bmags

It's amazing how mad conservatives get about water level regulation.

When that democrat georgia rep calls the all white gang of six racist, he's racist. When we point out that these "grassroots" protests are riddled with racist signs, we're racist. When the crazy right fringe questions obama's birth, the networks cover it legitimately, for some reason, for weeks. They call Obama hitler, they ask, what are the comparisons to Obama and hitler, they say he's a socialist, the 24-hour news cyclists ask if Obama is going too far left with his agenda, they call him a racist, they cover is he's a racist, and the entire time they cry about how the media isn't fair and doesn't understand them. WHAAAA hundreds of thousands protest world wide against the Iraq War. The media says, "Look at what the BUsh administration says the Iraqi's have. We must protect ourselves. Look at these generals we hired getting fed info from the pentagon as to why war is great!" It's the same, it's so similar.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 03:39 AM) That's just it, no one said there weren't any racists. There are racists on both sides. That was my point from the first post here. 90% of white people vote for the same person they have always voted for, that's racist. 90% of black people vote for a black person, its fine, because that's the party they have always voted for. Hell more GOPers voted for Obama than the did Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, and now they are racist. That's crap. Besides, remember the Tea Parties had next to no one at them, right? All of the sudden this is the entire Republican Party in the words of some. That is what I get sick of. And 2000 is a great example. Bush had all of those same things said about him, many times by people of the opposite party. He was called Hitler, anti-Christ, murderer, and pretty much everything under the sun. The difference is that back then it was socially accepted, and almost expected. Did you guys just black out 2000-2008 because it was painful? It was socially accepted? The anti war protests were not covered except as spectacle. The signs depicting bush as hitler were not analyzed on cnn as actual conjecture. You know what he wasn't called? Socialist, Communist, Marxist, too, because the loony left isn't completely retarded. You know why people who take time to view things at a level higher than elementary might think? Maybe blacks voting for democrats isn't so out there racist, because maybe the modern democrats didn't set out a platform in the seventies trying to win over racists and fight tooth and nail against civil rights progress. Is that racist to not embrace a party that within your parents lifetime tried to marginalize you? You guys are great at false equivalency. Here's one for you. The n word = cracker. They are both racial epithets!!!! Why does one have more power if they are both just, at face value, the same thing? Why is that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 03:19 AM) Just as much as racism played a part in Obama getting elected... he would have won with or without the small uptick in african american pop. voting. I mean, what I don't get is how you don't see that these dumb f***ing old white tea party protestors making racist signs, but, apparently aren't racist (just don't like demmycrats and deficits, i guess), are resorting to not opposition or pure villification, but rejection of legitimacy. Straight up Hitler signs I get, I mean it doesn't make sense, but hyperbole has always had it's place. Socialist, etc, fair game, whatever. But such a huge portion of this debunking him as our president. And don't equivocate this with 2000. That was the most contested election of our time, decided in a way it's never been decided before. So legitimacy of president makes more sense. But it's that he's not our President, he wasn't born here. He's not one of us, he's a muslim (all americans are christians). He's the anti-christ. What is that rooted in? Partisanship? Because if it's mere ignorance, then, they are adjacent fellows. And further I don't make threads everytime Saxby Chambliss tells that boy obama to be humble before the chamber. So much veiled language from southern republicans telling Obama not to be too uppity. But then you act as if we are calling Mike Pence racist for opposing Obama. We are looking at people doing completely ignorant bulls***, calling them on it, and then we're projecting because WE'RE racist. Right. I hate white people, that's a fact. I'm threatened by white people taking my jobs and moving in next door! I'm scared a white man might become president and give all the white people jobs! Because I'm RACIST

how is chris martin a known rap producer?

