You had to know this was coming, right?
By way of both apology and attempt at political reconciliation, my two favorite Obama supporters...
(http://i35.tinypic.com/vmzkts.jpg)
Wankers of the world, unite.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 10:56:16 AM
You had to know this was coming, right?
By way of both apology and attempt at political reconciliation, my two favorite Obama supporters...
(http://i35.tinypic.com/vmzkts.jpg)
Wankers of the world, unite.
I only see one image. Who is the second one? Is it me?!?
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 10:58:38 AM
I only see one image. Who is the second one? Is it me?!?
I'm gonna give you the chance to think about this one for a bit before I explain it to you.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6401.0 wasn't enough for you?
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 11:02:58 AM
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6401.0 wasn't enough for you?
The election's over, dude.
Thought you knew.
Let's take off our pants and do a little dance for communist baby killing.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:08:01 AM
Let's take off our pants and do a little dance for communist baby killing.
I saw enough of that on TV last night.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 10:58:38 AM
I only see one image. Who is the second one? Is it me?!?
I'm gonna give you the chance to think about this one for a bit before I explain it to you.
I got it. I just wanted validation.
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Well, speaking as an ex-Baptist, happiness is immoral.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Looking ahead to where this discussion will likely take it, I'm already beginning to regret this thread.
Which is as it should be.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
I can't quite figure it out either. Oh well.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
I'm not all bad, guys. Gay marriage doesn't bother me in the least.
Epic Fail Alert
Barackula Saddam Hussein Muhammed Ihatewhitey Obama: "We can't solve global warming because I fucking changed light bulbs in my house." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/obama-we-cant-solve-globa_n_141407.html)
Crickets.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Looking ahead to where this discussion will likely take it, I'm already beginning to regret this thread.
Which is as it should be.
It's what makes a thread
great unreadable.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
That picture is downright bizarre.
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this is going to save my marriage. I already called my wife and left her a message telling her our marriage is now SAFE and that she should come back.
She'll be back any time now...
...right?
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Why should a minority of people in this country have the same rights as everyone else in the country? WHY, SLAKY? WHY?!
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
That photo of that guy celebrating is absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: Kerm on November 05, 2008, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Why should a minority of people in this country have the same rights as everyone else in the country? WHY, SLAKY? WHY?!
I haven't seen the news yet, but imagine how the folks who this directly affects feel. The one who already got married are safe because of ex post facto laws, but I still think their benefits are going to get taken away.
Thanks church!
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
That picture is downright bizarre.
(http://i34.tinypic.com/10ckymp.jpg)
QuoteAbove: Bob Knoke, of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield, of Monrovia, Jim Domen, of Yorba Linda, and J.D. Gaddis, of Yorba Linda, celebrate the end of homo tyranny.
"Finally," commented a visibly relieved Mr. Domen, "Those fucking faggots are gonna have to stop sucking my dick. God bless America."
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:53:52 AM
Quote from: Kerm on November 05, 2008, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
Why should a minority of people in this country have the same rights as everyone else in the country? WHY, SLAKY? WHY?!
I haven't seen the news yet, but imagine how the folks who this directly affects feel. The one who already got married are safe because of ex post facto laws, but I still think their benefits are going to get taken away.
Thanks church!
Straight people should be the authority on who you can and cannot marry, because all of them get it completely right the first time (http://www.divorcerate.org/).
Quote from: CT II on November 05, 2008, 11:48:09 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this is going to save my marriage. I already called my wife and left her a message telling her our marriage is now SAFE and that she should come back.
She'll be back any time now...
...right?
I'll tell her to pack up her shit and get out of the CONDO asap CT. My fellow Notary.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 11:54:59 AM
(http://i34.tinypic.com/10ckymp.jpg)
QuoteAbove: Bob Knoke, of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield, of Monrovia, Jim Domen, of Yorba Linda, and J.D. Gaddis, of Yorba Linda, celebrate the end of homo tyranny.
"Finally," commented a visibly relieved Mr. Domen, "Those fucking faggots are gonna have to stop sucking my dick. God bless America."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540
Quote from: TDubbs on November 05, 2008, 11:56:14 AM
Quote from: CT II on November 05, 2008, 11:48:09 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this is going to save my marriage. I already called my wife and left her a message telling her our marriage is now SAFE and that she should come back.
She'll be back any time now...
...right?
I'll tell her to pack up her shit and get out of the CONDO asap CT. My fellow Notary.
Intrepid Reader: CTFBI Agent, TW: Stop Raping My Wife!
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Wait? You and Kerm are contractually obligated to share a car?
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Sorry. She tricked me into marrying her.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I'd like to apologize again to everyone.
If you want to send me your cleaning bills, I know a guy who's pretty good at getting exploded brains out of upholstery.
Quote from: Kerm on November 05, 2008, 12:34:55 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Sorry. She tricked me into marrying her.
With some sort of elaborate ruse perhaps.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 12:37:34 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I'd like to apologize again to everyone.
If you want to send me your cleaning bills, I know a guy who's pretty good at getting exploded brains out of upholstery.
An old mop and some Pine Sol and bleach should suffice to clean the concrete in mom's basement.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 12:37:34 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I'd like to apologize again to everyone.
If you want to send me your cleaning bills, I know a guy who's pretty good at getting exploded brains out of upholstery.
That was pure sarcasm. I have a high distrust and dislike of the religious community..
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I love that, whenever I feel guilty about killing hobos, I just walk into a church and tell a priest. Clean conscience and he can't go to the police. God endorses murder.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I love that, whenever I feel guilty about killing hobos, I just walk into a church and tell a priest. Clean conscience and he can't go to the police. God endorses murder.
There should be a TV show about this. Chris Hansen can host/play the priest.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: TDubbs on November 05, 2008, 11:56:14 AM
Quote from: CT II on November 05, 2008, 11:48:09 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.
I'm pretty disappointed.
Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit. Really disappointing. I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else. Especially if it makes them happy.
Read this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story)
It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.
I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.
I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, this is going to save my marriage. I already called my wife and left her a message telling her our marriage is now SAFE and that she should come back.
She'll be back any time now...
...right?
I'll tell her to pack up her shit and get out of the CONDO asap CT. My fellow Notary.
Intrepid Reader: CT
FBI Agent, TW: Stop Raping My Wife!
This is progressing nicely.
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter? I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.
This is so typical of the American political climate. The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.
The general election was quite similar. Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter? I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.
This is so typical of the American political climate. The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.
The general election was quite similar. Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Gunderson 2012!
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter? I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.
This is so typical of the American political climate. The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.
The general election was quite similar. Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Gunderson 2012!
Lisa: A gay president in 2034?
Gay Republican: We're realistic.
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 12:29:03 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 people, right? We don't make sure that when a car dealership sells a car that a man sells to a woman (or a woman to a man). So how is this different? It has nothing to do with religion (since you can get married by a JOP).
This whole thing is akin to me saying I got married and the family I have is a direct result of who Kerm got married to. Damn you Kerm. I could be asleep in the bosom of Scarlett tonight. It's all your fault.
Marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman that is so sacred that it shouldn't be tainted by a gay couple trying to join them as well. It's just that simple. Plus God endorses it.
I love that, whenever I feel guilty about killing hobmos, I just walk into a church and tell a priest. Clean conscience and he can't go to the police. God endorses murder.
On topic'ed.
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter? I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.
This is so typical of the American political climate. The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.
The general election was quite similar. Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
This...this right here...this is change I can believe in.
Swingers in the White House?
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2z6vvh5.jpg)
Now, that's liberal.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.
The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter? I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.
Oh, yeah? Tell that to the judge who married me.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
Oh, Tracy Bingham says let's nip this in the bud keep talking about this, it is important.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/54a90816970255/ (http://www.imagebam.com/image/54a90816970255/)
To make her be my dumpster. Oh, wait, did I actually say that?
Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.
The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.
The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?
Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.
The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.
The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?
Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Reagan increased the size of the government and didn't cut enough social programs to pay for it. At the time, supply-side economics was all the rage so no one really gave a damn about the national debt.
That being said, there hasn't be a major party candidate who was truly fiscally conservative since Goldwater. A fiscally responsible president would have to be before FDR, I think.
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.
The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.
The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?
Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Reagan never had a Republican Congress with him and (rightly) wanted to spend on the military to force the Soviets to outspend their means. The Democrats in Congress controlled the spending and he took the bullet on spending in order to defeat the Soviet Union. It is true that doesn't necessarily equal small government, but the situation would've been different if he had ever received a GOP Congress to work with him. The one unfortunate part of the Reagan years is that his coattails never were big enough to get a Congress that would have helped him cut domestic spending.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you always resort to douchebaggery?
Jindal 2012!
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you always resort to douchebaggery?
Jindal 2012!
He doesn't stand a chance against the Illinois Gunderson machine.
You motherfuckers made this thread unreadable. Fuck. Go read my booblie one at least and don't fuck it up.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 01:45:58 PM
Swingers in the White House?
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2z6vvh5.jpg)
Now, that's liberal.
To respond to myself, my real question is: just what exactly is Barack's
right hand up to in this pic?
Dude's apparently a born multitasker.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?
When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?
Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels.
Whoa whoa whoa...you actually READ other posts?
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?
When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?
From
Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.""There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names""I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"But, that's no
New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM
From Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
But, that's no New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Source?
Oh, yeah (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308). This made-up quote (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/4/therealquote) brought to you by Tom Metzger, director of the White Aryan Resistance.
Nice, IAN.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?
When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?
From Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
But, that's no New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Holy fucking fail. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/517/)
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM
From Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
But, that's no New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Source?
Oh, yeah (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308). This made-up quote (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/4/therealquote) brought to you by Tom Metzger, director of the White Aryan Resistance.
Nice, IAN.
Hold on a second, Thrill. Are you telling IAN that the information he receives via chain e-mails may not be based on actual facts? Typical librul GOTCHA accusation.
Quote from: RV on November 05, 2008, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 05, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM
From Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
But, that's no New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Source?
Oh, yeah (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308). This made-up quote (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/4/therealquote) brought to you by Tom Metzger, director of the White Aryan Resistance.
Nice, IAN.
Hold on a second, Thrill. Are you telling IAN that the information he receives via chain e-mails may not be based on actual facts? Typical librul GOTCHA accusation.
Tail between my legs, I'll concede that I know they weren't his comments. However, of course Obama's own site would back up context from his book.
I blame the R & D department.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:37:45 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?
Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people. Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something. I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government. I think some flexibility is important.
Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed. There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change. As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why it can be changed to reflect the times. If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government. If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control. It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.
As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right. Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality. I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.
This.
Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?
Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?
Jindal Beezulbub 2012!
God Warrior'd (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/)
If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?
When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?
From Dreams from My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
But, that's no New Oxford Review. And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.
Holy fucking fail. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/517/)
On the other hand, we're demonizing a guy because he's religious? Really?
Quote from: RV on November 05, 2008, 02:43:05 PM
Hold on a second, Thrill. Are you telling IAN that the information he receives via chain e-mails may not be based on actual facts? Typical librul GOTCHA accusation.
Oh, crap! Now how am I going to add 4+ inches in 30 days?
QuoteOn the other hand, we're demonizing a guy because he's religious? Really?
No, we're demonizing a guy because you have to be pretty damned stupid to be one step removed from burning witches.
Level of discourse dropping...dropping.......dropping
Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Level of discourse dropping...dropping.......dropping
On a lighter note, I had never fully read that whole passage. It's not like he was conducting the exorcism. At least Susan was okay.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: RV on November 05, 2008, 02:43:05 PM
Hold on a second, Thrill. Are you telling IAN that the information he receives via chain e-mails may not be based on actual facts? Typical librul GOTCHA accusation.
Oh, crap! Now how am I going to add 4+ inches in 30 days?
QuoteOn the other hand, we're demonizing a guy because he's religious? Really?
No, we're demonizing a guy because you have to be pretty damned stupid to be one step removed from burning witches.
I love you
Now I know why I haven't seen Oleg around the Internets today, besides the obvious "looking too high".
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_video
Quote from: Zed on November 05, 2008, 05:08:23 PM
Now I know why I haven't seen Oleg around the Internets today, besides the obvious "looking too high".
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_video
Saw that earlier. Pretty funny stuff.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 05:13:37 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 05, 2008, 05:08:23 PM
Now I know why I haven't seen Oleg around the Internets today, besides the obvious "looking too high".
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_video
Saw that earlier. Pretty funny stuff.
I figured Oleg, after canvassing in Indiana, decided to just continue east to Boston (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/).
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of
candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of
party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
I feel they've become a little too centrist but obviously that's because of my views. They probably will need to concede more towards the middle as much as I may dislike it. But if they want to have any say in what happens in this country, they may need to.
I think Scarlett is a dumb airhead bitch, but, ... MORE POSTS LIKE THE FIRST ONE PLZ otherwise I'm calling false advertisement.
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s295/renereyes100772/Keeley%20Hazell/schoolgirl2.jpg)
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
I feel they've become a little too centrist but obviously that's because of my views. They probably will need to concede more towards the middle as much as I may dislike it. But if they want to have any say in what happens in this country, they may need to.
The country is in the center. That's why a Presidential candidate gets 53% of the popular vote and that's a mandate.
The idea that the country is center-right is as much a fantasy as us Liberals believing it's center-left. The country is a pendulum with a very small arc. Right now it happens to be on a leftward swing.
It does, however, prove out that all the major improvements in this country, whether it be abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, whatever, come when the pendulum is on its leftward swing. It then swings right to stabilize.
And, if the last sixteen years have proven anything to us, it's this: Govern from the center, and you can make things happen. Ideologues just wind up leaving a mess for the next guy.
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2008, 04:25:00 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
I feel they've become a little too centrist but obviously that's because of my views. They probably will need to concede more towards the middle as much as I may dislike it. But if they want to have any say in what happens in this country, they may need to.
The country is in the center. That's why a Presidential candidate gets 53% of the popular vote and that's a mandate.
The idea that the country is center-right is as much a fantasy as us Liberals believing it's center-left. The country is a pendulum with a very small arc. Right now it happens to be on a leftward swing.
It does, however, prove out that all the major improvements in this country, whether it be abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, whatever, come when the pendulum is on its leftward swing. It then swings right to stabilize.
And, if the last sixteen years have proven anything to us, it's this: Govern from the center, and you can make things happen. Ideologues just wind up leaving a mess for the next guy.
Thi.
If you need proof that the country is the center just look at what happened on 11/4. We elected a black man as president, constitutionally banned gay marriage and adoption, but extended the rights of chickens.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 08:48:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2008, 04:25:00 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
I feel they've become a little too centrist but obviously that's because of my views. They probably will need to concede more towards the middle as much as I may dislike it. But if they want to have any say in what happens in this country, they may need to.
The country is in the center. That's why a Presidential candidate gets 53% of the popular vote and that's a mandate.
The idea that the country is center-right is as much a fantasy as us Liberals believing it's center-left. The country is a pendulum with a very small arc. Right now it happens to be on a leftward swing.
It does, however, prove out that all the major improvements in this country, whether it be abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, whatever, come when the pendulum is on its leftward swing. It then swings right to stabilize.
And, if the last sixteen years have proven anything to us, it's this: Govern from the center, and you can make things happen. Ideologues just wind up leaving a mess for the next guy.
Thi.
If you need proof that the country is the center just look at what happened on 11/4. We elected a black man as president, constitutionally banned gay marriage and adoption, but extended the rights of chickens.
Th.
Have I done that right?
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 08:48:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2008, 04:25:00 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 05, 2008, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 05, 2008, 08:41:03 PM
I am eager to see the future of the Republican Party after this election. I really believe that this election is analogous to the 1997 Labour Party success in the UK. However, the Conservatives took nearly 10 years to become a major viable party again, after an incredible period of soul searching. I shudder to think where the GOP is going to go. I pray for a return to the moderates, but I doubt it.
Isn't that what McCain was? A moderate? Well he was to me, at least. Which, then again, doesn't say much because of my radical right-wing views.
Really what I think this party needs is a new, young, actual conservative voice. I'm not really sure how they will find it because the market out there with people who fit that criteria is pretty slim. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough though...
He was...in 2000.
This McCain was something different and it showed last night in his speech. McCain wanted to run as a moderate, as the 2000 McCain. However, he had to kowtow to the Rovians in the GOP and placate the social conservatives.
In any event, before the GOP picks the type of candidate they want to run, they need to decide what type of party they want to be. Will they be the center-right party which reflects the country they believe they exist in, or will they continue to be the far right, extremist party that they have become?
I feel they've become a little too centrist but obviously that's because of my views. They probably will need to concede more towards the middle as much as I may dislike it. But if they want to have any say in what happens in this country, they may need to.
The country is in the center. That's why a Presidential candidate gets 53% of the popular vote and that's a mandate.
The idea that the country is center-right is as much a fantasy as us Liberals believing it's center-left. The country is a pendulum with a very small arc. Right now it happens to be on a leftward swing.
It does, however, prove out that all the major improvements in this country, whether it be abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, whatever, come when the pendulum is on its leftward swing. It then swings right to stabilize.
And, if the last sixteen years have proven anything to us, it's this: Govern from the center, and you can make things happen. Ideologues just wind up leaving a mess for the next guy.
Thi.
If you need proof that the country is the center just look at what happened on 11/4. We elected a black man as president, constitutionally banned gay marriage and adoption, but extended the rights of chickens.
Doesn't matter...after JObama appoints 4 Justices in 2009, teh gheys run the show...Dobson said so.
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Sentimental side of me must be coming out... because that was pretty cool. Nice photos.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Wait, he's not the anti-Christ? This is wasn't in the handbook....
Seriously, those are some good pics. I like the chin-up one.
Last one was really good. Also the one where people were taking cell phone pics. I liked the one of him waiting before a speech in Missouri..
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 10:14:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Sentimental side of me must be coming out... because that was pretty cool. Nice photos.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 10:14:45 AM
Wait, he's not the anti-Christ? This is wasn't in the handbook....
Seriously, those are some good pics. I like the chin-up one.
Welcome to the tent. Good thing it's a big one.
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2008, 10:17:41 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 10:14:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Sentimental side of me must be coming out... because that was pretty cool. Nice photos.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 10:14:45 AM
Wait, he's not the anti-Christ? This is wasn't in the handbook....
Seriously, those are some good pics. I like the chin-up one.
Welcome to the tent. Good thing it's a big one.
Nah...I'm still standing on the outside looking in.
Quote from: ChickDuckens on November 06, 2008, 10:18:30 AM
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
His feet are huge.
Quote from: ChickDuckens on November 06, 2008, 10:18:30 AM
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Yeah, I think I had seen that one before, but I liked the caption explaining that he had them re-soled once already.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 10:18:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2008, 10:17:41 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 10:14:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Sentimental side of me must be coming out... because that was pretty cool. Nice photos.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 10:14:45 AM
Wait, he's not the anti-Christ? This is wasn't in the handbook....
Seriously, those are some good pics. I like the chin-up one.
Welcome to the tent. Good thing it's a big one.
Nah...I'm still standing on the outside looking in.
Weebs?
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
Pretty cool photo essay of Obama from a Time photographer. Given his huge status and fame, it's interesting to see him caught in normal-person moments. I like the one of him cleaning up after himself at the ice cream shop.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
Make sure you keep clicking the "more photos" link at the bottom of the page -- there's quite a few here.
Very cool shots. Just sent the link to Mrs. flannj and all the little flannjs.
Thanks.
Quote from: ChickDuckens on November 06, 2008, 10:18:30 AM
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
One of the iconic political images of the 20th century, featuring another Democrat from Illinois...
(http://manolomen.com/images/Adlai%20Stevenson%20with%20a%20hole%20in%20his%20shoe.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2008, 11:11:42 AM
Quote from: ChickDuckens on November 06, 2008, 10:18:30 AM
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
One of the iconic political images of the 20th century, featuring another Democrat from Illinois...
(http://manolomen.com/images/Adlai%20Stevenson%20with%20a%20hole%20in%20his%20shoe.jpg)
Hey... Speaking of multiple-time losers from Illinois, what does Überweiße's record now stand at?
0 for 5?
Let's just hope that Oberweis is finally done with Illinois politics.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 11:18:40 AM
Hey... Speaking of multiple-time losers from Illinois, what does Überweiße's record now stand at?
0 for 5?
Yep, twice for Senate nomination, once for Governor, and now twice for Hastert's seat.
I'm not sure what's worse, losing a race for a historically Republican congressional seat twice in the same year, losing the Senate primary to Jim Ryan only to be passed over for Alan Keyes when Ryan was forced to drop out, or losing a primary election to Judy Barr Topinka.
I love to hate on Oberweis, but I wish he'd just stop. I mean, have a little fucking dignity.
Quote from: butthead on November 06, 2008, 10:24:30 AM
His feet are huge.
A black man with huge feet?
Our President-Elect is already making me feel inadequate.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: butthead on November 06, 2008, 10:24:30 AM
His feet are huge.
A black man with huge feet?
Our President-Elect is already making me feel inadequate.
Don't feel bad. He's a supinates.
DPD.
The Blueification of America.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
Quote from: butthead on November 06, 2008, 10:24:30 AM
Quote from: ChickDuckens on November 06, 2008, 10:18:30 AM
This is awesome:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1650/198257833dt2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
His feet are huge.
No kidding. They're bigger than his entire torso!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 11:54:11 AM
DPD.
The Blueification of America.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
(http://i36.tinypic.com/34s08i1.png)
A lot of this is probably more of a de-redification than anything else.
A correction towards the mean.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious
and unnecessarily provocative.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
Paging bocaj on the white courtesy phone. Bocaj...
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:14:35 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 11:54:11 AM
DPD.
The Blueification of America.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
(http://i36.tinypic.com/34s08i1.png)
A lot of this is probably more of a de-redification than anything else.
A correction towards the mean.
Wow. Republican party: FAILS. It's very interesting to go back to 92 and then back to 08.. Pretty interesting swing.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
That was very PROVOCATIVE.
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
Paging bocaj on the white courtesy phone. Bocaj...
Where's that little turd been?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
Paging bocaj on the white courtesy phone. Bocaj...
Where's that little turd been?
I think he's going under two separate aliases to fool us. One is IrishYeti the other is In A Nutsack.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Yep. A thousand words and all that.
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
Paging bocaj on the white courtesy phone. Bocaj...
Where's that little turd been?
I think he's going under two separate aliases to fool us. One is IrishYeti the other is In A Nutsack.
You never know...
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 12:17:32 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
Really long racist picture deleted
Awesome.
RACISM!!
I really am honestly having more and more trouble telling when you're being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative.
Let alone when you're being both serious and unnecessarily provocative.
Paging bocaj on the white courtesy phone. Bocaj...
Where's that little turd been?
I think he's going under two separate aliases to fool us. One is IrishYeti the other is In A Nutsack.
You never know....
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Holy crap, where did these come from?
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2008, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Yep. A thousand words and all that.
A thousand? Not hardly.
Just four: "Spreading the racist wealth."
Quote from: HST Redux on November 06, 2008, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Holy crap, where did these come from?
This might be how Abbie Hoffman and Bobby Seale first met.
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2008, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: HST Redux on November 06, 2008, 01:04:55 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Holy crap, where did these come from?
This might be how Abbie Hoffman and Bobby Seale first met.
LOOK TO THE COOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Awesome? Awesome?! Some black kid stole some white kid's sign. Real nice, ADC.
Quote from: Kerm on November 06, 2008, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Awesome? Awesome?! Some black kid stole some white kid's sign. Real nice, ADC.
No, no. The sign has been redistributed to those without.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 06, 2008, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Awesome? Awesome?! Some black kid stole some white kid's sign. Real nice, ADC.
No, no. The sign has been redistributed to those without.
I can't believe Morph hasn't P-shopped this to replace the white kid with Oleg.
He's slipping.
Back to our new overlord Obama for a second: I talked to my brother briefly today and in less than two minutes he said, "if Obama keeps ruining the economy..." when referring to job dissatisfaction. I was dumbfounded. How exactly has a president elect of two days ruined the economy? I mean he may yet ruin it...but he certainly hasn't at this point.
Needless to say, I hung up.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 06, 2008, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 06, 2008, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Awesome? Awesome?! Some black kid stole some white kid's sign. Real nice, ADC.
No, no. The sign has been redistributed to those without.
I can't believe Morph hasn't P-shopped this to replace the white kid with Oleg.
He's slipping.
I jsut can't believe he hasn't holed himself in a bunker in Montana with a bottle of scotch and a .38, shooting out a wall of TVs with Keith Olbermann's face on them.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 06, 2008, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 12:05:41 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg)
Awesome.
Awesome? Awesome?! Some black kid stole some white kid's sign. Real nice, ADC.
No, no. The sign has been redistributed to those without.
Well I do see the color RED in that sign.
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 02:17:26 PM
Back to our new overlord Obama for a second: I talked to my brother briefly today and in less than two minutes he said, "if Obama keeps ruining the economy..." when referring to job dissatisfaction. I was dumbfounded. How exactly has a president elect of two days ruined the economy? I mean he may yet ruin it...but he certainly hasn't at this point.
Needless to say, I hung up.
No wonder he can't get a job.
Late reply but thanks a lot Eli for the link. Much appreciated!
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 02:17:26 PM
Back to our new overlord Obama for a second: I talked to my brother briefly today and in less than two minutes he said, "if Obama keeps ruining the economy..." when referring to job dissatisfaction. I was dumbfounded. How exactly has a president elect of two days ruined the economy? I mean he may yet ruin it...but he certainly hasn't at this point.
Needless to say, I hung up.
No wonder he can't get a job.
No shit. Idiot. (him not you)
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 02:37:34 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 06, 2008, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 02:17:26 PM
Back to our new overlord Obama for a second: I talked to my brother briefly today and in less than two minutes he said, "if Obama keeps ruining the economy..." when referring to job dissatisfaction. I was dumbfounded. How exactly has a president elect of two days ruined the economy? I mean he may yet ruin it...but he certainly hasn't at this point.
Needless to say, I hung up.
No wonder he can't get a job.
No shit. Idiot. (him not you)
Probably me too. But thanks for clarifying.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Bullshit. It's not about the gheys...it's about civil liberties. Us on the left actually care about those things. So, no, it doesn't go both ways, so to speak.
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2008, 03:03:23 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Bullshit. It's not about the gheys...it's about civil liberties. Us on the left actually care about those things. So, no, it doesn't go both ways, so to speak.
Thi.
As a country, you're either moving forward or falling back. Denying rights isn't progress.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
The Dems are going to socialize
parts of the government?Heaven forfend!
How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow
super-nationalize Federal agencies?
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 03:34:44 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
The Dems are going to socialize parts of the government?
Heaven forfend!
How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow super-nationalize Federal agencies?
Every four years, half the country yells "SOCIALISM!" without actually knowing what it means.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
This is way off topic and way out of line, but I can't help it. I can't stop laughing at these -- http://www.txag98.com/images/others/olanmillsgoodness/
Shoutout to the Muskrat at the very bottom.
Quote from: Simmer on November 06, 2008, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2008, 10:07:30 AM
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html
This is way off topic and way out of line, but I can't help it. I can't stop laughing at these -- http://www.txag98.com/images/others/olanmillsgoodness/
Shoutout to the Muskrat at the very bottom.
Wow, this is gold.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.
Sure. If you hate poor people.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:48:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.
Sure. If you hate poor people.
I guess I'm not the only one this applies to...
QuoteYou have to understand: there is no gray in this man's world.
Because apparently you either hate poor people or you just love and embrace them... no middle ground.
Thrill, can you rename this the "IAN vs. DJ vs. IY Triple Threat Match ClusterFuck Thread"?
It is quickly approaching "Mike D vs. PS3/Wii/X360" and "SD vs. any NFL thread" territory. The blue "new" icon is just giving me the heebie jeebies. I'm the dumb dick for clicking on it, I'm just a-feared the thread will take a turn for the positive, only to get boner stubbed time and time again.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:48:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.
Sure. If you hate poor people.
I guess I'm not the only one this applies to...
QuoteYou have to understand: there is no gray in this man's world.
Because apparently you either hate poor people or you just love and embrace them... no middle ground.
"I acknowledge that some poor people are born into circumstances that make it incredibly hard for them to better themselves. Sure, they could use help with training so that they can get a job and move out of the ghetto. Sure, they could use help getting health care so that they don't die.
I don't want to pitch in for them. My money is my own. My parents were middle class. They could afford to put me through college and get me braces. It's not my problem that everyone else isn't as lucky as me.
That guy needs chemo? He should go get it, then. He can't afford it? Sucks to be him. He's going to die? That blows. Oh, well. Later! I'm off to go get plowed and knock around some golf balls. Let that poor dying guy know that I don't hate him or love him. I just don't think he deserves any help, ok?"
Supposedly, we're the most advanced nation on earth. In spite of this, we have people dying because they can't afford medical care. We have people living in squalor because they can't afford training to do a real job. There's one thing keeping the lower class lower: Pieces of shit that talk about mythical bootstraps and how it's not their problem.
Grey area, my ass. Leaving poor people living in shitholes and dying from lack of care is hating on poor people.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:48:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties. These things ebb and flow. This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter. These things have a tendency to swing.
The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party. The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics. The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
This. Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses? That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.
The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses. They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either. They're much smarter people than they let on.
All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.
Wow. I think it goes both ways, brother.
Untrue.
One side is giving rights, no matter who you are. The other is trying to take.
No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of. Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights? I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions? I'm a rich white man. I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."
As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them. I got mine."
Nice inaccurate quoting there.
I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?
Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.
Sure. If you hate poor people.
I guess I'm not the only one this applies to...
QuoteYou have to understand: there is no gray in this man's world.
Because apparently you either hate poor people or you just love and embrace them... no middle ground.
I'll take missing the point for ONE BILLION.
McStiff eats ass. FUCK DALLAS!
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:53:46 PM
Because apparently you either hate poor people or you just love and embrace them... no middle ground.
I don't hate poor people, I just want someone else to take care of them (./?)
http://www.cracked.com/video_16768_if-mccains-concession-speech-was-as-bitter-as-his-campaign.html
If McCain's concession speech had been as bitter as his campaign. This is outstanding.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 05:18:19 PM
Removed because of character limit was reached but I'll leave it here to show what I'm responding to...
Thank you for that little insight into my life. Well, I will have you know that I have paid for my own damn college. I paid out of pocket for the first two years at community college and loans are funding me now. I am now paying on those loans so I can get it over with sometime before I'm 40. I have had the loving family, which apparently makes me lucky. The only main monetary help they gave me besides a roof and food (only until I started working. I provided for myself at that point, which was when I was 16) was by cosigning on the loan for my first car which I have paid for. Yes, I could have had it so, so, so much worse but you seem to paint such a rosy story for me. Another thing you may find interesting is that I, the hater of poor people, give $750 of my salary to United Way here in Springfield. I upped it from $500 last year. Yes, it's not huge but it's something. I also just bought $75 in groceries for the local food bank. Normally, I don't feel it's really necessary to tout one's donations to charities but for someone who thinks I'm some asshole that says "Poor people: Keep your fucking hands out of my wallet," it seems to be very necessary.
Now the mindset I really hate from the libruls out there is that I am some asshole who just won't give my money away. You seem to be
missing the big picture about 85% of conservatives. We don't want the
government to take our money and give it away. I think many are very open and willing to giving to charity. It's just the simple fact of the government doing it. I fully understand the concept of helping your neighbor. That's fine. I'll help my neighbor; leave the guberment out of the equation. That's all I'm arguing. That's what IAN's arguing. If you have a problem with that then so be it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
One thing that I do dislike about the liberal mindset is that often I find it to be very hypocritical. You shame me because I seem to be selfish and I don't want to REDISTRIBUTE my income. However, I ask you: Do you waste any of your income? If you are so concerned about your neighbor dying of chemo, then cut things that are not necessities and help him out. I mean, if you are to place the blame on me and my fellow conservatives, then if you don't fully apply yourself to help your fellow citizens in need, how can you really talk down to me? And tell me I'm
missing the big picture? And how about your rich librul cohorts? Ones like George Clooney, Michael Moore, or Alec Baldwin (the list could go on)? If they are so concerned about their dying poor friends, then why don't take their multi-million dollar salary and live on maybe $100,000-200,000 a year and donate the rest? If they are as much for the Democrats and for the common man as they claim, then they would have no problem doing that. Obviously, they have a problem with it. Maybe it's because they really don't give two shits about them. And the same could be said for all the rich ass Democratic politicians out there. Really, if you want to look at it from another direction, everyone hates the poor in this country. Republican, Democrat, black, white. So don't just pin it on people like me who don't want the government as the main focal point of giving to the poor, because we aren't the only "bad" ones out there. You could just as easily look in the mirror.
With how this country is set up and how the foundation of the welfare system is set up, it would be unreasonable to just get rid of it completely. I just don't want it to be increased. I think it should be reduced little by little. Reduce people's dependence on the government for help. Rely on themselves (or their neighbors).
*Edit: And FUCK DALLAS
Quote from: Tonker on November 06, 2008, 08:49:57 AM
Th.
Have I done that right?
"T" was a lovely programming language.
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 02:41:38 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 07, 2008, 12:29:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 06, 2008, 08:49:57 AM
Th.
Have I done that right?
"T" was a lovely programming language.
.
And APL was cheery.
[Edit.--I should apologize for general distraction; there has come a mog left in a box next to a trash can (http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghajek/the-creature.jpg).]
I'd quote Yeti's rant/explanation, but I'll save us the page space.
He brings up a good point out of all that: my quote something along the lines of me having a tailwind my whole life doesn't make someone else's headwind my problem. That was in response to Chuck's eloquent statement about the trade winds or something.
What I and Yeti see are expanded Gubment. To be fair, President Bush did his damndest to expand the Gubment to record levels in his term. He's no longer a representative of me (or Yeti). Neither is Obama and his "progressive tax" or "Obamunism." Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money. If I have the extra, I have no problem deciding for myself to which charity or neighbor I would like to help out.
P.S., Fuck Dallas.
P.S. 2.0, Why the fuck am I still in this thead?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Strangely, since the start of the "Reagan Revolution" in 1981, the only years the Gubment shrunk in size and cost was 1993-2000, the Clinton years.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Not all JObama supporters believe we're underserviced. My brother, a lifelong right supporter, voted JObama this year and he voted for JObama, not for his economic and fiscal policies, but his prospective global and diplomatic skills and policies. I would tend to believe there are quite a few like him out there...
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2008, 10:14:59 AM
Strangely, since the start of the "Reagan Revolution" in 1981, the only years the Gubment shrunk in size and cost was 1993-2000, the Clinton years.
Yup.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/29axkep.jpg)
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Not all JObama supporters believe we're underserviced. My brother, a lifelong right supporter, voted JObama this year and he voted for JObama, not for his economic and fiscal policies, but his prospective global and diplomatic skills and policies. I would tend to believe there are quite a few like him out there...
I didn't say that the voters all think we're underserviced, just that they voted for a guy who thinks that. I think we're over serviced and I voted for Barry, mostly because McCain also ran on an "under serviced defer the payment" platform.
And because he is a 72 cancer survivor who designated an unqualified, stupid, naif (but with great tits) to be his backstop.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Not all JObama supporters believe we're underserviced. My brother, a lifelong right supporter, voted JObama this year and he voted for JObama, not for his economic and fiscal policies, but his prospective global and diplomatic skills and policies. I would tend to believe there are quite a few like him out there...
I didn't say that the voters all think we're underserviced, just that they voted for a guy who thinks that. I think we're over serviced and I voted for Barry, mostly because McCain also ran on an "under serviced defer the payment" platform.
And because he is a 72 cancer survivor who designated an unqualified, stupid, naif (but with great tits) to be his backstop.
Does she have a great rack? I couldn't tell for sure.
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Not all JObama supporters believe we're underserviced. My brother, a lifelong right supporter, voted JObama this year and he voted for JObama, not for his economic and fiscal policies, but his prospective global and diplomatic skills and policies. I would tend to believe there are quite a few like him out there...
I didn't say that the voters all think we're underserviced, just that they voted for a guy who thinks that. I think we're over serviced and I voted for Barry, mostly because McCain also ran on an "under serviced defer the payment" platform.
And because he is a 72 cancer survivor who designated an unqualified, stupid, naif (but with great tits) to be his backstop.
Does she have a great rack? I couldn't tell for sure.
Not a bad rack, but she was all about the badonkadonk.
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2008, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 10:41:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Not all JObama supporters believe we're underserviced. My brother, a lifelong right supporter, voted JObama this year and he voted for JObama, not for his economic and fiscal policies, but his prospective global and diplomatic skills and policies. I would tend to believe there are quite a few like him out there...
I didn't say that the voters all think we're underserviced, just that they voted for a guy who thinks that. I think we're over serviced and I voted for Barry, mostly because McCain also ran on an "under serviced defer the payment" platform.
