If I come across as an Obama defender, its not intentional. A Presidential defender, yes. The office, in the CEO role, is an important one that should not only be respected by ALL, but that both sides should seek to work with. The pawns are to be served, not destroyed during the game. From a party perspective they are all power grabbing idiots.

As for the left & right, for the most part the people elected to office fit closer to the center, with the outliers balanced.........an Alan Grayson with a Michelle Bachmann for example. When was the last time the balance in the Senate was 70:30. Or a 3/4 majority in the House. If the hard right are no where near the center, yet think they are, how can the left ever come close? They can't, not under the current definitions. The Progressives get demonized by the right, but over what. Wanting to forge a better balanced democratic nation for all, hey that's what the Egyptians want to do now.

In terms of a company, do you want the board constantly waging war against each other over control. Or do you want them to get on with it and make some profit. This is just idiocy, and destroys rather than emphasizes an understanding of current events.

Anger at the parties for not cutting the deficit is misplaced; they are only reflecting popular will.

Dont worry, the Republicans will balance the budget by not paying for abortions of women who were raped.

lol

What a great headline for that chart.

It was sarcasm. The point is that Obama campaigned as a liberal, and was demonized as such, yet his first economic appointment is head of the ny fed?

I understand the concept that politicians campaign towards the center; however, it is not representative of where politicians stand on issues. There are issues of non-substance that politicians polarize(abortions gun rights etc) and issues of substance they depolarize over(war spending, taxation, bigger government) but this is merely a game to entice voters. The irony is that most of the depolarizing issues are issues that we should see polarization over. Arguing over 33% and 35% tax brackets and arguing over whether to go into Iraq of Afghanistan(instead of neither) shows that we are not having substantial discussion over issues of substance. Meanwhile furthering corporatist agenda there is now agreement that the welfare state is the problem(relax libertarians cause I know everyone will troll welfare state is the problem)

Furthering the absurdity is the belief by many individuals, perhaps influenced by the media, that somehow Obama is a socialist. If that is the case then Ronald Reagan was Marx himself. Due to this shift of discourse someone like myself has now found libertarianism, and to some extent AC principles, much more in line with what was once considered a liberal agenda

my bad on the sarcasm, was very subtle.

Bump for Paul Ryans $350 bottle of wine.

Seriously though, these kinds of articles are so tilting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...f-wine/241642/

Your pony appeared first in the LC thread.

100 yo machine doesn't just shift direction after 1 month.

Tilting in that people think they have a right to judge a man's taste in wine and relate it to his taste in government.

When you make good money you get to spend it on nice things.

Somebody should follow around the writer of the article and point out all the things that he can do that somebody on min wage can't.

Like, the whole premise is just so lame. If he were like maxing out a credit card to buy expensive wine, then maybe I could see how it could be of minor relevance. But this is just stupid.

Now read all the comments and try not to throw your head into the wall (TPM has better comments)

I got through 6. The bar is set at 6!

Paul Ryan, he hates medical care for old people and loves 350 dolla bottle of wine.


This guy is going far in national politics.


Oh, and that haircut, oh my.

More intelligent discourse. Proud of you kiddo.

Who said electioneering has anything to do about discourse.

This is REALPOLITIK.

His goose is cooked.

BTW, you dont engage in anything remotely close to intelligent discourse...you basically regurgitate de rigeur hard right talking points without doing even an elementary level of analysis as to what broader implications your specious belief systems might have vis a vis maintaining any sort of societal stability.

People wif moniez make teh jobzzzz ergo iz five them teh moniez and we gfetz jobzzz...the end.

I mean you expect me to have a serious engagement with someone who thinks on that level?

REALLY?

A more relevant point is that this bottle of wine (along with the rest of the meal) will likely end up being deducted as a business expense. Should we really be subsidizing his meal through the tax code?

Of course not, but who gets to write the rules?

Pretty sure there is a $75 limit per meal, but yeah.

cute.

I don't want to "give them moniez" I want to let them "keep the moniez" because the government takes and wastes enough already. Just like I want to let YOU keep the moniez!

Chances this guy also drives a car nicer than a 2000 chevy aveo? RAGE!!!

It might not be good PR, but this isn't remotely hypocritical. I mean, if he was using taxpayer money (not his salary before some genius points that out) in a legal way, that might be interesting. Even then, I defend people who take advantage of rules they want changed (e.g. taking subsidies while opposing them, or not voluntarily paying higher taxes when supporting higher taxes).

Ya, see thats a problem for someone hoping to run for higher office one day.

Thats all people are saying...this isnt Cambodia and it isnt 1976...it isnt like we are going to send him to a deathcamp for sipping some Dom.

Of course the fact he had the temerity/naivete to go around Beltway hotspots to do his sipping while pushing for an agenda that includes slashing benefits to our elderly....well that doesnt reflect well on his overall judgement....bc sometimes appearances matter.