Banner ad

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Cruising the Web

The Washington Post reveals Obama's real goal - win back the House in 2014 and then go full bore liberal. Sounds like just what conservatives have been saying about Obama. So don't believe him when he talks about his desire to reach compromises with the GOP. He's all politics, all the time.

Though history shows it's just about impossible for Obama to get the Democrats to take back the House in his sixth year.

Of course, Obama has rejected the power to make the spending cuts wherever he wants rather than to cut those precious programs he's been warning will be cut. Thomas Sowell explains why the President would reject power - he doesn't want to take responsibility. He and his party have been evading budgetary responsibility for years and they don't want to start now.

Michael Boskin explains why spending cuts would help the economy.

The women who made allegations about Senator Menendez using prostitutes in the Dominican Republican are now claiming that they were paid off to make these allegations. This might get him out of the most scandalous part of the charges against him, but there still are a whole lot of uglier allegations about his connection with Salomon Melgen, a big donor who is being investigated for bribery and fraud. The newest allegation is that Menendez sponsored a bill to help Melgen. Those are the real allegations that could bring down the Senator. If those charges aren't also concocted.

Think about our politicians, particularly the commander-in-chief, passing a bill such as the sequestration, that they fully admit is really bad policy.

Christine Romer, Obama's former chairman of economic advisers took to the New York Times to oppose Obama's call for an increase in the minimum wage. Perhaps she could explain the principle to her former boss.

Apparently, schools are suspending kids for filming and posting Harlem Shake videos. If they didn't make the videos in school, I fail to see where administrators get the authority to suspend kids for their videos that they make on their own time and on their own computers. I've just been covering with my classes the evolution of Free Speech freedoms, including what the Supreme Court has said about those rights for students in school. Apparently, the schools are claiming that the videos are vulgar or obscene. I agree with the National Coalition Against Censorship that this is very disturbing and await the inevitable court cases.

And colleges are becoming the places where free speech goes to die. It's all very depressing.

Of course, when a school suspends a heroic student for disarming another student who was pointing a gun and threatening to kill a third student, we're in a land of craziness that just doesn't make any sense.

26 comments:

mark said...

So, it turns out the prostitution charges were probably false, so now we just turn to the next "scandal"? No regrets?

For two weeks, a proven liar has been here hyperventilating about "pedophiles" and "rapists" with scant "evidence", and nobody had the courage or integrity to call him on it.

Betsy, "uglier allegations" than being a pedophile? I doubt it. Yet you and others allowed equitus to go beyond alleging it to deciding he was guilty.

No doubt equitus is laying low for awhile. I'm sure he'll be back (and continue posting as lfm as well), knowing that this is a safe place for people with no principles and no morals.





Dr Weevil said...

The Daily Caller says that the prostitute quoted by the Washington Post was not in fact one of the two they interviewed on camera, which makes her testimony worthless in refuting theirs. The Post apparently agrees, but isn't honest enough to come out and say so: they have now altered their story without notice to imply that the women were the same without actually saying so. (The story on the alteration is here, with a link ('related') to the first.) I've misplaced the link, but someone (a DC editor?) quoted as 'having no comment' in the first story said that the Post didn't e-mail to ask him for his comments until half an hour after they published the story. None of this proves that Menendez is guilty, of course, but the lengths to which a supposedly neutral press is willing to go to make him look less guilty are disgusting.

mark said...

weevil,
So you're disgusted by the actions of the Post?
How did you feel about Menendez being called (repeatedly) a "pedophile" and "rapist"? Were you worried about the school children who might have been here?
You've been silent while equitus (aka lfm) was disgracing himself, Betsy and all convervatives here. Now you surface to criticize the Post.
How brave of you.

Last, First, MI said...

Mark,

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this - I had to jet off to Vegas the day after your story broke at the Washington Post. To make matters worse, my second in charge on matters such as this hit her head and is expected to be unable to address your questions for up to five months, but at this point, what does it matter anyway? (See how I've learned from you leftist creeps?)

I thought I almost detected some contrition in an earlier post from you - where you admitted slandering Herman Cain but then you actually compounded your hypocrisy when you lied again by falsely stating that you called him a fake when you know very well that you were calling him a "fraud". Given your admiration for Obama, I understand that you have a hard time with the distinction but that's not a sufficient excuse.

So now you're all about condemning slander. Good for you. You've come a long way when you were in lock step with Harry Reid as he claimed, on the basis of an imaginary phone call from a "friend", that Mitt Romney was a felony tax evader. You were happy to trot along with the same rabble that wanted the rubes to believe that Romney was responsible for killing a woman stricken with cancer. Add that to the rest of the campaign of character assassination that the Obama camp spent hundreds of millions of dollars on and yeah, I guess you know all there is to know about slander. We all know very well how important slander is to you.

We'll see if Menendez pursues this in the courts but it looks to me that he's still running for his political life and probably wants to stay away from the dock as long as he can. The "exoneration" you are hanging on so dutifully is not exactly getting a lot of coverage - wonder why?