And because he is a 72 cancer survivor who designated an unqualified, stupid, naif (but with great tits) to be his backstop.
Does she have a great rack? I couldn't tell for sure.
Not a bad rack, but she was all about the badonkadonk.
I never got a good look at her rack because I was too distracted by the little starbursts her smile sent through my TV screen.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
... That was in response to Chuck's eloquent statement...
Amazingly, you've never been more wrong than you are right here.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 11:01:39 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
... That was in response to Chuck's eloquent statement...
Amazingly, you've never been more wrong than you are right here.
Not the first, nor will it be the last time, Thrill.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way. He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year. Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi. Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research. Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about? I know everyone hates George Soros. He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life. Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal). He just gave away 30-odd billion. Google is your friend. Except it's not. They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world. You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.
Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity. The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving. The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.
Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way.
George Clooney? From what I've been reading and seeing, he's been up there with the Congress, trying to get everybody to go over there and solve that thing.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way.
George Clooney? From what I've been reading and seeing, he's been up there with the Congress, trying to get everybody to go over there and solve that thing.
You been reading about all that? You been seeing that?
Poor Matt Vasgersian.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:36:49 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 03:34:44 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left. Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.
The Dems are going to socialize parts of the government?
Heaven forfend!
How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow super-nationalize Federal agencies?
Every four years, half the country yells "SOCIALISM!" without actually knowing what it means.
Socializing the government is obviously misspeaking. Socializing matters in which the government ought not get involved is a better turn of phrase.
I have to disagree with crying wolf about socialism as a whole, though. The higher minimum wage, capping energy prices, bailout bills, nationalizing privately held assets in the mortgage market, raising the difference in percentage between tax brackets, supporting antiquated notions about labor unions, subsidizing ethanol development, becoming involved in the auto industry, and planning to get the government involved in the medical/insurance industry are all textbook examples. These are all steps targeted specifically at lowering the Gini Index and redistributing wealth. This is not the work of the Democrats, as several of the economic stimulus packages, backed by republicans, have sought to achieve the same goals.
The government is getting bigger. It is a road that ends in socialism or worse. As the middle class dies in this country, the newly minted have-nots will scream for "social justice."
Perhaps it is this notion of "social justice" and "compassion" that are misunderstood, not the notion of socialism.
If every one of those people at Obama's rally had spent the night making sandwiches for the homeless, then perhaps they could have created demonstrable change. But that's not what people want. People want the government to do it for them. They would rather make those awful, exploitative, unfairly-advantaged successful people foot the bill then actually do it themselves.
As for the unwashed masses voting Republican: this sword cuts both ways. Perhaps the Republicans have used social issues to solicit votes from the uniformed, but the Dems have been pushing "It's their fault they have more than you" since the Depression. That is probably a far more dastardly and dangerous lie then "Gays will ruin the nuclear family."
Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way. He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year. Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi. Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research. Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about? I know everyone hates George Soros. He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life. Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal). He just gave away 30-odd billion. Google is your friend. Except it's not. They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world. You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.
Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity. The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving. The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.
Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
I think Yeti may have been referring to this
study: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
The rich do tend to give to charity regardless of political stripes. This is true, and there's no sense in arguing it.
QuoteAgain, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
Interesting choice of absolutes here. Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag. There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it." The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.
Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way. He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year. Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi. Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research. Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about? I know everyone hates George Soros. He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life. Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal). He just gave away 30-odd billion. Google is your friend. Except it's not. They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world. You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.
Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity. The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving. The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.
Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
I think Yeti may have been referring to this study: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
The rich do tend to give to charity regardless of political stripes. This is true, and there's no sense in arguing it.
QuoteAgain, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
Interesting choice of absolutes here. Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag. There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it." The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.
Or how about: "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."
Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN. I still hate poor people. I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!
George Clooney? He's on the board of your United Way. He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year. Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi. Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research. Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about? I know everyone hates George Soros. He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life. Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal). He just gave away 30-odd billion. Google is your friend. Except it's not. They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world. You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.
Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity. The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving. The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done.
Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.
As Slaky said:
Quote from: 5laky on November 06, 2008, 05:23:18 PM
I'll take missing the point for ONE BILLION.
I said:
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
If they are so concerned about their dying poor friends, then why don't take their multi-million dollar salary and live on maybe $100,000-200,000 a year and donate the rest? If they are as much for the Democrats and for the common man as they claim, then they would have no problem doing that. Obviously, they have a problem with it.
If you chose to read, you could tell that I was saying that they should live like the rest of society if they are so concerned about the little guy. Yes, they may give money. Yes, they may head a charity. But how does someone who wants to help the poor justify his million dollar house? Or his 5 million sitting in his bank account? He can't and that was the point I made and you clearly missed. Is Warren Buffet now living in a modest $250,000 home and allocating himself to a modest middle America strategy? No. He can give that money because he can afford to. If I was a multi-millionaire I would give like crazy too.
And thanks for the personal attack. It was real sweet in a talk about politics and policies in general. I'll be sure to make sure you're on the Christmas list this year.
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Quote from: GNM on November 07, 2008, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Interesting choice of absolutes here. Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag. There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it." The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.
Or how about: "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."
I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.
Call it a hunch.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 12:29:08 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 07, 2008, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Interesting choice of absolutes here. Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag. There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it." The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.
Or how about: "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."
I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.
Call it a hunch.
It's just incomplete. Fraud was part of the problem, but certainly not all of it.
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Ever since the political talk cherry was popped, it's been a neverending booty call of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and self-righteousness. NO GOOD HAS COME FROM IT. Could you guys that insist on not talking about Cubs, Bears, Bulls, or Boobs please just start IM-ing amongst yourselves. It would be much appreciated.
Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 12:33:17 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 12:29:08 PM
Quote from: GNM on November 07, 2008, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Interesting choice of absolutes here. Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag. There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it." The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.
Or how about: "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."
I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.
Call it a hunch.
It's just incomplete. Fraud was part of the problem, but certainly not all of it.
I'm afraid the government, lenders, borrowers, and insurers all seem share blame. Even in hindsight, prevention seems as though it would have been difficult.
Good to see the feds launched a WaMu investigation. I bet they never secure any indictments, but at least they are showing up.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:14:24 PMIs Warren Buffet now living in a modest $250,000 home and allocating himself to a modest middle America strategy? No. He can give that money because he can afford to. If I was a multi-millionaire I would give like crazy too.
He kind of is. Not trying to prove or disprove anyone's point in this argument, I just want to point out that Buffett doesn't fit the bill of the selfish wealthy folks that you're talking about.
QuoteBuffett is noted for his adherence to the value investing philosophy and for his personal frugality despite his immense wealth. His 2006 annual salary was about $100,000, which is small compared to senior executive remuneration in comparable companies. When Buffett spent $16.7 million of Berkshire's funds on a business jet in 1989, he jokingly named it "The Indefensible" because of his past criticisms of such purchases by other CEOs. He lives in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha that he bought in 1958 for $31,500 and today, it is valued at around $700,000. Buffett also is a notable philanthropist. In 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
A thread was closed? Did it have boobs in it?
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
A thread was closed? Did it have boobs in it?
Yep. All of us.
Quote from: JD on November 07, 2008, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Ever since the political talk cherry was popped, it's been a neverending booty call of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and self-righteousness. NO GOOD HAS COME FROM IT. Could you guys that insist on not talking about Cubs, Bears, Bulls, or Boobs please just start IM-ing amongst yourselves. It would be much appreciated.
I blame the SBox. And Ray Ratto.
For those who hate it, though, consider this thread the quarantine. I'll promise to try to do the same and limit my provocations to here.
On which note:
Quote from: MikeC on October 03, 2008, 08:23:59 AM
Have fun with your circle-jerk guys.
Will do.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: JD on November 07, 2008, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Ever since the political talk cherry was popped, it's been a neverending booty call of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and self-righteousness. NO GOOD HAS COME FROM IT. Could you guys that insist on not talking about Cubs, Bears, Bulls, or Boobs please just start IM-ing amongst yourselves. It would be much appreciated.
I blame the SBox. And Ray Ratto.
For those who hate it, though, consider this thread the quarantine.
You know good and well I can't completely avoid a thread that keeps getting posted in. What if I miss something?!?
I actually do avoid the threads, for the most part, but then I just HAVE to click them. Then I start reading it backwards. Then I realize that we're not all the same and that makes me sad. UNITY! UNITY!
Quote from: JD on November 07, 2008, 01:19:47 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: JD on November 07, 2008, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Ever since the political talk cherry was popped, it's been a neverending booty call of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and self-righteousness. NO GOOD HAS COME FROM IT. Could you guys that insist on not talking about Cubs, Bears, Bulls, or Boobs please just start IM-ing amongst yourselves. It would be much appreciated.
I blame the SBox. And Ray Ratto.
For those who hate it, though, consider this thread the quarantine.
You know good and well I can't completely avoid a thread that keeps getting posted in. What if I miss something?!?
I actually do avoid the threads, for the most part, but then I just HAVE to click them. Then I start reading it backwards. Then I realize that we're not all the same and that makes me sad. UNITY! UNITY!
Queen Latifah?
Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2008, 12:26:44 PM
We had the first ever thread closure in the history of Desipio yesterday. I'm just sayin'.
Who closed it? I thought I was just having some kind of a freak out. Did that really happen?
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
I think we can handle ourselves. After all, for the most part, it was confined to one thread anyway. I've long had a mancrush on JD but I find his annoyance at the political talk very annoying. I've said a lot of stupid, regrettable things in the Clustrerfuck thread, but I'm glad to be part of a messageboard that still grants me the freedom to make an ass out of myself.
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
That's because he doesn't understand it. He should also outlaw trade talk and talk about women.
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
That's because he doesn't understand it. He should also outlaw trade talk and talk about women.
It feels...like a bag of sand...when you touch it.
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
I think we can handle ourselves. After all, for the most part, it was confined to one thread anyway. I've long had a mancrush on JD but I find his annoyance at the political talk very annoying. I've said a lot of stupid, regrettable things in the Clustrerfuck thread, but I'm glad to be part of a messageboard that still grants me the freedom to make an ass out of myself.
Well, I find your annoyance at my annoyance annoying. And I only came in here again because RV sboxed me to. The political talk would be a lot LESS annoying if some people weren't so dramatic about it. Or if I quit reading it. I'm guessing the latter is more likely. Or less likely. It's 50:50, really.
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
How can the HUEBITER, of all people, not be aware of all internet traditions?
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
How can the HUEBITER, of all people, not be aware of all internet traditions?
I'm fallible.
I didn't know what The Good Night was or whatever, so I never bothered to link to it.
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
How can the HUEBITER, of all people, not be aware of all internet traditions?
What are you? Chuck? (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2420.msg155865#msg155865)
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
How can the HUEBITER, of all people, not be aware of all internet traditions?
I think you have him confused with this guy.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2889812553_3686e53db4_o.jpg)
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 07, 2008, 02:38:37 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Having just watched Obama's press conference, with the gargantuan Paul Volcker in the background much of the time and the Oleg-esque Robert Reich waddling off the stage at the end, I can't help but thinking this pair has all the makings of a buddy comedy in the Schwarzenegger–DeVito vein.
PASS.
What? "Taxi" was good.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6406.msg156227#msg156227
How can the HUEBITER, of all people, not be aware of all internet traditions?
What are you? Chuck? (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2420.msg155865#msg155865)
I don't watch "Always Sunny" either. Holy crap, I'm missing out on all of these Danny Devito references.
The 3 sole reasons this thread is worth clicking on:
1 -- RV's great chart, good information that most people ignore.
2 -- Tonker referencing a thread closure, which I can only hope awaits this thread.
3 -- JD talking about how these threads just instigate multi-paragraph name calling with no substance at all, but you click anyway hoping there will be some sort of e-funny to be found.
I'm all for the politi-talk, but most of what is being said here is just mind numbing. I discuss politics every day, but it doesn't degrade to most of what I see here. I should be the last one to talk, because I know a thing or two about making long-winded multi-paragraph posts that beat any given issue like a dead horse.
I think the advice I should follow is -- "let sleeping dogs lie". Also, if I "can't take the heat", then I should "stay out of the kitchen". The final and most important bit of advice I should follow is "DON'T BE A DICK!". Sorry if I came off like a e-hating dick.
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
That's because he doesn't understand it. He should also outlaw trade talk and talk about women.
It feels...like a bag of sand...when you touch it.
I think you mean they feel like "saggy bags of garbage".
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2523.msg35235#msg35235 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2523.msg35235#msg35235)
Quote from: Simmer on November 07, 2008, 02:54:54 PM
The 3 sole reasons this thread is worth clicking on:
1 -- RV's great chart, good information that most people ignore.
2 -- Tonker referencing a thread closure, which I can only hope awaits this thread.
3 -- JD talking about how these threads just instigate multi-paragraph name calling with no substance at all, but you click anyway hoping there will be some sort of e-funny to be found.
I'm all for the politi-talk, but most of what is being said here is just mind numbing. I discuss politics every day, but it doesn't degrade to most of what I see here. I should be the last one to talk, because I know a thing or two about making long-winded multi-paragraph posts that beat any given issue like a dead horse.
I think the advice I should follow is -- "let sleeping dogs lie". Also, if I "can't take the heat", then I should "stay out of the kitchen". The final and most important bit of advice I should follow is "DON'T BE A DICK!". Sorry if I came off like a e-hating dick.
Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I'll tell you, I've gotta' plead ignorance on this one. If I had known that sort of thing was frowned upon...
</costanza>
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
Anyway, interesting piece from a veteran political writer at the Chicago Reader (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=does_rahm_emanuels_pick_mean_the_chicago_machine_is_coming_to_washington) about Emanuel and Obama in relation to the Chicago Machine. I agree with TJ on this subject - one of my problems with Obama is his refusal to endorse Claypool over Stroger and to take on the Machine in general. This guy does a good job of adding some context to the situation.
QuoteSo thanks to Mayor Daley, Emanuel got to go to Congress, where he railed against Republican corruption and scandals, conveniently overlooking all the corruption and scandal in his hometown.
QuoteIn contrast, Obama's what passes for a reformer in Chicago -- at least he took a longer, more circuitous path to winning Daley's good graces. Running for state Senate in Hyde Park, a liberal independent-minded neighborhood near the University of Chicago, Obama basically pretended as though Daley and his Machine didn't exist. He didn't run with Daley, but he didn't run against him either.
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Quote from: CT II on November 07, 2008, 03:55:34 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: Kerm on November 07, 2008, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 02:16:27 PM
You know who prohibits political talk?
Al Yellon.
That's because he doesn't understand it. He should also outlaw trade talk and talk about women.
It feels...like a bag of sand...when you touch it.
I think you mean they feel like "saggy bags of garbage".
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2523.msg35235#msg35235 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2523.msg35235#msg35235)
Oh Anna, where have you gone?
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people. Which is awesome.
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people people like Irish Yeti. Which is awesome.
Correct'd?
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people people like Irish Yeti. Which is awesome.
Correct'd?
You flatter yourself, Yeti. Mike C. was around here long before you were, my friend.
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 05:00:44 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people people like Irish Yeti. Which is awesome.
Correct'd?
You flatter yourself, Yeti. Mike C. was around here long before you were, my friend.
I was referring to Mike C and Merkle's Boner. Yeti's a blip on the Insane Doppler 3000.
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 05:03:23 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 05:00:44 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people people like Irish Yeti. Which is awesome.
Correct'd?
You flatter yourself, Yeti. Mike C. was around here long before you were, my friend.
I was referring to Mike C and Merkle's Boner. Yeti's a blip on the Insane Doppler 3000.
I seem to have MISSED THE POINT.... again.
FAIL
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
Anyway, interesting piece from a veteran political writer at the Chicago Reader (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=does_rahm_emanuels_pick_mean_the_chicago_machine_is_coming_to_washington) about Emanuel and Obama in relation to the Chicago Machine. I agree with TJ on this subject - one of my problems with Obama is his refusal to endorse Claypool over Stroger and to take on the Machine in general. This guy does a good job of adding some context to the situation.
QuoteSo thanks to Mayor Daley, Emanuel got to go to Congress, where he railed against Republican corruption and scandals, conveniently overlooking all the corruption and scandal in his hometown.
QuoteIn contrast, Obama's what passes for a reformer in Chicago -- at least he took a longer, more circuitous path to winning Daley's good graces. Running for state Senate in Hyde Park, a liberal independent-minded neighborhood near the University of Chicago, Obama basically pretended as though Daley and his Machine didn't exist. He didn't run with Daley, but he didn't run against him either.
While waiting for Obama's presser to start this afternoon, I was flipping between the cable news channels and found Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson and some white broad I didn't recognize talking about this magical new place they are apparently just now discovering called "Chicago."
Do you think Chicago could be the real Gotham?
Actually, Chris... Batman was filmed in Chicago.
I did not know that.
What's that one place called?
The Billy Goat Tavern?
That's it, yeah. No fries.http://tornadoslide.blogspot.com/2007/12/2007-recap-printed-words.html
QuoteI live in New York City, yet I am surprised almost every day by the number of people here who want to talk about Chicago all the time.
These people tell me that they once passed near or through Chicago, and some claim to be living there, even as we speak. This is strange enough. But what really surprises me is how many of these self-appointed Chicago experts seem to believe that Chicago actually exists. Not as an idea or as an allegory. They really believe that the city stands there, in all its legendary green-rivered, fire-prone glory, and that once every 100 years, when it rises out of Lake Michigan, you can visit it.
Now, I understand why the concept of Chicago is so alluring. It has been sung to us, like a lullaby, by our culture in story and song for nearly as long as there has been an Illinois.
...
Undoubtedly there is something in us that needs Chicago as an idea: a dream as fanciful as the notion of an elevated train. But when you attempt to bring the train to ground, to put it on a map and say this exists, it is not merely insane, it threatens to make what is magical merely banal.
...
Time and again, the Chicago-is-real theory simply does not stand up to scrutiny. There are no man-eating vines on the wall of Wrigley Field. No Al Capone. No John Wayne Gacy. These are stories invented to frighten children.
This is not to say there are not Chicagoans. But I would suggest that they are a nomadic people, whose lost home exists only in their minds, and in the glowing crystal memory cells they all carry in the palms of their hands: a great idea of a second city, lit with life and love, reasonable drink prices at cool bars, and, of course, blocks and blocks of bright and devastating fire.
http://chicago.decider.com/articles/john-hodgman-debates-the-existence-of-chicago,501/
QuoteMy whole book is about how stories become so much more powerful than facts, which is unfortunately something we see in the political scene today. But I think it's a universal condition. I think most fiction was designed originally to provoke social cohesion and instruct in history. That's what urban legends are—and what is Chicago, if not a very comforting urban legend? A fantasy world, if you will, of gangsters and Italian beef sandwiches and two—not just one—but two baseball teams competing with each other all the time, and streets paved with gold where lobsters walk, or whatever. It's like an El Dorado of North America.
A real Candyland of the mind.
Does this mean ESPN is going to start covering the Cubs?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 07, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 07, 2008, 09:06:57 AM
Call it what you will, but I am not in favor of the Gubment taking more of my money.
No one in their right mind is. But some of us would rather pay more now than pay more later with interest added on.
When the government is running a deficit, you are not over taxed. You are either undertaxed or over serviced. I tend to believe we are over serviced. That said, 52% of the country voted for a guy that says we are still under serviced. OK. I gotta live with that now. My request would be for him to find a way to pay for those services and not defer that expense to when I'm on a fixed income or on my kids.
And, if you can't pay for it, don't do it.
Heh. Funnier than 30 Rock.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
And... this is where he lost me:
QuoteMind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation...
Hell of a democracy we had before that fucking election.
I'm often assured that O'Rourke is the prototypical "funny" conservative.
QuoteIt's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.
Huh?
I've honestly laughed more at Dennis Miller than at this cliché-milking pud. Who you guys got on the bench?
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater roll for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift.
(http://gwiv.com/UncleJohnsBBQ38.jpg)
Quote from: Thrillho on November 09, 2008, 11:08:48 PM
I'm often assured that O'Rourke is the prototypical "funny" conservative.
He's alright on
Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me.
QuoteHuh?
I've honestly laughed more at Dennis Miller than at this cliché-milking pud. Who you guys got on the bench?
Go easy on him, he's already received any punishment he deserves in the form of a festering tumor upon his anus (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-orourke28-2008sep28,0,3317114.story).
I bought, and read all of PJ O'Rourke's books when I was a young man - he's "written" (i.e. cobbled together from newspaper and magazine articles) eight or ten or them, I guess. I found them very entertaining indeed.
I tried to read one again the other day, and simply couldn't. Whatever it was I saw in them before is gone, and it ain't coming back.
Surely one is supposed to start off as a goat-wool-sock-wearing wishy-washy peacenik liberal, and slowly harden up into a borderline fascist as one gets older - not the other way round?
Quote from: Tonker on November 10, 2008, 02:40:38 AM
I bought, and read all of PJ O'Rourke's books when I was a young man - he's "written" (i.e. cobbled together from newspaper and magazine articles) eight or ten or them, I guess. I found them very entertaining indeed.
I tried to read one again the other day, and simply couldn't. Whatever it was I saw in them before is gone, and it ain't coming back.
Surely one is supposed to start off as a goat-wool-sock-wearing wishy-washy peacenik liberal, and slowly harden up into a borderline fascist as one gets older - not the other way round?
And then some people are just fascists, with the borderline just a dot in the rear view mirror of their zeppelin.
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 05:03:23 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 07, 2008, 05:00:44 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 07, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: butthead on November 07, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: RV on November 07, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I've got no beef with the Clusterfuck. I could do without the partisan hackery that seems to invade from time to time, but I'll accept it in exchange for all the new crap I've learned and the legitimate debates I've been able to read/participate in.
This.
The good stuff from Desipiots on both sides makes putting up with the arguing worth it. And the arguing is kind of entertaining in a car accident kind of way.
Believe it or not, I'm way more educated on our nation than I was before these threads started. I've also met some insane people people like Irish Yeti. Which is awesome.
Correct'd?
You flatter yourself, Yeti. Mike C. was around here long before you were, my friend.
I was referring to Mike C and Merkle's Boner. Yeti's a blip on the Insane Doppler 3000.
*flies under the radar*
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater roll for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I wouldn't be so sure. Have
you ever tried interviewing for a high-salaried job with Obama's dong hanging out of your mouth?
Quote from: Wheezer on November 10, 2008, 01:19:47 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift.
(http://gwiv.com/UncleJohnsBBQ38.jpg)
I love that shit. No lie. I've had at least 10 cans of it in the past few months.
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
Quote from: Fork on November 10, 2008, 05:34:14 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 10, 2008, 02:40:38 AM
I bought, and read all of PJ O'Rourke's books when I was a young man - he's "written" (i.e. cobbled together from newspaper and magazine articles) eight or ten or them, I guess. I found them very entertaining indeed.
I tried to read one again the other day, and simply couldn't. Whatever it was I saw in them before is gone, and it ain't coming back.
Surely one is supposed to start off as a goat-wool-sock-wearing wishy-washy peacenik liberal, and slowly harden up into a borderline fascist as one gets older - not the other way round?
And then some people are just fascists, with the borderline just a dot in the rear view mirror of their zeppelin.
I see what you did there.
EDIT: DPD
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's
mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Clamato is one of the primary and (in my opinion, which means everything) the best way to make a bloody mary. Other than pummelling her vagina with my wang. Although I haven't tried it with beer.
Quote from: TDubbs on November 10, 2008, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Clamato is one of the primary and (in my opinion, which means everything) the best way to make a bloody mary. Other than pummelling her vagina with my wang. Although I haven't tried it with beer.
I hate Bloody Marys.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: TDubbs on November 10, 2008, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Clamato is one of the primary and (in my opinion, which means everything) the best way to make a bloody mary. Other than pummelling her vagina with my wang. Although I haven't tried it with beer.
I hate Bloody Marys.
Pussy.
Quote from: TDubbs on November 10, 2008, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Clamato is one of the primary and (in my opinion, which means everything) the best way to make a bloody mary. Other than pummelling her vagina with my wang. Although I haven't tried it with beer.
That's a damn good idea. Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: TDubbs on November 10, 2008, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 10, 2008, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 10, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
So anyway, Clamato and beer fucking rules.
The hell's Clamato?
Do they not have Google in Louisiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato
QuoteClamato (a portmanteau of "clam" and "tomato") is a trademark of the Mott's company which denotes a drink made primarily of reconstituted tomato juice concentrate and reconstituted dried clam broth, with a dash of high fructose corn syrup, and USDA Red 40 to maintain a 'natural' tomato colour.
Sure. I sorta used it by asking the Desipio messageboard.
Clamato is one of the primary and (in my opinion, which means everything) the best way to make a bloody mary. Other than pummelling her vagina with my wang. Although I haven't tried it with beer.
That's a damn good idea. Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
A bloody mary just isn't a bloody mary without a splash of Guiness.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.
Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.
Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.
Stupid balance of powers provision in the Constitution.
Quote from: Oleg on November 10, 2008, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.
Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.
Stupid balance of powers provision in the Constitution.
Well, I guess we'll get to see what they can do now.
Quote from: JD on November 10, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 10, 2008, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.
Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.
Stupid balance of powers provision in the Constitution.
Well, I guess we'll get to see what they can do now.
Yes, we most certainly will.
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
And HillaryCare. Don't forget that.
Quote from: Oleg on November 10, 2008, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: JD on November 10, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 10, 2008, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1
P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...
I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future. My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century. We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum. You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift. Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn. But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.
Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets. Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular. Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has.
This too shall pass.
I really, really hope you're correct on this.
While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.
That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.
It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).
It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.
So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.
When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.
And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."
Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.
Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.
Stupid balance of powers provision in the Constitution.
Well, I guess we'll get to see what they can do now.
Yes, we most certainly will.
That's what I was saying.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
In terms of % of GDP, not only were there higher tax increases in history (http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf), one of them was by Ronald Reagan.
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Unless that excess funds goes to retire debt which has several positive effects:
1) It reduces the need for future taxes by reducing interest paid in future years on the national debt.
2) It reduces interest rates as the government does not compete for investment dollars with private corporations
3) It reduces the amount of debt held overseas. This does two positive things in a) lessening our dependence on foreign investment to maintain spending; and b) reduces the transfer of wealth overseas in the form of interest paid to foreign owners of debt.
Budget surplusses after years of deficits can be a positive and do not "hurt everyone."
If there are surplusses and no deficit to retire, then, yes. Everyone is hurt if taxes are not lowered.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2008, 04:28:57 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Unless that excess funds goes to retire debt which has several positive effects:
1) It reduces the need for future taxes by reducing interest paid in future years on the national debt.
2) It reduces interest rates as the government does not compete for investment dollars with private corporations
3) It reduces the amount of debt held overseas. This does two positive things in a) lessening our dependence on foreign investment to maintain spending; and b) reduces the transfer of wealth overseas in the form of interest paid to foreign owners of debt.
Budget surplusses after years of deficits can be a positive and do not "hurt everyone."
If there are surplusses and no deficit to retire, then, yes. Everyone is hurt if taxes are not lowered.
Just to be clear, when you say "retire debt", you mean pay it off, right?
Overall, I agree. I'm a fan of smaller government, so obviously I would prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, but that's an obsolete idea.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
Here is just one item and I know there are more aspects to the economy than just the housing market but I've always felt that Librul economic policies usually think of the short term more and don't consider the long-term affects of their actions as much as they should: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html So while it may have been hurt that felt so good. It doesn't feel as good now..
*BTW, I'm not blaming Clinton because there are other factors, but he wasn't oh so innocent.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
The econony took a downturn toward the end of the 90s, and I believe there's a delay of several years before the ramifications of Washington hit the common man. Was that because of the '93 increase? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not nearly as simple as saying that Clinton being in the White House is why the economy did well during his tenure.
We also spent a helluva a lot on Desert Storm right before he got in, which always has a positive economic impact.
As for the past couple of years, I think it's fair to hang blame for the struggling economy on the Republicans. The only I would say modestly in defense is that we had to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (insert "we shouldn't have gone to Iraq" comment here), one of the worst natural disasters ever in Katrina, and the attack of the World Trade Centers.
So both parties suck, I guess is my point.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
Fascist.
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
The econony took a downturn toward the end of the 90s, and I believe there's a delay of several years before the ramifications of Washington hit the common man. Was that because of the '93 increase? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not nearly as simple as saying that Clinton being in the White House is why the economy did well during his tenure.
Not.
Asian flu and Greenspan lowering rates here to try to prevent Asian pneumonia took the country out of a nice, stable, equilibrium. The balance was lost, the economy hear overheated, things were tamped down, then 9/11.
The 2000 stock bubble and the 2001 recession were not related to the 1993 tax increases. Just like the 1991 recession had nothing to do with Reagan's 1982 tax increases.
One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon. I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.
Incidentially, I'm curious as to how Obama attacks his legislative agenda (as is most of the country). While the economy is priority one, according to Emanuel, Obama'll have to work on a budget, as the US Government is currently working under another CR. Most of the work on this document is currently being done by the Bush administration. I'm curious to see what sections the Obama team is going to tell the Bush team to shelve until January 20th?
Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days? By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
This is your
experience?Or just your axiom?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days? By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?
Opinion, Gil?
Stew?
(For those of us whose bailiwick
isn't labor law.)
DPD...
So what do Desipio, HJE and Hockee Night have to do to convert into bank holding companies (http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKTRE4AA0D820081111)?
A failure on the part of the Fed to act immediately to expedite this reorganization could prove disastrous in terms of these organizations' ability to extend future loans to Weebs.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon. I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.
What a novel idea. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11rumsfeld.html) No one (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-12/a-2001-12-25-29-Pentagon-s.cfm) has ever (http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu242.cfm) thought of making the military (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x719258) more efficient.
I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less. If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him. However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.
For future reference:
http://hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com/
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 09:50:12 PM
For future reference:
http://hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com/
I expect this site to be updated within about 2 years and the big NO will be replaced with a big YES and "We were Morans!"
Green font there, for those who "can't tell if I'm being totally serious versus just being willfully provocative."
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 12:10:15 PM
Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.
Quote from: Wheezer on November 10, 2008, 10:59:26 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 12:10:15 PM
Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.
Don't be so surprised.
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 10, 2008, 10:59:26 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 12:10:15 PM
Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.
Don't be so surprised.
Let's leave the food and beverage reconquista to the Swedes...
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2mx3l0o.jpg)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days? By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?
Opinion, Gil?
Stew?
(For those of us whose bailiwick
isn't labor law.)
[/quote]
I have no problem with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. I long ago came to the conclusion that sexual preference was within the parameters of the definition of "suspect class" to qualify for strict scrutiny. As it stands, I think it's impact upon the business community would be minimal.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a different bag altogether. Stew and I have shared some thoughts on this, but I am opposed to EFCA as it is currently written. I support increasing the penalties and putting some teeth in the NLRA, but forcing arbitration for first-time contracts and converting over to a card-check only system for recognition, rather than an NLRB election is something that requires more study and revision.
Stew and I differ on this though. As best as I can recall, Stew is ambivalent at best toward the Board (if I may characterize his opinion). As a former employee (and probable future one), I support modifying the Board's processes and working within the current regulatory framework.
Quote from: TJ on November 10, 2008, 09:16:31 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon. I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.
What a novel idea. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11rumsfeld.html) No one (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-12/a-2001-12-25-29-Pentagon-s.cfm) has ever (http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu242.cfm) thought of making the military (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x719258) more efficient.
I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less. If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him. However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.
Be careful here. Sure, the DoD has become well-fed in the aftermath of 9-11, but one must not be too knee jerk in bringing it back down to earth. Remember, Carter's cuts in military and intelligence budget not only prolonged the Cold War, but also left the nation woefully unprepared to deal with the threat of Islamic-fascism. Look at the nation's piss poor response to the Beirut Barracks, USS Cole, and Kenyan embassy attacks. A smaller military and lack of intelligence really hurt the ability of the US to respond effectively.
The issue with the military is over-deployment. If they re-focus on defense and intelligence instead of Nation Building and the Bush Doctrine, they can operate within a reduced budget while successfully protecting the nation. Large scale downsizing could be disastrous, though.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 11:17:42 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 10, 2008, 10:59:26 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 10, 2008, 12:10:15 PM
Next time you're at Jewel pick up one of those cans that Wheezer posted. It's like drinking a nacho cheese dorito.
I take it the political content of immigration and juvenile morals didn't really come through with that one.
Don't be so surprised.
Let's leave the food and beverage reconquista to the Swedes...
The "clams" aren't going to last forever. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ZSvPKPWfM)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 11:24:21 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
Moreover, will Obama push for some non-appropriations legislation in the first 100 days? By this, I mean, will he push for EFCA or ENDA?
Opinion, Gil?
Stew?
(For those of us whose bailiwick isn't labor law.)
QuoteI have no problem with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. I long ago came to the conclusion that sexual preference was within the parameters of the definition of "suspect class" to qualify for strict scrutiny. As it stands, I think it's impact upon the business community would be minimal.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a different bag altogether. Stew and I have shared some thoughts on this, but I am opposed to EFCA as it is currently written. I support increasing the penalties and putting some teeth in the NLRA, but forcing arbitration for first-time contracts and converting over to a card-check only system for recognition, rather than an NLRB election is something that requires more study and revision.
Stew and I differ on this though. As best as I can recall, Stew is ambivalent at best toward the Board (if I may characterize his opinion). As a former employee (and probable future one), I support modifying the Board's processes and working within the current regulatory framework.
1. As a Dem, I will be at the front of the line saying card check is retarded. The only bad thing about Obama winning is that UAW won't be getting their medicine in Detroit. While the corporate elite have done more than their fair share to fuck all this up, UAW, teachers unions and public transit unions (especially like the Port Authority in Pittsburgh) have been more than egregious in harming the economy and bleeding unnecessary billions from taxpayers.
Teachers unions may yet cost this nation its wealth and position in the world. Their obstinacy to merit pay and teacher accountability, not a Caesar, may lay Rome low.
Unionizing Wal-Mart is a quicker route to depression than progress. Add in the baseball players union and you'll find me hard, if not impossibly pressed, to find a union that I actually like. Local Bonghitters 420, perhaps?
2. Non-discrimination? Sign me up. Another cause of action for employees means another thing future clients have to defend against, which means more work for...you guessed it...lawyers.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
This is your experience?
Or just your axiom?
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
This is your experience?
Or just your axiom?
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The question is not whether taxes on the affluent, considered alone, take money out of the system. It's whether the negative effects of this outweigh the good.
And, given that we're still discussing a tax plan from a decade and a half ago, it would seem that there's some room here for at least some empirical considerations above and beyond
a priori principles.
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
This is your experience?
Or just your axiom?
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The question is not whether taxes on the affluent, considered alone, take money out of the system. It's whether the negative effects of this outweigh the good.
And, given that we're still discussing a tax plan from a decade and a half ago, it would seem that there's some room here for at least some empirical considerations above and beyond a priori principles.
What I've been wondering for about a day now on this thread.
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
C+I+G=C+S
C is on both sides, so...
I+G=S
G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.
Therefore, S=I.
Savings = Investment.
Savings is good.
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
In a bank in the Caribbean?
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 11, 2008, 12:58:48 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
In a bank in the Caribbean?
This is probably old economics, but didn't the Chicago School economists pretty much prove the validity of the Laffer Curve, and, by extension, prove that overtaxing the wealthly depressed the economy in the long term?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
C+I+G=C+S
C is on both sides, so...
I+G=S
G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.
Therefore, S=I.
Savings = Investment.
Savings is good.
*Putting on Macroeconomist's hat* I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
Rearranging,
Y - C - G = I
Adding in taxation, which is just a transfer from the private to the public sector:
(Y - T - C) + (T - G) = I
The first term is "private saving" and the second is "government saving" in that iteration. The sum of those is just "saving."
S = I
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
C+I+G=C+S
C is on both sides, so...
I+G=S
G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.
Therefore, S=I.
Savings = Investment.
Savings is good.
*Putting on Macroeconomist's hat* I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
Rearranging,
Y - C - G = I
Adding in taxation, which is just a transfer from the private to the public sector:
(Y - T - C) + (T - G) = I
The first term is "private saving" and the second is "government saving" in that iteration. The sum of those is just "saving."
S = I
I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some Swiss investment bank.
Elitist.
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some BAILED OUT Swiss investment bank.
Elitist.
Beware the wrath of Morph'd
Quote from: GNM on November 11, 2008, 01:26:31 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 11, 2008, 12:58:48 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
In a bank in the Caribbean?
This is probably old economics, but didn't the Chicago School economists pretty much prove the validity of the Laffer Curve, and, by extension, prove that overtaxing the wealthly depressed the economy in the long term?
My understanding of the Laffer Curve is that it indeed works as a broad concept, but it is important to know where on the curve you are, which makes it more difficult to use it as a policy tool at a given point in time.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some BAILED OUT Swiss investment bank/asset management firm.
