Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So that takes you right back to Slave's point. Or it means that he's flip flopping on either what a clean bill of health is or whether he'll run without one.

Free TV time!

Speaking of flip-flopping, here's Jonah Goldberg on Andrew Sullivan'take that was quoted by Gatti. It really is quite a hoot:

Whiplash Department [Jonah Goldberg]

I think I've been pretty good about not posting much about Andrew Sullivan, but I think this is just too funny.

First he posts:

• "Edwards Suspends Campaign"
  22 Mar 2007 12:17 pm
  
  He does it because his wife has a recurrence of cancer in some degree to be further explored. It is of a piece with his character to do this; and a simple testament that he has the right priorities and values to be a president of the United States. Sorry, Ms Coulter. But this man will be remembered for a character you do not even want to possess.

And then, immediately afterwards when the news changes, he writes:

• "Edwards Forges On"
  22 Mar 2007 12:39 pm
  
  So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards' extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values - not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife's cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common - and it's affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn't give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That's what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.
  
  The campaign should go on, as life goes on. It should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration to all of us.

Me: Edwards is a saint when he drops out. Edwards is a saint when he doesn't. I don't have a major problem with the sentiments of either post taken individually, but taken together, we can now see that the intervals between self-contradictory statements by Sullivan has fallen to a mere 22 minutes. Pretty soon the ends of his sentences will contradict the beginings.

Funny, funny stuff

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So that takes you right back to Slave's point. Or it means that he's flip flopping on either what a clean bill of health is or whether he'll run without one.

Free TV time!

I suppose. I'm not particularly interested in defending Edwards anyway, so I'll simply agree.

Hank
Now you guys are posting HIV people here? Can I catch it from reading this?

Yes. People don't wear gloves when posting to the PB just for a sense of style, you know.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All rich people are supposed to be Rs. When some of them are Ds, it messes up the whole "All Ds are for government spending because they are welfare moms who live by sucking at the teat of gov't" thing. Plus, it's not right that Ds should get any money for campaigns, etc., other than from e.g. trial lawyers, who are bloodsuckers who are destroying capitalism and the free market.

It's against the natural order for someone who can afford that huge spread to be a D.

There will always be room under the Democrat tent for the limousine liberal, assuaging his trust fund guilt by telling all the rest of us how we need to ride tandem bicycles to work and go to bed at sundown to conserve natural resources whilst they host benefits for the Black Panthers in their 80-room mansions and fly their private jets to their weekend homes in Beaver Creek.

This species of Democrat differs from the Republican in that the Republican sees the hypocrisy, but doesn't care, because, well, they just don't fucking care.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There will always be room under the Democrat tent for the limousine liberal, assuaging his trust fund guilt by telling all the rest of us.....

i think you need to rewrite the bolded section

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i think you need to rewrite the bolded section

Would that I did, Partner.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
There will always be room under the Democrat tent for the limousine liberal, assuaging his trust fund guilt by telling all the rest of us how we need to ride tandem bicycles to work and go to bed at sundown to conserve natural resources whilst they host benefits for the Black Panthers in their 80-room mansions and fly their private jets to their weekend homes in Beaver Creek.

This species of Democrat differs from the Republican in that the Republican sees the hypocrisy, but doesn't care, because, well, they just don't fucking care.

:td:

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Atrios says someone CNN posed this good question:

• I think also, another thing to look at, I followed up a question about executive privilege. You heard Tony Snow at the end there saying the president has no recollection of being involved in this decision to fire the US attorneys. So we asked the question then, well why are you citing executive privilege - or at least suggesting you will, and yesterday the president said the principle at stake here is candid advice from his advisers to the president - if the president was not involved in the decision, then how can you cite executive privilege on something he was really not involved in? And Tony Snow basically said, it's a good question and I don't know the answer.

For those that don't believe the reporting over at Atrios. WaPo transcript.

"Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?

"MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.

"Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

"MR. SNOW: Correct.

"Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

"MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the way you phrase the question evidences such a fundamental misunderstanding of several basic tenets that I do not believe there is any reason to try to explain this to you.

Translation: My name is Hank, I'm full of shit, and I like to spout that shit out without attempting to back it up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Politico says he's putting his race on hold.

Oops.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There will always be room under the Democrat tent for the limousine liberal, assuaging his trust fund guilt by telling all the rest of us how we need to ride tandem bicycles to work and go to bed at sundown to conserve natural resources whilst they host benefits for the Black Panthers in their 80-room mansions and fly their private jets to their weekend homes in Beaver Creek.

This species of Democrat differs from the Republican in that the Republican sees the hypocrisy, but doesn't care, because, well, they just don't fucking care.

Sure, there are some people like this. But you are buying into Slave's exagerrated worldview (you know, the same world where no Rs have ever printed or purchased a nasty bumpersticker, but the big meanie-head Ds plaster their cars with calls to shoot Bush).

Plenty of wealthy, successful Democrats recognize that it's perfectly fine to enjoy being wealthy and successful, and that you should encourage the government to adopt policies that make those privileges more accessible to others.

There is nothing inconsistent, for example, in arguing that we should do a better job at providing free public education, and sending your own kids to private school (because, right now, we are not doing such a good job at providing free public education).

These things are so obvious that it's only in this crowd that anyone needs to say them -- because the Rs here like to argue that, until you send your kid to a school in the ghetto, you have no standing to argue that any aspect of the public schools is either bad or good..

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did I say this? Not even close.

I love when people make money. I prefer when I make money, but I'm equally as happy for other people when they make money.

However, what I find odious is this "capitalism is evil - the rich are evil" meme that runs in Democrats veins.

Edwards - wealthier than 99% of the country will ever be - runs on a platform that tragically tries to wedge this country into 2 sectors: the "Haves" and "Have Nots". He pretends to be some champion of these Have Nots, while not ever pretending to shield his ridiculously opulent lifestyle.

Hell, Warren Buffet - with his Omaha diner dinners and his JC Penny suits - is a better spokesman for the "Have Nots" than this clown.

Why can't someone who is wealthy, and who enjoys being wealthy, point out that the the country has policies that keep many people from ever becoming wealthy? (Or even minimally secure?)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
For those that don't believe the reporting over at Atrios. [For those that don't believe the reporting over at Atrios. WaPo transcript.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?

"MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.

"Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

"MR. SNOW: Correct.

"Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

"MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny -- I don't remember Slave posting this in his daily summary of flip-flops. It must not have made The Outrage Channel.


It's executive privilege because the President was consulting with his advisors, but the President wasn't consulting with his advisors so it's executive privilege.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Edwards - wealthier than 99% of the country will ever be - runs on a platform that tragically tries to wedge this country into 2 sectors: the "Haves" and "Have Nots".

Gosh, I sure hope Edwards doesn't win and end up dividing the country along economic lines. Can't he be stopped somehow? I'd hate to think of someone coming along and ruining the perfect little meritocratic utopia we're all living in right now.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ironweed
Gosh, I sure hope Edwards doesn't win and end up dividing the country along economic lines. Can't he be stopped somehow? I'd hate to think of someone coming along and ruining the perfect little meritocratic utopia we're all living in right now.

See, there you go again. It's "class warfare" when someone points out that poor people aren't doing so well. When someone institutes policies that make this happen, that's just the natural order of things.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
Gosh, I sure hope Edwards doesn't win and end up dividing the country along economic lines. Can't he be stopped somehow? I'd hate to think of someone coming along and ruining the perfect little meritocratic utopia we're all living in right now.

Not very nice to mock someone who has a wife with cancer. Cancer, I said. CANCER!!!!