Thursday, January 1, 2015

Ha, ha! rightwing suckas!

Read this and weep.


  1. Why would we possibly weep?

    We got to use those things for propaganda to help swing midterm elections but don't have to bear the costs. What's the downside?

  2. You picked the wrong side. And lost credibility

  3. With the reality-based sector. Faith-based economics has failed, again.

    Good question. An all-Republican Congress could easily put us back on the road to 1929 or 2008. Funny how there haven't been any Democrat crashes, eh?

  4. But it doesn't matter. They had no credibility with what you refer to as the "reality-based sector" so their credibility is not lowered and nobody else will remember in another year as the election cycle starts again. You can point this out then and on the right we'll point out every time a left leaning economist made some bad prediction.

    So we picked up a large amount of seats with no damage as far as I can tell. If all it takes to do that is to make some silly predictions, I'm happy to do it again, and again, and again... as you've proven you're willing to do as well.

    May the best propagandist win!


  6. Faith-based economics has failed, again.

    I'm not going to bother finding the specific column, but I'm pretty certain I remember correctly Krugman saying the European economies, because socialism, were much better positioned for economic recovery than the US.

    But wait, there's more!

    The New York Times worries about gas reaching $5 per gallon.

    "You can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan."

    "Hubbard Peak Oil"


    UVa rape hoax. Promiscuously slinging "racist" and "sexist" accusations.

    Everything that spews forth from Wonkette, and especially Doctor Zoom. And especially that link above. After all, the economic recovery is due in no small part to technological developments progressives would have banned if they could: fracking.

    The past six years are drenched in progressive own-goals. Funny you didn't mention any of them.


    I can't help but mention that, to at least some parts of the reality based community, this passes as logical. From the link in the OP:

    Today, the nationwide average for a gallon of gas is $2.24.

    A lot of the reasons for the decline in gas prices are well beyond Obama’s control — including weak international demand and OPEC’s failure to reduce supply. But the policies that Lee, Gingrich and others criticized — the failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, more EPA regulation and limiting drilling on public land — have not gotten in the way of historically low prices.

    Spoiler alert: only the ideologically blinded would view that as anything other than conclusory. There are pages of nonsense buried in that short paragraph.



  8. Any article that contains insanity such as Even though some cannot see it, refuse to see it, or deny it, we are at war for the survival of life on earth. How else do you characterize the fact that over 100 species a day are going extinct? is suffering a huge credibility deficit.

    How many species have gone extinct since 1900?

  9. The New York Times worries about gas reaching $5 per gallon.

    And Michele Bachmann was ridiculed for predicting $2 per gallon gasoline.

    Still trying to figure out why I should be weeping over such a vacuous article.