Elitist.
Beware the wrath of Morph'd
TRUTH'D. (I work for the Asset Management unit.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
QuoteA bailout, in economics and finance, is an injection of liquidity given to a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, in order for it to meet its short-term obligations.
This does not and has never described the firm I work for, nor the transaction it undertook that was mis-labeled by the wire services.
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some BAILED OUT Swiss investment bank/asset management firm.
Elitist.
Beware the wrath of Morph'd
TRUTH'D. (I work for the Asset Management unit.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
QuoteA bailout, in economics and finance, is an injection of liquidity given to a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, in order for it to meet its short-term obligations.
This does not and has never described the firm I work for, nor the transaction it undertook that was mis-labeled by the wire services.
Where does a high-school drop-out learn big words like "liquidity" anyways?
The seedy gay finance underworld, that's where.
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some BAILED OUT Swiss investment bank/asset management firm.
Elitist.
Beware the wrath of Morph'd
TRUTH'D. (I work for the Asset Management unit.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout
QuoteA bailout, in economics and finance, is an injection of liquidity given to a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, in order for it to meet its short-term obligations.
This does not and has never described the firm I work for, nor the transaction it undertook that was mis-labeled by the wire services. BAILOUT BAILOUT FREE MONEY SOCIALIZED BANK BAILOUT MORPH BAILOUT
Unadorned truth'd
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
That's one side of the NI equation. The other side is what do people do with their income. They either Consume or Save. So, not only does C+I+G+(X-M)=Y, we also have C+S=Y.
If G and X-M both equal 0:
C+I=C+S
Subtract C from both sides and:
S=I.
Now, if we embark on discussions of marginal propensity to save and consume, the MPs sure seems to be negative these last few years.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 02:22:18 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
That's one side of the NI equation. The other side is what do people do with their income. They either Consume or Save. So, not only does C+I+G+(X-M)=Y, we also have C+S=Y.
If G and X-M both equal 0:
C+I=C+S
Subtract C from both sides and:
S=I.
Now, if we embark on discussions of marginal propensity to save and consume, the MPs sure seems to be negative these last few years.
Didn't we already agree it was 42?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 02:22:18 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
That's one side of the NI equation. The other side is what do people do with their income. They either Consume or Save. So, not only does C+I+G+(X-M)=Y, we also have C+S=Y.
If G and X-M both equal 0:
C+I=C+S
Subtract C from both sides and:
S=I.
Now, if we embark on discussions of marginal propensity to save and consume, the MPs sure seems to be negative these last few years.
In the aggregate it was, although I'd say now it has turned positive. In fact, I'd say that's what folks like Eli and ADC were arguing above - an additional dollar of disposable income will be saved and not spent on consumption. Of course, when a dollar is "saved" it actually ends up being "invested" in new capital, as you have shown, and this has a whole additional set of implications for interest rates and so forth. It's not like that dollar just goes into a bank and sits there. I think that's where you were going with this in the beginning, right?
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
C+I+G=C+S
C is on both sides, so...
I+G=S
G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.
Therefore, S=I.
Savings = Investment.
Savings is good.
*Putting on Macroeconomist's hat* I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
Rearranging,
Y - C - G = I
Adding in taxation, which is just a transfer from the private to the public sector:
(Y - T - C) + (T - G) = I
The first term is "private saving" and the second is "government saving" in that iteration. The sum of those is just "saving."
S = I
That class blew.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.
Up for debate. Some more detail:
http://www.slate.com/id/1037/ (http://www.slate.com/id/1037/)
Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.
The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.
If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.
The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that, for some reason, in late 2008, you're apparently predicting that the 1993 Clinton tax plan will "hurt everyone."
What I was pointing out was that story's overgeneralization that most of those taxes' effects were felt by the affleunt. It's my experience that when we resort to "taxing the rich" and those people have money taken away, everyone feels the impact.
This is your experience?
Or just your axiom?
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.
They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.
I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.
The question is not whether taxes on the affluent, considered alone, take money out of the system. It's whether the negative effects of this outweigh the good.
And, given that we're still discussing a tax plan from a decade and a half ago, it would seem that there's some room here for at least some empirical considerations above and beyond a priori principles.
I agree, it just sounded like you were saying you disagreed with my assessment entirely.
I think the '93 budget is still worth discussing because a) the same economic principles still apply, and b) we're about to turn the entire set of keys to Washington over to the Democratic party for the first time since, so it's important -- at least to me -- to evaluate what happened the last time this was the case.
Obama has already said the same types of tax increases are coming -- at least he didn't lie about it like Clinton -- so that scenario is worth revisiting.
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 02:49:02 PM
In the aggregate it was, although I'd say now it has turned positive. In fact, I'd say that's what folks like Eli and ADC were arguing above - an additional dollar of disposable income will be saved and not spent on consumption.
I was lost once you guys started adding up letters.
( . )( . )
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 02:49:02 PM
In the aggregate it was, although I'd say now it has turned positive. In fact, I'd say that's what folks like Eli and ADC were arguing above - an additional dollar of disposable income will be saved and not spent on consumption.
I was lost once you guys started adding up letters.
Seriously... Those two are awful, awful spellers.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 11, 2008, 03:30:26 PM
( . )( . )
_______ 8==D~
Dude, e-dicks is where I draw the line.
Seriously...isn't this what we started with in the first place (page 1)?
All I got out of this is that we are trading George Clooney, Ronald Reagan and Yeti for Jake Peavy and Michelle Obama, and cash.
Any of this sound familiar?
Quote'Fighting for the Forgotten Middle Class'
"America is in trouble. Our people are hurting. The rich keep getting richer and the politicians just seem to be taking care of themselves. It's time we took care of our own. If America's not strong enough at home, we'll never be able to stand up for what we believe in around the world. National security begins at home."
BARACK OBAMA OFFERS AN ECONOMIC PLAN TO COMPETE AND PROSPER IN THE WORLD ECONOMY
Barack Obama will cut taxes for the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share.
Barack Obama will encourage and maintain commitment to better education at every level.
BARACK OBAMA OFFERS A NEW AMERICAN HEALTH CARE PLAN
Middle-class working families are living in fear everyday that if they get sick they'll lose everything. That's wrong. In his last year as President, Barack Obama will present a new American health care plan to:
Cover everybody.
Control costs, improve quality, expand preventive and long-term care.
Maintain consumers' choice of doctors.
Take on the insurance companies and the medical bureaucracy, and demand reform.
Demand Corporate Responsibility.
Our National Economic Strategy will make large corporations accountable to the American people and provide incentives for entrepreneurs and small businesses, which create most of the jobs in our nation. We will:
Ensure tax fairness by cracking down on foreign companies that manipulate our laws to evade taxes. Eliminate deductions for companies that ship American jobs overseas and reward outrageous executive pay.
Encourage private investment with tax credits that reward companies that make long-term commitments to new business, and reward those who invest in research and development.
Open up world markets by passing tougher trade legislation, creating a national Economic Security Council and stopping our trade representatives from cashing in on their contacts when they leave government.
Ensure worker retraining by requiring every employer to spend 1.5 percent of payroll on training for all workers -- not just executives.
Reward Work and Families.
Our National Economic Strategy will put people first by rewarding work, demanding responsibility and ending welfare as we know it. We will:
Make welfare a second chance, not a way of life by scrapping the current system and empowering those on welfare by providing the education, training and child care they need to go to work.
Reduce the middle-class tax burden by giving working families a choice between a children's tax credit and a rate cut -- and pay for it by making the rich pay their fair share.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit so that no one with a family who works full time has to raise children on poverty.
Sign the Family and Medical Leave Act to give American parents the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative.
Break the Washington Stalemate.
No plan to put our people first, no strategy to make the economy grow, can succeed unless we break the stalemate in Washington. It is time to cut the bureaucracy, limit the special interests, stop the revolving door and cut off the unrestricted flow of campaign funds. We will:
Cut 100,000 unnecessary bureaucratic positions through attrition and mandate 3 percent across-the-board savings in every federal agency.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies for lobbyists and special interests. Toughen and streamline disclosure requirements.
Reduce the White House staff by 25 percent, and challenge Congress to do the same.
Stop the revolving door from public service to private enrichment by requiring senior Administration officials pledge never to become registered agents for foreign governments, and challenging Congress to do the same.
Enact strong campaign reform legislation that caps spending on Congressional campaigns: slashes political action committee (PAC) contributions to the individual legal limit of $1,000; and lowers the cost of air time so that TV becomes an instrumentation of education, not a weapon of political assassination.
If you're ready to put people first, join our cause.
Only it is actually a brochure of Bill Clinton's (http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton1992brochure.htm), from his 1992 campaign.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 11, 2008, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 02:49:02 PM
In the aggregate it was, although I'd say now it has turned positive. In fact, I'd say that's what folks like Eli and ADC were arguing above - an additional dollar of disposable income will be saved and not spent on consumption.
I was lost once you guys started adding up letters.
Seriously... Those two are awful, awful spellers.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 11, 2008, 03:30:26 PM
( . )( . )
_______
8==D~
MODS!!!!!!!
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 11, 2008, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM
The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.
When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile. If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million?
But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses. Where do you think they're putting this $$?
Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?
Absolutely. If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too). Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll. Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus. Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.
C+I+G=C+S
C is on both sides, so...
I+G=S
G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.
Therefore, S=I.
Savings = Investment.
Savings is good.
*Putting on Macroeconomist's hat* I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck. These are the national income accounts as I know them.
Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)
Rearranging,
Y - C - G = I
Adding in taxation, which is just a transfer from the private to the public sector:
(Y - T - C) + (T - G) = I
The first term is "private saving" and the second is "government saving" in that iteration. The sum of those is just "saving."
S = I
That class blew pays my mortgage.
Me'd
Lindsay Lohan, excited about Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450347,00.html):
Quote
"It's an amazing feeling. It's our first, you know, colored president," the 22-year-old actress said in response to a question from Maria Menounos on "Access Hollywood" about her reaction to Obama's win in the 2008 presidential race.
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 06:45:09 PM
Lindsay Lohan, excited about Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450347,00.html):
Quote
"It's an amazing feeling. It's our first, you know, colored president," the 22-year-old actress said in response to a question from Maria Menounos on "Access Hollywood" about her reaction to Obama's win in the 2008 presidential race.
You have to forgive her, she's still shaken up about Prop 8.
Quote from: 5laky on November 11, 2008, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 06:45:09 PM
Lindsay Lohan, excited about Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450347,00.html):
Quote
"It's an amazing feeling. It's our first, you know, colored president," the 22-year-old actress said in response to a question from Maria Menounos on "Access Hollywood" about her reaction to Obama's win in the 2008 presidential race.
You have to forgive her, she's still shaken up about Prop 8.
I'm amazed that anyone asked her what she thought about anything, and she could think beyond sex, blow, and booze.
This (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15498.html) made me laugh to beat the bend. Parts anyway.
Not the part about Michelle Obama asking Hillary Clinton for advice on child-rearing. That part I get.
I just find it incredibly awesome that Hillary is trying to hit Barack up for cash to pay off her $7-13 Million (depending on sources) campaign debt. Yeah, that's the debt she ran up running against him for months after the whole world and God Almighty told her to quit. The dude had her beat six ways to Sunday. Yet she persisted and spent money she didn't have, thus forcing Obama to spend his own money to campaign in the latter primary states.
If you don't find that funny, you don't have a funny bone in your phony-baloney body. I told you that bitch was Satan. Did I not?
QuoteAdded another longtime Clinton adviser: "She killed herself for them, did a hundred events, went anywhere they pointed – so it's disappointing they aren't helping... But it's not a big deal at this point."
One former Clinton fundraiser took a more cold-blooded view. "In a few months, when he's really struggling, he'll come to her for support," he said. "That's when she should ask him for money."
An Obama spokesman didn't comment but didn't rule out a debt retirement effort down the road.
Fuck you.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 10:25:25 PM
This (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15498.html) made me laugh to beat the bend. Parts anyway.
Not the part about Michelle Obama asking Hillary Clinton for advice on child-rearing. That part I get.
I just find it incredibly awesome that Hillary is trying to hit Barack up for cash to pay off her $7-13 Million (depending on sources) campaign debt. Yeah, that's the debt she ran up running against him for months after the whole world and God Almighty told her to quit. The dude had her beat six ways to Sunday. Yet she persisted and spent money she didn't have, thus forcing Obama to spend his own money to campaign in the latter primary states.
If you don't find that funny, you don't have a funny bone in your phony-baloney body. I told you that bitch was Satan. Did I not?
QuoteAdded another longtime Clinton adviser: "She killed herself for them, did a hundred events, went anywhere they pointed – so it's disappointing they aren't helping... But it's not a big deal at this point."
One former Clinton fundraiser took a more cold-blooded view. "In a few months, when he's really struggling, he'll come to her for support," he said. "That's when she should ask him for money."
An Obama spokesman didn't comment but didn't rule out a debt retirement effort down the road.
Fuck you.
I hate that bitch with the fire of a thousand suns. She knew when she spent it that she was woefully overbudget but somehow assumed that the ultimate winner (not her) would assume the debt. Surprise, clam, you're on your own. BO doesn't need you or your showerwife-lovin' husband. Enjoy New York you robotic, tacklebox-smelling, multiple-hat-wearing, meat wallet.
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on November 11, 2008, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 10:25:25 PM
This (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15498.html) made me laugh to beat the bend. Parts anyway.
Not the part about Michelle Obama asking Hillary Clinton for advice on child-rearing. That part I get.
I just find it incredibly awesome that Hillary is trying to hit Barack up for cash to pay off her $7-13 Million (depending on sources) campaign debt. Yeah, that's the debt she ran up running against him for months after the whole world and God Almighty told her to quit. The dude had her beat six ways to Sunday. Yet she persisted and spent money she didn't have, thus forcing Obama to spend his own money to campaign in the latter primary states.
If you don't find that funny, you don't have a funny bone in your phony-baloney body. I told you that bitch was Satan. Did I not?
QuoteAdded another longtime Clinton adviser: "She killed herself for them, did a hundred events, went anywhere they pointed – so it's disappointing they aren't helping... But it's not a big deal at this point."
One former Clinton fundraiser took a more cold-blooded view. "In a few months, when he's really struggling, he'll come to her for support," he said. "That's when she should ask him for money."
An Obama spokesman didn't comment but didn't rule out a debt retirement effort down the road.
Fuck you.
I hate that bitch with the fire of a thousand suns. She knew when she spent it that she was woefully overbudget but somehow assumed that the ultimate winner (not her) would assume the debt. Surprise, clam, you're on your own. BO doesn't need you or your showerwife-lovin' husband. Enjoy New York you robotic, tacklebox-smelling, multiple-hat-wearing, meat wallet.
What I don't get is why she assumes that the POTUS-elect ought to pay her fucking debt when she's married to the former-POTUS? Isn't he loaded? Doesn't he get millions of dollars just for showing up and dazzling large contingents of rich people with his bullshit? Why doesn't he pay her fucking debts? These are all legitimate questions. If I find out Barack pays a fucking nickel of this, I'm done with him.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on November 11, 2008, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 10:25:25 PM
This (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15498.html) made me laugh to beat the bend. Parts anyway.
Not the part about Michelle Obama asking Hillary Clinton for advice on child-rearing. That part I get.
I just find it incredibly awesome that Hillary is trying to hit Barack up for cash to pay off her $7-13 Million (depending on sources) campaign debt. Yeah, that's the debt she ran up running against him for months after the whole world and God Almighty told her to quit. The dude had her beat six ways to Sunday. Yet she persisted and spent money she didn't have, thus forcing Obama to spend his own money to campaign in the latter primary states.
If you don't find that funny, you don't have a funny bone in your phony-baloney body. I told you that bitch was Satan. Did I not?
QuoteAdded another longtime Clinton adviser: "She killed herself for them, did a hundred events, went anywhere they pointed – so it's disappointing they aren't helping... But it's not a big deal at this point."
One former Clinton fundraiser took a more cold-blooded view. "In a few months, when he's really struggling, he'll come to her for support," he said. "That's when she should ask him for money."
An Obama spokesman didn't comment but didn't rule out a debt retirement effort down the road.
Fuck you.
I hate that bitch with the fire of a thousand suns. She knew when she spent it that she was woefully overbudget but somehow assumed that the ultimate winner (not her) would assume the debt. Surprise, clam, you're on your own. BO doesn't need you or your showerwife-lovin' husband. Enjoy New York you robotic, tacklebox-smelling, multiple-hat-wearing, meat wallet.
What I don't get is why she assumes that the POTUS-elect ought to pay her fucking debt when she's married to the former-POTUS? Isn't he loaded? Doesn't he get millions of dollars just for showing up and dazzling large contingents of rich people with his bullshit? Why doesn't he pay her fucking debts? These are all legitimate questions. If I find out Barack pays a fucking nickel of this, I'm done with him.
Exactly. Remember, she was the one who made a big deal about how she loaned her campaign HER OWN MONEY to help her candidacy. Well, that's how it works. If enough people don't like you enough to donate to your campaign, you have to pony up yourself. Shocking. This entitlement shit is built into her DNA apparently. Fuck her with Bea Arthur's dick.
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on November 11, 2008, 11:15:28 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on November 11, 2008, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 11, 2008, 10:25:25 PM
This (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15498.html) made me laugh to beat the bend. Parts anyway.
Not the part about Michelle Obama asking Hillary Clinton for advice on child-rearing. That part I get.
I just find it incredibly awesome that Hillary is trying to hit Barack up for cash to pay off her $7-13 Million (depending on sources) campaign debt. Yeah, that's the debt she ran up running against him for months after the whole world and God Almighty told her to quit. The dude had her beat six ways to Sunday. Yet she persisted and spent money she didn't have, thus forcing Obama to spend his own money to campaign in the latter primary states.
If you don't find that funny, you don't have a funny bone in your phony-baloney body. I told you that bitch was Satan. Did I not?
QuoteAdded another longtime Clinton adviser: "She killed herself for them, did a hundred events, went anywhere they pointed – so it's disappointing they aren't helping... But it's not a big deal at this point."
One former Clinton fundraiser took a more cold-blooded view. "In a few months, when he's really struggling, he'll come to her for support," he said. "That's when she should ask him for money."
An Obama spokesman didn't comment but didn't rule out a debt retirement effort down the road.
Fuck you.
I hate that bitch with the fire of a thousand suns. She knew when she spent it that she was woefully overbudget but somehow assumed that the ultimate winner (not her) would assume the debt. Surprise, clam, you're on your own. BO doesn't need you or your showerwife-lovin' husband. Enjoy New York you robotic, tacklebox-smelling, multiple-hat-wearing, meat wallet.
What I don't get is why she assumes that the POTUS-elect ought to pay her fucking debt when she's married to the former-POTUS? Isn't he loaded? Doesn't he get millions of dollars just for showing up and dazzling large contingents of rich people with his bullshit? Why doesn't he pay her fucking debts? These are all legitimate questions. If I find out Barack pays a fucking nickel of this, I'm done with him.
Exactly. Remember, she was the one who made a big deal about how she loaned her campaign HER OWN MONEY to help her candidacy. Well, that's how it works. If enough people don't like you enough to donate to your campaign, you have to pony up yourself. Shocking. This entitlement shit is built into her DNA apparently. Fuck her with Bea Arthur's dick.
I think she just saw the generous terms of the massive UBS bailout (e.g., five dollar foot longs? four dollars) and felt she might as well get in on the fun.
The one thing I can take comfort in is that the Democratic President who takes office 1/20 will not be Hillary Clinton.
Quote from: TJ on November 12, 2008, 07:53:42 AM
The one thing I can take comfort in is that the Democratic President who takes office 1/20 will not be Hillary Clinton.
The world owes Barack Obama more than it will ever know for only this, if nothing else.
Quote from: TJ on November 12, 2008, 07:53:42 AM
The one thing I can take comfort in is that the Democratic President who takes office 1/20 will not be Hillary Clinton.
Count her out at your own peril. She's still got her keys to the White House, and she's going in and having a locksmith change all the locks while Barack's being sworn in.
I think she should ask Oberweis for advice.
Hey - that rhymes!
Quote from: Indolent Reader on November 12, 2008, 09:03:30 AM
I think she should ask Oberweis for advice.
Hey - that rhymes!
If this is anybody but Steve Allen, you're stealing my bit!
If anyone wants to hear the victory speech again, along with the script:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/speeches/obama-victory-speech.html
8 days later, still amazing.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2008, 12:48:49 PM
If anyone wants to hear the victory speech again, along with the script:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/speeches/obama-victory-speech.html
8 days later, still amazing.
Meh. I saw him dribble
behind his back on YouTube. Now that was impressive.
What Chicago Wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2204287/pagenum/all/#p2) on
Slate. QuoteExpect more scrutiny of Chicago's famously corrupt political machine. So far, Obama has managed to convince people he's from Chicago but not of it—a phenomenon one Chicago columnist dubbed "hopium." But just as the national media are now obsessed with Alaskan drilling, they're also likely to scrutinize city politics and speculate about potential ties to Obama. There may be only one Tony Rezko, but the media can be counted on to try to find others like him.
So far by their coverage (or rather lack) of the one and only Tony Rezko, I highly doubt the media can be counted on for anything but softballs and puff pieces where our 44th President is concerned. There will be choppy waters ahead but most of the criticism will be written off as unfounded Republican hack-jobs. Daley's old man wrote that script a generation ago and it's still playing out to bemusement of many.
QuoteSome expectations will no doubt be dashed. Federal agencies will not brim with Chicagoans. Obama will not move the capital to the Windy City, as he did his campaign. The Cubs will not win the World Series. But at the very least, Chicago will force the world to acknowledge that America is more than the sum of its coasts.
Fuck you.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 09:11:03 PM
What Chicago Wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2204287/pagenum/all/#p2) on Slate.
QuoteExpect more scrutiny of Chicago's famously corrupt political machine. So far, Obama has managed to convince people he's from Chicago but not of it—a phenomenon one Chicago columnist dubbed "hopium." But just as the national media are now obsessed with Alaskan drilling, they're also likely to scrutinize city politics and speculate about potential ties to Obama. There may be only one Tony Rezko, but the media can be counted on to try to find others like him.
So far by their coverage (or rather lack) of the one and only Tony Rezko, I highly doubt the media can be counted on for anything but softballs and puff pieces where our 44th President is concerned. There will be choppy waters ahead but most of the criticism will be written off as unfounded Republican hack-jobs. Daley's old man wrote that script a generation ago and it's still playing out to bemusement of many.
QuoteSome expectations will no doubt be dashed. Federal agencies will not brim with Chicagoans. Obama will not move the capital to the Windy City, as he did his campaign. The Cubs will not win the World Series. But at the very least, Chicago will force the world to acknowledge that America is more than the sum of its coasts.
Fuck you.
It sucks. But it's probably true.
Quote from: 5laky on November 12, 2008, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 09:11:03 PM
What Chicago Wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2204287/pagenum/all/#p2) on Slate.
QuoteExpect more scrutiny of Chicago's famously corrupt political machine. So far, Obama has managed to convince people he's from Chicago but not of it—a phenomenon one Chicago columnist dubbed "hopium." But just as the national media are now obsessed with Alaskan drilling, they're also likely to scrutinize city politics and speculate about potential ties to Obama. There may be only one Tony Rezko, but the media can be counted on to try to find others like him.
So far by their coverage (or rather lack) of the one and only Tony Rezko, I highly doubt the media can be counted on for anything but softballs and puff pieces where our 44th President is concerned. There will be choppy waters ahead but most of the criticism will be written off as unfounded Republican hack-jobs. Daley's old man wrote that script a generation ago and it's still playing out to bemusement of many.
QuoteSome expectations will no doubt be dashed. Federal agencies will not brim with Chicagoans. Obama will not move the capital to the Windy City, as he did his campaign. The Cubs will not win the World Series. But at the very least, Chicago will force the world to acknowledge that America is more than the sum of its coasts.
Fuck you.
It sucks. But it's probably true.
Which part?
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 12, 2008, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 09:11:03 PM
What Chicago Wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2204287/pagenum/all/#p2) on Slate.
QuoteExpect more scrutiny of Chicago's famously corrupt political machine. So far, Obama has managed to convince people he's from Chicago but not of it—a phenomenon one Chicago columnist dubbed "hopium." But just as the national media are now obsessed with Alaskan drilling, they're also likely to scrutinize city politics and speculate about potential ties to Obama. There may be only one Tony Rezko, but the media can be counted on to try to find others like him.
So far by their coverage (or rather lack) of the one and only Tony Rezko, I highly doubt the media can be counted on for anything but softballs and puff pieces where our 44th President is concerned. There will be choppy waters ahead but most of the criticism will be written off as unfounded Republican hack-jobs. Daley's old man wrote that script a generation ago and it's still playing out to bemusement of many.
QuoteSome expectations will no doubt be dashed. Federal agencies will not brim with Chicagoans. Obama will not move the capital to the Windy City, as he did his campaign. The Cubs will not win the World Series. But at the very least, Chicago will force the world to acknowledge that America is more than the sum of its coasts.
Fuck you.
It sucks. But it's probably true.
Which part?
The fucking.
Quote from: powen01 on November 12, 2008, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: 5laky on November 12, 2008, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 12, 2008, 09:11:03 PM
What Chicago Wants (http://www.slate.com/id/2204287/pagenum/all/#p2) on Slate.
QuoteExpect more scrutiny of Chicago's famously corrupt political machine. So far, Obama has managed to convince people he's from Chicago but not of it—a phenomenon one Chicago columnist dubbed "hopium." But just as the national media are now obsessed with Alaskan drilling, they're also likely to scrutinize city politics and speculate about potential ties to Obama. There may be only one Tony Rezko, but the media can be counted on to try to find others like him.
So far by their coverage (or rather lack) of the one and only Tony Rezko, I highly doubt the media can be counted on for anything but softballs and puff pieces where our 44th President is concerned. There will be choppy waters ahead but most of the criticism will be written off as unfounded Republican hack-jobs. Daley's old man wrote that script a generation ago and it's still playing out to bemusement of many.
QuoteSome expectations will no doubt be dashed. Federal agencies will not brim with Chicagoans. Obama will not move the capital to the Windy City, as he did his campaign. The Cubs will not win the World Series. But at the very least, Chicago will force the world to acknowledge that America is more than the sum of its coasts.
Fuck you.
It sucks. But it's probably true.
Which part?
The fucking.
True.
GOD DAMMIT!!!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_clinton)
So this is what your vaunted Hope and Change is going to look like to the rest of the world. You fucking no-brain rubes. This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
ANGRY!!!111!!!!
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
GOD DAMMIT!!!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_clinton)
So this is what your vaunted Hope and Change is going to look like to the rest of the world. You fucking no-brain rubes. This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
ANGRY!!!111!!!!
She's not going to Foggy Bottom, trust me. It would be a good way of keeping her from sniping at Obama during his administration, especially preventing her from possibly making a primary challenge in 2012, but she's not leaving the Senate.
DPD, but I think I've found where MikeC has been lately: check out the comments section!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-to-create.html
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 13, 2008, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
GOD DAMMIT!!!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_clinton)
So this is what your vaunted Hope and Change is going to look like to the rest of the world. You fucking no-brain rubes. This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
ANGRY!!!111!!!!
She's not going to Foggy Bottom, trust me. It would be a good way of keeping her from sniping at Obama during his administration, especially preventing her from possibly making a primary challenge in 2012, but she's not leaving the Senate.
What the fuck does any Democrat care if she SNIPES? Why give her anything? What the fuck do they think they OWE her and for WHAT? I swear to God I don't get it.
QuoteAnalyst Paul Light of New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress said picking Clinton would mean Obama was serious about reaching across the party divide.
On the other hand, he said: "To put her in the competition with several others and pick somebody other than Hillary Clinton after you've floated her name is to have a repeat of the spring and summer division and raise questions about Obama's seriousness about healing the division within the party."
The Democrats have all the tickets now. If they're really for Change(!) they should be about it rather than talk about it. I figured all along that Change(!) just meant no more Bush. I'm sure most of us are for that but if it's a return to the Clinton years or a continuation of the Daley Dynasty on a national level then there will be another Bush coming around in eight years to knock Biden or Hillary or whoever you think the heir apparent will be back on their haunches.
Put this bitch down. And keep her there or your revolution will be over before it starts.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 13, 2008, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
GOD DAMMIT!!!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_clinton)
So this is what your vaunted Hope and Change is going to look like to the rest of the world. You fucking no-brain rubes. This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
ANGRY!!!111!!!!
She's not going to Foggy Bottom, trust me. It would be a good way of keeping her from sniping at Obama during his administration, especially preventing her from possibly making a primary challenge in 2012, but she's not leaving the Senate.
What the fuck does any Democrat care if she SNIPES? Why give her anything? What the fuck do they think they OWE her and for WHAT? I swear to God I don't get it.
QuoteAnalyst Paul Light of New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress said picking Clinton would mean Obama was serious about reaching across the party divide.
On the other hand, he said: "To put her in the competition with several others and pick somebody other than Hillary Clinton after you've floated her name is to have a repeat of the spring and summer division and raise questions about Obama's seriousness about healing the division within the party."
The Democrats have all the tickets now. If they're really for Change(!) they should be about it rather than talk about it. I figured all along that Change(!) just meant no more Bush. I'm sure most of us are for that but if it's a return to the Clinton years or a continuation of the Daley Dynasty on a national level then there will be another Bush coming around in eight years to knock Biden or Hillary or whoever you think the heir apparent will be back on their haunches.
Put this bitch down. And keep her there or your revolution will be over before it starts.
You seem to be expending a lot of Huey ANGER over some speculation that may or may not be true. If Hillary actually ends up as Secretary of State, which I doubt, I won't like it either. We can meet back here and revisit the fact that she's a miserable meat curtain.
And have you actually seen any of the reasonable libruls in here tossing around the words HOPE and CHANGE 1/10th as much as it gets thrown around as a hilarious burn by the right? I don't harbor any illusions that Obama is gonna be the BEST PRES EVER!! I think he's a pragmatist, and I agree with many, but by no means all of his ideas. I think he'll be a big improvement over the last 8 years, and I think he'll do some good for the country. If that makes me a "fucking no brain rube" then I guess I'll politely sit down so the men in white coats can strap on my strait jacket and feed me some gruel.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:47:23 PM
but if it's a return to the Clinton years or a continuation of the Daley Dynasty on a national level then there will be another Bush coming around in eight years to knock Biden or Hillary or whoever you think the heir apparent will be back on their haunches.
Right, the Clinton years were miserable for everyone.
Quote from: RV on November 13, 2008, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 13, 2008, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
GOD DAMMIT!!!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_clinton)
So this is what your vaunted Hope and Change is going to look like to the rest of the world. You fucking no-brain rubes. This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
ANGRY!!!111!!!!
She's not going to Foggy Bottom, trust me. It would be a good way of keeping her from sniping at Obama during his administration, especially preventing her from possibly making a primary challenge in 2012, but she's not leaving the Senate.
What the fuck does any Democrat care if she SNIPES? Why give her anything? What the fuck do they think they OWE her and for WHAT? I swear to God I don't get it.
QuoteAnalyst Paul Light of New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress said picking Clinton would mean Obama was serious about reaching across the party divide.
On the other hand, he said: "To put her in the competition with several others and pick somebody other than Hillary Clinton after you've floated her name is to have a repeat of the spring and summer division and raise questions about Obama's seriousness about healing the division within the party."
The Democrats have all the tickets now. If they're really for Change(!) they should be about it rather than talk about it. I figured all along that Change(!) just meant no more Bush. I'm sure most of us are for that but if it's a return to the Clinton years or a continuation of the Daley Dynasty on a national level then there will be another Bush coming around in eight years to knock Biden or Hillary or whoever you think the heir apparent will be back on their haunches.
Put this bitch down. And keep her there or your revolution will be over before it starts.
You seem to be expending a lot of Huey ANGER over some speculation that may or may not be true. If Hillary actually ends up as Secretary of State, which I doubt, I won't like it either. We can meet back here and revisit the fact that she's a miserable meat curtain.
Very much this.
It's hot stove crazy rumor time in Washington, Pex. But anyone who actually knows anything isn't saying shit for fear of blowing the whole deal.
Take a deep breath.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 13, 2008, 09:34:09 PM
DPD, but I think I've found where MikeC has been lately: check out the comments section!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-to-create.html
I'm trying my best to stay out of here for the good of Desipio-kind, but:
hahahahahaha
Holy shit... Where's our resident anarcho-syndicalist, Jon?
Off organizing for the IWW?
Apparently a fun new meme has been ricocheting around the internets while he's been out, taking root among Hillary dead-enders (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/election-open-thread-5/), conspiracy theorists (http://www.remoteviewer.nu/?p=9005) and the hilarious right (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/the-obamas-blac.html) alike...
http://hillarynme.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-obamas-first-faux-pas-behold-americas-new-first-family/
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2l9meme.jpg)
QuoteTHE OBAMAS FIRST FAUX PAS - BEHOLD AMERICA'S NEW FIRST FAMILY
In a campaign where nothing has been left to chance, we have America's new First Family, the Obamas, all decked out in red and black! When I looked at this picture this morning, I thought the choice of clothing colors was a bit odd. Really, who puts black on a little girl and why red & black on the all four of the Obamas?
Why this combination of colors, when surely the campaign has been planning what the first photographs of the incoming faux president and his family would look like for weeks? Even the criss/crossed material on Michelle's dress seemed odd to me. I had to dig a little deeper.
Think about it. Don't we always see politicians in shades or combinations of red, blue, navy, etc. Examples that quickly come to mind include Nancy Reagan's red dresses, Hillary's many shades of blues dresses and pantsuits, Laura Bush her many shades of blue and royal blue . . . the men follow the same the same etiquette. Why, because subliminally we are supposed to think of the red, white, and blue in our country's flag. I didn't have to dig very deep . . . here's the answer.
QuoteBlack and red bisected symbolism
The red-and-black flag is the symbol of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist movements. Black is the traditional color of anarchism, and red is the traditional color of socialism. The red-and-black flag combines the two colors in equal parts, with a simple diagonal split. Typically, the red section is placed on the top-left corner, with the black on the bottom-right corner of the flag. This symbolizes the co-existence of anarchist and socialist ideals within the anarcho-syndicalism movement, and to symbolize the more socialistic means of the movement leading to a more anarchistic end.
...
Lest anyone think that campaigns and politicians don't understand the importance and symbolism of the use of color in their campaigns, has anyone forgotten Hillary's orange pantsuit the night of her speech at the Democratic Convention in August?
At the time, I thought that was an odd choice too, until I realized that orange is a color of protest. HRC was so cool, protesting her unfair treatment by the DNC's selection of Obama in her orange suit, and it went over most people's heads. Way, to go, girl! It's just one of the reasons we loved you!
Memo to the Obama team: the choice of red & black clothing for this all important introduction to the American people was either one of the dumbest moves I've ever witnessed, or was incredibility insensitive to the history of this country, or was intentional.
You may want to remember that the last time the world had to deal with a charismatic leader capable of keeping millions of people mesmerized with his rhetoric, his iconic symbol, also in red and black, looked like this . . . [take a guess]
Dennis: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom.
Woman: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. We haven't got enough mud.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2008, 12:31:22 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 13, 2008, 09:34:09 PM
DPD, but I think I've found where MikeC has been lately: check out the comments section!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-to-create.html
I'm trying my best to stay out of here for the good of Desipio-kind, but:
hahahahahaha
Jesus, he's really ANGRY about Obama's election, isn't he? I find it comical that anybody who's suffered through the last eight years of Republican government can't at least open their mind enough to acknowledge that it might be time to try something else for a while.
I hope that, for the sake of his health, he comes to the realisation that none of this really makes a hell of a lot of difference. Politiicans are, by and large, all as bad as each other - it's only the ways in which they're bad that change.
Someone somewhere on the transition team scribbled Hillary's name onto a list of candidates. I wouldn't read too much into it.
The next SecState is, like pretty much everyone in the Administration, is going to have an awful lot of cleanup work to do. It needs to be someone with serious international credentials.
Which Hillary doesn't have...and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me on this: Diplomacy ain't her strong suit.
Quote from: Tonker on November 14, 2008, 03:55:17 AM
Jesus, he's really ANGRY about Obama's election, isn't he? I find it comical that anybody who's suffered through the last eight years of Republican government can't at least open their mind enough to acknowledge that it might be time to try something else for a while.
With some people it's not about ideology as much as it is branding. No matter how good it might be for baseball to see a few different winners, Yankee fans can't believe that anyone other than the Yankees should win every year.
What a shocker...
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/images/20081112_d-0077-5-515h.jpg)
/bad pun
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Bush thinks that the key to the unemployment situation is to expand the NBA to 50,000 teams.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 14, 2008, 07:37:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Bush thinks that the key to the unemployment situation is to expand the NBA to 50,000 teams.
