to me about this whole affair, however, is not that the GOP made a graphic design gaff on a document so fast-tracked that it was shown to the national media despite its obvious flaws, but that the GOP made the exact same mistake which Geithner was so pilloried for just a few weeks ago. As John Cole points out in his own blog, coming out with a "statement of principles" when everyone was expecting a detailed plan prompted Republicans and Democrats alike to heap derision on the Treasury Secretary. What in the world prompted the GOP to make the exact same mistake only a couple of weeks later?
I have to fall back to the "bitch-slap" theory of politics - that the GOP felt like they had been "bitch-slapped" by Obama for a lack of proposed ideas, so they had to come back with ideas, no matter how flawed. But in addition, I think we see Michael Steele's and John McCain's "win every news cycle" strategy here as well. There is such a drive to be constantly making news that not enough time and patience is given to considering what sort of news, indeed, we are making. Yesterday was supposed to be a news cycle of, "The GOP is the party of ideas!" But, instead, it became, "The GOP led us on with the promise of an idea, and fed us bullet points dressed up to look like a chart."
I'm not trying to "let bin Laden go."
Tony C,
We could afford a budget 10X this big? How interesting, why was I worried? I guess I was mislead by Obama's own budget director, Peter Orszag, who admitted before Congress that the deficits were "unsustainable".
A deficit 10X as large, by the way, would be close to 20 trillion, which would be about 160% of our entire GNP (currently 13.5 trillion). But perhaps these relatively rudimentary numbers are beyond my "small mind". Idiot.
Nope. I've just found talking to you is beneath me.
Nice try. But you shot your mouth off and now that its time to face the music you'd find it rather uncomfortable and you aren't owning up. In short, a coward.
Seriously, what's the problem with the permanent ignore for both of us against the other? You call me a crazy loon, yet you keep wanting to engage me. What does that say about you? Never mind. Don't answer. Just keep it shut and I'll do the same.
My problem you DON'T keep your mouth shut. I have some sense of duty to not let you freely spread your bullshit misinformation. So you expect me to ride your case until you stop posting crap. Not every post, just the ones I find I have time for.
P.S. You'd probably have a good deal of others doing so as well if you weren't widely regarded as a "troll". No, I wasn't referring to PorridgeGun. So I respectfully ask you take your "cocksucker" back and shove it.
Dwight,
Quit being a whiny bitch before I ask you to be a man and meet me somewhere. Then we'll see who the coward is.
I have some sense of duty to not let you freely spread your bullshit misinformation.
A "sense of duty"? That's the best line I've heard all day. Go join the military or volunteer at a soup kitchen if you think you've got a sense of duty to do any damn thing, you maggot.
Still don't know why you're wasting time if I'm such a "loon."
It's so obvious to everyone. You even said it. I've been dismissed by most everyone as a "loon" or a "troll." So why is it your duty to shut me up and quit spreading "bullshit misinformation" if nobody takes me seriously anyway.
You idiots don't even think about how dumb you sound when you contradict yourself with these asinine insults.
Either I'm a loon/troll that everybody recognizes and should be ignored...
Or I'm legit and offer something intelligent worth engaging in debate?
You keep engaging me. You're the one giving me credibility. It's hilarious that you can't even see that, dickbag.
Or should I say, cocksucker?!
Quit being a whiny bitch before I ask you to be a man and meet me somewhere. Then we'll see who the coward is.
LOL. You are threatening to make an physical threat over the internet?
No, I'm not going to make it convenient for you by just going away. Now is the moment of truth about on your credibility. Are you just a empty talking head mindlessly repeating nonsense, unwilling to critically assess the true facts of a subject, or are going to suggest otherwise by owning up?
You keep engaging me.
I keep rubbing your nose in it. BAD DOG!
Of course it would give you credibility ... if you didn't keep undermining it by being such a coward, trying to ignore what is right in front of you.
I've never argued for intelligent design as I theory. I believe there is a God. There's a big difference.
I'm not going to get into a spit-balling flame war with an atheist who has "science" on his side.
Bottom line, I've never argued intelligent design is a viable scientific theory. So quit (trying to) rub my nose in it.
What a douche. Create or invent a pseudo-argument to proclaim yourself the victor. I've met some chumps in my day, but you take the cake.
Oh, geez. MuleRider's still here and hiding under his new sockpuppet, I see. Keep him busy, Dwight, so he doesn't realize that Nate's started a new thread!
The cock crows thrice.
> I've never argued for intelligent design as I theory.
You linked it purporting it as giving evidence.
Are you going to have the nerve to deny that or do I have to spend the time going back and linking the thread to rub your nose in it?
