Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A Bald Faced Lie From the NYT

I'm not actually surprised.........

Courting Chaos in Massachusetts

This is the NYT editorial exhorting Massachusetts to vote "No" (or would they prefer we vote "present", like their hero?) on Question 1.

My first thought is - "Butt out" After all, it never goes well when someone in New York tries to tell someone in Boston anything.

But this sentence is just a complete lie.

"There is no way that Massachusetts can cut that deeply, especially on short notice and especially now, as the economic downturn calls for more, not less, state spending."

How assbackwards is the NYT editorial board? Raising taxes in an economic downturn? Massachusetts most certainly can make these cuts.

Who paid for this editorial? DiMasi? Patrick?

Sure, it could be bad....but it could also be very good. This study from the Beacon Hill Institute and Suffolk University explains how it could benefit the state. But whatever it is, it will be the will of the people.

The leadership on Beacon Hill did this to themselves. There was a "temporary" hike several years ago and every effort to roll it back has been thwarted by the legislature. Nice going asshats, if you had just let us roll it back and not interfered with previous efforts, we wouldn't be this fired up. But no, you had to go against the will of the people as you have on many occasions. Not only do you ignore us, you insult us. The last time we voted and it was repealed by the rats on Beacon Hill, their explanation was that the voters didn't understand the ramifications of their vote. How insulting is that? They repealed it for our own good. Apparently they have decided to promote themselves from legislators to rulers.

Listen up!

Vote "Yes" on Question 1.


paul said...

What if your blog could influence the elections in the last run?
What if, through your posts, your readers could get involved in the last run for the Presidential elections and bring help to the candidates on their strategic issues…Right People for the President can do that for your blog. It’s new, it’s easy and fun, and it’s free.
With a simple copy-and-paste procedure, you will include Right People for the President in your blog, and give your readers a new voice, enabling them to help the candidates on relevant campaign issues. Everyone can contribute, everyone could be “the right person” for the future President.
A contribution, a photo, and here your blog becomes a new source of ideas, with suggestions that may very well be useful to the candidates. Choose for your blog a dedicated player, focusing on one specific candidate, or choose our “Random player” with either candidate, changing on each reload of your pages.
There is room for amusing contributions – perfect for creating a friendly atmosphere around your posts – and more serious ones. The best ideas coming from your blog will be forwarded to the candidates. A real solution, brought forward by one of your readers, may shape the future of politics. Should a candidate reach out to one of your contributors, you may be associated in their meeting.
Right People for the President means more readers, spending longer time on your blog.
Right People for the President is fun, spontaneous, and involving. For your blog, it means more visitors, spending more reading time on your pages, returning more frequently to read new stories or to vote for their favorite ones.
Right People for the President is viral, with readers inviting their friends to have a look at the player on your blog or to vote for their contribution, bringing you new visitors. Interesting and popular suggestions from your readers will be there to initiate a buzz around your blog.
Include Right People for the President on your blog in just 2 minutes
In a few clicks:
1. choose a dedicated player, focusing on either B.Obama or J.McCain, or our “random player”,
2. choose between our standard size or our column size, perfect for sidebars,
3. copy and paste the player’s code in your blog
All details here:
The Right People Team

Stella said...

Maggie, thought you'd get a kick out of the W review. Looks like Oliver Stone is the bipartisan director non grata

You ever sit through the rough cut of your friend's independent film? Well, I have, lotsa times, God help me, so seeing Oliver Stone's W. really brought back some nauseating memories. It seems to run about eight hours and is so boring, so fatheaded, and so full of lame attempts at profundity that it's just like the rough cut of almost every terrible independent film ever made.

I know, you already told me.

BillT said...

Oliver Stone's still coasting on the Lefty-laurels he collected from Platoon.

They thought it depicted the stark horrors of Vietnam.

I thought it was an overblown comedy...

Stella said...

Bill, I've learned my lefty lesson. However, your comment on Platoon gives me the shivers. No one can understand or depict war adequately unless they serve.

I did love Natural Born Killers, though.

BillT said...

No one can understand or depict war adequately unless they serve.



Platoon is so full of overblown stereotypes -- the Good Guys are all draftee dopers and the Bad Guys are all lifer juicers -- and nonstop gore that us VietVets refer to it as Cartoon. Stone was obviously a doper when he was over there (and, judging by his subsequent efforts, probably still is).

Combat messes your head up bad enough -- having some REMF tell the world it turns you into a soulless animal is worse.