I've got just the man to lead this rampant, unchecked NBA expansion; Gary Bettman.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
And how'd that work out for you?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 14, 2008, 07:06:01 AM
With some people it's not about ideology as much as it is branding. No matter how good it might be for baseball to see a few different winners, Yankee fans can't believe that anyone other than the Yankees should win every year.
What does any of that have to do with "branding"?
I don't get this Gittles analogy at all.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 14, 2008, 09:56:06 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 14, 2008, 07:06:01 AM
With some people it's not about ideology as much as it is branding. No matter how good it might be for baseball to see a few different winners, Yankee fans can't believe that anyone other than the Yankees should win every year.
What does any of that have to do with "branding"?
I don't get this Gittles analogy at all.
Since when does any fan care about what's good for baseball? Even Bud Selig doesn't care about what's good for baseball.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 14, 2008, 12:55:40 AM
Holy shit... Where's our resident anarcho-syndicalist, Jon?
Off organizing for the IWW?
Apparently a fun new meme has been ricocheting around the internets while he's been out, taking root among Hillary dead-enders (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/election-open-thread-5/), conspiracy theorists (http://www.remoteviewer.nu/?p=9005) and the hilarious right (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/the-obamas-blac.html) alike...
http://hillarynme.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-obamas-first-faux-pas-behold-americas-new-first-family/
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2l9meme.jpg)
QuoteTHE OBAMAS FIRST FAUX PAS - BEHOLD AMERICA'S NEW FIRST FAMILY
In a campaign where nothing has been left to chance, we have America's new First Family, the Obamas, all decked out in red and black! When I looked at this picture this morning, I thought the choice of clothing colors was a bit odd. Really, who puts black on a little girl and why red & black on the all four of the Obamas?
Why this combination of colors, when surely the campaign has been planning what the first photographs of the incoming faux president and his family would look like for weeks? Even the criss/crossed material on Michelle's dress seemed odd to me. I had to dig a little deeper.
Think about it. Don't we always see politicians in shades or combinations of red, blue, navy, etc. Examples that quickly come to mind include Nancy Reagan's red dresses, Hillary's many shades of blues dresses and pantsuits, Laura Bush her many shades of blue and royal blue . . . the men follow the same the same etiquette. Why, because subliminally we are supposed to think of the red, white, and blue in our country's flag. I didn't have to dig very deep . . . here's the answer.
QuoteBlack and red bisected symbolism
The red-and-black flag is the symbol of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist movements. Black is the traditional color of anarchism, and red is the traditional color of socialism. The red-and-black flag combines the two colors in equal parts, with a simple diagonal split. Typically, the red section is placed on the top-left corner, with the black on the bottom-right corner of the flag. This symbolizes the co-existence of anarchist and socialist ideals within the anarcho-syndicalism movement, and to symbolize the more socialistic means of the movement leading to a more anarchistic end.
...
Lest anyone think that campaigns and politicians don't understand the importance and symbolism of the use of color in their campaigns, has anyone forgotten Hillary's orange pantsuit the night of her speech at the Democratic Convention in August?
At the time, I thought that was an odd choice too, until I realized that orange is a color of protest. HRC was so cool, protesting her unfair treatment by the DNC's selection of Obama in her orange suit, and it went over most people's heads. Way, to go, girl! It's just one of the reasons we loved you!
Memo to the Obama team: the choice of red & black clothing for this all important introduction to the American people was either one of the dumbest moves I've ever witnessed, or was incredibility insensitive to the history of this country, or was intentional.
You may want to remember that the last time the world had to deal with a charismatic leader capable of keeping millions of people mesmerized with his rhetoric, his iconic symbol, also in red and black, looked like this . . . [take a guess]
Dennis: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom.
Woman: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. We haven't got enough mud.
Intrepid Reader 7 Seconds: We'll attack! We'll attack! We'll attack in red and black!
Quote from: Thrillho on November 14, 2008, 12:55:40 AM
Holy shit... Where's our resident anarcho-syndicalist, Jon?
Off organizing for the IWW?
Apparently a fun new meme has been ricocheting around the internets while he's been out, taking root among Hillary dead-enders (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/05/election-open-thread-5/), conspiracy theorists (http://www.remoteviewer.nu/?p=9005) and the hilarious right (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/the-obamas-blac.html) alike...
http://hillarynme.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/the-obamas-first-faux-pas-behold-americas-new-first-family/
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2l9meme.jpg)
QuoteTHE OBAMAS FIRST FAUX PAS - BEHOLD AMERICA'S NEW FIRST FAMILY
In a campaign where nothing has been left to chance, we have America's new First Family, the Obamas, all decked out in red and black! When I looked at this picture this morning, I thought the choice of clothing colors was a bit odd. Really, who puts black on a little girl and why red & black on the all four of the Obamas?
Why this combination of colors, when surely the campaign has been planning what the first photographs of the incoming faux president and his family would look like for weeks? Even the criss/crossed material on Michelle's dress seemed odd to me. I had to dig a little deeper.
Think about it. Don't we always see politicians in shades or combinations of red, blue, navy, etc. Examples that quickly come to mind include Nancy Reagan's red dresses, Hillary's many shades of blues dresses and pantsuits, Laura Bush her many shades of blue and royal blue . . . the men follow the same the same etiquette. Why, because subliminally we are supposed to think of the red, white, and blue in our country's flag. I didn't have to dig very deep . . . here's the answer.
QuoteBlack and red bisected symbolism
The red-and-black flag is the symbol of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist movements. Black is the traditional color of anarchism, and red is the traditional color of socialism. The red-and-black flag combines the two colors in equal parts, with a simple diagonal split. Typically, the red section is placed on the top-left corner, with the black on the bottom-right corner of the flag. This symbolizes the co-existence of anarchist and socialist ideals within the anarcho-syndicalism movement, and to symbolize the more socialistic means of the movement leading to a more anarchistic end.
...
Lest anyone think that campaigns and politicians don't understand the importance and symbolism of the use of color in their campaigns, has anyone forgotten Hillary's orange pantsuit the night of her speech at the Democratic Convention in August?
At the time, I thought that was an odd choice too, until I realized that orange is a color of protest. HRC was so cool, protesting her unfair treatment by the DNC's selection of Obama in her orange suit, and it went over most people's heads. Way, to go, girl! It's just one of the reasons we loved you!
Memo to the Obama team: the choice of red & black clothing for this all important introduction to the American people was either one of the dumbest moves I've ever witnessed, or was incredibility insensitive to the history of this country, or was intentional.
You may want to remember that the last time the world had to deal with a charismatic leader capable of keeping millions of people mesmerized with his rhetoric, his iconic symbol, also in red and black, looked like this . . . [take a guess]
Dennis: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom.
Woman: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. We haven't got enough mud.
I don't know who wrote that but he's in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man on earth.
I saw Mike C surfing around here at Desipio the other day. His user status said "Posting in _______ Thread (probably this one)". He must have backed out, because the post never appeared. Now somebody links that site with his trackmarks all over it? That induced gut-busting laughter, I nearly fell right out of my chair. Gracious!
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Quote from: Mike D on November 14, 2008, 08:00:20 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 13, 2008, 09:29:11 PM
This. Is why I decided to sit back watch how this all plays out.
And how'd that work out for you?
Jury's out.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
No. Colin and Condi were the house Uncle Toms being nice to massah, until they were principled either by endorsing Obama (Powell) or by hailing Obama's election as a great moment in history (Rice).
Quote from: TJ on November 15, 2008, 09:47:02 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
No. Colin and Condi were the house Uncle Toms being nice to massah, until they were principled either by endorsing Obama (Powell) or by hailing Obama's election as a great moment in history (Rice).
Bush has 99 problems, bein' a bigot aint one. Hit me!
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
Quote from: TJ on November 15, 2008, 09:47:02 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
No. Colin and Condi were the house Uncle Toms being nice to massah, until they were principled either by endorsing Obama (Powell) or by hailing Obama's election as a great moment in history (Rice).
Lovely, TJ.
But, seriously... Credit (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/06/the_election_of_the_first_blac/) where credit (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/13/america/NA-US-Bush-Africa.php) is due (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html).
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:58:16 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 15, 2008, 09:47:02 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
No. Colin and Condi were the house Uncle Toms being nice to massah, until they were principled either by endorsing Obama (Powell) or by hailing Obama's election as a great moment in history (Rice).
Lovely, TJ.
But, seriously... Credit (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/06/the_election_of_the_first_blac/) where credit (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/13/america/NA-US-Bush-Africa.php) is due (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html).
I think Fork's point is lost in all this at long last. Sure, he'll feed 'em and give 'em jobs. Just so long as he doesn't have to talk to 'em.
Hit me!
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
In my other hand... hanging down near my knees. A/S/L?
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:04:31 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
In my other hand... hanging down near my knees. A/S/L?
Prove it.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:04:31 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
In my other hand... hanging down near my knees. A/S/L?
Prove it.
I tried, but I can't get my hairy chest and the bat in the same frame. I just got too much!
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:04:31 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
In my other hand... hanging down near my knees. A/S/L?
Prove it.
I tried, but I can't get my hairy chest and the bat in the same frame. I just got too much good stuff!
Has this one been driven into the ground and beaten to within an inch of its life yet?'d
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 10:05:39 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 10:04:31 AM
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 09:59:26 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: powen01 on November 15, 2008, 12:23:42 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.
Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.
Well shit. I want to be the Secs of State too. I would need to take Mondays off; on account of all the soreness and whatnot.
Are you man enough?
You tell me:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3031481211_e4192e49a0_o.jpg)
That's so obviously fake.
I mean... Where's the Slugger?
In my other hand... hanging down near my knees. A/S/L?
Prove it.
I tried, but I can't get my hairy chest and the bat in the same frame. I just got too much good stuff!
Has this one been driven into the ground and beaten to within an inch of its life yet?'d
Hey hey yo yo.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/nate-silver-signs-penguin-two-book-deal-worth-sum-high-six-figures
QuoteEarlier today Media Mob reported (http://www.observer.com/2008/media/fivethirtyeights-nate-silver-shopping-pair-books-one-art-prediction) that political polling expert Nate Silver, the wunderkind statistician behind the Web site FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/), was out with a proposal for two books: one about the art of prediction and the other a Freakonomics-style guide to the mechanics of electoral politics. Mr. Silver's agent, Sydelle Kramer of the Susan Rabiner Agency, told publishers she wanted indications of interest by Tuesday, but evidently the indications came faster than expected (so much for the art of prediction) and Ms. Kramer decided to just hold an auction today.
According to several sources, that auction has ended, and Penguin Group USA has prevailed.
Which of Penguin's imprint will publish Mr. Silver has not yet been determined, however, as there are at least three within the company that are jockeying for the privilege. The pricetag, we hear, is above $600,000 but below $1 million—a healthy sum even though it's paying for two books rather than just one. Update, 5:00 p.m.: New intelligence says Mr. Silver's advance is in the neighborhood of $700,000, give or take a few grand.
Laptop science is for penniless losers.
Giggedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_el_pr/clintons_overseas_ventures)
QuoteDuring her own White House campaign, the New York senator criticized China for its crackdown on protesters in Tibet and urged President George W. Bush to skip the Olympics in Beijing. Her campaign was embarrassed by reports that her husband's foundation had raised money from a Chinese Internet company that posted an online government "Most Wanted" notice seeking information on Tibetan human-rights activists that may have been involved in the demonstrations.
Hillary Clinton has campaigned as a champion of workers' rights. This year, Brazilian labor inspectors found what they called "degrading" living conditions for sugar cane workers employed by an ethanol company in which Bill Clinton invested.
I'm sure there's a completely phony and disgusting explanation for all this. And I bet a couple of you know where to find it. But when I tell you that one should not trust her to put the country's interests ahead of her own during high level discussions or tense negotiations with other nations' diplomats, this is what I'm talking about. It's not some crazy right-wing hatchet job either. It's right in front of your face, if you choose to look.
QuoteShe declined Friday to say anything about the matter, and Obama is understood to be considering other candidates as his top diplomat, including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Um... this? I guess.
QuoteIn a 6,400-word speech in London in March 2006, the former president laid out his views on a variety of world issues, including the Middle East peace process. Buried in the lengthy address were a few lines that could make a White House press office rush for damage control.
"The Palestinians are younger and poorer today than they were when we started the peace process in 1993," he said. "And I have never met a single poor Palestinian anywhere in the world except in the Palestinian territories. Every single Palestinian I know in America is a millionaire or a college professor, and I say that with deep respect, but when there is a conflict, when there is an absence of security, there is always an absence of opportunity."
Fucking clown college.
I was telling someone the other day there's no way in Hell JObama will give the two-headed Clinton hydra any presence in his Administration.
This shit reinforces that.
Besides, he's going all Muslim for his cabinet...ya heard?
Who's Apex and his box of ANGER talking to?
Son, the man hasn't been inaugurated yet and you're driving this bus at damn near 180 MPH. At this rate, you won't survive to the mid-term elections.
Some of you may laugh when I say I consider myself an independent, but Obama's the only Dem on the entire balot that I voted for on the 4th and really am tired of these ideological battles that brings out the worst in peope, me included. My first thought after the election was McCain for Sex of State. As it is, Obama--whose mention of Lincoln (twice) and the Republican Party (once) was my favorite part of his acceptance speech--may in fact be reaching across the aisle, even posssibly calling on Ape X' old buddy Dick Loogie, among others. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-team-of-rivalsnov15,0,5009913.story)
QuoteThe parallels aren't exact, to be sure. Lincoln brought several personal rivals into his Cabinet, making secretaries of opponents who had criticized him harshly. Obama's political history is a relatively short one, and, until he ran for president, his most serious rivalries were with the Illinois state senator he beat to join the state legislature and the Illinois congressman who defeated him.
But an elemental similarity remains, in their stated regard for advisers who come from outside the president's circle of friends and political allies.
Republican Hagel's name has surfaced in discussions about who should head the Departments of Defense and State. Republican Lugar, who was friendly and helpful to Obama on foreign policy issues in the Democrat's early days in the Senate, has also been discussed for secretary of state.
At the same time, Obama this weekend has dispatched former Rep. Jim Leach (R- Iowa) to help represent him at the G-20 summit. And sources familiar with the discussions say there is some consideration being given to keeping Robert Gates, Bush's defense secretary, in the same position.
I also agree that Bush isn't a bigot. But Apex' caricaturized hatred for Shrilllery makes my leg fall asleep. It's not even tiring anymore.
Anybody for a paradigm shift?
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 02:47:10 PM
QuoteThe parallels aren't exact, to be sure. Lincoln brought several personal rivals into his Cabinet, making secretaries of opponents who had criticized him harshly. Obama's political history is a relatively short one, and, until he ran for president, his most serious rivalries were with the Illinois state senator he beat to join the state legislature and the Illinois congressman who defeated him.
But an elemental similarity remains, in their stated regard for advisers who come from outside the president's circle of friends and political allies.
Republican Hagel's name has surfaced in discussions about who should head the Departments of Defense and State. Republican Lugar, who was friendly and helpful to Obama on foreign policy issues in the Democrat's early days in the Senate, has also been discussed for secretary of state.
At the same time, Obama this weekend has dispatched former Rep. Jim Leach (R- Iowa) to help represent him at the G-20 summit. And sources familiar with the discussions say there is some consideration being given to keeping Robert Gates, Bush's defense secretary, in the same position.
I believe Lugar already declined a cabinet position. I would love to see Hagel and Leach with positions in the Obama administration.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/05/1649916.aspx
QuoteFrom NBC's Andrea Mitchell
GOP Sen. Richard Lugar says he does not want to be Secretary of State or to join the Obama cabinet in another capacity. In response to speculation that Obama was considering Lugar for the State Department, a spokesman says the 76-year-old ranking Republican on Foreign Relations has definitely ruled it out. Lugar's spokesman says the senator has good relations with both Biden and Obama -- and looks forward to improving bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy from his position on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 02:47:10 PM
Who's Apex and his box of ANGER talking to?
Son, the man hasn't been inaugurated yet and you're driving this bus at damn near 180 MPH. At this rate, you won't survive to the mid-term elections.
...
I also agree that Bush isn't a bigot. But Apex' caricaturized hatred for Shrilllery makes my leg fall asleep. It's not even tiring anymore.
This.
No offense, not trying to start anything, just voicing my take. I believe that Bush embodies the term "bigot". To define -- in that he is intolerant of differing opinions.
Quote from: Thrillho on November 15, 2008, 03:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 02:47:10 PM
Who's Apex and his box of ANGER talking to?
Son, the man hasn't been inaugurated yet and you're driving this bus at damn near 180 MPH. At this rate, you won't survive to the mid-term elections.
...
I also agree that Bush isn't a bigot. But Apex' caricaturized hatred for Shrilllery makes my leg fall asleep. It's not even tiring anymore.
This.
What the hell. It's a fringe messageboard. A good place to voice one's anger and distrust and stir up conversation. I say things because I want someone to refute them with something I hadn't yet thought of. Most of you who have met me know I'm not as unreasonable as I act in this forum. Fuck if I care if you don't like my Hillary rants. I hope they bug the piss out of you. That's kind of the point. A little ball busting is good for the heart.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:18:35 PM
Fuck if I care if you don't like my Hillary rants. I hope they bug the piss out of you.
FAIL
"Bore". Not bug.
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:18:35 PM
Fuck if I care if you don't like my Hillary rants. I hope they bug the piss out of you.
FAIL
"Bore". Not bug.
Even better. You can skip them and read a few graphs some of Hoff's Puppies' latest manifesto. That oughta wake up that leg of yours.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 09:22:31 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:18:35 PM
Fuck if I care if you don't like my Hillary rants. I hope they bug the piss out of you.
FAIL
"Bore". Not bug.
Even better. You can skip them and read a few graphs some of Hoff's Puppies' latest manifesto. That oughta wake up that leg of yours.
Opposite end of the same coin?
No thanks. That shit makes my anus itch. Even worse.
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 09:56:35 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 09:22:31 PM
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 15, 2008, 08:18:35 PM
Fuck if I care if you don't like my Hillary rants. I hope they bug the piss out of you.
FAIL
"Bore". Not bug.
Even better. You can skip them and read a few graphs some of Hoff's Puppies' latest manifesto. That oughta wake up that leg of yours.
Opposite end of the same coin?
No thanks. That shit makes my anus itch. Even worse.
Nothing a little universal health care wouldn't fix.
You asked for it.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 16, 2008, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Mike D on November 15, 2008, 09:56:35 PM
No thanks. That shit makes my anus itch.
Nothing a little universal health care wouldn't fix.
Fat chance, on both fronts.
Newsweek does their best Fonzie imitation (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169192).
(http://i38.tinypic.com/s3jxnk.png)
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government
My father worked two jobs so he'd have money to put in the money hole and he never complained!
If you love America, you throw money in its hole!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/was_there_too_much_sex_and
McCain seemed to be completely in his element when he said that Obama's foreign policy resume was "shorter than a cunt hair."
So it wasn't a real janitor...
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_situation_in_nigeria
...
I can't wait for the remake of "V". I've got a lead already lined up.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/49236/thumbs/s-SMUG-large.jpg)
Normally I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when people lose their jobs, but this made me smile (http://www.examiner.com/a-1695984~Focus_on_the_Family_slashes_200_plus_positions.html).
A lot.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2008, 10:10:58 PM
Normally I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when people lose their jobs, but this made me smile (http://www.examiner.com/a-1695984~Focus_on_the_Family_slashes_200_plus_positions.html).
A lot.
"Great job on keeping those godless fags from ruining America, Joe. Unfortunately, we spent your salary on advertising for Proposition 8. Gotta let you go, my man. We'll pray that there's plenty of government cheese for your kids, buddy."
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 17, 2008, 04:28:05 PM
I can't wait for the remake of "V". I've got a lead already lined up.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/49236/thumbs/s-SMUG-large.jpg)
Know what I love about Caribou Barbie? The GOP has spent so much time railing against Hillary, then they wind up just finding their own version.
Steak sauce, my friends.
She'll be back-burnered for now, but if Obama is riding decent approval numbers in 2011, she'll find a remarkably easy road to the nomination, to make the transition from GOP Hillary to GOP Mondale.
Quote from: Fork on November 18, 2008, 06:02:43 AM
Know what I love about Caribou Barbie? The GOP has spent so much time railing against Hillary, then they wind up just finding their own version.
She's Hillaryesque in some people will never, never, never vote for her.
But that's about it. Hillary has got to be dumber than Sarah. I mean, Sarah went to 5 colleges and Hillary only went to two!
Quote from: Fork on November 18, 2008, 06:02:43 AM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 17, 2008, 04:28:05 PM
I can't wait for the remake of "V". I've got a lead already lined up.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/49236/thumbs/s-SMUG-large.jpg)
Know what I love about Caribou Barbie? The GOP has spent so much time railing against Hillary, then they wind up just finding their own version.
Steak sauce, my friends.
She'll be back-burnered for now, but if Obama is riding decent approval numbers in 2011, she'll find a remarkably easy road to the nomination, to make the transition from GOP Hillary to GOP Mondale.
As soon as she turns the nation's health care plan into a brutal non-starting clusterfuck and starts having her travel secretaries offed, I'll entertain one of your theories. The other one, GOP Mondale, is dead-on balls accurate.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 18, 2008, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 18, 2008, 06:02:43 AM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 17, 2008, 04:28:05 PM
I can't wait for the remake of "V". I've got a lead already lined up.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/49236/thumbs/s-SMUG-large.jpg)
Know what I love about Caribou Barbie? The GOP has spent so much time railing against Hillary, then they wind up just finding their own version.
Steak sauce, my friends.
She'll be back-burnered for now, but if Obama is riding decent approval numbers in 2011, she'll find a remarkably easy road to the nomination, to make the transition from GOP Hillary to GOP Mondale.
As soon as she turns the nation's health care plan into a brutal non-starting clusterfuck and starts having her travel secretaries offed, I'll entertain one of your theories. The other one, GOP Mondale, is dead-on balls accurate.
I have every confidence that there's nothing CB can't turn into a clusterfuck.
And by your statement, you're implying that at one point the nation had a health care plan. When was that?
Quote from: Fork on November 19, 2008, 04:39:04 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 18, 2008, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 18, 2008, 06:02:43 AM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 17, 2008, 04:28:05 PM
I can't wait for the remake of "V". I've got a lead already lined up.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/49236/thumbs/s-SMUG-large.jpg)
Know what I love about Caribou Barbie? The GOP has spent so much time railing against Hillary, then they wind up just finding their own version.
Steak sauce, my friends.
She'll be back-burnered for now, but if Obama is riding decent approval numbers in 2011, she'll find a remarkably easy road to the nomination, to make the transition from GOP Hillary to GOP Mondale.
As soon as she turns the nation's health care plan into a brutal non-starting clusterfuck and starts having her travel secretaries offed, I'll entertain one of your theories. The other one, GOP Mondale, is dead-on balls accurate.
I have every confidence that there's nothing CB can't turn into a clusterfuck.
And by your statement, you're implying that at one point the nation had a health care plan. When was that?
Before the white men came.
Can I ask what the big hate for nationalised health care is? The last 2 years I lived in the US, I didn't have any health cover because I worked at one of those college-graduate-transitional jobs that pay a middling amount and you ditch as soon as something better comes along. Health cover for a foreigner in Australia was expensive, but no more expensive that what normal people with pretty good health insurance in the US pay. Now that I'm a permanent resident, my wife and I together pay about $100 a month and get outstanding private cover, in addition to the basic Medicare cover. In fact the only reason we have to pay anything is because we make over the $60,000 threshhold of low-income.
I had to get an MRI recently and the doctor's visit cost nothing and the MRI cost me $36. And I was scheduled in the same day. I'm not sure what the comparative tax rates in AU and US are, but considering health bills can absolutely destroy people and even the worry about health insurance drives people mad, I am more than happy to pay a bit extra to ensure I'm not going to spend the rest of my life paying off the ramifications of a car accident. Or god forbid, get dropped off at Michael Reese hospital.
The main issues I see with nationalised health care in the US is that it would be harder to implement with 10 times the number of people and there are probably proportionally more welfare/poverty cases in the US than here. But it's not like when those people go to the E.R. the cost doesn't get passed on to everyone else anyway.
I think it's apples and oranges when you compare a country with the population of the US to some horseshit communist hell hole like Canada. I just don't see how it could possibly mean an improvement in health coverage for me personally. Maybe cheaper. Maybe not. I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it. I'm lucky I know, but also spent a year without coverage so I know what it means to be a piece of shit.
I will not comment on health care.
Quote from: RD on November 19, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
Can I ask what the big hate for nationalised health care is? The last 2 years I lived in the US, I didn't have any health cover because I worked at one of those college-graduate-transitional jobs that pay a middling amount and you ditch as soon as something better comes along. Health cover for a foreigner in Australia was expensive, but no more expensive that what normal people with pretty good health insurance in the US pay. Now that I'm a permanent resident, my wife and I together pay about $100 a month and get outstanding private cover, in addition to the basic Medicare cover. In fact the only reason we have to pay anything is because we make over the $60,000 threshhold of low-income.
I had to get an MRI recently and the doctor's visit cost nothing and the MRI cost me $36. And I was scheduled in the same day. I'm not sure what the comparative tax rates in AU and US are, but considering health bills can absolutely destroy people and even the worry about health insurance drives people mad, I am more than happy to pay a bit extra to ensure I'm not going to spend the rest of my life paying off the ramifications of a car accident. Or god forbid, get dropped off at Michael Reese hospital.
The main issues I see with nationalised health care in the US is that it would be harder to implement with 10 times the number of people and there are probably proportionally more welfare/poverty cases in the US than here. But it's not like when those people go to the E.R. the cost doesn't get passed on to everyone else anyway.
Hope you've enjoyed your time on the government work farm, comrade.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I think it's apples and oranges when you compare a country with the population of the US to some horseshit communist hell hole like Canada. I just don't see how it could possibly mean an improvement in health coverage for me personally. Maybe cheaper. Maybe not. I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it. I'm lucky I know, but also spent a year without coverage so I know what it means to be a piece of shit.
Apex got his.
Nothing left to worry about?
(Sorry... that was glib.)
Quote from: Furious George on November 19, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Quote from: RD on November 19, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
Can I ask what the big hate for nationalised health care is? The last 2 years I lived in the US, I didn't have any health cover because I worked at one of those college-graduate-transitional jobs that pay a middling amount and you ditch as soon as something better comes along. Health cover for a foreigner in Australia was expensive, but no more expensive that what normal people with pretty good health insurance in the US pay. Now that I'm a permanent resident, my wife and I together pay about $100 a month and get outstanding private cover, in addition to the basic Medicare cover. In fact the only reason we have to pay anything is because we make over the $60,000 threshhold of low-income.
I had to get an MRI recently and the doctor's visit cost nothing and the MRI cost me $36. And I was scheduled in the same day. I'm not sure what the comparative tax rates in AU and US are, but considering health bills can absolutely destroy people and even the worry about health insurance drives people mad, I am more than happy to pay a bit extra to ensure I'm not going to spend the rest of my life paying off the ramifications of a car accident. Or god forbid, get dropped off at Michael Reese hospital.
The main issues I see with nationalised health care in the US is that it would be harder to implement with 10 times the number of people and there are probably proportionally more welfare/poverty cases in the US than here. But it's not like when those people go to the E.R. the cost doesn't get passed on to everyone else anyway.
Hope you've enjoyed your time on the government work farm, comrade.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I think it's apples and oranges when you compare a country with the population of the US to some horseshit communist hell hole like Canada. I just don't see how it could possibly mean an improvement in health coverage for me personally. Maybe cheaper. Maybe not. I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it. I'm lucky I know, but also spent a year without coverage so I know what it means to be a piece of shit.
Apex got his.
Nothing left to worry about?
(Sorry... that was glib.)
Like my comment wasn't.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: Furious George on November 19, 2008, 08:59:01 PM
Quote from: RD on November 19, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
Can I ask what the big hate for nationalised health care is? The last 2 years I lived in the US, I didn't have any health cover because I worked at one of those college-graduate-transitional jobs that pay a middling amount and you ditch as soon as something better comes along. Health cover for a foreigner in Australia was expensive, but no more expensive that what normal people with pretty good health insurance in the US pay. Now that I'm a permanent resident, my wife and I together pay about $100 a month and get outstanding private cover, in addition to the basic Medicare cover. In fact the only reason we have to pay anything is because we make over the $60,000 threshhold of low-income.
I had to get an MRI recently and the doctor's visit cost nothing and the MRI cost me $36. And I was scheduled in the same day. I'm not sure what the comparative tax rates in AU and US are, but considering health bills can absolutely destroy people and even the worry about health insurance drives people mad, I am more than happy to pay a bit extra to ensure I'm not going to spend the rest of my life paying off the ramifications of a car accident. Or god forbid, get dropped off at Michael Reese hospital.
The main issues I see with nationalised health care in the US is that it would be harder to implement with 10 times the number of people and there are probably proportionally more welfare/poverty cases in the US than here. But it's not like when those people go to the E.R. the cost doesn't get passed on to everyone else anyway.
Hope you've enjoyed your time on the government work farm, comrade.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I think it's apples and oranges when you compare a country with the population of the US to some horseshit communist hell hole like Canada. I just don't see how it could possibly mean an improvement in health coverage for me personally. Maybe cheaper. Maybe not. I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it. I'm lucky I know, but also spent a year without coverage so I know what it means to be a piece of shit.
Apex got his.
Nothing left to worry about?
(Sorry... that was glib.)
Like my comment wasn't.
Hey, that's cool. I understand that trying to make things better sucks. Carry on.
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it.
You think you don't pay anything, but your outstretched spincter indicates otherwise.
Quote from: Fork on November 20, 2008, 05:23:37 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it.
You think you don't pay anything, but your outstretched spincter indicates otherwise.
Call me when the "efficient markets hypothesis" responds sensibly to the utterance "perianal boil."
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
Quote from: Fork on November 20, 2008, 05:23:37 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on November 19, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
I have one hell of a health plan right now and i don't pay anything for it.
You think you don't pay anything, but your outstretched spincter indicates otherwise.
Do you write the Onion's horoscopes?
Awfully similar there pal.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
I was going to say, is citing Al-Qaeda authoritative now? I thought they were evil and that even listening to them may cause one to become a terrorist?
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Mine would be in the neighborhood of $1000.00 a month.
From The Economist:
QuoteThe Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.
QuoteWhy is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin's apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.
Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today's pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.
Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of "real Americans", with their "volkish" wisdom and charming habit of dropping their "g"s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
No, it's racist to cite a racist's racist comment in an effort to make an absurd political argument that has no apparent grounding in facts or truth. The man has been president-elect for about two weeks, how about waiting until he's actually empowered to propose and sign legislation before criticizing the man.
Or do you believe that this
is "The Obama Recession?"
Quote from: Simmer on November 19, 2008, 08:58:24 PM
I will not comment on health care.
I actually think it might be enlightening, given your experience.
There are problems TJ's idea of making health care private, but I'll agree that having it tied to employment is faulty as well. Personally, I switched jobs this summer and my new position didn't cover health insurance until I'd been there three months. So I bought short-term health insurance -- which always sucks -- in case of emergency. During that short three-month time period, I had such an emergency and had to go to the hospital. Since the short-term health insurance sucked, like all short-term health insurance, I'm now stuck with a medical bill that is larger than my bank account. I'm not sure how I'm going to pay it, but I have to.
I don't have a specific complaint, but it seems unfair (I'm a liberal; that's my favorite word) that I've been employed at good jobs ever since I've been out of college, yet I still am stuck in a situation like this.
And my case isn't
nearly as bad as yours. Mostly just shitty luck, actually. I just wanted to point out that something is broken.
Quote from: Eli on November 20, 2008, 09:39:53 AM
Since the short-term health insurance sucked, like all short-term health insurance, I'm now stuck with a medical bill that is larger than my bank account. I'm not sure how I'm going to pay it, but I have to.
Petition the feds for a bailout.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
Taylor, it's funny. I have been able to suggest that Obama won't be especially successful as President, yet no one beyond the most idiotic would suggest this as evidence I am racist.
I'm not doing cartwheels since Obama won, but he deserves the respect the Office of the President commands.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 20, 2008, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
No, it's racist to cite a racist's racist comment in an effort to make an absurd political argument that has no apparent grounding in facts or truth. The man has been president-elect for about two weeks, how about waiting until he's actually empowered to propose and sign legislation before criticizing the man.
Or do you believe that this is "The Obama Recession?"
Didn't I just write that he's the greatest president-elect ever? He's certainly the first to create his own president-elect seal. The bestest thing is how much change he'll bring to Washington with his adminstration.
As for educated voters. I couldn't agree more. These educated people would never vote Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8)
OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 20, 2008, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 07:45:49 AM
Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone? Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?
Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable). The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:
1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.
Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
No, it's racist to cite a racist's racist comment in an effort to make an absurd political argument that has no apparent grounding in facts or truth. The man has been president-elect for about two weeks, how about waiting until he's actually empowered to propose and sign legislation before criticizing the man.
Or do you believe that this is "The Obama Recession?"
The market is just pricing in the tragedy to come.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:49:33 AM
As for educated voters. I couldn't agree more. These educated people would never vote Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8)
OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!
The guy behind that is a real winner:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html
Taylor, what are you doing man?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2008, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 20, 2008, 09:39:53 AM
Since the short-term health insurance sucked, like all short-term health insurance, I'm now stuck with a medical bill that is larger than my bank account. I'm not sure how I'm going to pay it, but I have to.
Petition the feds for a bailout.
I was actually thinking about asking various bankers and bloggers.
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 09:48:15 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
Taylor, it's funny. I have been able to suggest that Obama won't be especially successful as President, yet no one beyond the most idiotic would suggest this as evidence I am racist.
I'm not doing cartwheels since Obama won, but he deserves the respect the Office of the President commands.
TJ, I'm giving our president-elect all of the respect that the left gave George Bush when he
stoled won the election 8 years ago. Remember now dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but not after November 4, 2008.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 09:48:15 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 09:15:51 AM
Quote from: Furious George on November 20, 2008, 08:41:02 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 08:04:35 AM
Don't worry about it TJ or anything else for that matter. The house negro is going to take care of us forever.
And if he doesn't, I bet a racist strawman could come through in a pinch.
If he doesn't? Heresy!!!!! He's bringing real change to Washington. If he doesn't? Do you doubt for any second his ability to bring hope to all of us? It's racist to even think that he is not the most sucessful president-elect in our history.
Taylor, it's funny. I have been able to suggest that Obama won't be especially successful as President, yet no one beyond the most idiotic would suggest this as evidence I am racist.
I'm not doing cartwheels since Obama won, but he deserves the respect the Office of the President commands.
TJ, I'm giving our president-elect all of the respect that the left gave George Bush when he stoled won the election 8 years ago. Remember now dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but not after November 4, 2008.
Dissent is one thing—a noble thing.
Flapping your arms like a retard, and being tragically unfunny to boot, is something else entirely.
Quote from: 5laky on November 20, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Taylor, what are you doing man?
Just trying to have some fun. I wanted to see how fast and furious the response would be.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 20, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Taylor, what are you doing man?
Just trying to have some fun. I wanted to see how fast and furious the response would be.
2 Fast 2 Furious.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 20, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Taylor, what are you doing man?
Just trying to have some fun. I wanted to see how fast and furious the response would be.
Furious George?
Quote from: 5laky on November 20, 2008, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: 5laky on November 20, 2008, 09:54:43 AM
Taylor, what are you doing man?
Just trying to have some fun. I wanted to see how fast and furious the response would be.
Furious George?
(http://www.worth1000.com/entries/15000/15055_w.jpg)
For those interested, this is a Cato Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 11:23:18 AM
For those interested Libertarians, this is a Cato Libertarian Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Accurate portrayal of the Cato institute'd
I hate the Cato Institute. Not always for what they stand for, but for the fact that they pretend to be non-partisan. The truth is that they may criticize both sides, but they're "nonpartisan" in exactly the same way that the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood are.
QuoteThe mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 11:23:18 AM
For those interested Libertarians, this is a Cato Libertarian Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Accurate portrayal of the Cato institute'd
I hate the Cato Institute. Not always for what they stand for, but for the fact that they pretend to be non-partisan. The truth is that they may criticize both sides, but they're "nonpartisan" in exactly the same way that the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood are.
QuoteThe mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Yeah, they're libertarian. I thought by saying it was Cato, you'd understand it was libertarian-minded. Even so, this speech outlines the problems in health care are not limited to the U.S.
It's a stretch to call them non-partisan, because I suppose the Libertarian Party is their dog in the fight. They've hardly coddled the Bush Administration.