The Republicans should also be able to repeal health insurance for small children.
They are also missing a bet by not putting a federal sales tax on dog food so that homeless people could also pay their fair share.
The graphic is great. Rube Goldberg would be proud.
You linked it purporting it as giving evidence.
Are you going to have the nerve to deny that or do I have to spend the time going back and linking the thread to rub your nose in it?
Be my guest. You won't find it 'cause it doesn't exist.
Is this it perhaps? Where you jump in and start howling about intelligent design when no one else brought it up and I sure as hell didn't try and defend it as a viable scientific theory.
You're making shit up.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/aig-how-meme-spreads.html
You lied, dipshit. Admit it and apologize. Or I'll find your ass and rub your nose in some real feces.
@Jeff:
But perhaps these relatively rudimentary numbers are beyond my "small mind". Idiot.
Apparently so, idiot. Yes, the deficits are unsustainable; but in pre-bubble housing it was not unusual for people to borrow 3 times their annual income to buy a house, two cars and furniture. Or for medical students to borrow several years worth of income to pay for their education.
As I said in my post, if it were necessary for survival, we could indeed borrow twenty-five trillion dollars; about $111K per taxpayer in the country, at a cost of $185/month per taxpayer in interest; or $370/month per taxpayer if we want to pay it off in 50 years.
Do you honestly think that as a matter of survival we could not afford this? It would be like 15% of our gross income, hardly a life-threatening expense in a life-threatening situation.
As it stands, the budget may be $3.55T but the interest on the borrowed amount comes to $156 per year per taxpayer.
And Gregg says this will "bankrupt the country?" And you agree with him? You are a fool. Divide the shortfall by the 225,000,000 taxpayers in this country, and multiply by 0.02 for the interest payment (which is already way above the current Treasury Bill rate), Look at the number and chill out.
Gregg and the other Republicans are purposely fear mongering and trying to scare you.
And for your information, "deficits" are when we supplement the budget with borrowing, and obviously we cannot continue to do that forever.
But if we must we can afford ten times as much to prevent a depression or in some other emergency. That does not mean the same thing as having a permanent $20T budget.
Hu Chi said...
What happened to the Republican plan to make Iraq the 51st state? I thought that was a real moneymaker.
Now that the surge has worked, what's the problem? Iraqis look great in those retro service station coveralls!
Iraqlahoma?
March 26, 2009 9:44 PM
*********
What about FlorIraq ??
Very disappointing. I thought this site provided serious political commentary. I guess I was wrong.
Andrew said...
Please decide whether this is a site for serious analysis or a site for cheap jokes. I hope you choose the former.
March 27, 2009 12:33 PM
********
both.
:)
Smoking Aces said...
Are we witnessing the self-implosion of fivethirtyeight.com? This is too funny.
Guess we'll just have to sit back and watch this thing (538) go down like a $5 hooker.
March 27, 2009 9:34 AM
**********
Guess you have to wait 'till retirement...
:)
A lot of you guys have been bitching about this site “jumping the shark” or whatever since November 5. Yet you’re still here, almost five months later. And, I might add, still bitching.
Why is that?
Smoking Aces said...
Are we witnessing the self-implosion of fivethirtyeight.com?
I love the way this guy predicts what's going to happen with this site and then proceeds to fill it up with comments as usual.
He's also good at telling us what everyone else is thinking.
Dude, why not start a Psychic Know-it-all Hotline? You know you'd make millions.
Rufus
OK, you're the psychic ;-)
Many people take themselves way too seriously.
I'll say no more.
SantaTurdo said...
Idle thought of the day:
Does octomom have ...
March 26, 2009 8:01 PM
man,
oh man...you make me ROTFLOL
:)
Gallup:
Obama's approval rating at 62% for third straight Friday !!!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/64725891/1
balls explode !!!
:)
ok I said enough "something stupid" things.
Ola hermanos .
As someone who tries no to take himself too seriously, I do think an effort should be made to keep the language on this site relatively clean.
It doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I'd like to think that comments on Nate's posts could be read by interested readers of all ages. As it is, most high school teachers, for instance, would have to block the comments for fear of parental backlash.
Humor is no problem at all (as long as somebody laughs), nor is a degree of partisanship. The pretense of absolute neutrality is untenable anyway, and I don't see anyone imagining Nate as a McCain voter.
BTW, I have been guilty of an occasional verbal lapse from time to time, but I can get carried away. Pollster had this same problem before the election, and Blumenthal (rightly, I think) ended up having to censor some commenters.
Incidentally, this thread is not particularly egregious. It just seemed like a good time to say something.
Post a Comment