The Swamp

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:55 pm**

Brontoburglar wrote:The dude was on a tour and performing almost every night -- you really think he was going to keep up a crazy story?

Not sustained on Twitter, no. I didn't think he'd bother. I always felt he wasted far too much of his act giving it away on Twitter in the first place.

Love the shirt idea.

What shirt idea?

Then again, I don't quite get this one either:

rass wrote:Surely you guys can find better things to do with your powers

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:55 pm**

Click it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:31 am**

Leading conservative "thinker" posted these today:

“I am thankful this week when I remember that America is big enough and great enough to survive Grown-Up Trayvon in the White House!”

And then...

"Feigned outrage on the left over me calling Obama ‘grown up Trayvon’ except that Obama likened himself to Trayvon!"

He then deleted the first posting...

Asshat....

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:57 am**

DaveInSeattle wrote:Leading conservative "thinker" posted these today:

“I am thankful this week when I remember that America is big enough and great enough to survive Grown-Up Trayvon in the White House!”

And then...

"Feigned outrage on the left over me calling Obama ‘grown up Trayvon’ except that Obama likened himself to Trayvon!"

He then deleted the first posting...

Asshat....

Oh, Dinesh. He is the author of Obama's America, which was made into a movie. Several people in my Facefuck feed posted the trailer, which was a dark, fear mongering post-apocalyptic America at the end of Obama's reign of terror. All with a "must see, so important!" See, he somehow absorbed his father's fight against Imperialism and his entire plan is to destroy America from within. Most of the "facts" in his book have been completely disproven, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:39 am**

I watched a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh once. It actually made me uncomfortable. Sort of like that scene from American History X where Edward Norton makes the dude bite the curb and then kicks the back of his head in.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:01 pm**

Jerloma wrote:I watched a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh once. It actually made me uncomfortable. Sort of like that scene from American History X where Edward Norton makes the dude bite the curb and then kicks the back of his head in.

Who won that debate? Thinking about that curb stomp still make me queezy.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:20 pm**

"Grown up Trayvon" doesn't really make sense given that Trayvon Martin was grown up and is now quite dead. "Trayvon Sr." or "Trayvon daddy" would be at be least structured properly.

An increasing trend on Twitter lately is to reference the prez as Obama (D-Kenya). Although that's amusing, at least visually, they just won't let that African business go. This is likely to result in the same lunacy from the other side if Ted Cruz (R-Calgary) runs for president.

And calling Dinesh D'Souza (R-India) a leading conservative thinker is just plain silly. In the 80s he was considered as up and coming among conservative youth. That's all gone. Now he's taken not taken seriously; just another one of many in the equal-opportunity business of selling rage. Might as well try to frame Alec Baldwin as a leading liberal thinker.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:48 pm**

Did Syb just unsaracstically ask me who won a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh DiSouza?

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:39 pm**

Jerloma wrote:Did Syb just unsaracstically ask me who won a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh DiSouza?

100% sarcasm, Doug.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:57 pm**

Scottie wrote:An increasing trend on Twitter lately is to reference the prez as Obama (D-Kenya). Although that's amusing, at least visually, they just won't let that African business go.

I agree. That would be pretty funny if they had ever let go of that fantasy. Unfortunately they've way oversold the joke and for so many, it's not even a joke.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:58 pm**

Scottie wrote:And calling Dinesh D'Souza (R-India) a leading conservative thinker is just plain silly.

Calling anyone currently in the media whose name is familiar a leading conservative thinker is right out. Bill Buckley ain't coming through that door. Barry Goldwater neither. Much less Edmund Burke.

(Now if me or Scottie got invited to host Crossfire or some such thing…)

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:29 pm**

howard wrote: (Now if me or Scottie got invited to host Crossfire or some such thing…)

I'd actuallywatch it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:07 pm**

howard wrote:
Scottie wrote:And calling Dinesh D'Souza (R-India) a leading conservative thinker is just plain silly.
Calling anyone currently in the media whose name is familiar a leading conservative thinker is right out. Bill Buckley ain't coming through that door. Barry Goldwater neither. Much less Edmund Burke.

While I agree that Dinesh D'Souza is not on the same level intellectually as those guys, amongst the true-believers on the right, he is considered one of their deep thinkers. From his bio on Townhall.com:

Dinesh D'Souza has been called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor’s Business Daily. The New York Times Magazine named Dinesh D'Souza one of America's most influential conservative thinkers. The World Affairs Council lists Dinesh D'Souza as one of the nation's 500 leading authorities on international issues. Newsweek cited Dinesh D'Souza as one of the country's most prominent Asian Americans.