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 11:23:18 AM
For those interested Libertarians, this is a Cato Libertarian Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Accurate portrayal of the Cato institute'd
I hate the Cato Institute. Not always for what they stand for, but for the fact that they pretend to be non-partisan. The truth is that they may criticize both sides, but they're "nonpartisan" in exactly the same way that the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood are.
QuoteThe mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Yeah, they're libertarian. I thought by saying it was Cato, you'd understand it was libertarian-minded. Even so, this speech outlines the problems in health care are not limited to the U.S.
It's a stretch to call them non-partisan, because I suppose the Libertarian Party is their dog in the fight. They've hardly coddled the Bush Administration.
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view. I could easily post a link to an institute that does the same thing to show that full-blown communism or Islamofascism are the direction to go with our country. We've all avoided posting links to partisan websites in the political threads because they're really not credible. Sure, there are a lot of links like that from Liberal websites that I wouldn't have minded posting in here, but they would have gotten the same reaction, and rightly so.
A link to the Cato Institute website is roughly equivalent to a link to the RNC or DNC. After all, they're probably the most organized group of Libertarians in the country (certainly more so than the actual Libertarian Party of Splintered Clusterfuckedness).
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 11:23:18 AM
For those interested Libertarians, this is a Cato Libertarian Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Accurate portrayal of the Cato institute'd
I hate the Cato Institute. Not always for what they stand for, but for the fact that they pretend to be non-partisan. The truth is that they may criticize both sides, but they're "nonpartisan" in exactly the same way that the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood are.
QuoteThe mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Yeah, they're libertarian. I thought by saying it was Cato, you'd understand it was libertarian-minded. Even so, this speech outlines the problems in health care are not limited to the U.S.
It's a stretch to call them non-partisan, because I suppose the Libertarian Party is their dog in the fight. They've hardly coddled the Bush Administration.
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view. I could easily post a link to an institute that does the same thing to show that full-blown communism or Islamofascism are the direction to go with our country. We've all avoided posting links to partisan websites in the political threads because they're really not credible. Sure, there are a lot of links like that from Liberal websites that I wouldn't have minded posting in here, but they would have gotten the same reaction, and rightly so.
A link to the Cato Institute website is roughly equivalent to a link to the RNC or DNC. After all, they're probably the most organized group of Libertarians in the country (certainly more so than the actual Libertarian Party of Splintered Clusterfuckedness).
Enjoy
http://www.rnc.org/ (http://www.rnc.org/)
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view.
I know, right? Doesn't it bug the piss out of you when people do that? I mean... COME ON!!!
Quote from: ~Apex on November 20, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view.
I know, right? Doesn't it bug the piss out of you when people do that? I mean... COME ON!!!
I see what you did there.
Quote from: Taylor2 on November 20, 2008, 07:14:49 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 01:18:10 PM
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: TJ on November 20, 2008, 11:23:18 AM
For those interested Libertarians, this is a Cato Libertarian Institute Fellow talking about the U.S. health care system vis-a-vis other countries' systems. (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4781)
Accurate portrayal of the Cato institute'd
I hate the Cato Institute. Not always for what they stand for, but for the fact that they pretend to be non-partisan. The truth is that they may criticize both sides, but they're "nonpartisan" in exactly the same way that the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood are.
QuoteThe mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.
Yeah, they're libertarian. I thought by saying it was Cato, you'd understand it was libertarian-minded. Even so, this speech outlines the problems in health care are not limited to the U.S.
It's a stretch to call them non-partisan, because I suppose the Libertarian Party is their dog in the fight. They've hardly coddled the Bush Administration.
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view. I could easily post a link to an institute that does the same thing to show that full-blown communism or Islamofascism are the direction to go with our country. We've all avoided posting links to partisan websites in the political threads because they're really not credible. Sure, there are a lot of links like that from Liberal websites that I wouldn't have minded posting in here, but they would have gotten the same reaction, and rightly so.
A link to the Cato Institute website is roughly equivalent to a link to the RNC or DNC. After all, they're probably the most organized group of Libertarians in the country (certainly more so than the actual Libertarian Party of Splintered Clusterfuckedness).
Enjoy
http://www.rnc.org/ (http://www.rnc.org/)
At least they waited until McCain was no longer their standard-bearer before suing to overturn McCain-Feingold.
Quote from: De Jesus on November 20, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
My point is that they do skew things and cherry pick facts to support their point of view.
APEX IS RIGHT!! It's really a pain in the ass when people take something that you made a point about (not an argument that it was the only reason) (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=5985.msg154790#msg154790) and skew it to a black and white take that makes them "look" better. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=5985.msg154832#msg154832)
The nerve of some people. Damn!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AT26E20081130
Bracing for Apex...
Quote from: Furious George on November 30, 2008, 07:49:36 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AT26E20081130
Bracing for Apex...
While I'm confident HRC will at least be more competent than Condi Rice, this one's a baffler.
Unless part of the deal is that Bill winds up being Ambassador to the Vatican or something.
Quote from: Fork on December 01, 2008, 05:38:14 AM
While I'm confident HRC will at least be more competent than Condi Rice, this one's a baffler.
No it's not. It gets her out of the Senate so she cannot act as Vrdolyak 29 oppoisition chairman.
Also, with Daschle at HHS, a health care plan might jsut get through the senate. With Hilary's taint, there would be no chance.
This is about getting her out of the senate and into a role where she has to do what Obama says.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 01, 2008, 08:57:27 AM
Hilary's taint
Ugh. I pity any human who's ever had to cross that smelly bridge.
Quote from: RV on December 01, 2008, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 01, 2008, 08:57:27 AM
Hilary's taint
Ugh. I pity any human who's ever had to cross that smelly bridge.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2i1cwp5.jpg)
Try as I might, I can't seem to forget it.
Quote from: RV on December 01, 2008, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 01, 2008, 08:57:27 AM
Hilary's taint
Ugh. I pity any human who's ever had to cross that smelly bridge.
(http://www.ccsu.edu/courier/2004/April/Images/JanetReno.jpg)
This shit's officially official...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/electoral_vote
QuoteIn all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the 538 electors performed a constitutional process to legally elect Democrat Barack Obama the 44th president.
More than 131 million voters cast ballots — the most ever in a presidential election. But Obama's election is not complete until Congress tallies the outcome of Monday's Electoral College vote at a joint session scheduled for Jan. 6.
Monday's voting was largely ceremonial, the results preordained by Obama's Nov. 4 victory over Republican Sen. John McCain. Obama won 365 electoral votes, to 173 for McCain. With every state reporting, all the electors had cast ballots in accordance with the popular votes in their states.
An electoral vote for every day of the year.
Well... not
this year.
Quote from: Furious George on December 16, 2008, 01:00:43 AM
This shit's officially almost official...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/electoral_vote
QuoteIn all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the 538 electors performed a constitutional process to legally elect Democrat Barack Obama the 44th president.
More than 131 million voters cast ballots — the most ever in a presidential election. But Obama's election is not complete until Congress tallies the outcome of Monday's Electoral College vote at a joint session scheduled for Jan. 6.
Monday's voting was largely ceremonial, the results preordained by Obama's Nov. 4 victory over Republican Sen. John McCain. Obama won 365 electoral votes, to 173 for McCain. With every state reporting, all the electors had cast ballots in accordance with the popular votes in their states.
An electoral vote for every day of the year.
Well... not this year.
One more formality'd.
Oh, and one piece of trivia: The reason the IL Gen. Assy met so late in the day was that Illinois' electors met in the chamber in the statehouse earlier.
bhold teh future f newz!
(http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7656/grassleyfacebookth4.png) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 01, 2008, 08:57:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 01, 2008, 05:38:14 AM
While I'm confident HRC will at least be more competent than Condi Rice, this one's a baffler.
No it's not. It gets her out of the Senate so she cannot act as Vrdolyak 29 oppoisition chairman.
Also, with Daschle at HHS, a health care plan might jsut get through the senate. With Hilary's taint, there would be no chance.
This is about getting her out of the senate and into a role where she has to do what Obama says.
This.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEtOI8ay_-XoZrKX9qFZBXsDQb7wD955A1H80
Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor.
Her name sounds made up, but would Gil care to weigh in?
(Adding: Or Stew, for that matter?)
Quote from: Furious George on December 18, 2008, 03:14:48 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEtOI8ay_-XoZrKX9qFZBXsDQb7wD955A1H80
Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor.
Her name sounds made up, but would Gil care to weigh in?
(Adding: Or Stew, for that matter?)
I find it curious that Labor was the last Cabinet post to be selected. Perhaps Andy Stern (SEIU President) was the pick before the Blago brew-ha-ha? In any event, she is a pick the Left will like immensely. She is a bit of a radical, but on the whole, not a terrible choice for the Labor Department from a Democratic president.
I'm, of course, waiting to hear who the nominees are for the NLRB. We've had three open seats for about a year now. Maybe a new General Counsel, though the current incumbent's term expires in 2010.
Is that number significant in your opinion?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avTXAfm9.vhM
QuoteJan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of England cut the benchmark interest rate to the lowest since the central bank was founded in 1694 as policy makers tried to prevent the credit squeeze from deepening Britain's recession.
The bank rate was reduced a half-point to 1.5 percent, bringing policy makers closer to the point at which they will run out of options to fight the financial crisis with conventional tools. The pound rose against the euro and the dollar because some investors had bet on a larger reduction.
"They'll come down below 1 percent by the second quarter," said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Securities in London. "Things have deteriorated further and this highlights the need for further monetary stimulus. Non- conventional monetary policy techniques are on the cards."
Quote from: Tank on January 08, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
Is that number significant in your opinion?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avTXAfm9.vhM
QuoteJan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of England cut the benchmark interest rate to the lowest since the central bank was founded in 1694 as policy makers tried to prevent the credit squeeze from deepening Britain's recession.
The bank rate was reduced a half-point to 1.5 percent, bringing policy makers closer to the point at which they will run out of options to fight the financial crisis with conventional tools. The pound rose against the euro and the dollar because some investors had bet on a larger reduction.
"They'll come down below 1 percent by the second quarter," said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Securities in London. "Things have deteriorated further and this highlights the need for further monetary stimulus. Non- conventional monetary policy techniques are on the cards."
I too mourned the death of Mary II.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 09, 2009, 12:34:42 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 08, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
Is that number significant in your opinion?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avTXAfm9.vhM
QuoteJan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Bank of England cut the benchmark interest rate to the lowest since the central bank was founded in 1694 as policy makers tried to prevent the credit squeeze from deepening Britain's recession.
The bank rate was reduced a half-point to 1.5 percent, bringing policy makers closer to the point at which they will run out of options to fight the financial crisis with conventional tools. The pound rose against the euro and the dollar because some investors had bet on a larger reduction.
"They'll come down below 1 percent by the second quarter," said Philip Shaw, chief economist at Investec Securities in London. "Things have deteriorated further and this highlights the need for further monetary stimulus. Non- conventional monetary policy techniques are on the cards."
I too mourned the death of Mary II.
I thought it was Stew that said that so I laughed more than I should have.
Nate Silver with the TAXFACE on Greg Mankiw.
QuoteIn poker terms, this is what we'd call a "tell". Mankiw doesn't have anything. He's bluffing. Out of ideas. Taking one for the team, and touting the party line for shits and giggles. Except, this isn't exactly fun and games, and Mankiw should leave the discussions to people who are serious about getting our economy moving again.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/intellectual-dishonesty-gasp-from.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/intellectual-dishonesty-gasp-from.html)
Does Nate Silver think the Cubs' new board game magnate should be playing in left?
Does Nate Silver "get it"?
I love the expression "Authentically Black" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-trice-05-jan05,0,6132899.column). It just makes my heart skip a beat with joy.
Quote from: IrishYeti on January 12, 2009, 10:15:12 AM
I love the expression "Authentically Black" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-trice-05-jan05,0,6132899.column). It just makes my heart skip a beat with joy.
It's simple...just watch the "Blacks Without Soul" segment from "Amazon Women On The Moon". Taught me all I need to know.
This. (http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/)
QuoteWhy is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 13, 2009, 09:07:23 PM
This. (http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/)
QuoteWhy is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.
If this was by someone other than that drunk, contrarian limey blowhard, I might have read the whole thing.
As it is, I'll let you enjoy it yourself and just say that using the Senate's advice and consent role in administration Cabinet appointments as your litmus test for an overly compliant Congress of "a bankrupt banana republic" is pretty thin gruel. Particularly in the wake of Hitch's own support of GW Bush, however conflicted or single-issue–based.
Quote from: Tank on January 13, 2009, 11:17:11 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 13, 2009, 09:07:23 PM
This. (http://www.slate.com/id/2208425/)
QuoteWhy is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.
If this was by someone other than that drunk, contrarian limey blowhard, I might have read the whole thing.
As it is, I'll let you enjoy it yourself and just say that using the Senate's advice and consent role in administration Cabinet appointments as your litmus test for an overly compliant Congress of "a bankrupt banana republic" is pretty thin gruel. Particularly in the wake of Hitch's own support of GW Bush, however conflicted or single-issue–based.
Just for comparison...Hitchens has spent more time on GWB's meatpipe than Yellon ever would on Crane Kenney's.
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
So, who's going to the inauguration? I know I am. Not.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on January 14, 2009, 07:37:53 AM
So, who's going to the inauguration? I know I am. Not.
Hillary's going.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:39:10 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on January 14, 2009, 07:37:53 AM
So, who's going to the inauguration? I know I am. Not.
Hillary's going.
I'd like to see Hillary and Barack in a fist fight.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush
even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.
What were the "right reasons", and how were the reasons any more "right" than a good half-dozen other dictators in the world, who had the good fortune of not sitting on top of a huge oil reserve?
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 08:09:48 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.
What wereand how were the reasons any more "right" than a good half-dozen other dictators in the world, who had the good fortune of not sitting on top of a huge oil reserve?
Answered.
Far worse things are going on in Darfur than in Iraq.
The concept of "spreading democracy" is Bob Babich-retarded.
That said, I have no problem with Chris Hitchens. I know many Democrats that also supported the war at the beginning. I'm not about to discredit them for one mistake. Hitchens also supported Obama prior to the election.
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 14, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
The concept of "spreading democracy" is Bob Babich-retarded.
That said, I have no problem with Chris Hitchens. I know many Democrats that also supported the war at the beginning. I'm not about to discredit them for one mistake. Hitchens also supported Obama prior to the election.
Hitchens is a jackass who knew McCain was a loser...hell, a numbnuts like me was able to not only call the Presidential race but also the GOP's fight to keep filibuster a year ago.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
I bet he has.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on January 14, 2009, 10:34:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
I bet he has.
It's a sucker bet.
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 14, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
The concept of "spreading democracy" is Bob Babich-retarded.
That said, I have no problem with Chris Hitchens. I know many Democrats that also supported the war at the beginning. I'm not about to discredit them for one mistake. Hitchens also supported Obama prior to the election.
It's not about whether Hitch supported the war or didn't, Mike. It's about his attitude towards those he disagrees with. Granted, he's a polemicist by trade and disposition, so I guess we should expect a certain amount of provocativeness. At the same time, he's also simply an asshole with an unearned sense of self-righteousness.
He's a pretty decent (and prolific) writer, though.
And he's willing to admit when he's changed his opinion on something.
You'd think, though, that publicly declaring that you were wrong about something might make one a touch more humble in one's opinions going forward. Instead, it just seems to reinforce his self-righteous assholery. That is how it often seems goes with one-time Communists, though.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 08:09:48 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.
What were the "right reasons", and how were the reasons any more "right" than a good half-dozen other dictators in the world, who had the good fortune of not sitting on top of a huge oil reserve?
Please don't discount the factor of showing up his daddy.
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2009, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 14, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
The concept of "spreading democracy" is Bob Babich-retarded.
That said, I have no problem with Chris Hitchens. I know many Democrats that also supported the war at the beginning. I'm not about to discredit them for one mistake. Hitchens also supported Obama prior to the election.
It's not about whether Hitch supported the war or didn't, Mike. It's about his attitude towards those he disagrees with. Granted, he's a polemicist by trade and disposition, so I guess we should expect a certain amount of provocativeness. At the same time, he's also simply an asshole with an unearned sense of self-righteousness.
He's a pretty decent (and prolific) writer, though.
And he's willing to admit when he's changed his opinion on something.
You'd think, though, that publicly declaring that you were wrong about something might make one a touch more humble in one's opinions going forward. Instead, it just seems to reinforce his self-righteous assholery. That is how it often seems goes with one-time Communists, though.
Every time I agree with Hitchens a little part of me dies inside. He is a pompous ass.
Quote from: Jon on January 14, 2009, 06:49:53 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2009, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 14, 2009, 10:25:34 AM
The concept of "spreading democracy" is Bob Babich-retarded.
That said, I have no problem with Chris Hitchens. I know many Democrats that also supported the war at the beginning. I'm not about to discredit them for one mistake. Hitchens also supported Obama prior to the election.
It's not about whether Hitch supported the war or didn't, Mike. It's about his attitude towards those he disagrees with. Granted, he's a polemicist by trade and disposition, so I guess we should expect a certain amount of provocativeness. At the same time, he's also simply an asshole with an unearned sense of self-righteousness.
He's a pretty decent (and prolific) writer, though.
And he's willing to admit when he's changed his opinion on something.
You'd think, though, that publicly declaring that you were wrong about something might make one a touch more humble in one's opinions going forward. Instead, it just seems to reinforce his self-righteous assholery. That is how it often seems goes with one-time Communists, though.
Every time I agree with Hitchens a little part of me dies inside. He is a pompous ass.
Every time I agree with Hitchens, he finds a way to lose me again before he's through.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 14, 2009, 07:35:25 AM
Precisely the reactions I thought I'd garner. I could set my watch to this shit. And wear it on my belt.
Hitchens compared GWB to Jefferson. I'm not even sure Bush even read the Declaration of Independence.
and, I've never said we don't have our douchebags too. Just Hitchens is one of the worst. It would be tantamount to me quoting Olbermann, which I've never done.
I disagree that he's either as illiterate as Olbermann, that being a drunk is a bad thing or that he compared Bush to the Declaration of Independence. Hitchens was in favor of overthrowing Saddam for all the right reasons. He criticized Bush's handling of the war all the way along, though he still supported the continued occupation of Iraq in the interest of promoting Democracy there. As did I. And I also drink a lot.
"Promoting Democracy" in Iraq was a stupid reason to go in there, based upon the ridiculously simplistic "Roots of Muslim Rage" concept espoused by Bernard Lewis. Choosing Iraq as the state to jumpstart democracy, while having nothing to do with oil (hell, we get 80% of our oil from North and South America), was still a bad idea, given the relative threat Hussein posed to the United States. Furthermore, as expected, the invasion opened up the Al Qaeda terrorist network to a whole lot of people displaced by the war. Much like the way Operation Ajax helped push people towards Khomeini in Iran, the more the U.S. overtly meddles in the Middle East, the more moderate Muslims move towards Wahabbism.
This isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, either. A whole lot of people were saying this in 2003. And yet the Cold Warriors in the Bush administration decided to view the Middle East in the same way they viewed Communism (it isn't surprising, given their prominence in Cold War era administrations). Democracy can never be heaped upon any country in the Middle East-it needs to at least appear to come about organically.
Now that we've done the fucktard thing and invaded the damn place, it would be even dumber to advocate for a complete pullout of Iraq. However, this war has not only worsened our relationship with even moderates in the Middle East, it has also hamstrung our military and we cannot effectively engage actual threats like Iran. It was a bad idea, regardless of any kind of vague notion of "promoting democracy."
And as far as Christopher Hitchens goes, I love the fact that the only way Hilary Clinton could have possibly learned about foreign affairs is through her husband. She should have known her place and stayed in the kitchen, huh Chris?
Don't forget Bush's farewell speech is tonight.
You're welcome, America.*
*also the partial title of Will Ferrell's upcoming Broadway show.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 15, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Don't forget Bush's farewell speech is tonight.
You're welcome, America.*
*also the partial title of Will Ferrell's upcoming Broadway show.
Why couldn't it have been last night, when there was a hockey game on?
The Economist: Assessing the Bush Years (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)
[/presidency]
Quote from: ChuckD on January 18, 2009, 10:46:37 AM
The Economist: Assessing the Bush Years (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)
[/presidency]
They had me at "army of over-promoted, ideologically vetted homunculi."
Quote from: Tank on January 18, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
"army of over-promoted, ideologically vetted homunculi."
Quite a coup for the Economist to get the late Bill Hicks to write that article.
http://vigorousnorth.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-belt-how-soil-types-determined.html
"... the story of how voting patterns in the 2008 election were essentially determined 85 million years ago, in the Cretaceous Period."
In the Deep South, anyways.
Fascinating stuff.
Quote from: Tank on January 18, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 18, 2009, 10:46:37 AM
The Economist: Assessing the Bush Years (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660)
[/presidency]
They had me at "army of over-promoted, ideologically vetted homunculi."
Wow, I used to read the Economist regularly. I need to go back.
This (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama).
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 10:46:38 AM
This (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama).
This was the highlight for me...
Quote
Obama is scheduled to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009.His assigned Secret Service codename is "Renegade." "Renegade" was first used to describe someone who had turned from their religion, coming from the Spanish word renegado meaning "Christian turned Muslim."
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2009, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 10:46:38 AM
This (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama).
This was the highlight for me...
Quote
Obama is scheduled to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009.His assigned Secret Service codename is "Renegade." "Renegade" was first used to describe someone who had turned from their religion, coming from the Spanish word renegado meaning "Christian turned Muslim."
How were able to pick only one?
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2009, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 10:46:38 AM
This (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama).
This was the highlight for me...
Quote
Obama is scheduled to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009.His assigned Secret Service codename is "Renegade." "Renegade" was first used to describe someone who had turned from their religion, coming from the Spanish word renegado meaning "Christian turned Muslim."
Better than Negroid-American?
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2009, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 10:46:38 AM
This (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama).
This was the highlight for me...
Quote
Obama is scheduled to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009.His assigned Secret Service codename is "Renegade." "Renegade" was first used to describe someone who had turned from their religion, coming from the Spanish word renegado meaning "Christian turned Muslim."
Better than Negroid-American?
Oh, my sweet huminah huminah...
http://christopedia.us/wiki/Negroid-American
QuoteNegroid-American is a term describing the variant of the Negroid subspecies of human currently residing in the United States. While used indiscriminately to refer to any Negro living in America, whether they are pureblood or not, generally Negroid-Americans have on average 28% White blood. This is believed to account for their higher intelligence and lower crime rates than pure-blooded Negroes. Nevertheless, on average this group still accounts for 50% of all crime in the United States despite constituting only 12.4% of America's population.
This article is a stub. You can help Christopedia prosper by expanding it.
http://christopedia.us/wiki/Racial_differences_between_Negroes_and_Caucasians
Quote(http://i42.tinypic.com/ou9usx.jpg)
Comparison of a Negro and Caucasian male
Quote(http://i39.tinypic.com/b6d5w7.jpg)
Negroes looting a store in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Looting was widespread in a city whose population was over two-thirds Negro at the time of divine retribution.
This has to be a parody, right?
Right?
I'm pretty sure they're on the level (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Main_Page), there's way too much here for it to be all satire.
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
I'm pretty sure they're on the level (http://christopedia.us/wiki/Main_Page), there's way too much here for it to be all satire.
Well, a great deal of it is clearly either copied whole cloth or adapted from Wikipedia.
There are only 61 registered editors (http://christopedia.us/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500), possibly the majority of those obvious and confirmed trolls.
Overall, it appears to be little more than one man (http://christopedia.us/wiki/User:XenonII)'s labor of love (http://christopedia.us/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidebots=0&days=30&limit=500).
That said, it still strikes me as too earnest to be satire.
Adding...
http://christopedia.us/wiki/Zionist_Occupied_Government
Hoo, boy.
Yup... I think I'm getting the picture here.
http://christopedia.us/wiki/David_Duke
QuoteDuke has been attacked as an antisemite by neoMarxist groups for his public statements against Jewish plots for world domination, and as a white supremacist, while Duke proclaims he is a white nationalist.
Yikes, Fork.
And they're pretty open about stealing their info.
http://christopedia.us/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
This article may be biased in favor of a liberal perspective.
This article contains unrefined material from Wikipedia and is therefore unlikely to conform with Christopedia's Christian Point of View policy. Please improve the article by removing manifestations of leftist propaganda and political correctness.
Quote from: HST Redux on January 20, 2009, 01:30:45 PM
And they're pretty open about stealing their info.
It's not stealing as long as he keeps the GNU Free Documentation License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations
OK, so we can get access here, but not BCB...
Last week's Sports Illustrated, in a brilliant move to stay relevant, analyzed Obama from the aspect of his love of basketball. It appears that he regularly plays with some of his buddies. Oddly, many of his advisors and cabinet members have basketball in their backgrounds. This may be my last chance to break into big time politics. I hate basketball. I am no good at it. I have no physical attributes necessary for basketball. I am short. I am slow. I am old. I bet I would really make him look great on the court. If any of you Chicagoans have access, Let him know that I can put together my version of the Washington Generals to play against his squad on a daily basis.
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Here's my question, who screwed up first on the Oath: President Obama or Chief Justice Roberts?
I also seem to remember hearing Justice Stevens screwing up a bit with Biden's oath as well.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 07:48:07 PM
Here's my question, who screwed up first on the Oath: President Obama or Chief Justice Roberts?
Obama started repeating his first line before Roberts was done, but Roberts screwed up the second line.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
Teddy landed on him.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
Teddy landed on him.
That, and he's really, really old. These things happen to old guys from time to time. This should serve as a lesson to all old guys --- always be on the lookout for drunken, bloated, falling, irishmen.
Quote from: Eli on January 20, 2009, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 07:48:07 PM
Here's my question, who screwed up first on the Oath: President Obama or Chief Justice Roberts?
Obama started repeating his first line before Roberts was done, but Roberts screwed up the second line.
Twice.
First he put the "faithfully" at the end. The second time he left out the word "execute".
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
What am I, a doctor?
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 20, 2009, 09:51:11 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
Teddy landed on him.
That, and he's really, really old. These things happen to old guys from time to time. This should serve as a lesson to all old guys --- always be on the lookout for drunken, bloated, falling, irishmen.
OR: He woke up from his nap, realized he wasn't having a nightmare, indeed a Negro really had been sworn in as the POTUS and immediately swallowed his tongue.
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 10:14:04 PM
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 20, 2009, 09:51:11 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
Teddy landed on him.
That, and he's really, really old. These things happen to old guys from time to time. This should serve as a lesson to all old guys --- always be on the lookout for drunken, bloated, falling, irishmen.
OR: He woke up from his nap, realized he wasn't having a nightmare, indeed a Negro Negroid really had been sworn in as the POTUS and immediately swallowed his tongue.
Christopedia'd
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
That's alright... CT stole it from Fork in the first place (who, in turn, stole it from Mel Zetz).
Quote from: Tank on January 21, 2009, 12:15:47 AM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
That's alright... CT stole it from Fork in the first place (who, in turn, stole it from Mel Zetz).
It's off his album, "Mel Zetz Plays All His Hits".
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
My understanding is that Byrd was upset at seeing Teddy keel over in DTs, so he excused himself. (except for the DTs, I'm being serious)
Quote from: Zed on January 21, 2009, 07:46:15 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2009, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: CT II on January 20, 2009, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on January 20, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
All in all it was a pretty good inauguration day. I'm pretty sure my favorite part was when Obama started talking and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd keeled over. CHANGE, BITCH!
As the new President paid homage to those who came before him and recognized the seemingly insurmountable obstacle on which he spoke from the summit, he pointed to a much larger, daunting mountain on the horizon, which we as a people will have to climb together and blah, blah, blah. But somebody said, "No, Mr. President, that's just Teddy Kennedy lying on the floor. He's had another seizure or something." Somehow, paramedics hauled his ass out of there everybody finished their lunch.
Teddy's fine. Evidentally, somebody walked up to him and said "Senator Kennedy, the bar won't be open for another 25 minutes" and he keeled over. They got a couple of liters of gin into him, and now he's stable.
Oh, my. You bet your sweet, tasty little ass I'm stealing that.
So, what was the story with Sen. Byrd then?
My understanding is that Byrd was upset at seeing Teddy keel over in DTs, so he excused himself. (except for the DTs, I'm being serious)
Damn, I was hoping for the Super Sunday Senate Codger-Off. NOW what will I do for entertainment?
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 20, 2009, 09:51:11 PM
That, and he's really, really old. These things happen to old guys from time to time. This should serve as a lesson to all old guys --- always be on the lookout for drunken, bloated, falling, irishmen.
What if I'm both?
Quote from: flannj on January 21, 2009, 08:29:44 AM
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 20, 2009, 09:51:11 PM
That, and he's really, really old. These things happen to old guys from time to time. This should serve as a lesson to all old guys --- always be on the lookout for drunken, bloated, falling, irishmen.
What if I'm both?
Try to fall up against Huey, and you two can support each other.
Am I terrible for thinking about Sen. Byrd's placement on my Dead Pool list when I heard the news about his collapse?
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Maybe he included David Rice Atchison, even though he never took the oath.
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Maybe he included David Rice Atchison, even though he never took the oath.
Also, probably the worst poem at an inaugural ever. Pure shit.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:22:30 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Maybe he included David Rice Atchison, even though he never took the oath.
Also, probably the worst poem at an inaugural ever. Pure shit.
Was it the poem from BCB? That one is an A+ poem.
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
Appeal it to the Supreme Court. Roberts would be one of the final arbiters of the decision. Considering he said, "Congratulations, Mr. President," I think that case would fail.
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Maybe he included David Rice Atchison, even though he never took the oath.
I think he was including Al Haig.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
Appeal it to the Supreme Court. Roberts would be one of the final arbiters of the decision. Considering he said, "Congratulations, Mr. President," I think that case would fail.
You would also be the least popular man in the country if you attempted to argue that case.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on January 21, 2009, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
Appeal it to the Supreme Court. Roberts would be one of the final arbiters of the decision. Considering he said, "Congratulations, Mr. President," I think that case would fail.
You would also be the least popular man in the country if you attempted to argue that case.
My guess is if anyone did try to argue it they would have a certain number of rather devout fans.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on January 21, 2009, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
Appeal it to the Supreme Court. Roberts would be one of the final arbiters of the decision. Considering he said, "Congratulations, Mr. President," I think that case would fail.
You would also be the least popular man in the country if you attempted to argue that case.
Well, Alan Keyes doesn't give two shits about popularity.
And he's been known to file frivolous suits in which he lacks legal standing.
And we could all really use a laugh or two these days.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:22:30 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2009, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2009, 09:06:22 AM
Chris Wallace was on Fox News last night, asking if Obama's oath was valid because Roberts clutched on the phrasing.
What a chode.
At twelve noon, regardless of the administration of the oath, Obama became president.
Both guys were nervous, and that makes me feel comfortable.
I'm just upset that Obama botched the total number of presidents there have been. In his address, he cited the "44 men" who have taken the oath.
In reality, there have only been 43. Grover Cleveland...two non-consecutive terms.
Maybe he included David Rice Atchison, even though he never took the oath.
Also, probably the worst poem at an inaugural ever. Pure shit.
My office watched the inauguration in our conference room. The poem cleared the room after about thirty seconds. Thank goodness. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten any work done yesterday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I are 2 separate people.
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I are 2 separate people.
We're all gonna play together, though, right? Right after we chase sunsets?
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
We can communicate via the fantasy basketball boards. Inside jokes there are very easy to figure out so no one's left out!
Quote from: JD on January 21, 2009, 05:35:50 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
We can communicate via the fantasy basketball boards. Inside jokes there are very easy to figure out so no one's left out!
I'm on the verge of signing a three year deal* with Eli's blog. I'll keep you posted. Negotiations are tense.
* with incentives
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: JD on January 21, 2009, 05:35:50 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
We can communicate via the fantasy basketball boards. Inside jokes there are very easy to figure out so no one's left out!
I'm on the verge of signing a three year deal* with Eli's blog. I'll keep you posted. Negotiations are tense.
* with incentives
(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1743/fryseewhatyoudidtherear7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
Aw don't be like that Slaky! you're an ORIGINAL SHOUTBOXER, dawg!
Don't forget where you came from, hoss. Never forget.
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
Aw don't be like that Slaky! you're an ORIGINAL SHOUTBOXER, dawg!
Don't forget where you came from, hoss. Never forget.
Like we need another dinglechugging statfaggot anyway. That bearded hippie homo doesn't know what it's like to shave another man's beard after playing a hotly contested game of shirts and skins.
Quote from: RV on January 21, 2009, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 06:03:29 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Douche on January 21, 2009, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: butthead on January 21, 2009, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: BH on January 21, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481230,00.html
"Last month, the family made national news when they claimed a grocery store refused to make a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for their son."
Good to see that, even though you're no longer present in the SBox, your legacy of DRLP lives on.
Good to see that, people that don't partake in SBox conversations, need to know what was discussed in the SBox each day.
And we do need this information. You're doing important work, BH. Thank you.
To answer JD's question before he asks it, butthead and I amre 2 separate people.
More inside ShoutBox humor'd.
Since we needed more of that around here.
Soon I'll have to start avoiding Desipio too.
Aw don't be like that Slaky! you're an ORIGINAL SHOUTBOXER, dawg!
Don't forget where you came from, hoss. Never forget.
Like we need another dinglechugging statfaggot anyway. That bearded hippie homo doesn't know what it's like to shave another man's beard after playing a hotly contested game of shirts and skins.
This hits kinda close to home, man.
Also: I prefer skins and skins.
If it aint skin, it aint in.
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
I'm on the verge of signing a three year deal* with Eli's blog. I'll keep you posted. Negotiations are tense.
* with incentives
A three-year deal for anything I'm in charge of? That's probably a poor move.
Or was that the joke? I'm not very good at this.
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2009, 11:03:35 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 21, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
I'm on the verge of signing a three year deal* with Eli's blog. I'll keep you posted. Negotiations are tense.
* with incentives
A three-year deal for anything I'm in charge of? That's probably a poor move.
Or was that the joke? I'm not very good at this.
You aren't, are you?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
From what I've gathered, you aren't that kind of conservative. You're the fiscal type, right?
Good for Patterson. I had been holding out hope that Governor Doofus would have been ousted shortly after being arrested in December and that Pat Quinn would have made a similarly unpredictable selection for Obama's vacated Senate seat.
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
From what I've gathered, you aren't that kind of conservative. You're the fiscal type, right?
I am indeed... closer to libertarian, but without the Ron Paul crazy, you know? I'm generally a gun rights kind of guy, held my nose in favor of TARP (only because I didn't see a credible alternative to getting the government involved) and on ghey marriage my instinct is "live and let live" but I can see that it's not open-and-shut.
I just lifted that quote because it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a New York Senator.
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
From what I've gathered, you aren't that kind of conservative. You're the fiscal type, right?
I am indeed... closer to libertarian, but without the Ron Paul crazy, you know? I'm generally a gun rights kind of guy, held my nose in favor of TARP (only because I didn't see a credible alternative to getting the government involved) and on ghey marriage my instinct is "live and let live" but I can see that it's not open-and-shut.
I just lifted that quote because it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a New York Senator.
Just checking up on you is all. Keep one eye open. The other eye can be open or closed, doesn't matter. Your choice, dude.
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
From what I've gathered, you aren't that kind of conservative. You're the fiscal type, right?
I am indeed... closer to libertarian, but without the Ron Paul crazy, you know? I'm generally a gun rights kind of guy, held my nose in favor of TARP (only because I didn't see a credible alternative to getting the government involved) and on ghey marriage my instinct is "live and let live" but I can see that it's not open-and-shut.
I just lifted that quote because it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a New York Senator.
Just checking up on you is all. Keep one eye open. The other eye can be open or closed, doesn't matter. Your choice, dude.
If I'm not careful with the whole eyes-open-or-closed thing I could end up like ths guy.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/3081100972_bf449fc819_o.jpg)
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 01:02:07 PM
Quote from: Zed on January 23, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm
Hillary's replacement.
QuoteLiberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.
From what I've gathered, you aren't that kind of conservative. You're the fiscal type, right?
I am indeed... closer to libertarian, but without the Ron Paul crazy, you know? I'm generally a gun rights kind of guy, held my nose in favor of TARP (only because I didn't see a credible alternative to getting the government involved) and on ghey marriage my instinct is "live and let live" but I can see that it's not open-and-shut.
I just lifted that quote because it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a New York Senator.
She had Schumer's backing, so she can't be as conservative as the Post says she is.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=16100
This.
Shocking...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401703.html
QuoteSoon after the November election, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader took stock of America's new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. "A house Negro," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.
That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.
"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.
The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.
...
Site founder Rita Katz said the messages show "just how much al-Qaeda is intimidated by Obama."