I'm guessing you've not been far from your hole. That article you linked to has been edited since it first appeared. You really should take a look at what Dr. Weevil patiently attempted to explain to you if you're just too lazy to read what the Daily Caller's response has been.

When you get done weeping over Chavez' welcome demise, do some research on Dr. Melgen. There's a lot to know. The Daily Caller has not retracted it's story but the Washington Post has edited it's initial claim. Think about that and get to work, Mark.

mark said...

equitus,
Oh, I get it, a Hillary-faked-a-blood-clot-in-her-head joke. Good one!
A tip for you: If you're going to post as lfm, you might try to remember that he's only been here for a month or so. He can't really know what I posted a year ago. Or perhaps you've been whispering sweet-nothings into his ear (emphasis on "nothings") If "lfm" had been around during the repub primaries, he'd know I made it clear that I was referring to his presidential run as a fraud, not his personal or business career.
Are you sticking to your charge that Menendez is a rapist and pedophile, as you have stated? Still refusing to offer a shred of evidence? I hope so. You're the low-hanging fruit. Ripe for mocking. And since no conservative here has the integrity to call you out, everyone is tainted by your idiocy.

Dr Weevil said...

My comment was not directed to 'mark', who is unteachable, but to Betsy and any of her readers who may not have been aware that the Washington Post story discrediting the Menendez accusers has itself been utterly discredited.

The fact is that 'mark' is a hypocrite. Two examples:

1. Though I haven't commented here in a week or two, 'mark' assumes that I must have read all comments posted in that time, and that my silence on his tedious dispute with others is therefore damning. At the same time, he assumes that someone else who never posted here until a month ago could not possibly have been reading comments before that. Is it possible to read Betsy's Page without commenting on what one reads? The answer is yes when 'mark' needs it be yes, and no when he needs it be no.

2. Is it appropriate to accuse a senator of illegal or disgusting sexual practices when he has not yet been indicted for them, much less convicted? If the senator is a Republican, yes, and no evidence is necessary (see here for a recent instance). If the senator is a Democrat, the answer is no, even when there are alleged victims testifying on tape, and a newspaper willing to falsify the evidence to make it look like the accusations have been discredited when that is not true at all.

It really looks like 'mark' is trying to damage Betsy’s Page, lowering the quality of the comments by filling them with masses of offensive inanities and driving away anyone with anything intelligent to say. Does mark hate Betsy, either consciously or subconsciously, or does he just feel the contempt of a squatter for working stiffs like Betsy, who puts a lot of effort into this site, and her other commentators, who mostly show at least some respect for the subjects she chooses to post on?

mark said...

"who mostly show at least some respect for the subjects"

Quite the high praise for your fellow conservatives, weevil.

Yes, I assume you've read some of equitus' posts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

I have made it clear on several occasions that Betsy need only only ask me not to post, and I will accept that decision, with gratitude that she has allowed me to post here for so long.

You should be grateful to equitus. He's replaced you for the most idiotic post. Yes, he even beat out "I once calculated that in order to raise the sea levels by one inch, every human being would have to spit in the ocean ten times a day for 40,000 years. Conclusion: all the spitting in the ocean humans are capable of would not significantly affect sea levels."

So you should pretty good. Kinda like Jimmy Carter must have felt when Bush 43 came along.



Dr Weevil said...

Apparently 'mark' - who thinks calling me 'weevil' with a small w instead of 'Dr Weevil' will somehow make me look bad, when it just makes him look spiteful and very very small - still can't figure out the difference between anthropogenic global warming and significant anthropogenic global warming, even when it's been spelled out for him in an analogy that everyone else can easily understand. Again, this comment is not for 'mark', but for anyone else who might be reading this, if he hasn't driven them all away.

equitus said...

Hi, Weevil. Nice to see you here again. I've been squatting at Betsy's for many years now and always appreciate your swatting down the troll du jour.

mark's been here a while now.(Maybe TPM or wherever is happy with his performance) I've enjoyed poking at his posturing and inane reasoning, sometimes delving into snark or mind games. But I think I broke him a couple of weeks ago. It's like I hit this Alinsky switch and now his mission is to destroy me. He had a similar hit out on tfhr (or what, never could get that right), a veteran with some real first hand knowledge. Now I'm his target.

Or perhaps I flatter myself. There's a new contributor here, Last First MI, or LFM as I call him. He (she?) has got WAY more patience for mark that I do. And yet mark has convinced himself that I am s/he, that I came up with a sock puppet. I thought it was funny at first, but like a dog with a bone he brings it up ever comment to LFM's great comments. In a way, it's two birds... me and LFM. I've been called a liar maybe a dozen times this past week week (repeat it enough it becomes true, right Saul?). Whatever.

I do feel kind of bad that I'm the one to have disrupted another's mental well-being.

equitus said...

Excuse, me. Dr. Weevil...

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

weevil,
How sensitive you are! Perhaps you'll set an example by writing President Obama instead of just Obama.
So you're offended by lower-case letters, but okay with people being called "fascist". I refused to agree with equitus that Menendez was already a proven pedophile and rapist, so of course that made me (in his opinion) a "friend of pedophiles and rapists."
As someone who recently complained about personal attacks on your preferences, I would think you'd be less tolerant of unsubstantiated claims. Guess not.