Before joining the Hoover Institution, Dinesh D'Souza was the John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 1987-88 Dinesh D'Souza served as senior policy analyst at the Reagan White House. From 1985 to 1987 Dinesh D'Souza was managing editor of Policy Review. Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:23 pm**

Someone put my work email address on the Townhall newsletter. That's fun.

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:13 am**

DaveInSeattle wrote:While I agree that Dinesh D'Souza is not on the same level intellectually as those guys, amongst the true-believers on the right, he is considered one of their deep thinkers.

C'mon, Dave. That just another silly canard. Who are these true-believers exactly? Republican strategists? Conservative committees who author legislation? Me and Howard? No. I don't see or hear from anyone that believes D'Souza is one of our "deep thinkers" or even takes him seriously in any fashion. Perhaps you'd like to believe he is a deep thinker as far as Conservatives go because it suits your hatred of conservatives; you'd be incorrect. And, again, it's exactly like saying "amongst true-believers" Alec Baldwin is considered a deep-thinker by lefties. And for the sake of the left, I seriously hope that isn't true. In fact, we all know it is not. "True-believers" on the left don't, or can't, even take Al Gore seriously anymore. Nor should they. You're overstating D'Souza's significance simply because he's kookish. Might as well watch Piers Morgan interview Alex Jones and then claim that among true chess scholars the interview rivals the intellectual clash of Boris Spassky versus Bobby Fischer.

From his bio on Townhall.com: <snip>

Yes, to reiterate: In his youth, two and a half decades ago, he was considered a bit of a hotshot with potential. So was Clint Hurdle; once upon a time Hurdle was thought to be the second coming of Joe DiMaggio. So much so that Bill James in his Historical Baseball Abstract names a "winner" of the Clint Hurdle Award for the most over-hyped or disappointing player of his decade. Like Hurdle, people expected great things from D'Souza that never materialized. And Harry Chappas never became the all-time greatest White Sox shortstop.

If you're going to offer Townhall.com as evidence of what conservatives really believe, forget it. That website has zero credibility and you know it. Again, c'mon.

I don't particularly like D'Souza. I consider his Trayvon Martin comment to be rather uncivil. It is also unbecoming given that D'Souza is himself a man of color; despite Obama's very unpresidential statement that Martin would look like his son, it was a juvenile insult that D'Souza needlessly uttered in place of an ample amount of material available from which valid criticism of Obama is easily drawn. I also dislike D'Souza for his being a rather odd type of religious zealot even by odd zealot standards. The fringe element brand of Al-Cheezwiz worship that he professes is a type of mysticism that purports to be "rational" yet pisses away any empirical evidence or scientific facts and basically says The Bible nailed it. As a hardcore atheist, that particularly bothers me. And makes it impossible for me to take the guy seriously in any way. Even the typical American Christianiqueños don't adhere to his wacky angle on theology.

He's a nothingburger when it comes to religion. He's a nothingburger when it comes to politics.

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:46 am**

DaveInSeattle wrote:[…amongst the true-believers on the right, he is considered one of their deep thinkers.

Something about the guy with one eye being a king in the land of the blind.

Same is true for the left. Wrt 'true believers' and 'deep thinkers'.

Who would be considered a deep thinker on the left? Paul fucking Krugman? Chomsky? (Noam hasn't come up with anything new in decades, other than Israel is the embodiment of all worldly evil.)

Of course I place Chris Hedges at the top of a very short list, but he is hardly popular in whatever we could agree to call 'main stream'. Meaning, they would never print his shit in the NY Times or put him on MSNBC.

What I am taking way too many words to say, there is no such thing as intellect, much less intellectual or deep thinking, in the main stream left or right. By main stream, I mean the leading newspapers, news magazines, and television network news, broadcast or cable. And their associated blogs/websites. Add in Huffpo, Politico, Kos, NatReview Corner, Weekly Standard--just ideology in various packaging. And anyone elected to the US Senate, Congressional leadership, or presidential candidate or presidential-level adviser. I cannot name a single one. Left, right or center. No deep thinking going on anywhere.

Here is an example. A Politico piece from a 'deep strategic thinker'. My two reactions to this deep thought piece: 1) DUH; 2) he makes no mention of the factors used by those in power to easily neutralize this undercurrent of dissatisfaction in the recent years, and the liklihood of those same forces succeeding in the near future. (eg the terms 'occupy' and 'tea party' are never mentioned, much less the easy crushing of the first, and co-option of the later). Then the deep thought piece sinks to internal GOP/Dem power struggles and electoral tactics. Same old superficial crap. Large numbers of would be discontented progressives are too worried about getting a job, affording health insurance and staying off food stamps to do anything more than hope an Elizabeth Warren or Rand Paul gets nominated, then shrugging and voting for the Romney/Kerry/Al Gore/McCain bullshit that is destined to continue the charade. (Or a Bush/Clinton/Obama same shit-type different only by being a more polished brand image.)