"The leadership of al-Qaeda is very concerned about the wide support that Obama has been receiving from Arab and Muslim countries," Katz said. "To combat this threat, al-Qaeda has embarked on a propaganda campaign against Obama, not only by linking him to the policies of the Bush administration, including the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also by accusing him of actions in which he had no part."
...
Regardless of how Obama is viewed now by the Muslim world -- savior, menace or something in between -- the opinions will almost certainly change in the coming months. For Muslim countries, as for the United States, perceptions based on rhetoric and image will soon collide with reality as the policies of the new administration take form, said Pillar, the former CIA official.
"Inevitably Obama will make certain decisions that will be unpopular and which the propagandists will quickly castigate," Pillar said. "I expect that the honeymoon will be just as fragile and short as with the American electorate."
I'd like to think I can tell some reverse psychology when I see it.
Quote from: Tank on January 25, 2009, 01:53:29 PM
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=16100
This.
Quote from: Balloon Juice
The moral of this story is not the danger for Obama going forward with his Gitmo decommissioning, the moral is that when venal, shallow, small men are given unfettered power and authority, they do incompetent, stupid, and evil things.
Quote from: Oleg on January 25, 2009, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 25, 2009, 01:53:29 PM
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=16100
This.
Quote from: Balloon Juice
The moral of this story is not the danger for Obama going forward with his Gitmo decommissioning, the moral is that when venal, shallow, small men are given unfettered power and authority, they do incompetent, stupid, and evil things.
I agree.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 25, 2009, 02:15:58 PM
I'd like to think I can tell some reverse psychology when I see it.
At least that's what you'd like us to think you think.
All I wanted was a recipe for vaca frita (http://www.mybigfatcubanfamily.com/my_big_fat_cuban_family/2009/01/words-with-the-older-and-wiser.html).
Quote from: Wheezer on January 27, 2009, 12:44:28 AM
All I wanted was a recipe for vaca frita (http://www.mybigfatcubanfamily.com/my_big_fat_cuban_family/2009/01/words-with-the-older-and-wiser.html).
Obama doesn't have a bheard though.
Musicians like Bono, Beyonce, Aretha and the Grateful Dead played Obama's inauguration, selling out to the establishment and ceasing to be the rebellious punk rockers they once were. Who will replace them?
Premise: Anti-establishment punk rock rebels oppose the status quo
Premise: Obama is now the status quo and Republicans, voted into the minority, oppose him
Conclusion: Conservative Republicans are anti-establishment rebels and thus the new punk rockers
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/01/31/republican-is-the-new-punk/
QuoteNow that the art nerds and punks just became the football jocks and prom queens, a new rebel is emerging from the wilderness. They are the new anti-establishment. One minority force bands together against every other branch of government swallowed by the Democrat octopus. The last evidence of a check or balance against the popular people are now the Conservative Republicans.
The arts have failed. They no longer keep mass culture in check with thought-provoking art that challenges the establishment. Now they're in charge of spreading the mainstream mandate of the Liberal Vatican. There isn't an original thought among them, just a thousand-mile stare, a blue logo and the drone-like vocabulary of emotive, vaguely inspiring chants.
We're the new rebellion against the majority juggernaut that doesn't take kindly to dissent. Make a fist and show them what happens when they tell you what to think, feel and believe.
And who would know punk rock attitude better than the guy who did the cover art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_TenNapel) for Christian ska band Five Iron Frenzy?
QuoteThe left has become a cliché. They're not "Arrested Development" they're "Golden Girls" with a soul patch.
So much grist for the theater fag mill...
That's kind of fascinating really. Now that all the great liberal artists have the POTUS' wang hanging out of their mouths, who then is the voice of the anti-establishment counter-culture? I think it would have to be some kind of country western doucheknuckle... or possibly me.
Quote from: ~Apex on February 08, 2009, 08:58:35 PM
That's kind of fascinating really. Now that all the great liberal artists have the POTUS' wang hanging out of their mouths, who then is the voice of the anti-establishment counter-culture? I think it would have to be some kind of country western doucheknuckle... or possibly me.
You could do a rap-country thing and be the doucheknuckle voice of the anti-establishment. You or Kid Rock.
Quote from: butthead on February 08, 2009, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on February 08, 2009, 08:58:35 PM
That's kind of fascinating really. Now that all the great liberal artists have the POTUS' wang hanging out of their mouths, who then is the voice of the anti-establishment counter-culture? I think it would have to be some kind of country western doucheknuckle... or possibly me.
You could do a rap-country thing and be the doucheknuckle voice of the anti-establishment. You or Kid Rock.
Ape X can make a country rap record with that
Negroid-American black guy who was with Big & Rich.
Quote from: Tank on February 07, 2009, 08:28:34 PM
Musicians like Bono, Beyonce, Aretha and the Grateful Dead played Obama's inauguration, selling out to the establishment and ceasing to be the rebellious punk rockers they once were. Who will replace them?
Premise: Anti-establishment punk rock rebels oppose the status quo
Premise: Obama is now the status quo and Republicans, voted into the minority, oppose him
Conclusion: Conservative Republicans are anti-establishment rebels and thus the new punk rockers
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/01/31/republican-is-the-new-punk/
QuoteNow that the art nerds and punks just became the football jocks and prom queens, a new rebel is emerging from the wilderness. They are the new anti-establishment. One minority force bands together against every other branch of government swallowed by the Democrat octopus. The last evidence of a check or balance against the popular people are now the Conservative Republicans.
The arts have failed. They no longer keep mass culture in check with thought-provoking art that challenges the establishment. Now they're in charge of spreading the mainstream mandate of the Liberal Vatican. There isn't an original thought among them, just a thousand-mile stare, a blue logo and the drone-like vocabulary of emotive, vaguely inspiring chants.
We're the new rebellion against the majority juggernaut that doesn't take kindly to dissent. Make a fist and show them what happens when they tell you what to think, feel and believe.
And who would know punk rock attitude better than the guy who did the cover art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_TenNapel) for Christian ska band Five Iron Frenzy?
QuoteThe left has become a cliché. They're not "Arrested Development" they're "Golden Girls" with a soul patch.
So much grist for the theater fag mill...
Oh Tank, must you bait me so?
1. The Golden Girls are ten times more punk than any given Christian ska band.
2. Well, I knew once Crass reformed to play Obama's inauguration
the movement was dead....
3. I guess now that Johnny Ramone is dead and Michael Graves is a joke, this guy is the new voice of Conservative Punx0rs everywhere!
Quote from: butthead on February 08, 2009, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: ~Apex on February 08, 2009, 08:58:35 PM
That's kind of fascinating really. Now that all the great liberal artists have the POTUS' wang hanging out of their mouths, who then is the voice of the anti-establishment counter-culture? I think it would have to be some kind of country western doucheknuckle... or possibly me.
You could do a rap-country thing and be the doucheknuckle voice of the anti-establishment. You or Kid Rock.
Cowboy Troy, bitches. He plays chicken with the train. Plus, he's a black card-carrying member of the Republican Party.
Quote from: Jon on February 09, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
3. I guess now that Johnny Ramone is dead and Michael Graves is a joke, this guy is the new voice of Conservative Punx0rs everywhere!
Ben Weasel resents the inference...
http://benweasel.mu.nu/
He hates your politics, he hates your problems and he hates the way you smell, 1-2-3...BTW: Ben Weasel the... Brewers fan (http://benweasel.mu.nu/archives/275068.php)?
I could forgive him for rooting for the Yankees, but... wow.
Quote from: Tank on February 09, 2009, 08:08:30 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 09, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
3. I guess now that Johnny Ramone is dead and Michael Graves is a joke, this guy is the new voice of Conservative Punx0rs everywhere!
Ben Weasel resents the inference...
http://benweasel.mu.nu/
He hates your politics, he hates your problems and he hates the way you smell, 1-2-3...
BTW: Ben Weasel the... Brewers fan (http://benweasel.mu.nu/archives/275068.php)?
I could forgive him for rooting for the Yankees, but... wow.
Ben Weasel? I have no idea what he's doing. You know good and damn well that I cannot possibly listen to anything he's made after
Boogadaboogadaboogada.
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 09, 2009, 08:08:30 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 09, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
3. I guess now that Johnny Ramone is dead and Michael Graves is a joke, this guy is the new voice of Conservative Punx0rs everywhere!
Ben Weasel resents the inference...
http://benweasel.mu.nu/
He hates your politics, he hates your problems and he hates the way you smell, 1-2-3...
BTW: Ben Weasel the... Brewers fan (http://benweasel.mu.nu/archives/275068.php)?
I could forgive him for rooting for the Yankees, but... wow.
Ben Weasel? I have no idea what he's doing. You know good and damn well that I cannot possibly listen to anything he's made after Boogadaboogadaboogada.
Meh. Ear candy guitar pop.
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [
sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Also...
http://benweasel.mu.nu/archives/248138.php
QuoteThere's been a whole world of great underground music being made in the years since the demise of the Clash (plenty of it far superior to the Clash in my opinion, but then again, I always thought the Clash sucked).
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
If the leader of a 3rd rate Ramones ripoff band wants to lambaste the Clash, let him. My refutation will be to play him the Riverdales LP until he admits he's a hack.
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The
actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
Que Wheezer (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6043.0)...
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
I didn't say the movie was over your head. I said the REASON he made it. Do not meddle in the affairs of Kristofferson, for he is subtle, and quick to anger.
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
I didn't say the movie was over your head. I said the REASON he made it. Do not meddle in the affairs of Kristofferson, for he is subtle, and quick to anger.
OK, as long as we're clear...that shit wasn't even over Oleg's head.
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 11:33:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
I didn't say the movie was over your head. I said the REASON he made it. Do not meddle in the affairs of Kristofferson, for he is subtle, and quick to anger.
OK, as long as we're clear...that shit wasn't even over Oleg's head.
Not even if Oleg was sitting in a trench.
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 11:33:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 11, 2009, 09:14:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 06:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: BH on February 10, 2009, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 10, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I suppose, if I can't listen to their demos, their debut LP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screeching_Weasel_(album)) will suffice. [ sigh ] The rest of it is pretty overexposed (http://www.thetripwire.com/news/2009/02/03/when-it-comes-to-nude-photos-on-record-sleeves-morrissey-aint-got-nothing-on-screeching-weasel/).
Guess which of those albums I own.
I'd guess: The actual 45 hanging off of Morrissey's dong.
Did you ask him to sign it for you?
Please, Morrissey's wang record? I already own an Edison cylinder with Johnny Marr's dongprint on it.
I sometimes wonder if you were college roommates.
Me and Johnny Marr?
Me and Morrissey?
Me and Tankho?
You and Bobby McGee.
Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, you know...
But he wasn't smart enough to avoid making shitty movies.
Or maybe he made those movies for a reason too subtle for we peons to understand.
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
I didn't say the movie was over your head. I said the REASON he made it. Do not meddle in the affairs of Kristofferson, for he is subtle, and quick to anger.
OK, as long as we're clear...that shit wasn't even over Oleg's head.
Are we stooping so low as to comment on Oleg's height?
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.
Is it any worse that "Look, here's a Greyhound-load full for ya's!"? It's ridiculous, either way.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.
Is it any worse that "Look, here's a Greyhound-load full for ya's!"? It's ridiculous, either way.
That was part of the Urban Youth Flood Relief Program, which I believe was Bipartisan.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.
Is it any worse that "Look, here's a Greyhound-load full for ya's!"? It's ridiculous, either way.
Or, you know, electing a president. But, hey, you got Michael Steele!
This is dumb.
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2009, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun: http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/ (http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/)
Please let me know if the link doesn't work. It did for me when I previewed this post. If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24. Just thought it was a bit interesting.
And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.
I think both sides do their fair share.
Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.
Is it any worse that "Look, here's a Greyhound-load full for ya's!"? It's ridiculous, either way.
Or, you know, electing a president. But, hey, you got Michael Steele!
This is dumb.
This.
So...
Quote# Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
# Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
How's this working out so far?
Quote from: Brownie on February 13, 2009, 01:38:07 PM
So...
Quote# Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
# Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
How's this working out so far?
Earmarks? What earmarks?
As for the other, perhaps they'd call this an emergency bill. As questionable as that might be.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2009, 11:22:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
Yeah, "Convoy" was way over my head...
Que Wheezer (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6043.0)...
I'm still not certain whether the live performance had "the usual consequences." (http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghajek/conv.mp2)
I don't like posting links from blogs, and maybe this has been covered here already but isn't this one of the big GOP hopefuls for 2012?
Bobby Jindal? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/14/jindal-dooms-louisiana/)
Quote from: Slakee on February 15, 2009, 07:14:13 PM
I don't like posting links from blogs, and maybe this has been covered here already but isn't this one of the big GOP hopefuls for 2012?
Bobby Jindal? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/14/jindal-dooms-louisiana/)
Quite possibly the saddest fact in all of this (as pointed out in the comments over there)...
http://www.gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&cpID=1
QuoteJindal was born in Baton Rouge on June 10, 1971. He graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1988 and went on to attend Brown University where he graduated with honors in biology and public policy. Following his graduation from Brown he attended Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar, having turned down admissions to medical and law schools at both Harvard and Yale.
I guess an Ivy League education isn't what it once was.
Quote from: Slakee on February 15, 2009, 07:14:13 PM
I don't like posting links from blogs, and maybe this has been covered here already but isn't this one of the big GOP hopefuls for 2012?
Bobby Jindal? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/14/jindal-dooms-louisiana/)
QuoteLast year, the Louisiana government overwhelmingly voted to allow creationist materials to be used in the classroom, a clear violation of the First Amendment
Pretty close.. but still WRONG.
While its a pretty dangerous road, teaching creationism doesn't force someone to practice a certain religion nor is Louisiana allowing teachers to teach it at their discretion in any way, shape, or form Congress establishing a national religion.
Even the poster boy for "separation of church and state" didn't practice his own beliefs: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52896
After you skip through the Christian bullshit, you come across this:
QuoteThe facts are that Jefferson used his political position to establish churches and distribute Bibles, DeBord found. "For example, in an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to 'assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church' and to provide 'annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.'"
Jefferson also set aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be helped in "promoting Christianity." And Jefferson once was chairman of the American Bible Society.
Oh yea. This too: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
QuoteIt is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.
And
QuoteThe Library of Congress is grateful to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory for recovering the lines obliterated from the Danbury Baptist letter by Thomas Jefferson. He originally wrote "a wall of eternal separation between church and state," later deleting the word "eternal." He also deleted the phrase "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." Jefferson must have been unhappy with the uncompromising tone of both of these phrases, especially in view of the implications of his decision, two days later, to begin attending church services in the House of Representatives.
Why do I feel like I've been done this road before? Oh yea, because I have (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=5985.msg144848#msg144848) but people don't seem to want to notice the truth.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 01:09:37 AM
Quote from: Slakee on February 15, 2009, 07:14:13 PM
I don't like posting links from blogs, and maybe this has been covered here already but isn't this one of the big GOP hopefuls for 2012?
Bobby Jindal? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/14/jindal-dooms-louisiana/)
QuoteLast year, the Louisiana government overwhelmingly voted to allow creationist materials to be used in the classroom, a clear violation of the First Amendment
Pretty close.. but still WRONG.
While its a pretty dangerous road, teaching creationism doesn't force someone to practice a certain religion nor is Louisiana allowing teachers to teach it at their discretion in any way, shape, or form Congress establishing a national religion.
Even the poster boy for "separation of church and state" didn't practice his own beliefs: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52896
After you skip through the Christian bullshit, you come across this:
QuoteThe facts are that Jefferson used his political position to establish churches and distribute Bibles, DeBord found. "For example, in an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to 'assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church' and to provide 'annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.'"
Jefferson also set aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be helped in "promoting Christianity." And Jefferson once was chairman of the American Bible Society.
Oh yea. This too: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
QuoteIt is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.
And
QuoteThe Library of Congress is grateful to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory for recovering the lines obliterated from the Danbury Baptist letter by Thomas Jefferson. He originally wrote "a wall of eternal separation between church and state," later deleting the word "eternal." He also deleted the phrase "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." Jefferson must have been unhappy with the uncompromising tone of both of these phrases, especially in view of the implications of his decision, two days later, to begin attending church services in the House of Representatives.
Why do I feel like I've been done this road before? Oh yea, because I have (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=5985.msg144848#msg144848) but people don't seem to want to notice the truth.
a) You're missing the forest for a few leaves on a couple of trees
b) People reading you might be more wont to notice your mind-blowing truth if you took it upon yourself to express your thoughts in coherent sentences and paragraphs (that is to say, in re: the previous post you link to)
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
I'm just sick of this whole "rights" thing. Why is it that every time some group is given rights, it ends up that some other group ends losing their rights.
And, Yeti, why is your creatist theory better than my creationist theory? What if I believe that God created the earth and heavens in 14 days, rather than 7 (or 6)? Are we going to dvevote time in the classroom to teach that theory (my use of the term "theory" is very loose here). What if I believe that it wasn't God who created earth, but Matt Murton on a giant unicorn?
When we start teaching theories that are based on faith, we open up a can of worms. I don't want to infringe on your faith, but keep it the hell away from mine. Know what I mean, hoss?
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 08:41:39 AM
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
Jefferson? Well, I was kind of counting on him running in '12. Maybe he'd bring the hope and change we are all still waiting for. (green font. Calm down Obama dick chuggers. *I think I did that right)
In actuality, I was just pointing out that the one who started the whole "Separation of Church and State" nonsense was, in fact, a hypocrite and didn't quite believe what he said to a small church in a political letter. Until Congress passes a national religion or tells me I have to pray or that I have to do something in connection with religion, I'll be fine. My rights, as well as everyone else's, won't be intruded on. If some teachers want to teach creationism, I say it's not horrible but teach both for god's sake, if you do. Don't be like the cunt who taught my "Creation-Evolution" class where she just bashed Creationism the whole time when the class was advertised as a class to talk about both. Plus, if the teacher is teaching something you don't want to hear, just do what about 85% of kids do anyway, ignore the bitch and doodle on a piece of paper or something. I think people getting their panties all in a bunch over some teachers having the opportunity to teach Creationism along side of Evolution really just need to calm down and be open and accepting to different beliefs and views.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 08:41:39 AM
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
Jefferson? Well, I was kind of counting on him running in '12. Maybe he'd bring the hope and change we are all still waiting for. (green font. Calm down Obama dick chuggers. *I think I did that right)
In actuality, I was just pointing out that the one who started the whole "Separation of Church and State" nonsense was, in fact, a hypocrite and didn't quite believe what he said to a small church in a political letter. Until Congress passes a national religion or tells me I have to pray or that I have to do something in connection with religion, I'll be fine. My rights, as well as everyone else's, won't be intruded on. If some teachers want to teach creationism, I say it's not horrible but teach both for god's sake, if you do. Don't be like the cunt who taught my "Creation-Evolution" class where she just bashed Creationism the whole time when the class was advertised as a class to talk about both. Plus, if the teacher is teaching something you don't want to hear, just do what about 85% of kids do anyway, ignore the bitch and doodle on a piece of paper or something. I think people getting their panties all in a bunch over some teachers having the opportunity to teach Creationism along side of Evolution really just need to calm down and be open and accepting to different beliefs and views.
Or, now that I know what Louisiana thinks is acceptable learning matter in public schools, I'll just never move to Louisiana. However, if this Jindal douche gains steam are we looking at a similar push nationwide?
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 08:58:46 AM
I'm just sick of this whole "rights" thing. Why is it that every time some group is given rights, it ends up that some other group ends losing their rights.
And, Yeti, why is your creatist theory better than my creationist theory? What if I believe that God created the earth and heavens in 14 days, rather than 7 (or 6)? Are we going to dvevote time in the classroom to teach that theory (my use of the term "theory" is very loose here). What if I believe that it wasn't God who created earth, but Matt Murton on a giant unicorn?
When we start teaching theories that are based on faith, we open up a can of worms. I don't want to infringe on your faith, but keep it the hell away from mine. Know what I mean, hoss?
My faith? I fucking hate the established religion world. Yes, I believe in God or whatever form it is, but definitely not in the capacity that the bible professes it to be. Churches make me feel uncomfortable. I'm not into that at all. However, I really don't see how it really hurts anyone or anything to present an idea that so many people in this world believe to be mostly true.
Quote from: Slakee on February 15, 2009, 07:14:13 PM
I don't like posting links from blogs, and maybe this has been covered here already but isn't this one of the big GOP hopefuls for 2012?
Bobby Jindal? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/14/jindal-dooms-louisiana/)
This is the most unkindest cut of all:
QuoteThey have even gone as far as to say that the conference — with nearly 2000 attending — will be in Utah instead, where science is held in higher regard.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 08:41:39 AM
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
Jefferson? Well, I was kind of counting on him running in '12. Maybe he'd bring the hope and change we are all still waiting for. (green font. Calm down Obama dick chuggers. *I think I did that right)
In actuality, I was just pointing out that the one who started the whole "Separation of Church and State" nonsense was, in fact, a hypocrite and didn't quite believe what he said to a small church in a political letter. Until Congress passes a national religion or tells me I have to pray or that I have to do something in connection with religion, I'll be fine. My rights, as well as everyone else's, won't be intruded on. If some teachers want to teach creationism, I say it's not horrible but teach both for god's sake, if you do. Don't be like the cunt who taught my "Creation-Evolution" class where she just bashed Creationism the whole time when the class was advertised as a class to talk about both. Plus, if the teacher is teaching something you don't want to hear, just do what about 85% of kids do anyway, ignore the bitch and doodle on a piece of paper or something. I think people getting their panties all in a bunch over some teachers having the opportunity to teach Creationism along side of Evolution really just need to calm down and be open and accepting to different beliefs and views.
Do you understand that there could, LITERALLY, be an infinite amount of creationist theories? Are we to devote time in classrooms to ALL of them? Especially when NONE of them are based on any tangible evidence?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 08:58:46 AM
I'm just sick of this whole "rights" thing. Why is it that every time some group is given rights, it ends up that some other group ends losing their rights.
And, Yeti, why is your creatist theory better than my creationist theory? What if I believe that God created the earth and heavens in 14 days, rather than 7 (or 6)? Are we going to dvevote time in the classroom to teach that theory (my use of the term "theory" is very loose here). What if I believe that it wasn't God who created earth, but Matt Murton on a giant unicorn?
When we start teaching theories that are based on faith, we open up a can of worms. I don't want to infringe on your faith, but keep it the hell away from mine. Know what I mean, hoss?
My faith? I fucking hate the established religion world. Yes, I believe in God or whatever form it is, but definitely not in the capacity that the bible professes it to be. Churches make me feel uncomfortable. I'm not into that at all. However, I really don't see how it really hurts anyone or anything to present an idea that so many people in this world believe to be mostly true.
DPD.
I'm not refering to your faith specifically. I'm refering to the idea that creationism is based on FAITH, as opposed to tangible evidence. Like a 8 year old who really believes that Santa Claus is real, despite there not being any evidence that even begins to prove it so.
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 08:58:46 AM
I'm just sick of this whole "rights" thing. Why is it that every time some group is given rights, it ends up that some other group ends losing their rights.
And, Yeti, why is your creatist theory better than my creationist theory? What if I believe that God created the earth and heavens in 14 days, rather than 7 (or 6)? Are we going to dvevote time in the classroom to teach that theory (my use of the term "theory" is very loose here). What if I believe that it wasn't God who created earth, but Matt Murton on a giant unicorn?
When we start teaching theories that are based on faith, we open up a can of worms. I don't want to infringe on your faith, but keep it the hell away from mine. Know what I mean, hoss?
My faith? I fucking hate the established religion world. Yes, I believe in God or whatever form it is, but definitely not in the capacity that the bible professes it to be. Churches make me feel uncomfortable. I'm not into that at all. However, I really don't see how it really hurts anyone or anything to present an idea that so many people in this world believe to be mostly true.
DPD.
I'm not refering to your faith specifically. I'm refering to the idea that creationism is based on FAITH, as opposed to tangible evidence. Like a 8 year old who really believes that Santa Claus is real, despite there not being any evidence that even begins to prove it so.
I heard Santa Claus: How Does He Do It? Is a 400 level course at LSU.
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 08:41:39 AM
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
Jefferson? Well, I was kind of counting on him running in ’12. Maybe he’d bring the hope and change we are all still waiting for. (green font. Calm down Obama dick chuggers. *I think I did that right)
In actuality, I was just pointing out that the one who started the whole “Separation of Church and State” nonsense was, in fact, a hypocrite and didn’t quite believe what he said to a small church in a political letter. Until Congress passes a national religion or tells me I have to pray or that I have to do something in connection with religion, I’ll be fine. My rights, as well as everyone else’s, won’t be intruded on. If some teachers want to teach creationism, I say it’s not horrible but teach both for god’s sake, if you do. Don’t be like the cunt who taught my “Creation-Evolution” class where she just bashed Creationism the whole time when the class was advertised as a class to talk about both. Plus, if the teacher is teaching something you don’t want to hear, just do what about 85% of kids do anyway, ignore the bitch and doodle on a piece of paper or something. I think people getting their panties all in a bunch over some teachers having the opportunity to teach Creationism along side of Evolution really just need to calm down and be open and accepting to different beliefs and views.
Do you understand that there could, LITERALLY, be an infinite amount of creationist theories? Are we to devote time in classrooms to ALL of them? Especially when NONE of them are based on any tangible evidence?
Umm…. Yea. Kids have it too easy at school anyway. Keep those little fuckers there for 15 hours a day.
But seriously, the only thing I really find to be in question is the origin of life. I believe that evolution occurs. I don’t fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that’s the main objection that I have. The origin seems to be the big thing in question. I side with the notion that a higher being of some sort started it all. I don’t have the ability to find something on YouTube right now, but there is something I saw from a well-respected evolutionist said where he gave a story about the origin of life that possibly sounded more ridiculous than a god creating the world. I’ll be sure to find that for you.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 08:41:39 AM
Interesting how a commentary on Bobby Jindal and the state of Louisiana's stance on creationist teaching turns into a Thomas Jefferson Is a BIG FAT PHONY fingerpoint clusterfuck.
Is Thomas Jefferson planning to run for office soon?
Jefferson? Well, I was kind of counting on him running in '12. Maybe he'd bring the hope and change we are all still waiting for. (green font. Calm down Obama dick chuggers. *I think I did that right)
In actuality, I was just pointing out that the one who started the whole "Separation of Church and State" nonsense was, in fact, a hypocrite and didn't quite believe what he said to a small church in a political letter. Until Congress passes a national religion or tells me I have to pray or that I have to do something in connection with religion, I'll be fine. My rights, as well as everyone else's, won't be intruded on. If some teachers want to teach creationism, I say it's not horrible but teach both for god's sake, if you do. Don't be like the cunt who taught my "Creation-Evolution" class where she just bashed Creationism the whole time when the class was advertised as a class to talk about both. Plus, if the teacher is teaching something you don't want to hear, just do what about 85% of kids do anyway, ignore the bitch and doodle on a piece of paper or something. I think people getting their panties all in a bunch over some teachers having the opportunity to teach Creationism along side of Evolution really just need to calm down and be open and accepting to different beliefs and views.
Do you understand that there could, LITERALLY, be an infinite amount of creationist theories? Are we to devote time in classrooms to ALL of them? Especially when NONE of them are based on any tangible evidence?
Umm.... Yea. Kids have it too easy at school anyway. Keep those little fuckers there for 15 hours a day.
But seriously, the only thing I really find to be in question is the origin of life. I believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have. The origin seems to be the big thing in question. I side with the notion that a higher being of some sort started it all. I don't have the ability to find something on YouTube right now, but there is something I saw from a well-respected evolutionist said where he gave a story about the origin of life that possibly sounded more ridiculous than a god creating the world. I'll be sure to find that for you.
Because a seemingly ridiculous story supported by some degree by data gained from expirimentation and observation obviously needs to be given equal or possibly lesser time in a SCIENCE CLASS to a seemingly ridiculous story that has mainly gained credence by being around for a while.
I'm not Olegesque in my atheism, but teaching Creationism in a science class is absolutely ridiculous. Faith is fine, believe what you want. But that's for church, not for school.
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
That and, technically we're
still apes.
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
That and, technically we're still apes.
Speak for yourself. I'm going bald. You see any bald apes?
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
That and, technically we're still apes.
Speak for yourself. I'm going bald. You see any bald apes?
DPD..
Sap, Y'All. Dang
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
Okay, first things first...evolution has no WHY. It just is. Whatever survives long enough to breed and pass on traits survives to breed and pass on traits.
Second, the apes you see now are not ancestors of human beings. They share a common ancestor with human beings.
I know he can be kind of soapboxy atheist at times, but I highly suggest Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale as a pretty easy layman's overview of the basic principles of evolution by Darwinian natural selection. You can skim over his personal and political asides relatively easily; just stick to the science part and it's every enlightening.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.
But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?
You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films
and musical) was
fiction right?
Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even
use a gun.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
Jebus.
CAN SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY A BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK? OR 20?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
I do believe that the greater brain capacity came from these early humans moving to including more meat in their diets. The rest of your question I'm not touching with a ten foot pole. Believe what you want, but don't be suprised by the reactions you'll get. (I know you won't.)
Can I suggest a little Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
Not necessarily. There plenty of other evolutionary options creatures can take to either survive or become more efficient predators. It may very well be at the time the ancestors of humans may have packed together and tried to avoid/outwit their predators as opposed to head on physical assault. Also, said ancestor may have found that hunting in groups or devising ambush style tactics (which plenty of other animals do) was best for capturing prey. As a result, the genes of this improved brain capacity would be the ones that were passed on. Stonger and faster aren't the only pathways for a creature to take.
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 16, 2009, 10:35:35 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
Not necessarily. There plenty of other evolutionary options creatures can take to either survive or become more efficient predators. It may very well be at the time the ancestors of humans may have packed together and tried to avoid/outwit their predators as opposed to head on physical assault. Also, said ancestor may have found that hunting in groups or devising ambush style tactics (which plenty of other animals do) was best for capturing prey. As a result, the genes of this improved brain capacity would be the ones that were passed on. Stonger and faster aren't the only pathways for a creature to take.
Patrick Ewing.
Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools. Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either. Is this something better left to local school boards? Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?
Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.
(http://www.peoplewholooklikemonkeys.com/images/patrickewing1.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on February 16, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools. Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either. Is this something better left to local school boards? Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?
Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.
Keep in mind, questioning Bobby Jindal's sanity isn't a direct insult to you nor a propping up of anything the Democrats have done.
You know what? Fuck this politics shit. I'm done with it.
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:25:37 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.
But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?
You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films and musical) was fiction right?
Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even use a gun.
In their raw form, yes.
What is this Planet of the Apes nonsense???
Quote from: Brownie on February 16, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools. Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either. Is this something better left to local school boards? Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?
Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.
Here you go...
QuoteA. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.
In demanding that a fundamentally unscientific and explicitly theological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_realism) "theory" be granted parity to science in science classrooms (at the discretion of the school board), it effectively allows for
compulsory religious teaching in public schools.
Just because a particular doctrine claims to be non-sectarian, doesn't mean it's not religious. If I were clergy, I'd be concerned that this would be a travesty of religion.
As it is, I'm mostly worried about the violence teaching creationist non-science (under a different name) as "critical thinking" does to science education. (In the same way, I would be concerned that a law urging schools to "teach the controversy" in regards to the Holocaust using "supplementary materials" written by David Irving would make a mockery of history education.)
For those who are interested, by the way, here's a review of the Discovery Institute's "supplemental materials" that this law was no doubt intended to push on kids:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/09/discovery-textbook-review.ars
Quote from: Brownie on February 16, 2009, 11:00:06 AM
Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.
Like this? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/
Quote from: TDubbs on February 16, 2009, 11:31:22 AM
(http://www.peoplewholooklikemonkeys.com/images/patrickewing1.jpg)
No, no, no. Muhammad Ali says Joe Frazier.
(http://www.thesweetscience.com/images/4148/joe_frazier_240x230_110705.jpg)
And don't you heathens know anything about frisbeeism? We evolved from empty metal pie tins and when you die your soul floats toward heaven but gets stuck on the roof.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:25:37 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes. I don't want the evidence of the evolution process. I've seen it. Someone tell me why Apes. a very powerful creature that could be the living fuck out of many predators it came across, evolved into man, a creature that doesn't possess that sort of physical power. We only *possibly* do when we work out gobs of time (or take steroids). Or is it the fact that man ultimately had better brain capacity? That would be the only explanation I have but it couldn't be possible for the mechanisms of evolution to really *know* that if they evolved into a better brain, then thousands of years later, they might be able to devise schemes to beat their predators as opposed to doing it with their hands. If apes were having problems beating their predators or surviving, they'd either get stronger or faster (both of which are the opposite of becoming man). That would be why I don't fully believe the ape to man thing. When evolution shows a clear advantage over it's predecessor then that's when I can agree with it. No way did the apes of 20,000 B.C. know that in 2009 A.D. if they turned into man, we'd be having this conversation now. If evolution is that good, then will it please predict the future, mainly the 2009 NLDS, so Lou can make sure he wins a goddamned playoff game.
When you go on like this, Yeti, I have a hard time following you.
But let me see if I have this right: in short, you're saying that you think humans lack any clear competitive survival advantage over apes?
You're aware that "Planet of the Apes" (novel, films and musical) was fiction right?
Apes have not, in fact, developed their own high technology (yet, anyway), let alone the ability to even use a gun.
In their raw form, yes.
What does this even mean?
So... our species' dramatically larger brains and the technology they allow us to create and the skills they allow us to harness—and the ability these things give us to actually
dramatically alter our environment to fit our needs—don't count because they have no bearing on our species' ability to survive in some Platonic "raw" situation you've built up in your imagination as the non plus ultra of "survival"... where only the biggest, strongest, hairiest (and, dare I say, sexiest?) beasts will come out alive?
Survival and adaptation happen in
the real world, as it exists, not in the feral jungle Thunderdome of your mind.
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
the feral jungle Thunderdome of your mind.
Man, I wish I hadn't already named my blog...
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
What does this even mean?
Yeti's such a free market advocate, he considers technology and rational thought to be unfair regulation, like the sharp lashes of a school marm's wooden spoon to the invisible hand of his
feral jungle Thunderdome.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 16, 2009, 12:36:49 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
What does this even mean?
Yeti's such a free market advocate, he considers technology and rational thought to be unfair regulation, like the sharp lashes of a school marm's wooden spoon to the invisible hand of his feral jungle Thunderdome.
I've decided that the best route to take is the obvious one. The free-thinking left winger types are right. I will now fall in line.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 16, 2009, 12:36:49 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
What does this even mean?
Yeti's such a free market advocate, he considers technology and rational thought to be unfair regulation, like the sharp lashes of a school marm's wooden spoon to the invisible hand of his feral jungle Thunderdome.
I've decided that the best route to take is the obvious one. The free-thinking left winger types are right. I will now fall in line.
Quote"Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design."
Just read this over and over until you see.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 16, 2009, 12:36:49 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:27:53 PM
What does this even mean?
Yeti's such a free market advocate, he considers technology and rational thought to be unfair regulation, like the sharp lashes of a school marm's wooden spoon to the invisible hand of his feral jungle Thunderdome.
I've decided that the best route to take is the obvious one. The free-thinking left winger types are right. I will now fall in line.
Congratulations. You're starting to understand evolution.
You should be able to send your kids to a public school and not have to worry about them being exposed to a theory based on a religion you don't believe in. Let them teach creationism in Sunday school. Isn't it that simple? What am I missing here?
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 01:23:22 PM
You should be able to send your kids to a public school and not have to worry about them being exposed to a theory based on a religion you don't believe in. Let them teach creationism in Sunday school. Isn't it that simple? What am I missing here?
Thank you. Why is
that such a hard concept to get across? I don't want the govenrment imposing a religion on me or any children I would have if I wasn't so goddamned gay. Even if that religion turns out to be true, it's not the government's call.
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 01:23:22 PM
You should be able to send your kids to a public school and not have to worry about them being exposed to a theory based on a religion you don't believe in. Let them teach creationism in Sunday school. Isn't it that simple? What am I missing here?
Thank you. Why is that such a hard concept to get across? I don't want the govenrment imposing a religion on me or any children I would have if I wasn't so goddamned gay. Even if that religion turns out to be true, it's not the government's call.
Or just tell your mom that you don't want to learn that and she'll teach you how to write cursive instead.
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 01:23:22 PM
You should be able to send your kids to a public school and not have to worry about them being exposed to a theory based on a religion you don't believe in. Let them teach creationism in Sunday school. Isn't it that simple? What am I missing here?
The fact that explicit dualists do not generally object to the flush toilet, perhaps. Naive monist materialism is plainly "magical," in that "mind" is kind of a problem, and the presence of multiple minds requires the tacit assumption of "buckets" to hold them, and a way for them to interact, which does not remain monist for long. Sophisticated monist materialism instead asserts that you are a machine. The whole thing devolves into a fractious argument that is nonetheless "religious" on nearly all fronts.