why are we so against this private business right now trying to make profit?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) I'd go further than that and say that the crazies on the right control the agenda of the GOP. The crazies on the left are the crazies on the left. Michael Moore doesn't control our agenda. Keith Olbermann was never hosting or even promoting latte parties during the Bush administration. Yet sitting members of Congress apologize and clarify when they call Rush Limbaugh "just an entertainer." I'm gonna say something that I think a few people won't want to hear. The more I look back at the last few months, the more I wonder if Jimmy Carter wasn't right the other night when he said a large amount of this outrage and anger is motivated by race. I think its a legitimate possibility that some, including some of the people fomenting this anger, have that idea at its base. In 2000, George Bush won an election in the slushy margin. The decision to give Bush the Presidency was strange at best, and insiduously political at worst. Yet in 2001, there was no great liberal uprising - despite the embarrassment that the Bush administration was rapidly becoming in June, July and August. Granted, Bush's agenda in 2001 was far less ambitious. He seemed more interested in taking a weekend to clear brush while thinking about stem cells than he did on making big changes in policy. Nobody was showing up at town halls with guns. Nobody was marching on Washington with signs that said, we come unarmed (this time). In 2004, there was a lot more anger and Bush won reelection on a very narrow electoral margin. He went after Social Security. There was opposition. That opposition succeeded without violence or even the threat of violence. I don't know what's the main motivator here. Is it the start of decades in the wilderness for a movement that's running out of gas? That tends to be really ugly. Is it a nasty byproduct of a compartmentalized media who rewards the loudest and most sensationalist voices over the ones of reason? Or is it the natural expansion of a GOP tradition of refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic controlled Presidency and Congress. I think the craziness and protests we've seen, at the level we've seen, are either the legacy of George Wallace, Ted Turner or Newt Gingrich. And frankly all three of those options disturb me to a certain degree. But just as in the sixties, it wasn't just about race. It's not that they see barack obama as inferior. It's they see their privileged role in america as slipping from underneath them. Except, the sixties that was happening, now it just seems to be being passed down to them from above. I don't get it. I'm all for speaking up. I understand worrying about the deficits. I don't understand this incoherent protest against everything and anything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 09:15 PM) How about the labor union fringes that finance the Dems, yet incite violence at rallies? lol. Yeah. so in STL 3 guys get into a scuffle so the SEIU as a whole is asking their members to incite violence against the tea baggers. Everything is =. Black and white. Extreme right=extreme left. But it sure as hell seems like the extreme right gets a hell of a lot more airtime in their party and a hell of a lot more catering to, and seem to have a hell of a lot more power.

QUOTE (Cali @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 07:55 PM) I know Jay-z is one of the biggest rappers of the last decade or so and has more money than god but I couldn't tell you one song he does. I know songs from kanye and eminem and dre and snoop, but I draw a total blank on any jay-z songs. I think this stems from what I call the "f/ effect". In which seemingly every single major hip hop or rap song in the last 7 years or so features about 8 other guys on it. So I have no idea who's song it actually is.... Eh, no. Jay rarely has more than one other and that's usually 1 or 2 on the album. Kanye rarely has more than one other since his freshman debut. Jay pretty much owns his songs.

I love when people tell others who are affected by the subject not to be affected because it's not a big deal. The seminoles are very close to FSU and have supported that. No big deal. The redskins? give me a break with that name. Does it offend me? No, I don't really have any ties to it, so why should I be making the decision or getting upset, because I'm used to the name on the nfl schedule? What a joke of a logic.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/...acial-bott.html christ. no idea this is what's going on at home. What do you do with this guy? You ignore it and it festers. You confront it and you are an illegitimate source because his followers are so bats*** crazy.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) American Gangster was the first good thing he did since the Black Album, IMHO. And I wasn't even a fan of the black album til it became the grey album. well, yeah, but that was only one album removed. He took too much on in Kingdom Come. Not only was he making a come back but I think he thought his coattails were bigger, bringing in a bunch of, imo, more raw up and coming producers. And I liked, one beat, Kingdom Come on that album. He's doing the right thing. He has good chemistry with Kanye, just blaze, timbaland (who, imo, is out of ideas), and I thought No ID did well on this album with Jay. Best Jay can do now is probably make a couple singles and one great song, and some of it's going to be reliant on its beats. Venus vs. Mars is one of the worst songs I've ever heard. But empire state of mind and DOA bring the goods. That's jay's sound now. He couldn't carry Reasonable Doubt beats anymore, he really can't be that minimal. People get old.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 05:23 PM) I have to admit I haven't reasearched this a lot yet, but, here is what I am waiting for. Since movies take up a lot more disk space than music, its hard to find a blu-ray or DVD player that allows you to save everything to memory (like iTunes is for music). These hard-drive based modules exist, some with a couple terabytes of space, but those still cost 4 figures. But I really am tired of having to keep and store a bazillion disks. So what I'd love, is for a service to essentially host my collection. You buy movies from them, or upload your own, to shared space they host, and your machine just hooks to the internet or cable to go get what you want to watch. I think the problematic part is the stuff I already own. For buying new stuff, I'd bet this sort of thing is coming soon, if it doesn't exist already. Maybe the best bet is to hook up to a service like that when it comes out, then wait for the big disk drive players to get cheaper, to put my disks onto. I can just wait until then to throw out the ones I already have. I'm pretty sure Apple TV is going to work like this in some ways. Not hosting entirely but renting and such.