Those millions of people don't have time or energy for deep thinking. Even if they were offered it effortlessly provided by the MSM.

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:05 pm**

Scottie wrote: C'mon, Dave. That just another silly canard. Who are these true-believers exactly? Republican strategists? Conservative committees who author legislation? Me and Howard? No. I don't see or hear from anyone that believes D'Souza is one of our "deep thinkers" or even takes him seriously in any fashion.

Scottie....

I'd be interested in hearing what you consider to be the "American Right".

Like it or not, people like D'Souza, along with other leading "intellectuals" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Jonah Goldberg are the public face of the Conservatives in the US.

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:30 pm**

First it was "leading conservative thinker" and then it became "true-believers on the right" and now it is "public face of the conservatives".

Tell us, Dave . . . are those goalposts getting heavy?

Howard and I have already explained this to you. The "public face" of which you speak are merely people in the anger business. You are one of their customers. There is no shortage of purveyors. The product is self-rightousness; rage dumbed down to the most base of levels. People like an Alec Baldwin or an Ann Coulter are not the least bit concerned with substance. They couldn't be if they tried; they don't actually know the numbers, history, present, impact, reach, significance or implications of any issue about which they rant and spin. Nor do they care. It's just an endless series of "All Liberals are moonbat idiot America-haters and the definition of insanity!" and "All Conservatives are evil gun-crazy Bible mongers!" And it's all tiresome and it's all irrelevant. I know very very few people that look at screechy hate-artists in a serious light.

The hate-industry is a result of News as Entertainment. When American journalism standards began to erode, so rose the angry pundit. The deeper television news dug itself into filth, the filthier the pundits became. This unfortunate consequence escalates as network news continues its rapid descent. It parallels the drastic decline in what passes for comedy, for drama, for writing literacy, for integrity, for you name it, in all media.

Hate-mongers have latched on to a simple scheme. It's an age-old scheme but American hateologues and screamophiles have reinvented it and, in Hollywood fashion, made themselves larger than life through shameless self-promotion and thinly-veiled sycophancy, convincing unwitting customers that they are so smart to be so stupid. And it is a simple formula. They don't have an actual product. The manipulated emotions of their consumers is the product. So simple. Pick one side of what is in reality a very very narrow spectrum and demonize the other side; satisfy half, infuriate half. There is a reason why if you stuck Coulter and Baldwin in front of a camera, let them shout over each other for half an hour, nobody would remember anything they actually said because they aren't actually saying anything. All anyone would remember is that one of them hates liberals and the other one hates conservatives. Why does it work? Because no matter who is watching, if they are low info enough, one of the hate-mongers is speaking to them, telling them exactly what they think they want to hear. And even though nothing of any substance would have actually been said, viewers divisively agree with only one or the other (it really doesn't matter which).

Don't confuse it with politics. It is entirely the entertainment industry. It's just a particularly loathsome form of entertainment. Rage veiled as politics is an industry that takes advantage of a low-info public. The medium is no longer the message. Why? Because the message is that there is no message anymore. Or it's at best disposable. I suggest you don't fall into the convenience of allowing drive-thru fast-opinion to pass for anything close to serious political analysis. I like to believe you are far too rational and bright of a chap for that.

I'd be interested in hearing what you consider to be the "American Right"

It's identical to what I consider to be the American Left. Citizens of America who are well informed, who study issues, who learn what impact legislation will have on them and their families and their business, who can articulately express views founded upon intelligent analysis of the various complexities they have studied. And who have come to an understanding of the numerous issues directly affecting them. Having done their homework they may opt to make an informed choice and affiliate themselves with a political party they believe will act in their best interests.

Those are people, whatever color they want to paint themselves, that I respect.

Hatepundits don't care about any of that. It is an error to consider any yapping-maw to be the face of the left or the face of the right. They are at best poorly-informed critics and at worst deliberately ignorant. They do not deserve to be taken any more seriously than an elementary school child's criticism of a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet. In fact, less so, given that the child isn't paid to despise half of the characters.

Like it or not, people like D'Souza, along with other leading "intellectuals" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Jonah Goldberg are the public face of the Conservatives in the US.

Do you need a companion list of shills hawking the leftie side of ridiculous? No you don't. You can name them, too.

I urge you to look beyond hatertainment. It has no intellectual nutrition value whatsoever. And like its fast-food cousin, is simply unhealthy.

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:56 pm**

Very briefly, the layers below the 'hatertainment', those layers which position themselves as true intellectuals and deep thinkers, are also devoid. Nothing there, left or right.

All the way down to unpopular figures such as Hedges (I am not aware of a counterpart on the right, I'm sure they exist but they ain't on network tv.)

