"Well, the fact the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he's the president of course he's right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that." Let me correct that for you, Dave: "Well it turned out no, he was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH ABOUT that."
The article goes on to say, "After all, this is not the most egregious example of this White House playing fast and loose with the facts. Or is this just the first one Letterman could grasp?"
"He's the President; of course he's right"--I don't recall Letterman ever saying that about a Republican.
But we know Letterman is a Democrat shill and a moron, anyway.
And in the "it takes one to know one" department:
AoSHQ: "Captain Bullshit: Romney's a 'Bullshitter'". (Are we sure the press didn't misspell "Bushitler"?) Ace follows that up with:
It's not the profanity I object to. It's Obama's mad scramble to be hip again. I object to the profanity = hip notion.He's not wrong. WTF, I swear like a sailor in private moments but that doesn't make me think I'm "hip" or "cool"; what it actually makes me think is that I really, really need to improve my vocabulary.
A truly intelligent man doesn't need profanity.
Vox Day points out:
Now, he's not wrong. Mitt Romney is a bullshitter supreme. The man is the flippiest of flip-floppers and naturally produces a prodigious quantity of the stuff. As, of course, does Obama, athough he is not so much a bullshit artist as a mid-witted con man. But there are certain things you simply do not say when you are, or are at least popularly supposed to be, the President of the United States.Well, you do say that kind of stuff, but you are very, very careful not to say that kind of thing ON THE RECORD.
Because a truly intelligent man blah blah blah etcetera. Besides, a President should have some class and swearing in public is anything but classy.
* * *
We've been told repeatedly that natural gas prices will remain low because there's so much of it in the US. Well:
...[O]ne way or another the market will balance itself out. Drilling and production will decline (drilling rates have already started doing so) and prices will rise until production is once again profitable. So we will have less gas than we currently do, and gas will be more expensive. Gosh, who da thunk?Right now natural gas is selling below its production cost, and that cannot continue.
So you can add this to what's going to hit in January of 2013, if it waits that long; besides the huge tax increases of Obamacare and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the trickle-down effects of sequestration, and-and-and.
* * *
Most poverty in the United States is relative, not absolute. I don't know how many times I can say it. For the first time in history we have a country in which obesity is an affliction of the poor, not the rich.
"It is a liberal fantasy that a society can eliminate poverty," Alan Caruba says, but there further is a limit to how desirable the elimination of poverty is.
When you get to the point that poor people are making decisions between buying the latest-and-greatest cell phone and buying 24" chrome rims for the hoopty, I'd say you've done enough towards the elimination of poverty. If your poor are, generally speaking, well-fed to the point of obesity and are so unworried over living without shelter that deciding which luxuries they want are their biggest concern, the rest is their problem.
The idiots pictured at the head of the post don't know what real poverty looks like. Real poverty--absolute poverty--exists when people don't have enough food to eat, when they can't shelter themselves adequately. Owing a car is a distant dream for the truly poor, let alone one with fancy wheels on it; and if it gets too cold they need to scrounge fuel to burn for heat. Forget air conditioning when it gets hot; having electricity is hit-or-miss.
* * *
Bias in the media? Or is the Fungus setting a trend? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has decided not to endorse anyone in the Presidential race.
The paper endorsed Obama in 2008, but endorsed Scott Walker in the recall election.
I can see their dilemma. While a lot of papers are endorsing Romney, they want to endorse Obama again...but they don't want to endorse Obama if it means losing readers (as they must have during the Walker recall election). Still, they can't stomach endorsing a Republican--even one who's as squishy as warm peanut butter.
I'm so used to papers inserting themselves into places they don't belong, trying to shape public opinion, that I do think this is funny. "We don't know! Please don't hurt us!" I like a paper that does that better than the one that confidently says, "If you plebes had any brains at all you'd vote the way we tell you!"
* * *
Arse Technica is more trustworthy when it comes to computer stuff. That's the main reason I read them; in that article they're asking about whether or not a Core i7 processor is really worth the extra money.
The desktop Core i5 processors are quad-core chips without hyperthreading. For the most part the average user doesn't need hyperthreading, and the most common applications don't take advantage of it (at least not yet). If you spend the extra money on a Core i7, you're not going to see enough improvement in performance to make it worthwhile unless you're doing some serious work. You'll get more cache and more clock speed (a bit more) but otherwise you'll simply be waiting faster.
The highlighted comments are also highly informative.
I'm still leaning towards a top-level i5 for my next desktop purchase. The money I save on the processor would be better spent on maxing the system RAM or buying a really high-zoot video card.
* * *
JayG never seems to get around to the good news in this post. Unless this is it:
Maybe we're seeing the start of the decline. Maybe this shocking lack of effort and, dare I say it, artistic vision, is the death throes of Hollywood as they succumb to the same fate as dead tree newspapers. With the advent of the internet, streaming video, and cheaper and cheaper means of filming and editing one's own videos, the independent filmmaker has never had it better. Rather than come up with a superior product, Hollywood just puts in less effort until finally they're the celluloid equivalent of a horse and bayonet...It costs so much to make a movie that Hollywood must make safe bets.
...which does not stop them from filling the movies with leftist propaganda, because even when people are annoyed by it they continue to go see the movies.
Not me, buddy. I refuse to pay people to insult me.
* * *
Og on abortion. I'm going to indulge my editor's impulse just a little bit. (I added a carriage return and a semicolon.)
Dirty Little Secret 1: Plenty of rock ribbed republicans would NEVER make abortion illegal just in case they had to tow 17 year old Muffy to the clinic to scrape out the brown baby she was going to have because of an indiscretion at the Maroon 5 concert, and;Not just the "very conservative"; the very liberal are just as tickled. Og doesn't mention that because it doesn't fit the context of his post, which is essentially an explanation on what abortion is and why it ain't gonna be outlawed even if every single Democrat loses in the upcoming election.
Dirty Little Secret 2: A shitton of very conservative people are Margaret Sanger Tickled that those Ni**ers are aborting their babies and want them to keep on doing so as much and as often as possible, and get some of those wetbacks in there too, while you’re at it.
* * *
As for me, I'm hungry. The stir-fry I made the other night came out so well I think I'm going to try to duplicate it, only this time instead of using a large can of La Choy mixed vegetables I'll use discrete cans.
While making it last time, and looking for mushrooms, I discovered that I have an inordinate number of cans of diced tomatos in there. I suppose I should make goulash soon....