Friday, October 19, 2012

Cruising the Web

xkcd nails all the things that have never happened in American election history until it happens.

Obama doubled down on his disastrous green energy policies. He totally ignored what a failure those policies have been.

Just in time for the foreign policy debate is a report from the Congressional Research Service that economic sanctions on Iran have failed.

Jim Geraghty says just what I believe: a politician "taking responsibility" means nothing if nothing changes.
n recent years, we’ve seen a new approach; it’s become the new standard of the Obama administration — the loud proclamation of three powerful words: “I take responsibility.”

‘Responsibility’ means nothing to worry about: President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at a basketball game in Washington.
The catch? Afterward, nothing really changes. It’s the appearance of accountability, without all the complications and headaches of actual responsibility.

When you or I take responsibility for a mistake, we take action to fix it. We apologize for bad judgment, re-examine our conduct and consider what to do differently next time. People may get demoted or lose jobs, if the consequences are severe enough.

That’s not how politicians use the term “taking responsibility.”
Geraghty has a whole long list of people in the Obama administration, including Obama, "taking responsibility" and then continuing on with the same people and similar policies.

If you care at all about Israel, the choice in this election is a no-brainer.

Obama can't defend the math of his own deficit plan.

Applebee's and Jimmy John's warn employees that Obamacare taxes will lead to cutting their numbers of employees.

Let's not forget how comfy lobbyists have gotten in the Obama White House.

Michelle Obama might think that we're in the midst of a "huge recovery." Er, no. This is what a huge recovery looks like.

Jonah Goldberg ponders how liberals interpret Catholicism.

For once I agree with someone at Daily Kos. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut out exit polling in states deemed non-competitive. I'd add in that we use exit polls to examine the state of the electorate at large and like to compare across years and now we will no longer be able to do that.


mark said...

How ironic that the article on the Iran sanctions quotes Elliot Abrams, a man convicted of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal.
So much for honesty and transparency.

Dr Weevil said...

How ironic that mark himself withholds information pertinent to his charge against Elliott Abrams: if Wikipedia can be believed, he was never even indicted, much less "convicted", and his plea bargain required him to pay a fine of $50 and serve 2 years probation and 100 hours community service. If Lawrence Walsh agreed to such a mild slap on the wrist - getting caught driving 30 in a 25 zone costs more than $50! -, he must not have had a very strong case.

wv: eftyearn - as if the longings of salamanders have anything to do with the subject.

mark said...

Save your ramblings and lies for things that can't be factchecked (like your moronic "climate change/spitting in the ocean "study"):

Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Dr Weevil said...

What a filthy, contemptible liar 'mark' is! I made a logical analogy to illustrate the difference between significant and insignificant effects on the environment and 'mark' calls it a "study" in quotation marks as if I had called it that, apparently because he can't or won't understand it. Here's another: if a boxer is trying to avoid disqualification for being overweight, should he worry if there's a mosquito on his head when he steps on the scale at his weigh-in? This is a test of the reader's intelligence and honesty: can 'mark' figure out the relevance of this analogy to the point I was making about the alleged anthropogenic nature of global warming, or does he think I'm claiming to have conducted a scientific entomologico-pugilistic study? We shall soon see.

As for Abrams, the fact is that a federal prosecutor with an unlimited budget can force anyone to plead to something by making him spend and spend until he has no more to spend. If Lawrence Walsh couldn't get Abrams to plead to a felony, or to a misdemeanor serious enough to have him pay more than a $50 (!) fine, that shows that his case against him was pathetically weak.

Not to mention that Lawrence Walsh is himself a contemptible man. He helped tip the 1992 election by reindicting Caspar Weinberger on a charge that had already been dismissed, and doing so just a few days before the 1992 election. As Wikipedia puts it, "The indictment conflicted with longstanding Justice Department policy of not bringing an indictment of a political figure out of a grand jury after August of an election year. Walsh went further, specifically implicating Bush in the scandal, though the accusation was irrelevant to the indictment." Utterly unprofessional, to put it kindly. Even Clinton's attorney Lanny Davis called it "bizarre" (Wikipedia again). And this is the man whose prosecution of Abrams is supposed to show that Abrams is scum?

mark said...

Silly, hysterical Weevil. It's always a conspiracy with you: Terrorists dressed as janitors; "agent provocateurs" infiltrating repub rallies.....
"Logical analogy"? Hardly. Most talk of climate change/sea level revolves around glaciers, ice caps, ice shelves, etc. Not you. 6 billion expectorating humans is your choice.

Dr Weevil said...

Can 'mark' be stupid enough to believe what he has written about me? Hard to believe any human could be that stupid. I note that he can't be bothered to show that he understood the alternative analogy I just provided for anyone who didn't get the first one. Did he even try? All signs point to no.

Which brings me to a question I've asked before. Haven't we met in real life? My real name has certainly been posted here many times by a long-departed creep, so you must know it. So, have we or haven't we met and even worked together, 'mark'? Don't worry, I won't mention what I'm pretty sure is your real name. I'm just wondering if there's some personal angle to your bitter, dishonest, obsessive abuse.

mark said...

"Long-departed creep". Why are you taking backstabbing thfr? He backed your nonsense up on several occasions.
Not sure why you keep pretending to not be sure of who I am. Yes, we know each other. Nothing personal. I truly enjoy your "saliva in the ocean/mosquito on the boxer" analogies. I even enjoy it when you play the scolding, self-righteous school-marm (although lately, Betsy has been linking to some articles and videos containing profanity, so maybe you'll get on that. Think of the children!!!), You are a credit to conservative thinking, and I hope you never stop.
Hint: If you're going to whine about bitter, abusive attacks, you might not want to precede it with "Hard to believe anyone can be that stupid". I may be vile, despicable and stupid, but I have feelings too, you know.

Dr Weevil said...

Why do you keep lying? You know I was referring to B**l B**dle, not tfhr. I note that when he (BB) was printing my name, address, phone number, previous employer that he thought was my current employer, and various vile insults in this comment section, you never expressed even the slightest disapproval of his actions. Why not? We were colleagues at the time, weren't we? And no, I don't know for a fact who you are, though I have a pretty good guess. Were we working down the hall from each other a few years ago?

I also note that you can't seem to admit that my insults to you are invariably replies to equally nasty insults and bald-faced lies from you. Anyone can look at the top of this thread to see a clear example. My first comment on you was a rather mild suggestion that you had 'withheld pertinent information' in the very act of accusing Elliott Abrams of withholding information. Ironic, and critical, but not particularly nasty by your standards. You immediately replied with "ramblings and lies" and "moronic", and you have the nerve to accuse me of insulting you?

mark said...

Calm down, crazy. It was a joke (although I did first think of tfhr when you mentioned departed creep).
I do remember biddle (no need to mask his name, he signed off with it). I know he got a bit personal, but I think you're lying about some of the info you claim he wrote here. I doubt Betsy would have allowed it. Prove me wrong and I'll apologize. Regardless, I never saw it.
Anyway, I'm gonna go out and enjoy the day. I suggest you do the same. Plenty of time later for working on analogies, theories and studies And I do look forward to all of it.