Posted: **Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:26 pm**

DaveInSeattle wrote:
Scottie wrote: C'mon, Dave. That just another silly canard. Who are these true-believers exactly? Republican strategists? Conservative committees who author legislation? Me and Howard? No. I don't see or hear from anyone that believes D'Souza is one of our "deep thinkers" or even takes him seriously in any fashion.
Scottie....

I'd be interested in hearing what you consider to be the "American Right".

Like it or not, people like D'Souza, along with other leading "intellectuals" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Jonah Goldberg are the public face of the Conservatives in the US.

And the public face of American cuisine is McDonald's and the public face of the left is Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell and Randi Rhodes. I tend to fall into this trap from time to time. Since most of the people I talk politics with are rational lefties and I completely avoid the lefty pundits because almost all of them are repugnant, I consider "the left" to be like-minded rational people. The media is filled with hate-mongering extremists on both sides, because that is what passes for entertainment. Both in the hosts of shows, and the portrayal of the man on the street by the media. Most "liberals" I see interviewed on the street are uneducated and uninformed people portrayed as the welfare recipient who just wants to take your money. Similarly, the everyday conservative is portrayed as an ignorant, poorly educated Palinite like Joe the Plumber. Sure, these people exist, but (I hope) they are the minority of the citizenry. As a lefty, it is easy to view Conservatives as they are portrayed in the media, while ignoring the pitiful display of Liberals shown in the media and chalk it up to Fox being Fox. Similarly, intelligent Conservatives ignore Rush, Hannity and the rest of the shitballs on Fox and view fellow Conservatives as being similar to them.

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:29 am**

The avatar for a fake Bo Pelini Twitter account (@FauxPelini) might be the best ever.

For posterity:

Posted: **Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:07 am**

It's just so...purrrrfect.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:03 pm**

Regis Philbin in a Wu-Tang "Protect Ya Neck" t-shirt.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2013 2:52 pm**

The guy who runs this Twitter account is amazing: https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to fuck them.

It's always the people who believe I exist who provide the strongest evidence I don't.

People who are "born again" were born two too many times.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:14 pm**

Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltyson wrote:Without a space program that discovers, tracks & deflects killer asteroids, our extinction is assured by one. Have a nice day.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:15 pm**

I get NDT's point, but I think he's overstating his case. I'm not an expert on prior asteroid-induced extinction events, but from what I understand, it would merely by catastrophic. Sure, billions of humans might die, but unlike dinosaurs, we can build houses and grow food.

Posted: **Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:39 am**

Except we literally have the ability to deal with most near-ELE level asteroids. For the first time in world history a species can prevent its extinction by external means. Of course we have the ability to do a lot of stuff that would benefit our species long-term and usually choose not to.

Posted: **Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:21 am**

Oh, I get and agree with his point. It's just that for a guy who often tweets very literal corrections of others' tweets/quotes, he's making the same kind of mistake. It would take a very, very bad collision to wipe out our species. Like, kill all multicellular organisms kind of bad.

Posted: **Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:08 am**

The stupid dinosaurs didn't have a ballin' ass seedbank in Svalbard!

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:51 am**

Interesting juxtaposition in my Twitter timeline last night.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:55 pm**

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:58 pm**

#fucanada is trending. Americans seem mad this morning.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:10 pm**

degenerasian wrote:#fucanada is trending. Americans seem mad this morning.

The average American cares a lot less about the Olympic hockey results than is supposed by the average Canadian.

At least, as far as I can tell, based on comments from friends and relatives on both sides of the border.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:21 pm**

sancarlos wrote:
degenerasian wrote:#fucanada is trending. Americans seem mad this morning.
The average American cares a lot less about the Olympic hockey results than is supposed by the average Canadian.

At least, as far as I can tell, based on comments from friends and relatives on both sides of the border.

I agree that's why it surprised me.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:30 pm**

degenerasian wrote:
sancarlos wrote:
degenerasian wrote:#fucanada is trending. Americans seem mad this morning.
The average American cares a lot less about the Olympic hockey results than is supposed by the average Canadian.

At least, as far as I can tell, based on comments from friends and relatives on both sides of the border.

I agree that's why it surprised me.

95% of Americans don't care about hockey.

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:23 am**

Yeah alright

Posted: **Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:14 pm**

Why do I love old dudes talking shit about the glory days? Oh, yeah, that's why.

Posted: **Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:47 pm**

The Marlins got butthurt the Red Sox didn't provide the World Series lineup for their overpriced Spring Training game the other day.

This is what John Henry had to say about it:

They should apologize for their regular season lineup.

Sick burn.

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:17 am**

Is she drunk or just stupid?

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:03 am**

@TheTweetOfGod is killing it this morning. He's reading from TheBookOfBieb.

The Swamp

Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter

Re: Twitter