Take that middle class! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/p...amp;_r=1&hp

Pretty influential 90s band made 5 of my favorite records, countless of my favorite EPs. Former leadman Stephen Malkmus formed a band Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks who opened for Radiohead in the early 00s, made a great album with the Silver Jews called American Water. Slanted and Enchanted Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain Wowee Zowee Brighten the Corners Terror Twilight

You know, we live in an age where a world of information is available at your finger tips.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 03:42 PM) The thing is though, with the exception of the progressive caucus (who tend to be ignored at all times), it seems that they just plain don't want the public option. If they are faced with a bill where they mandate insurance, and they don't plug it up with subsidies, that's even worse suicide.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 03:41 PM) The Dems can lose 9 Senators and still pass something through reconciliation. 10 Senators if Massachusetts names a temporary successor. well aware. Here's to hoping Sestak is providing enough heat that Specter continues his opportunistic flippy floppy

s***, if this is one and done those tickets will be INSANE to come by. Awful venue, as well.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) I think the non Baucus proposal has 51 or 52 votes in the Senate, and it probably can get to 230 votes in the house. If that's the case, split the bill. Vote the public option budget stuff through reconciliation. Then put the preexisting condition language, tort reform language, etc in a regular bill and make the GOP stand up against it. One thing, Josh Marshall was reporting that there is a caveat to reconciliation for the public option. Due to some amendment by Byrd, any reconciled bill needs to come in at some zero cost proposal, which would need to beef up the public option. The more they beef it up the more votes they may lose, especially in Arkansas sens.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) Mandating that you're required to pay as much as one out of every eight dollars you earn to the insurance companies is what comes out of the bipartisan deal. The bipartisan deal that the GOP senators who helped craft it are walking away from. Bring on reconciliation, IMO - the GOP is not acting as an honest broker in any health care reform effort. whatever to the GOP, if this is the bill that the dems need to pass to get BLUE dog support, why would the repubs support it. The bill the dems will be owning is essentiallly telling the poor and middle class voters they need to pay money to health insurance companies, who are probably dancing to the bank right now.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) The bipartisan thing was never going to happen. Which is why I hate that they bothered trying to compromise in the first place. Everyone knew the republicans would vote against anything put forth by a democrat, so why even bother? That's why I think the democrats don't really care that much about the reform. If they did, they would've started with single payer, so if need be, they could negotiate down to public option. An individual mandate without a public option is a disaster and is a worst case scenario. Afterall, Baucus is a leading recipient of donations from insurance companies. Well, frankly, passing the mandates, is going to make people a whole lot more welcoming of the public option.

It's my guess. There's no way they got that much from anything but the subsidies.

Oh you were wondering? They are slashing the subsidies that will help poorer people pay for the mandated insurance. REFORM yayyyyy

:headbang 2010 in New York. Can't effin waiit. Plus I'll likely be back by then!!! http://pitchfork.com/news/36505-holy-s***-...eunion-is-real/