Please keep thinking your spit-analogy makes sense. It makes you look foolish.

equitus,
"troll du jour"? I've been here every day. I think I at least deserve upper-case.
Didn't you read weevil's post? Perhaps "lfm" has been hanging around quietly for years, only recently deciding to mimic your barrage of garbage about Menendez.
You've decided that, caught lying, you'll just plow ahead rather than admit it. Your choice.

equitus said...

OK, mark. Now that you realize you've been wrong about me and lfm, how about you enumerate all of my lies? Go ahead.

mark said...

equitus,
I realize what?
Other lies you've told?
You called me a fascist. Give any credible evidence that, by accepted definition, proves that claim. Otherwise, it's a lie. Pretty simple.
We can proceed from there.

Dr Weevil said...

I note (not for him, but for the record) that Mork has no reply to my accusation of gross and blatantly obvious hypocrisy in his treatment of Senators Vitter and Menendez except to accuse me (falsely) of saying something stupid on an unrelated subject long ago, as if that would somehow justify his own contemptible behavior. Worse, he does not bother to deny that he hates or despises Betsy. And he alleges that I'm somehow responsible for everything anyone on my side of the political spectrum does wrong, but obviously feels no such responsibility for the sins of his own side. Typical Mork.

equitus said...

"credible evidence"???

My irony meter didn't just explode, it instantaneously decayed into a swarm of subatomic particle.

mark said...

weevil,
I see what you did. You clever, clever man. You took the "a" from mark and replaced it with the letter "o". Pure genius. My comeuppance, no doubt, for not not properly addressing a man of your stature. Well done.


Dr Weevil said...

Will Mr Mork condescend to offer any evidence that he isn't a total hypocrite on Vitter vs Menendez, that he doesn't hate Betsy, or that he is willing to argue his positions rationally and honestly like the man he pretends to be? All signs point to 'no'.

wv: 'hatanic' (hatefully Satanic?)

mark said...

weevil,
Sorry, but you're being too inane even for my (very) low standards.
Perhaps equitus can come out and play with you this morning. I'm sure he'll bring lfm.

mark said...

And if equitus isn't available, I seem to remember you have a Ken doll. You might throw some clothes on him. It's a bit chilly.

(So I was wrong: Apparently this wasn't too inane even for my (very) low standards.)

Dr Weevil said...

As the dog returns to his vomit, dork repeats an accusation that has already been exploded. As any decent teacher will do, I illustrated one of the forms of ancient Greek capital punishment (the one applied to Prometheus) with this little diorama. dork has previously confessed to finding it 'disturbing' (I think that was the word he used), which shows more about him than about me.

As well as posting it on my website, I've shown it to over 100 different middle-school, high-school, and college students over the years, and none of them has found it prurient. Even foul-mouthed high-school boys who couldn't keep their dirty jokes to themselves on other occasions didn't find Stephen a subject for sexual jokes. Whether that was because none of the foul-mouthed boys happened to be gay, or (more likely) because none of them finds torture erotic, I do not know. I do know that anyone who finds Stephen in any way erotic should not be accusing others of psychosexual problems. The same goes for someone who can't stop mentioning a totally unsubstantiated and irrelevant but disgusting kink that he assigns to Senator Vitter. dork has dragged in the Vitter accusation on half a dozen of Betsy's comment threads. Why the obsession?

Of course, dork is just trying to avoid the issue of his hypocrisy and his obvious hatred for Betsy. Calling accusations 'inane' when you can't refute them is just another dorky evasion.

mark said...

weevil,
I think the word I used was "creepy", not "disturbing". However, now knowing that you have a name for your doll, "disturbing" may be a more appropriate choice of words.
BTW: You don't know that none of your students found it creepy or "prurient". It's probably not something a student would tell their teacher. Another example of you making a false assumption.
But please continue......

Dr Weevil said...

Poor dork doesn't seem to realize that Stephen's serendipitously Greek name was assigned by the manufacturer, not me.

Of course, he still hasn't answered the question I asked last time he brought it up, whether he finds traditional crucifixes, especially in Spanish-speaking countries, equally 'creepy'. As I noted then, all the creepiness is in the eyes of the creep beholder. My students have never been inclined to keep any complaints they may have to themselves, and my website has open comments, so they could easily have complained anonymously. No one except dork has done so, and he is quite obviously motivated by a desperate need to say something nasty about me, however implausible, because he cannot answer my arguments.

He still hasn't told us why he hates Betsy and applies utterly incompatible standards to Vitter and Menendez.

mark said...

weevil,
I didn't say your doll is creepy. I said you are. Leave Stephen out of it. You've put him through enough.

Dr Weevil said...

More stupid lies and evasions and (most of all) projection from dork, who has been quite successful in his obvious aim of destroying Betsy's comment section.

mark said...

weevil,
Why do you continue to use the word "dork"? As a man of letters, you obviously know that the word has several meanings, one of which is a crude term. Aren't you worried about the children anymore?