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Uh, maybe I'm being obtuse, but isn't that kind of the whole idea of evolution? That's like saying you like the Cubs except for the whole baseball part.
What's the problem with that?
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 01:23:22 PM
You should be able to send your kids to a public school and not have to worry about them being exposed to a theory based on a religion you don't believe in. Let them teach creationism in Sunday school. Isn't it that simple? What am I missing here?
The fact that explicit dualists do not generally object to the flush toilet, perhaps. Naive monist materialism is plainly "magical," in that "mind" is kind of a problem, and the presence of multiple minds requires the tacit assumption of "buckets" to hold them, and a way for them to interact, which does not remain monist for long. Sophisticated monist materialism instead asserts that you are a machine. The whole thing devolves into a fractious argument that is nonetheless "religious" on nearly all fronts.
At which limits of empirical observation the question ceases to be a properly "scientific" one, but rather one of metaphysics.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes.
Because homo sapiens could better adapt to the environment compared to homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. See, if it got cold, sapient life could build a hut for protection. Their brains were big enough to discover farming. That led to survival in harsh climates and more food to enable larger broods. Larger broods competed and beat out the other species in the homo genus for the best places to live. That made the poor adaptability of the other species a major problem and they died out.
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
I'm doomed either way.
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
I'm doomed either way.
If it's survival of the hairiest, you're golden.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Survival of the
fit. It's a tautology.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 10:15:21 AM
Then someone tell me WHY man evolved from apes.
Because homo sapiens could better adapt to the environment compared to homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. See, if it got cold, sapient life could build a hut for protection. Their brains were big enough to discover farming. That led to survival in harsh climates and more food to enable larger broods. Larger broods competed and beat out the other species in the homo genus for the best places to live. That made the poor adaptability of the other species a major problem and they died out.
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
It's not even "survival of the fittest," really, considering the fittest species aren't the
only ones to survive.
It's more like: "survival of those fit enough to reproduce."
Edit: What Wheezer said.
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fit. It's a tautology.
The definition of fit in biology has always been problematic for that reason.
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fit. It's a tautology.
I reserve any comment on this matter until MikeC translates it for me into RightTalk.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fit. It's a tautology.
I reserve any comment on this matter until MikeC translates it for me into RightTalk.
Typical liberal blather, Gil. If you could knock Obama's wang out of your ass long enough to sit down and listen, you'd know that the dems are trying to socialize science so it makes sense to everyone. If everyone is fit, then everyone is a winner. And if everyone is a winner then no one wins and life would be a numb grey librul hell.
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 02:29:44 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fit. It's a tautology.
I reserve any comment on this matter until MikeC translates it for me into RightTalk.
Typical liberal blather, Gil. If you could knock Obama's wang out of your ass long enough to sit down and listen, you'd know that the dems are trying to socialize science so it makes sense to everyone. If everyone is fit, then everyone is a winner.
That's what I'm talking about. I think butthead had probably the best post on this matter, so I'll defer to him.
I am a First Amendment absolutist, so my extreme interpretation of the Establishment Clause guides my thinking on this matter, and is also probably the reason why I'd never be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 02:19:51 PM
Their brains were big enough to discover farming.
This is a keeper, though.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 02:33:37 PM
I am a First Amendment absolutist, so my extreme interpretation of the Establishment Clause guides my thinking on this matter, and is also probably the reason why I'd never be appointed to the Supreme Court.
I would honestly trade every other law on the books before I would surrender the First Amendment.
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
I actually agree with this.Put that in your hat and SMOKE IT.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
I know you're joking, but seriously...what if you don't trust in god?
I did some substitute teaching last year. When the kids did the pledge I joined them, but stayed silent on the "under god" part. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in to pledge allegiance to my country?
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 03:14:31 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
I know you're joking, but seriously...what if you don't trust in god?
I did some substitute teaching last year. When the kids did the pledge I joined them, but stayed silent on the "under god" part. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in to pledge allegiance to my country?
This.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1224/531477490_9285169792.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 03:29:16 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1224/531477490_9285169792.jpg?v=0)
Wilmette, represent.
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 03:29:16 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1224/531477490_9285169792.jpg?v=0)
Wilmette, represent.
McCamey says what?
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 03:14:31 PM
Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in to pledge allegiance to my country?
Because, if we didn't have "under God" in the Pledge or "In God we Trust" on our currency, there would be nothing to distinguish us from those godless Commie bastards.
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 03:14:31 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
I know you're joking, but seriously...what if you don't trust in god?
I did some substitute teaching last year. When the kids did the pledge I joined them, but stayed silent on the "under god" part. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in to pledge allegiance to my country?
I’m going to put the Right wing facist hat back on. I know the origin of the “under God” in the Pledge: Communism fighting and all. I do agree that it really has no real purpose there. If they took it out, I wouldn’t object, but at the same time I don’t really see the problem with it. In your case, I think you did exactly what I would expect anyone who didn’t agree to do: not say it. Plus, for the atheists/Muslims/etc. out there, it is just 2 words. If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Now there is an issue with that. If you stay silent and the government expands the religious references it could create some real problems. As I think about this with the current political climate, it very well might be irresponsible to allow the politicians in place to be able to have a loosey goosey outlook on religious references within the government. I could foresee that being abused because I really only trust about 2 people in Washington right now.
To me, ideally if (this references a case in a local town I’ve mentioned in the SBox in the past) a group puts up a “The World Needs God” sign back in the 20’s on the county courthouse, then it really doesn’t pose an issue now. Now, it really didn’t need to be put there in the first place, but what does it hurt? If you drive by the courthouse and don’t like the sign, don’t look at it. Sure, it’d be easy to take it down (It ultimately was after a lawsuit from the ACLU) but, seriously, is a sign really killing anyone? Is it making anyone be a Christian? Did Congress pass a law to put it there? And that was just an example of one situation, but I believe it gets the point across.
When I was in high school, in the locker room, our coach would gather us for a prayer. He had a student lead but the coach definitely instigated it. Now, if I were to object to it, I would just kneel with everyone else, and hope to myself that I played a good game as opposed to praying to God that he helped us. I, myself, prayed with just to pray. I mean, what could it hurt?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PMI really only trust about 2 people in Washington right now.
Hmmm....is it Adam Dunn and Barney Frank?
When and why did BC log in as Irish Yeti?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Quote from: RV on February 16, 2009, 04:45:47 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PMI really only trust about 2 people in Washington right now.
Hmmm....is it Adam Dunn and Barney Frank?
Ummm. No. Michelle Obama ..... And.... Mark S. Lobel
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
I got the joke and I was playing along. Lighten up a little.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
Don't go all "KurtEvans" on us now, Yeti.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Technically, isn't it two numbers? Wrap your noodle around that. Your brain, not your weiner.
Quote from: TDubbs on February 16, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Technically, isn't it two numbers? Wrap your noodle around that. Your brain, not your weiner.
All those words that you just wrote, they offend me. I choose not to read them.
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:16:36 PM
Quote from: TDubbs on February 16, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Technically, isn't it two numbers? Wrap your noodle around that. Your brain, not your weiner.
All those words that you just wrote, they offend me. I choose not to read them.
They offended me too, but I already read them. Why were they written in the first place? So Chad Dubbs could feel like his opinions were validated above those of the rest of us.
And that's why you don't use a one-armed person to scare someone!
Quote from: TDubbs on February 16, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Technically, isn't it two numbers? Wrap your noodle around that. Your brain, not your weiner.
Are you smarter than a third grader? Seriously, this was just on Murton's Eldest's homework. "10" is one number, but two digits.
How does "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" endorse Christianity per se, and not a religion in general?
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 05:11:05 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
Don't go all "KurtEvans" on us now, Yeti.
Is Yeti plagiarizing from Andy Dolan too?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: TDubbs on February 16, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 16, 2009, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:58:28 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:57:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 04:48:58 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Fuck you.
Always an intelligent response.
If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Was this redundant?
Oh dude, he totally fell into your trap. How often does that happen? You set it up and it worked to perfection.
Totally, dude. 10 on the richter scale, man
That's 8 words. Or 7 words and one number.
Technically, isn't it two numbers? Wrap your noodle around that. Your brain, not your weiner.
Are you smarter than a third grader? Seriously, this was just on Murton's Eldest's homework. "10" is one number, but two digits.
As it's merely a representation of one number from one numeric system (decimal), you're both wrong. "10" can be an infinite number of numbers.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 05:28:46 PM
How does "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" endorse Christianity per se, and not a religion in general?
Either way, it doesn't speak to me, and my fucking tax dollars shouldn't be paying for it.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 03:14:31 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 03:02:05 PM
I tell you, if this country e'er mentions anything to do with religion again, I will be horribly offended. Hell, they should change the money, too. "In God We Trust." What if I don't trust in God?!?! Have they ever though about MY rights? About my feelings? Shit. Can a guy go anywhere in this country and not have Christianity shoved down his throat?
I know you're joking, but seriously...what if you don't trust in god?
I did some substitute teaching last year. When the kids did the pledge I joined them, but stayed silent on the "under god" part. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a god I don't believe in to pledge allegiance to my country?
I'm going to put the Right wing facist hat back on. I know the origin of the "under God" in the Pledge: Communism fighting and all. I do agree that it really has no real purpose there. If they took it out, I wouldn't object, but at the same time I don't really see the problem with it. In your case, I think you did exactly what I would expect anyone who didn't agree to do: not say it. Plus, for the atheists/Muslims/etc. out there, it is just 2 words. If you get all fussy over saying/hearing two words, then please lighten up a little.
Now there is an issue with that. If you stay silent and the government expands the religious references it could create some real problems. As I think about this with the current political climate, it very well might be irresponsible to allow the politicians in place to be able to have a loosey goosey outlook on religious references within the government. I could foresee that being abused because I really only trust about 2 people in Washington right now.
To me, ideally if (this references a case in a local town I've mentioned in the SBox in the past) a group puts up a "The World Needs God" sign back in the 20's on the county courthouse, then it really doesn't pose an issue now. Now, it really didn't need to be put there in the first place, but what does it hurt? If you drive by the courthouse and don't like the sign, don't look at it. Sure, it'd be easy to take it down (It ultimately was after a lawsuit from the ACLU) but, seriously, is a sign really killing anyone? Is it making anyone be a Christian? Did Congress pass a law to put it there? And that was just an example of one situation, but I believe it gets the point across.
When I was in high school, in the locker room, our coach would gather us for a prayer. He had a student lead but the coach definitely instigated it. Now, if I were to object to it, I would just kneel with everyone else, and hope to myself that I played a good game as opposed to praying to God that he helped us. I, myself, prayed with just to pray. I mean, what could it hurt?
So you'd be OK with those two words being "under allah" or "under ra" or "under vishnu"? As a christian you'd be cool with ignoring that part, or having to decide what to tell your christian kids when they ask who ra is? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us to leave god out of it all together?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 05:28:46 PM
How does "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" endorse Christianity per se, and not a religion in general?
So long as the religion in question is monotheistic, it does not.
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 05:38:37 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 16, 2009, 05:28:46 PM
How does "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" endorse Christianity per se, and not a religion in general?
Either way, it doesn't speak to me, and my fucking tax dollars shouldn't be paying for it.
To clarify, I think my tax dollars should go to fund The Perverted Arts.
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 05:39:13 PM
So you'd be OK with those two words being "under allah" or "under ra" or "under vishnu"? As a christian you'd be cool with ignoring that part, or having to decide what to tell your christian kids when they ask who ra is? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us to leave god out of it all together?
For the record, I'm definitely not a Christian. (Especially since this record is so important.)
I believe I did kind of say it would be easier to leave god out of it. I said "under god" isn't necessary and I wouldn't object to it being removed. I was saying that it being there is not infringing on someone's right to practice whatever religion they so choose. I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God. It doesn't stop me from believing that. Obama loving Allah doesn't mean when he says "under god" he can't worship how he chooses. If he believes in his heart that Allah is king then he's fine. I would suspect all people of religion or "anti-religion" can handle that... But, as I've seen, they can't apparently
(Obama=Muslim reference was a joke. Lighten up before anyone goes APEshit.)
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 05:39:13 PM
So you'd be OK with those two words being "under allah" or "under ra" or "under vishnu"? As a christian you'd be cool with ignoring that part, or having to decide what to tell your christian kids when they ask who ra is? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us to leave god out of it all together?
For the record, I'm definitely not a Christian. (Especially since this record is so important.)
I believe I did kind of say it would be easier to leave god out of it. I said "under god" isn't necessary and I wouldn't object to it being removed. I was saying that it being there is not infringing on someone's right to practice whatever religion they so choose. I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God. It doesn't stop me from believing that. Obama loving Allah doesn't mean when he says "under god" he can't worship how he chooses. If he believes in his heart that Allah is king then he's fine. I would suspect all people of religion or "anti-religion" can handle that... But, as I've seen, they can't apparently
(Obama=Muslim reference was a joke. Lighten up before anyone goes APEshit.)
I can handle it, but I shouldn't have to.
Don't be fooled, guys.
This whole thing is a twisted plot of Chuck's to get people to actually pay attention to their school board elections.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 16, 2009, 06:05:57 PM
Don't be fooled, guys.
This whole thing is a twisted plot of Chuck's to get people to actually pay attention to their school board elections.
I know. But you know what's the kicker to all this? He's probably already lost my vote. And my wife's. Sorry Chuck. I sold the house to a gentleman named Yellon.
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 05:39:13 PM
So you'd be OK with those two words being "under allah" or "under ra" or "under vishnu"? As a christian you'd be cool with ignoring that part, or having to decide what to tell your christian kids when they ask who ra is? Wouldn't it be easier for all of us to leave god out of it all together?
For the record, I'm definitely not a Christian. (Especially since this record is so important.)
I believe I did kind of say it would be easier to leave god out of it. I said "under god" isn't necessary and I wouldn't object to it being removed. I was saying that it being there is not infringing on someone's right to practice whatever religion they so choose. I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God. It doesn't stop me from believing that. Obama loving Allah doesn't mean when he says "under god" he can't worship how he chooses. If he believes in his heart that Allah is king then he's fine. I would suspect all people of religion or "anti-religion" can handle that... But, as I've seen, they can't apparently
(Obama=Muslim reference was a joke. Lighten up before anyone goes APEshit.)
I can handle it, but I shouldn't have to.
It's disturbing that the most sensible person currently posting in this thread is named "butthead."
Quote from: butthead on February 16, 2009, 06:01:18 PM
I can handle it, but I shouldn't have to.
Intrepid Reader: EvolutionThis post's superior genetics allow it to thrive amid the harsh realities of the feral jungle Thunderdome that is Desipio.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e21/SigsR1337/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2copy.png)
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
WHY MUST YOU MOCK ME OH LORD?!?
You know what? Fuck it. It doesn't really matter anyway. If people want this country to turn into a place where if anybody gets offended or by any little thing then IT MUST CHANGE, then fuck it. There's nothing I can do to change it. I guess that must be the course that this country and world is taking: appease everybody; offend no one. Obviously, I would hope some people might think that's impossible to do, but what the hell? Shoot for it anyway, I guess. There is no point to this. If people can't handle shit, then fuck; that's the way it's going to have to be. I've always thought the whole notion of being "offended" was a load of shit anyway. I always found it to be a cop out for anything someone doesn't like. Oh well, I guess that's where we are headed. I'll prepare for the ride.
Quote from: CT III on February 16, 2009, 07:06:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
WHY MUST YOU MOCK ME OH LORD?!?
Sometimes I think God is teasing me, just like he teased Moses in the desert.
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2009, 07:03:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e21/SigsR1337/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2copy.png)
I was inspired by his noodly appendage.
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 16, 2009, 07:06:27 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 16, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM
I choose to believe in a god, but not necessarily The God.
What sort?
The most delicious kind there is...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/13z74a0.jpg)
WHY MUST YOU MOCK ME OH LORD?!?
Sometimes I think God is teasing me, just like he teased Moses in the desert.
Sacrelicious.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
You know what? Fuck it. It doesn't really matter anyway. If people want this country to turn into a place where if anybody gets offended or by any little thing then IT MUST CHANGE, then fuck it. There's nothing I can do to change it. I guess that must be the course that this country and world is taking: appease everybody; offend no one. Obviously, I would hope some people might think that's impossible to do, but what the hell? Shoot for it anyway, I guess. There is no point to this. If people can't handle shit, then fuck; that's the way it's going to have to be. I've always thought the whole notion of being "offended" was a load of shit anyway. I always found it to be a cop out for anything someone doesn't like. Oh well, I guess that's where we are headed. I'll prepare for the ride.
Yeah, it's always about freedom from government interference until religion is involved. Then, the authoritarian impulse rears its ugly head. You do see how hypocritical that is, right?
And who's getting offended now? I think you're offended by the notion of coming from damn, dirty ape.
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
You know what? Fuck it. It doesn't really matter anyway. If people want this country to turn into a place where if anybody gets offended or by any little thing then IT MUST CHANGE, then fuck it. There's nothing I can do to change it. I guess that must be the course that this country and world is taking: appease everybody; offend no one. Obviously, I would hope some people might think that's impossible to do, but what the hell? Shoot for it anyway, I guess. There is no point to this. If people can't handle shit, then fuck; that's the way it's going to have to be. I've always thought the whole notion of being "offended" was a load of shit anyway. I always found it to be a cop out for anything someone doesn't like. Oh well, I guess that's where we are headed. I'll prepare for the ride.
Yeah, it's always about freedom from government interference until religion is involved. Then, the authoritarian impulse rears its ugly head. You do see how hypocritical that is, right?
And who's getting offended now? I think you're offended by the notion of coming from damn, dirty ape.
I really don't want the government interfering with my religion, nor your religion (lack thereof). I just don't think the things that are already in place *that* bad. Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one. Regardless, I don't want a religious state. Hell, no. However, is "In God We Trust" really that bad. Yes, it doesn't need to be there but seriously, is it killing anyone? That being said, if someone wants to remove it from money, that's fine too. I think you are missing the point that while I don't mind religious references filtered in the government, I acknowledge that they don't *need* to be there. But, alas, I will be penned as the guy who wants religion in the government and wants the religious right to get their way. Oh, well. There are worse things out there.
Also, I'm not offended by the notion of coming from an ape. I'm a hairy white ass dude (or a yeti). If anything, I still am an ape and I'm okay with myself.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing.
Ironically, whatever he is doing/has done/will do, he's doing his constituents a disservice by doing it. What religion cannot offer that science can is economic growth. One of the reasons we are able to have these moronic debates is that we have computers on our desks. A big reason we have such powerful, yet small computers, is the miniaturization development that the space program fostered. Now, where would we be if Galileo had not only been silenced, but his work actually destroyed? I mean, it only took 1,500 years to rediscover what was burned in the name of religion at Alexandria.
Yes, there's a debate to be had about religion and the ethics of stem cell research. But only one side of that debate can lead to progress. And the fact is anything we don't discover here will be discovered somewhere else. It's hard to support a government that would actually divert scarce education time away from ideas that could advance society in favor of the study of mythos as a replacement topic.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
You know what? Fuck it. It doesn't really matter anyway. If people want this country to turn into a place where if anybody gets offended or by any little thing then IT MUST CHANGE, then fuck it. There's nothing I can do to change it. I guess that must be the course that this country and world is taking: appease everybody; offend no one. Obviously, I would hope some people might think that's impossible to do, but what the hell? Shoot for it anyway, I guess. There is no point to this. If people can't handle shit, then fuck; that's the way it's going to have to be. I've always thought the whole notion of being "offended" was a load of shit anyway. I always found it to be a cop out for anything someone doesn't like. Oh well, I guess that's where we are headed. I'll prepare for the ride.
Yeah, it's always about freedom from government interference until religion is involved. Then, the authoritarian impulse rears its ugly head. You do see how hypocritical that is, right?
And who's getting offended now? I think you're offended by the notion of coming from damn, dirty ape.
I really don't want the government interfering with my religion, nor your religion (lack thereof). I just don't think the things that are already in place *that* bad. Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one. Regardless, I don't want a religious state. Hell, no. However, is "In God We Trust" really that bad. Yes, it doesn't need to be there but seriously, is it killing anyone? That being said, if someone wants to remove it from money, that's fine too. I think you are missing the point that while I don't mind religious references filtered in the government, I acknowledge that they don't *need* to be there. But, alas, I will be penned as the guy who wants religion in the government and wants the religious right to get their way. Oh, well. There are worse things out there.
Also, I'm not offended by the notion of coming from an ape. I'm a hairy white ass dude (or a yeti). If anything, I still am an ape and I'm okay with myself.
Yes, it is that bad. I don't proselytize my atheism (much). And I expect the favor to be returned.
I guarantee you, if the pledge of allegiance said "one nation, with no need of a god to explain the universe" or if money read "In god we doubt," Theists would be pretty damn pissed.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2009, 08:56:03 PM
A big reason we have such powerful, yet small computers, is the miniaturization development that the space program fostered.
I call speciousness. The "space program" generally lags technological advances, often for good reason. A far greater reason we have such powerful, yet small, computers is The Phone Company.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the
compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science
as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
The "In God We Trust" debate from the Christian right always slays me. As I recall, the Bible recounts a story where the Pharisees showed Jesus a coin with Caesar's picture on it, and asked something to the effect of "If you're so powerful, why isn't your picture on the coin," to which Jesus responds "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to the Lord what is the Lord's."
The Christian right: convinced that they are smarter than Christ.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
I really don't want the government interfering with my religion, nor your religion (lack thereof).
I stopped reading right here. That about sums it up.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 07:50:07 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
I really don't want the government interfering with my religion, nor your religion (lack thereof).
I stopped reading right here. That about sums it up.
Fuck my life. (http://www.fmylife.com/)
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
The Templeton Foundation awaits.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
This.
And to Tank's response to my comments earlier, thank you. I agree.
Holy shit, does this mean I'm a goddamn Pinko commie now? Nah.
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.
I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday. I win.
Quote from: butthead on February 17, 2009, 10:06:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.
Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for
total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.
Take that, Morph.
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday. I win.
No you don't. I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Quote from: butthead on February 17, 2009, 10:06:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.
Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.
Take that, Morph.
Take what? And where should I take it? I'm so confused today.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday. I win.
No you don't. I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.
I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:20:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday. I win.
No you don't. I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.
I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.
sure.
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:20:21 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Quote from: butthead on February 17, 2009, 10:06:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.
No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.
Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?
Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI), and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html) that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.
Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution. Perfect.
Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.
I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.
FWIW... This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne).
That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.
Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.
Take that, Morph.
Take what? And where should I take it? I'm so confused today.
Oh, it was just because you posted that just before I hit submit.
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:20:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday. I win.
No you don't. I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.
I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.
That's three words, dude.
Quote from: Zed on February 17, 2009, 10:20:21 AM
Take what? And where should I take it?
Take that sand to your ass and pound it?
Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 12:14:50 PM
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.
I don't think this has really been pointed out--but this bill is the epitome of 'Doublespeak.' George Orwell would have been aghast to read such a thing.
The only 'discourse' that has any room to 'analyze, critique and review scientific theories' is science itself. There isn't a religious institution on this planet that can credibly claim to offer anything resembling an intelligent or thoughtful analysis, critique or review of anything scientific...Mostly because every religion of consequence predates the scientific method by at least 1000 years. It's ridiculous to think that anything in the actual content of religions of consequence (meaning not batshit crazy scientologists or cults) can apply to an intellectual advancement made well after content had stopped being added to a religion's doctrine.
To say otherwise is to say that us lowly mortals are capable of adding shit to religious doctrine that isn't actually in the religious texts. Which would make you a prophet.
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
Of course, I'm just pointing out that omnipotence and free-will cannot ever be squared--but that insight is particularly relevant here. Either evolution is truly random, or it's not evolution. Randomness is an essential part of its definition. It's just a bunch of dominos falling in a manner entirely known by some omnipotent being. And that's not science.
So fuck Bobby Jindal for passing a doublespeak bill that undermines the most intelligent discourse that humanity has come up with in the last, good long while...a discourse that religion has no answer to and a discourse that has actually done more to improve the human condition than any other discourse.
(/ducks from any incoming postmodern critiques of the scientific method, etc.)
No "post-modern dispute," but Natural Selection is most assuredly not random. It's not "designed," but it is "designoid," due to its adherence to consistent rules.
Natural Selection acts by the combination of the laws of physics, probability, game theory, and any of a number of other calculable concepts. The very notion of "Natural Selection" is actually an explanation of the brake on random evolution. Only beings that are viable survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore only certain types of creatures develop. And due to the needed parsimony due to limited resources, pretty much every benefit comes with a cost. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
No arugment here. Add a jetpack and the ability to breathe fire and I would hella use those to defend my Cathedral of Secular Worship from the Nonunbelievers.
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
Just leave the Ukrainians out of it? OK?
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
Just leave the Ukrainians out of it? OK?
Look, I got no beef witht you Elvish Folk. I will honor the treaties.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
Just leave the Ukrainians out of it? OK?
I'll do no such kindness for a bunch of lousy Cossacks.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
They're pussies.
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
You mean a Pegazorse? Yeah, we got those too.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2009, 01:06:34 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
I blame the Russians.
They're pussies.
I hope the Russians love their children too. We share the same biology. Regardless of ideology.
I won't argue with your tenet that the bill sucks. It most certainly does. It's populism, and prominent leaders from both parties practice way too much of it.
However, there is room for both religious faith and scientific reason. Countless theologians with greater intellectual heft than I possess have grappled with the conflict of Faith and Reason, so I will refrain. One thing I believe: the scientific research we do has given us the power to do great things on a scale unimaginable even 50 years ago. It has also given us the power to do some evil (or at least harmful) things on a greater scale. If God gave us free will as I believe and is testing our ability to do the most good with the abilities we have as I believe, then advancing science is doing the work of God.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
You mean a Pegazorse? Yeah, we got those too.
HORNED Pegazorses? That's awesome.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
You mean a Pegazorse? Yeah, we got those too.
HORNED Pegazorses? That's awesome.
Perhaps, a Unipegazorse? Antelopegazorse? Oh shit yeah.
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
You mean a Pegazorse? Yeah, we got those too.
HORNED Pegazorses? That's awesome.
Perhaps, a Unipegazorse? Antelopegazorse? Oh shit yeah.
Sure, Slak. Just go on pretending like the Pegazorselope doesn't exist.
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I had a Word document on my computer coming to almost three pages, including a discussion of Calvin's interpretation of predestination and Descartes discussion of the omnipotence paradox; however, this is probably the best response to the aforementioned comment earlier.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 17, 2009, 02:05:49 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 01:15:51 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BH on February 17, 2009, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: RV on February 17, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
College words. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.
A wolf with horns would be pretty badass. Stupid evolution.
And yet we end up with a zebra-horse hybrid... wtf.
Is the full question wtf is the coolest shit ever? The answer is zorse.
Yeah, but imagine a zorse with horns and wings.
You mean a Pegazorse? Yeah, we got those too.
HORNED Pegazorses? That's awesome.
Perhaps, a Unipegazorse? Antelopegazorse? Oh shit yeah.
Sure, Slak. Just go on pretending like the Pegazorselope doesn't exist.
What an age we live in.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
I pray my Labor Board overlords don't read this, but as another individual who has dabbled with the psychotropic, I can say that it did nothing to diminish my curiosity into matters of faith and reason. Just trying to comprehend the theory of a multiverse, which some theorize could contain alternate universes which to us would be akin to an afterlife or other form of eschatology, furthered my own personal interest into matters of faith.
Plus, Mrs. G is a pretty staunch Catholic, which leads to very active discussions between the two of us.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
I pray my Labor Board overlords don't read this, but as another individual who has dabbled with the psychotropic, I can say that it did nothing to diminish my curiosity into matters of faith and reason. Just trying to comprehend the theory of a multiverse, which some theorize could contain alternate universes which to us would be akin to an afterlife or other form of eschatology, furthered my own personal interest into matters of faith.
Plus, Mrs. G is a pretty staunch Catholic, which leads to very active discussions between the two of us.
My experiences with psychotropics never opened me up to anything I wasn't already open to, to be honest.
I get what you're saying though. It reminds me of the fact that my strongly atheistic materialism has never once diminished my wonder at the universe. If anything, the less faith I have in the supernatural, the more in awe I am at life's diversity.
Especially Pegazorselopes.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
(http://www.boingboing.net/images/learycolorrrr.jpg)
(http://www.boingboing.net/images/learycolorbook2.jpg)
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
I pray my Labor Board overlords don't read this, but as another individual who has dabbled with the psychotropic, I can say that it did nothing to diminish my curiosity into matters of faith and reason. Just trying to comprehend the theory of a multiverse, which some theorize could contain alternate universes which to us would be akin to an afterlife or other form of eschatology, furthered my own personal interest into matters of faith.
Plus, Mrs. G is a pretty staunch Catholic, which leads to very active discussions between the two of us.
My experiences with psychotropics never opened me up to anything I wasn't already open to, to be honest.
I get what you're saying though. It reminds me of the fact that my strongly atheistic materialism has never once diminished my wonder at the universe. If anything, the less faith I have in the supernatural, the more in awe I am at life's diversity.
Especially Pegazorselopes.
Or Jackalopes? Or Mothmen? Or The Jersey Devil?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
I pray my Labor Board overlords don't read this, but as another individual who has dabbled with the psychotropic, I can say that it did nothing to diminish my curiosity into matters of faith and reason. Just trying to comprehend the theory of a multiverse, which some theorize could contain alternate universes which to us would be akin to an afterlife or other form of eschatology, furthered my own personal interest into matters of faith.
Plus, Mrs. G is a pretty staunch Catholic, which leads to very active discussions between the two of us.
My experiences with psychotropics never opened me up to anything I wasn't already open to, to be honest.
I get what you're saying though. It reminds me of the fact that my strongly atheistic materialism has never once diminished my wonder at the universe. If anything, the less faith I have in the supernatural, the more in awe I am at life's diversity.
Especially Pegazorselopes.
Or Jackalopes? Or Mothmen? Or The Jersey Devil?
Let's not get carried away. Only one of those is real.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 02:33:35 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
I already know the answer to this, but...
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
One gram of special mushrooms as 19 year olds could have cleared all this up long ago.
Ah, the Bill Hicks plan.
I pray my Labor Board overlords don't read this, but as another individual who has dabbled with the psychotropic, I can say that it did nothing to diminish my curiosity into matters of faith and reason. Just trying to comprehend the theory of a multiverse, which some theorize could contain alternate universes which to us would be akin to an afterlife or other form of eschatology, furthered my own personal interest into matters of faith.
Plus, Mrs. G is a pretty staunch Catholic, which leads to very active discussions between the two of us.
My experiences with psychotropics never opened me up to anything I wasn't already open to, to be honest.
I get what you're saying though. It reminds me of the fact that my strongly atheistic materialism has never once diminished my wonder at the universe. If anything, the less faith I have in the supernatural, the more in awe I am at life's diversity.
Especially Pegazorselopes.
Or Jackalopes? Or Mothmen? Or The Jersey Devil?
Let's not get carried away. Only one of those is real.
Which one though?
(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/hpv/jackalope.jpg)
(http://taskboy.com/lectures/AlienAbduction/04_Associated_Phenomona/mothman_drawing.jpg)
(http://www.steadyburn.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/puddy.png)
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
You spend hours and hours in this place, but you think it's a waste of time to discuss faith, reason, meaning, etc.? After all, you could have been out advancing human kind and furthering your understand of the world.
Quote from: Eli on February 17, 2009, 03:00:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
You spend hours and hours in this place, but you think it's a waste of time to discuss faith, reason, meaning, etc.? After all, you could have been out advancing human kind and furthering your understand of the world.
Sounds like someone needs a reprogramming.
In all seriousness, it sometimes seems as if the human mind will stop at no lengths to invent distractions from all things important.
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 17, 2009, 03:00:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 17, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?
You spend hours and hours in this place, but you think it's a waste of time to discuss faith, reason, meaning, etc.? After all, you could have been out advancing human kind and furthering your understand of the world.
Sounds like someone needs a reprogramming.
You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Eli. Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you: not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.
I realise this is a day late and all, but I just wanted to add that I wouldn't hang my hat on the advent of farming as the all important factor concerning hypertrophy of the human brain and divergence from the rest of the primates. Damsel fishes of the Stegastes genus farm marine algae and we don't consider them some super-brained mega-animal.
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible. God could not have "created" a random process. It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination. If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion. If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.
I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.
At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.
Questions of free will vs. determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism) are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room) philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.
As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox), among many others (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.
1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine. I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics. If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else. If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.
2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox. It's debilitating. If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination. Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.
All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest. That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.
If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'
3. By evolution being "random," I mean that there are factors that cannot be controlled--e.g. random weather patterns that push animals to environments that require adaptation, plant germination in some direction...because it involves probability, by definition it is random, right?
4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc. But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.
I disagree with your definition of "random." Evolution is heavily directed and constrained by myriad events that are not very predictable, but "random" has a meaning and implication that leads one to logical fallacies if it is used to describe Natural Selection. Random implies that anything can happen and nothing is predictable. But, as is, since the changes in speciation are very, very incremental, there are really only a few places each offspring can go in change at a generational level. Random is just not the right word.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine. I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics. If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else. If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.
2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox. It's debilitating. If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination. Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.
All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest. That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.
If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'
3. By evolution being "random," I mean that there are factors that cannot be controlled--e.g. random weather patterns that push animals to environments that require adaptation, plant germination in some direction...because it involves probability, by definition it is random, right?
4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc. But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
QuoteIn short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that he is (in some way) the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God understood and employed to help life grow and flourish.
QuoteThis view is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
There's an excellent discussion of free will and Christian religions here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm . It's not like it's irreconcilable.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine. I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics. If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else. If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.
I think that you don't understand the doctrine of Transubstantiation at all if you think it necessarily violates conservation of matter, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "substance" in the sense that it is was used by either the Scholastics or the Early Church.
Therefore I assume that your notion of what the "doctrinal rules" of Catholicism are is necessarily mistaken and, as I said earlier, uncharitable.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine. I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics. If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else. If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.
You're taking quite a leap. Catholics who ordain women priests are not really Catholics. Catholics who disagree with the Church's teachings are Catholics, some of them very prominent Cardinals that the Vatican turns to. (http://www.catholicsforministry.com.au/news/cardinal-martini-on-married-priests-and-ordination-of-women/)
As for transubstantiation, the official doctrine is that while the change in the bread and wine is undetectable, a change has occurred making the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. The matter has not changed. Similarly, I go to Bleed Cubbie Blue and while the computer monitor has not changed as far as matter goes, the monitor is quite different from what it was before I went there.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox. It's debilitating. If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination. Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.
Methodists embrace predestination? (http://www.orlutheran.com/html/methodism.html)
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest. That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.
If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'
Intellectual honesty would also recognize that many organized religious denominations have room for disagreements, whether you are talking about Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Sunni Muslims, or Bahai. And even the most religious have had lingering doubts about their faith. Mother Teresa had persistent doubts and disagreements with the Vatican, but are you going to suggest she's not Catholic?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc. But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.
Why isn't there anything persuasive in favor of free will? Why wouldn't God, to use another bad metaphor, swallow His whistle and let us play? If this world is but a test and a dress rehearsal for the next one, why wouldn't He let us figure out how to get things right?
Tank has already articulated a position I agree with far better than I have, but let's repeat it:
Quote
In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.
But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.
All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.
This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)," and is one of the main (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm) tasks of (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv4-50) theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.
This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)," and is one of the main (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm) tasks of (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv4-50) theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.
This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)," and is one of the main (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm) tasks of (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv4-50) theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.
He has a plan, you know. Sometimes it involves the nightmarish butchering of a loved one. But it's a
plan.
To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc. The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.
Quote from: Slakee on February 17, 2009, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 17, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.
This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)," and is one of the main (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm) tasks of (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv4-50) theodicy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm).
The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.
He has a plan, you know. Sometimes it involves the nightmarish butchering of a loved one. But it's a plan.
Can you check the plan and let me know if I'm going to get laid this year?
You know who this conversation is perfect for?
Paul.
Where's Paul when you need him?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 05:40:24 PM
To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc. The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.
And even this can be confusing if you don't understand that "substance" does not refer to the same concept as our colloquial use of the word (which I think would be more akin to "matter").
"Substance" as used here comes from the Latin "substantia," which was the Latin translation of the Greek "ousia," which is actually equivalent to the English "being"—but even that is imprecise—and which is also related to the Latin concept of "essence."
Even if the original Christian concept of "substance" didn't hew exactly to Aristotle's idea of it (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics), it came around to it later under the influence of the Scholastics. Regardless, like most philosophical terms of art the concept is tricky enough one to get your mind around. (Just look at the length of this article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/).)
Incidentally, and not directly related (as far as I'm aware) to the theology of transubstantiation, the confusion caused by the semantic shift in the translation of the Greek
ousia into the Latin
substantia may have added considerably to the Arian heresy in the Early Church, which resulted in the formalization of Trinitarian Christology in the Nicene Creed and which hinged on the distinction between
homoousia and
homoiousia—the notorious "one iota" of difference.
Quote from: Canadouche on February 17, 2009, 06:52:52 PM
You know who this conversation is perfect for?
Paul.
Where's Paul when you need him?
Banging sluts...
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 06:58:49 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 05:40:24 PM
To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc. The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.
And even this can be confusing if you don't understand that "substance" does not refer to the same concept as our colloquial use of the word (which I think would be more akin to "matter").
"Substance" as used here comes from the Latin "substantia," which was the Latin translation of the Greek "ousia," which is actually equivalent to the English "being"—but even that is imprecise—and which is also related to the Latin concept of "essence."
Even if the original Christian concept of "substance" didn't hew exactly to Aristotle's idea of it (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics), it came around to it later under the influence of the Scholastics. Regardless, like most philosophical terms of art the concept is tricky enough one to get your mind around. (Just look at the length of this article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/).)
Incidentally, and not directly related (as far as I'm aware) to the theology of transubstantiation, the confusion caused by the semantic shift in the translation of the Greek ousia into the Latin substantia may have added considerably to the Arian heresy in the Early Church, which resulted in the formalization of Trinitarian Christology in the Nicene Creed and which hinged on the distinction between homoousia and homoiousia—the notorious "one iota" of difference.
This.
I'm kidding. I have no idea what the hell is going on.
Quote from: butthead on February 17, 2009, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 06:58:49 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 05:40:24 PM
To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc. The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.
And even this can be confusing if you don't understand that "substance" does not refer to the same concept as our colloquial use of the word (which I think would be more akin to "matter").
"Substance" as used here comes from the Latin "substantia," which was the Latin translation of the Greek "ousia," which is actually equivalent to the English "being"—but even that is imprecise—and which is also related to the Latin concept of "essence."
Even if the original Christian concept of "substance" didn't hew exactly to Aristotle's idea of it (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics), it came around to it later under the influence of the Scholastics. Regardless, like most philosophical terms of art the concept is tricky enough one to get your mind around. (Just look at the length of this article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/).)
Incidentally, and not directly related (as far as I'm aware) to the theology of transubstantiation, the confusion caused by the semantic shift in the translation of the Greek ousia into the Latin substantia may have added considerably to the Arian heresy in the Early Church, which resulted in the formalization of Trinitarian Christology in the Nicene Creed and which hinged on the distinction between homoousia and homoiousia—the notorious "one iota" of difference.
This.
I'm kidding. I have no idea what the hell is going on.
Tank is just trying for extra credit now.
(http://www.billionairebrothers.com/BillionaireBrothers.com/MikeJones3.jpg)
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 08:13:17 PM
Quote from: butthead on February 17, 2009, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 06:58:49 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 05:40:24 PM
To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc. The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.
And even this can be confusing if you don't understand that "substance" does not refer to the same concept as our colloquial use of the word (which I think would be more akin to "matter").
"Substance" as used here comes from the Latin "substantia," which was the Latin translation of the Greek "ousia," which is actually equivalent to the English "being"—but even that is imprecise—and which is also related to the Latin concept of "essence."
Even if the original Christian concept of "substance" didn't hew exactly to Aristotle's idea of it (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics), it came around to it later under the influence of the Scholastics. Regardless, like most philosophical terms of art the concept is tricky enough one to get your mind around. (Just look at the length of this article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/).)
Incidentally, and not directly related (as far as I'm aware) to the theology of transubstantiation, the confusion caused by the semantic shift in the translation of the Greek ousia into the Latin substantia may have added considerably to the Arian heresy in the Early Church, which resulted in the formalization of Trinitarian Christology in the Nicene Creed and which hinged on the distinction between homoousia and homoiousia—the notorious "one iota" of difference.
This.
I'm kidding. I have no idea what the hell is going on.
Tank is just trying for extra credit now.
EG's breathing down my neck, man. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6481.msg168347#msg168347)
Gotta do whatever it takes to stay a step ahead.
Now I'm just waiting for Wheezer to show up and correct my etymology.
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quote from: Brownie on February 18, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quotewireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to CT for the CT Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000,000 shall be paid directly to CT in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by CT to Dry out him basement or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That CT will receive free Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That CT shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Jim Oberweiss is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 18, 2009, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 18, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quotewireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to CT for the CT Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000,000 shall be paid directly to CT in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by CT to Dry out him basement or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That CT will receive free Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That CT shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Jim Oberweiss is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
For Jim Oberweis to be expelled, he would first need to enter Congress, a feat which, as of this printing, has thus far eluded him.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 18, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 18, 2009, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 18, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quotewireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to CT for the CT Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000,000 shall be paid directly to CT in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by CT to Dry out him basement or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That CT will receive free Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That CT shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Jim Oberweiss is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
For Jim Oberweis to be expelled, he would first need to enter Congress, a feat which, as of this printing, has thus far eluded him.
It was a preemptive expulsion. Just in case.
So, North Dakota appears willing to equate a fertilized egg with a full-grown adult for the purposes of defining life. http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726
Also, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he doesn't want your stinking stimulus money. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4807323.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=PoliticalHotsheet_4807323
And finally, some fodder for all those preparing a 2012 GOP run against Obama: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/02/17/obamas_tax_cut.html
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 18, 2009, 10:25:02 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 18, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 18, 2009, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 18, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quotewireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to CT for the CT Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000,000 shall be paid directly to CT in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by CT to Dry out him basement or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That CT will receive free Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That CT shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Jim Oberweiss is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
For Jim Oberweis to be expelled, he would first need to enter Congress, a feat which, as of this printing, has thus far eluded him.
It was a preemptive expulsion. Just in case.
Jebus Christ, if this is anyone other than the original Alfalfa, you stole my bit.
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
I disagree with your definition of "random." Evolution is heavily directed and constrained by myriad events that are not very predictable, but "random" has a meaning and implication that leads one to logical fallacies if it is used to describe Natural Selection. Random implies that anything can happen and nothing is predictable. But, as is, since the changes in speciation are very, very incremental, there are really only a few places each offspring can go in change at a generational level. Random is just not the right word.
I think that we're having a micro/macro disagreement--if you look at the way any one species has evolved, sure, there is a range of possible adaptations and ways the species can evolve. It's not perfectly random (e.g. equal probabilities) whether we'll grow a superflous third nipple ala Krusty or sprout wings or develop a better immune system.
But how our immune system may grow stronger is "random" in the sense that we don't have control over to what it's exposed. Say some weather phenomenon seriously alters an ecosystem...you're going to get a different evolution within that system as a result.
Random and weighted probabilities are consistent--but random is a perfectly good proxy for "influenced by uncontrollable phenomena." The key element of random is "chance," not "equal chance." I haven't heard a scientist claim that any evolution was guaranteed and not ultimately subject to some degree of chance (and hence, randomness).
"Random" question for everybody ... mathematically, how big is the universe?
Quote from: Canadouche on February 18, 2009, 02:05:07 PM
"Random" question for everybody ... mathematically, how big is the universe?
7
OK, what's the over/under on the universe?
Quote from: Zed on February 18, 2009, 02:09:06 PM
OK, what's the over/under on the universe?
42
Aadams'd
Al Sharpton is mad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/18/obama-administration-usa)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1640/chimpcartoon460sn5.jpg)
Quote from: Eli on February 18, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Al Sharpton is mad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/18/obama-administration-usa)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1640/chimpcartoon460sn5.jpg)
I think he has a point. The person that created that cartoon lacks a sense of humor and tact.
http://www.theheckler.com/news/templates/?a=2745&z=1 (http://www.theheckler.com/news/templates/?a=2745&z=1)
Quote"What was the point of beating the French in World War II if we have to dress like them?" asked Lewis. "I just hope Obama doesn't go all soft and forget what it means to be a Sox fan. Next time there's a big summit he should sneak up on the president of Europe and punch the guy in the face just to show the world who's in charge."
Quote from: Slakee on February 18, 2009, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 18, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Al Sharpton is mad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/18/obama-administration-usa)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1640/chimpcartoon460sn5.jpg)
I think he has a point. The person that created that cartoon lacks a sense of humor and tact.
LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE...
But seriously, (I hate being on the same side as Sharpton on something but) that cartoon is a piece of shit. I would think people would know that you can't refer to a black man in this country as an ape/monkey (Even though they are direct descendents of them). You can only do that with the white man.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 18, 2009, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 18, 2009, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 18, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Al Sharpton is mad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/18/obama-administration-usa)
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1640/chimpcartoon460sn5.jpg)
I think he has a point. The person that created that cartoon lacks a sense of humor and tact.
LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE...
But seriously, (I hate being on the same side as Sharpton on something but) that cartoon is a piece of shit. I would think people would know that you can't refer to a black man in this country as an ape/monkey (Even though they are direct descendents of them). You can only do that with the white man.
It used to be that you could make jokes about the monkeys running the show in Washington (didn't we all notice how President Bush bore a striking resemblance to Curious George?). Isn't it still racism to ASSUME a racist thought or act?
Does that mean that when a woman is president, we can no longer call politicians stupid twats?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 18, 2009, 01:50:55 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
I disagree with your definition of "random." Evolution is heavily directed and constrained by myriad events that are not very predictable, but "random" has a meaning and implication that leads one to logical fallacies if it is used to describe Natural Selection. Random implies that anything can happen and nothing is predictable. But, as is, since the changes in speciation are very, very incremental, there are really only a few places each offspring can go in change at a generational level. Random is just not the right word.
I think that we're having a micro/macro disagreement--if you look at the way any one species has evolved, sure, there is a range of possible adaptations and ways the species can evolve. It's not perfectly random (e.g. equal probabilities) whether we'll grow a superflous third nipple ala Krusty or sprout wings or develop a better immune system.
But how our immune system may grow stronger is "random" in the sense that we don't have control over to what it's exposed. Say some weather phenomenon seriously alters an ecosystem...you're going to get a different evolution within that system as a result.
Random and weighted probabilities are consistent--but random is a perfectly good proxy for "influenced by uncontrollable phenomena." The key element of random is "chance," not "equal chance." I haven't heard a scientist claim that any evolution was guaranteed and not ultimately subject to some degree of chance (and hence, randomness).
It's vitally important to realize that "chance" and "random" are not synonyms.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 18, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 18, 2009, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 18, 2009, 09:21:46 AM
OK. Time to stop arguing about religion and science, and instead build yourself your own BAILOUT! (http://www.reason.com/stimulus/request.php)
Quotewireless and broadband deployment grant programs
(including transfer of funds to CT for the CT Personal Economic Stimulus Program)
For necessary and unnecessary expenses related to the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grant Programs established by section 6002 of division B of this Act, $2,825,000,000, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for Wireless Deployment Grants and $1,825,000,000 shall be for Broadband Deployment Grants: Provided, That an additional $1,000,000,000 shall be paid directly to CT in the form of subsidized loans that do not require repayment. Provided Further, That the funds be used by CT to Dry out him basement or for whatever. Provided Even Further, That CT will receive free Cubs tickets for life. Provided Even Further Still, That CT shall be treated as a cabinet-level appointment for the purpose of income tax reporting, and therefore no taxes shall be paid on any of the aformentioned benefits. And one more thing: Jim Oberweiss is hereby expelled from Congress, effective immediately upon enactment.
For Jim Oberweis to be expelled, he would first need to enter Congress, a feat which, as of this printing, has thus far eluded him.
Why do you print out your posts?
F*ck Al Sharpton.
This graph has some primary colors in it.
(http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif)
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 24, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
This graph has some primary colors in it.
(http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif)
I would assume this is George W. Bush's fault, correct?
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 12:36:56 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 24, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
This graph has some primary colors in it.
(http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif)
I would assume this is George W. Bush's fault, correct?
His fingerprints are on it.
So are a lot of others, going back to Clinton's deregulations.
Quote from: Fork on February 24, 2009, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 12:36:56 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 24, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
This graph has some primary colors in it.
(http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif)
I would assume this is George W. Bush's fault, correct?
His fingerprints are on it.
So are a lot of others, going back to Clinton's deregulations.
I would actually fully agree with that. It just seems that anytime some douche like me tries to mention his name in connection, I'm either blaming only Clinton or trying to get it off of Bush's hands.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 12:41:20 PM
... trying to get it off of in Bush's hands.
I think you're taking this hero worship thing a bit too far.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 12:36:56 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 24, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
This graph has some primary colors in it.
(http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-extended-large.gif)
I would assume this is George W. Bush's fault, correct?
How the fuck would I know what you assume?
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
You're really, really doing my fucking head in now.
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Listen, MikeC, no one is trying to pin the blame on President Bush entirely. I think the vast majority of the people who are on these boards and who read this thread in particular acknowledge that the current financial crisis is something that cannot entirely be blamed on one person. There are scapegoats, aplenty, to be sure, but one person alone, no.
However, what I will challenge you on is this: President Bush made several, several mistakes during his tenure of office and your reactionary reluctance to possibly see any fault in the administration of George W. Bush makes your posts particularly ripe for criticism. In one month in office, you have so far attacked President Obama for his increase of the federal deficit, while ignoring the past 8 years (or 6 if you count the Democratic Congress) of fiscal profligacy. This is not hypocritical, this is cognitive dissonance.
So my advice and my challenge, I'm sure you'd pull some more credibility with this thread, or in life in general, if you are willing and open to admit that George W. Bush made mistakes (such as his massive ballooning of the deficit and abandonment of any conservative principle [except for hating the gays]) and that you opposed them then, just as you oppose them now.
Until then, you are simply background noise.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 26, 2009, 03:02:24 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Listen, MikeC, no one is trying to pin the blame on President Bush entirely. I think the vast majority of the people who are on these boards and who read this thread in particular acknowledge that the current financial crisis is something that cannot entirely be blamed on one person. There are scapegoats, aplenty, to be sure, but one person alone, no.
However, what I will challenge you on is this: President Bush made several, several mistakes during his tenure of office and your reactionary reluctance to possibly see any fault in the administration of George W. Bush makes your posts particularly ripe for criticism. In one month in office, you have so far attacked President Obama for his increase of the federal deficit, while ignoring the past 8 years (or 6 if you count the Democratic Congress) of fiscal profligacy. This is not hypocritical, this is cognitive dissonance.
So my advice and my challenge, I'm sure you'd pull some more credibility with this thread, or in life in general, if you are willing and open to admit that George W. Bush made mistakes (such as his massive ballooning of the deficit and abandonment of any conservative principle [except for hating the gays]) and that you opposed them then, just as you oppose them now.
Until then, you are simply background noise.
THIS, THIS, THI.
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
I might be missing something but my view on Republicans has always been a little bit of a Liberterian-esque when it comes to regulating businesses and a little bit of "Let's see how it plays out" type of thing
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 26, 2009, 03:02:24 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Listen, MikeC, no one is trying to pin the blame on President Bush entirely. I think the vast majority of the people who are on these boards and who read this thread in particular acknowledge that the current financial crisis is something that cannot entirely be blamed on one person. There are scapegoats, aplenty, to be sure, but one person alone, no.
However, what I will challenge you on is this: President Bush made several, several mistakes during his tenure of office and your reactionary reluctance to possibly see any fault in the administration of George W. Bush makes your posts particularly ripe for criticism. In one month in office, you have so far attacked President Obama for his increase of the federal deficit, while ignoring the past 8 years (or 6 if you count the Democratic Congress) of fiscal profligacy. This is not hypocritical, this is cognitive dissonance.
So my advice and my challenge, I'm sure you'd pull some more credibility with this thread, or in life in general, if you are willing and open to admit that George W. Bush made mistakes (such as his massive ballooning of the deficit and abandonment of any conservative principle [except for hating the gays]) and that you opposed them then, just as you oppose them now.
Until then, you are simply background noise.
Pretty obvious to me that Gil hates the troops.
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 26, 2009, 03:02:24 PM
Listen, MikeC, no one is trying to pin the blame on President Bush entirely. I think the vast majority of the people who are on these boards and who read this thread in particular acknowledge that the current financial crisis is something that cannot entirely be blamed on one person.
Not only am I pinning the blame on Bush for everything, I am also throwing in the 2003, 2004, 2007, & 2008 Cubs.
A MikeC mad-lib:
QuoteHmmm, of course all you (negative adjective) Libs think that (recent political disaster) was Bush's fault. Big suprise. Well, if you weren't so busy sucking Obama's (phallic noun) maybe you'd get your facts strait.
If (previously cited disaster) was Bushs fault, why did (Democratic politician) come out and say this? Maybe if people would of actually listend to Bush, we wouldn't be in this current mess.
(Michelle Malkin link)
(Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) Fuckers.
Ohhh right, that's right, go ahead and blame Bush for everything, you stupid (plural negative adjective). And you can all look the other way like a bunch of (slang term for feces)heads and ignore what I say and pretend that history didn't happen.
Oh yeah also while I'm here what do you all have to say about this?
(Hot Air link)
(Unattributed quote)
Yeah, thats what I thought, you (synonym for vagina). You'll never own up to anything, no matter how many times I show you the facts about (current political issue) or (any random stimulus spending program). But noooo, your boy Obama, the (one of the many Biblical names for Jesus) will continue to get a pass all the way from (media outlet) to (media outlet). It never changes.
(Obama campaign slogan), my ass.
Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 03:16:57 PM
A MikeC mad-lib:
QuoteHmmm, of course all you (negative adjective) Libs think that (recent political disaster) was Bush's fault. Big suprise. Well, if you weren't so busy sucking Obama's (phallic noun) maybe you'd get your facts strait.
If (previously cited disaster) was Bushs fault, why did (Democratic politician) come out and say this? Maybe if people would of actually listend to Bush, we wouldn't be in this current mess.
(Michelle Malkin link)
(Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) Fuckers.
Ohhh right, that's right, go ahead and blame Bush for everything, you stupid (plural negative adjective). And you can all look the other way like a bunch of (slang term for feces)heads and ignore what I say and pretend that history didn't happen.
Oh yeah also while I'm here what do you all have to say about this?
(Hot Air link)
(Unattributed quote)
Yeah, thats what I thought, you (synonym for vagina). You'll never own up to anything, no matter how many times I show you the facts about (current political issue) or (any random stimulus spending program). But noooo, your boy Obama, the (one of the many Biblical names for Jesus) will continue to get a pass all the way from (media outlet) to (media outlet). It never changes.
(Obama campaign slogan), my ass.
LSA
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
My company's boardroom (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/obama_advisory_board_member_is_senior_exec_with_firm_under_federal_investigation_for_tax_scam.php) is. (link is but one example)
Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
My company's boardroom (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/obama_advisory_board_member_is_senior_exec_with_firm_under_federal_investigation_for_tax_scam.php) is. (link is but one example)
Just because Bob Rubin worked for Clinton doesn't make Goldman Sachs lousy with Democrats. There's one in every crowd.
Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 03:16:57 PM
A MikeC mad-lib:
QuoteHmmm, of course all you (negative adjective) Libs think that (recent political disaster) was Bush's fault. Big suprise. Well, if you weren't so busy sucking Obama's (phallic noun) maybe you'd get your facts strait.
If (previously cited disaster) was Bushs fault, why did (Democratic politician) come out and say this? Maybe if people would of actually listend to Bush, we wouldn't be in this current mess.
(Michelle Malkin link)
(Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) Fuckers.
Ohhh right, that's right, go ahead and blame Bush for everything, you stupid (plural negative adjective). And you can all look the other way like a bunch of (slang term for feces)heads and ignore what I say and pretend that history didn't happen.
Oh yeah also while I'm here what do you all have to say about this?
(Hot Air link)
(Unattributed quote)
Yeah, thats what I thought, you (synonym for vagina). You'll never own up to anything, no matter how many times I show you the facts about (current political issue) or (any random stimulus spending program). But noooo, your boy Obama, the (one of the many Biblical names for Jesus) will continue to get a pass all the way from (media outlet) to (media outlet). It never changes.
(Obama campaign slogan), my ass.
Beautiful, Eli.
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
My company's boardroom (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/obama_advisory_board_member_is_senior_exec_with_firm_under_federal_investigation_for_tax_scam.php) is. (link is but one example)
Just because Bob Rubin worked for Clinton doesn't make Goldman Sachs lousy with Democrats. There's one in every crowd.
Also, am I not incorrect for suggesting that Robert Rubin would be, in comparison to the rest of the Clinton Administration, rather conservative?
Quote from: MAD on February 26, 2009, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
My company's boardroom (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/obama_advisory_board_member_is_senior_exec_with_firm_under_federal_investigation_for_tax_scam.php) is. (link is but one example)
Just because Bob Rubin worked for Clinton doesn't make Goldman Sachs lousy with Democrats. There's one in every crowd.
Also, am I not incorrect for suggesting that Robert Rubin would be, in comparison to the rest of the Clinton Administration, rather conservative?
Um... yes? Or, no? I'm not sure, to be honest.
You know what?
Vanna White is still hot.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 26, 2009, 03:43:42 PM
You know what?
Vanna White is still hot.
Pics, or it didn't happen. PROVE IT!!!
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 26, 2009, 03:06:31 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
I might be missing something but my view on Republicans has always been a little bit of a Liberterian-esque when it comes to regulating businesses and a little bit of "Let's see how it plays out" type of thing
I guess that's sort of the point. Is MikeC saying that regulation is good or bad? I would think his political philosophy would attest to deregualtion being good. So, if F & F were deregulated, what difference does it make who did it, assuming one think that it was the right thing to do. If it turned out badly, can one really blame the man responsible for the deregulation? If it was Bush who had done it, should it be looked at any differently?
I will also suggest that on the list of the ten biggest reason why our economy is in the shitter, 8 of them are "Wall Street", and I frankly don't give two shits for whom they tended to vote. Fuckers. You too, Morph. Ok, not Morph.
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 03:11:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 26, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Hmmm if its mostly Bush's fault then shouldn't the Republicans have been the ones going "Nope, nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" and trying to stop any attempt at regulating them? And shouldn't the Democrats been the ones questioning the viability of those companies back in 2003, instead of the other way around?
Plus if its mostly Bush's fault shouldn't most of the top executives of these companies be Republican, instead of mostly Democrat? You know to further promote the false image of greedy rich Republicans screwing over their company and Americans for a fat bonus instead of it being Democrats?
The only fault i can blame Bush for the F & F failure is that the Republicans didn't have enough seats in the House and Senate to force regulation on these companies.
Everyone wants to blame somebody. Well lets blame the last attempts to fix F & F and see who stood in the way and lets blame them. It is not entirely about who set the whole process in motion but on how early you could spot the problem and try and fix it. And the only answer that keeps coming out is Democrats stood in the way every step of the way in our last attempts to fix it. That is just good old American facts that can't be dismissed, poo pooed, or made to go away.
Here is a nice long list of Bush Administration attempts at reforming F & F, that none of you Bush haters will bother to ever look at. Its much easier to play the Bush blame game....
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Everyone knows boardrooms at financial institutions are hotbeds of Liberalism.
My company's boardroom (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/obama_advisory_board_member_is_senior_exec_with_firm_under_federal_investigation_for_tax_scam.php) is. (link is but one example)
Just because Bob Rubin worked for Clinton doesn't make Goldman Sachs lousy with Democrats. There's one in every crowd.
Jon Corzine...
I can name others
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That
guy Fucker standing behind Yeti.
Pictured' and Oleg'd
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti this obese slob.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
BMI'd
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti this obese slob.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
BMI'd
That is really a disgusting picture of my fat slobbering obese ass.
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 26, 2009, 06:33:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti this obese slob.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
BMI'd
That is really a disgusting picture of my fat slobbering obese ass.
Your ass?
I'm pretty certain that's your face.
Kinda sad if even you can't tell the difference anymore.
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti.
Pictured' and Oleg'd
(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-06/40096070.jpg)
Same'd.
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti this obese slob.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
BMI'd
Denial, thy name is Yeti. And I should know.
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 26, 2009, 06:33:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others
Pics or it didn't happen.
That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti this obese slob.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3204612756_fe418045e9.jpg?v=0)
BMI'd
That is really a disgusting picture of my fat slobbering obese ass.
Your ass?
I'm pretty certain that's your face.
Kinda sad if even you can't tell the difference anymore.
He sat next to TDubbs in anatomy class.
Latest odds from FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/il-05-rahms-middle-finger_27.html) on the race to replace Rahm:
QuoteQuigley 2-1
Feigenholtz 5-2
Fritchey 5-1
Wheelan 12-1
Goeghegan 20-1
O'Connor 25-1
Works for me. Quigley has some solid reform credentials, although he'd be missed on the Cook County Board.
Quote from: RV on February 27, 2009, 11:24:53 AM
Latest odds from FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/il-05-rahms-middle-finger_27.html) on the race to replace Rahm:
QuoteQuigley 2-1
Feigenholtz 5-2
Fritchey 5-1
Wheelan 12-1
Goeghegan 20-1
O'Connor 25-1
Works for me. Quigley has some solid reform credentials, although he'd be missed on the Cook County Board.
Am I the only one who remembers Quigley as the community activist for Citizens United for Baseball in the Sunshine (CUBS) in the early 80's?
Quote from: MAD on February 27, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: RV on February 27, 2009, 11:24:53 AM
Latest odds from FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/il-05-rahms-middle-finger_27.html) on the race to replace Rahm:
QuoteQuigley 2-1
Feigenholtz 5-2
Fritchey 5-1
Wheelan 12-1
Goeghegan 20-1
O'Connor 25-1
Works for me. Quigley has some solid reform credentials, although he'd be missed on the Cook County Board.
Am I the only one who remembers Quigley as the community activist for Citizens United for Baseball in the Sunshine (CUBS) in the early 80's?
I had my Oleg-tinted glasses on and read that as "communist activist."
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
[MikeC] This is all Obama's fault for being a socialist, Iranian loving Muslim who isn't even eligible for the Presidency. It's his fault we had to blow ourselves up.[/MikeC]
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Too coherent.
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Too coherent.
Tell ya the truth, I'm glad I failed.
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 05:26:03 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Too coherent.
Tell ya the truth, I'm glad I failed.
I will say Jonathan Stein came close on this one though...
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Bobby Jindal, who ya crappin'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Jindal_aide_Story_was_set_after_Katrina.html
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Too coherent.
Too many complete sentences. Not enough run-on sentences. Verbs are too consistent with the object of the sentence. Please, get some misspelled words in there.
Quote from: CBStew on February 27, 2009, 07:05:46 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on February 27, 2009, 04:38:01 PM
Let's see if I can MikeC this one:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago
The neocons want to nuke Chicago! We're fucked!
Needs more words.
Too coherent.
Too many complete sentences. Not enough run-on sentences. Verbs are too consistent with the object of the sentence. Please, get some misspelled words in there.
Please mention man on man fellatio as well; that's a MikeC trademark.
Period. Period, motherfuckers.
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Fucking brilliant.
Quote from: Tonker on March 03, 2009, 02:56:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Fucking brilliant.
The P.F. Chang in my neighborhood is much less frantic.
Quote from: CBStew on March 03, 2009, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 03, 2009, 02:56:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Fucking brilliant.
The P.F. Chang in my neighborhood is much less frantic.
All the action at Chang's is apparently in the shitter.
Quote from: Tank on March 03, 2009, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 03, 2009, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 03, 2009, 02:56:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Fucking brilliant.
The P.F. Chang in my neighborhood is much less frantic.
All the action at Chang's is apparently in the shitter.
You can get anal there now?
Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 11:03:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 03, 2009, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 03, 2009, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 03, 2009, 02:56:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 27, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
[I shouted this aloud while carving these words into a bathroom stall at P.F. Chang's]
"IN ACTUALITY ONLY A LIBRUL COMSYMP LIKE ADOLF HUSSEIN OBAMUSSOLINI WOULD THINK THAT COHERENCY IS MORE IMPORTNAT THAN PROVING YOUR RIGHT BY POSTING A QUOTE BY A MYSTERY BLOG AND LETTING OTHERS FIGURE IT OUT BECUASE ANYONE WITHOUT NANCY PELAWFUL'S WANG JAMMED IN THEY'RE SINUSES WOULD REALIZE THAT OH MY GOD I CAN'T FEEL MY LEFT ARM BUT I WILL NOT STOP UNITL I PROVE YOU ALL WRONG! THERE! MY HEART HAS STARTED BEATING AGAIN, NO THANKS TO OUR SO-CALLED "AMERICAN" PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBHITLER AND HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE GUMMINT TAKE AWAY OUR DOCTORS. SO NOW I AM HITTING CTRL-V! THEN HIGHLIGHTING AND MAKING IT A QUOTE!
QuoteOur mission at Hot Air is to:
* Expose new viewers to the revolutionary world of videoblogging, animation, and Internet broadcasting;
* Recruit dynamic, enterprising people with creative skills from across the country to help us challenge (and CONQUER!) the dinosaur broadcast media outlets;
* Laugh. Report. Laugh. Entertain. Laugh. Inform. Laugh. Make money. Did we say laugh?
So, tune in. Turn on. And drop us a tip or two or three. We're here to fight hot air with Hot Air. Fill 'er up.
SO PUT THAT IN YOU'RE HAT AND SMOKE IT! BUT I BET YOU NEVER READ IT! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE IN THE NEXT STALL DOING! KEEP IT DOWN! I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF YELL!!!!! I JUST HIT SPELL CHECK BY MISTAKE! I IGNORE THAT! HIT POST!! GO TO BED ANGRY AND WAKE UP REFRESHED!"
Fucking brilliant.
The P.F. Chang in my neighborhood is much less frantic.
All the action at Chang's is apparently in the shitter.
You can get anal there now?
I'm glad that you killed this thread too b/c now I won't have to see it at the top anymore.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/05/gupta_steps_aside.html?hpid=topnews
We know that Obama's not Jesus. Jesus knew how to assemble a cabinet.
Quote from: morpheus on March 05, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/05/gupta_steps_aside.html?hpid=topnews
We know that Obama's not Jesus. Jesus knew how to assemble a cabinet.
ORLY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGQRBkv4di8
QuoteHi! As I'm sure you're all aware, there's a movement amongst archaeologists to attempt to reconcile the Biblical account of history with the archaeological record. Now, I'm an intellectually curious young man with, let's face it, no real job. So, I've done some exploring of my own in this vain. The Bible tells us that Christ was trained as a carpenter. But in my most recent digs, I've found artifacts that show He was not a very good carpenter.
This chair, for example. One of the legs is significantly shorter than the other. This causes a certain degree of wobbling and a more subtle defect, no lower back support. Over here we have a table. Now this table has only two legs. Now, I've conferred with many leading contemporary carpenters and they all agree that three is the bare minimum required for stability. Observe. [lets go of table and it falls down]. Even taking into account the primitive times, this portrays a shocking lack of craftsmanship. Now over here we have this, and frankly, I have no idea what this is. For a while I thought it might be a spice rack of some sort. But watch. If I take this jar of crushed cumin seed and place it here... [jar rolls off onto the floor] Clearly, if it is a spice rack, it is not a spice rack of the best ilk.
Conclusions: Yes, Christ was a great philosophical and religious leader; perhaps, even as some maintain, the Savior or Messiah. But it seems clear that He had few career options. As a carpenter, He was incompetent. He would've been unable even to construct the simple crucifix upon which ultimately He met his martyrdom. Now, I know that these views are going to be controversial. But I am also aware that if Christina Applegate were to express them wearing a halter top, you'd eat it up. Thanks!
Thrill's satirical refutation notwithstanding, that's the funniest line morpheus has ever uttered here. Well played.
Interesting viewpoint at Salon about Obama's "timid liberalism." I'm sure he's plenty liberal for morph and TJ, but apparently not so for the author.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/06/neoliberalism/index.html
QuoteNeoliberals are liberals in one sense -- they fret about unequal outcomes. But rather than help middle- and low-income Americans by regulating the prices of privately provided public goods, as the crude and direct New Dealers would have done, neoliberal Democrats have argued for allowing the "market" (translation: the publicly subsidized entities) to set prices and then promised to provide tax subsidies or grants to help middle- and low-income Americans pay for the expensive, privately provided public goods.
QuoteYou might have thought that the Crash of 2008 would have led Democrats to reconsider this neoliberal approach to providing public goods by private means. But to judge from President Obama's budget, the White House is still living back in the neoliberal era, when the diminutive Milton Friedman cast a giant shadow.
QuoteConsider Obama's education proposals. The problem with higher education is that it costs way too much. Tuition costs at private universities and some state universities have been growing far more rapidly than inflation. A crude, old-fashioned, old-thinking New Deal liberal would see the problem as one of excessive prices demanded by universities, not insufficient funds on the part of the students whom the universities gouge. ...
The neoliberal alternative is to avoid impolite and divisive inquiries into the reasons for skyrocketing tuition costs. That would entail the government concluding that prices in a particular industry (in this case, a nonprofit industry) are too high, something that government should not do. Instead, the taxpayer will be forced to cough up money to help students meet the exorbitant fees. Thus Obama's first budget calls for maintaining the $2,500 New American Opportunity Tax Credit for middle-class students, while converting Pell Grants up to $5,550 into a permanent government entitlement. If I were a university, I'd raise my tuition by ... oh ... let's say $5,550 a year. Government subsidies without government price controls would encourage cost inflation, one might think, but this possibility appears not to bother the brilliant economists on Obama's team.
Quote from: Eli on March 06, 2009, 07:48:36 AM
Interesting viewpoint at Salon about Obama's "timid liberalism." I'm sure he's plenty liberal for morph and TJ, but apparently not so for the author.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/06/neoliberalism/index.html
QuoteNeoliberals are liberals in one sense -- they fret about unequal outcomes. But rather than help middle- and low-income Americans by regulating the prices of privately provided public goods, as the crude and direct New Dealers would have done, neoliberal Democrats have argued for allowing the "market" (translation: the publicly subsidized entities) to set prices and then promised to provide tax subsidies or grants to help middle- and low-income Americans pay for the expensive, privately provided public goods.
QuoteYou might have thought that the Crash of 2008 would have led Democrats to reconsider this neoliberal approach to providing public goods by private means. But to judge from President Obama's budget, the White House is still living back in the neoliberal era, when the diminutive Milton Friedman cast a giant shadow.
QuoteConsider Obama's education proposals. The problem with higher education is that it costs way too much. Tuition costs at private universities and some state universities have been growing far more rapidly than inflation. A crude, old-fashioned, old-thinking New Deal liberal would see the problem as one of excessive prices demanded by universities, not insufficient funds on the part of the students whom the universities gouge. ...
The neoliberal alternative is to avoid impolite and divisive inquiries into the reasons for skyrocketing tuition costs. That would entail the government concluding that prices in a particular industry (in this case, a nonprofit industry) are too high, something that government should not do. Instead, the taxpayer will be forced to cough up money to help students meet the exorbitant fees. Thus Obama's first budget calls for maintaining the $2,500 New American Opportunity Tax Credit for middle-class students, while converting Pell Grants up to $5,550 into a permanent government entitlement. If I were a university, I'd raise my tuition by ... oh ... let's say $5,550 a year. Government subsidies without government price controls would encourage cost inflation, one might think, but this possibility appears not to bother the brilliant economists on Obama's team.
I don't know how much more correct the author could be; the primary driver of college inflation has been the federal government. The question of price controls is something different entirely.
Herein lies the biggest problem with the American economy. One side is always in favor of regulation. The other side wants regulation, but they want to do it gently.
So we're stuck in a vicious cycle where one side continues to preach tax cuts, even though the bulwark of the economy (the midle class) may have already snapped. The other side insists on throwing money at the problem.
There is currently nobody in Washington who is hitting the problem at the head, they're all swinging at its tail.
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
Bigger crowd than at his book signings:
(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/02/26/PH2009022600120.jpg)
Quote from: Slakee on March 09, 2009, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
Bigger crowd than at his book signings:
(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/02/26/PH2009022600120.jpg)
Is it a pop-up book?
Seriously, this "Joe the Plumber" phenomenon would at least be somewhat more palatable had Joe been a woman, and somewhat attractive, like other insta-D-list-celebrities.
Such as this woman: (http://www.midwestbusiness.com/news/img/f16526/1.jpg) Or this woman: (http://images.dawgsports.com/images/admin/Jenn_Sterger_closeup_in_hat.jpg)
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
I'm surprised he hasn't gotten called on that sounding
slightly racist in context. Wait. No. I'm not surprised at all.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2009, 09:30:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
I'm surprised he hasn't gotten called on that sounding slightly racist in context. Wait. No. I'm not surprised at all.
Racism died. Check your November 2008 memos. D'uh.
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2009, 09:30:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
I'm surprised he hasn't gotten called on that sounding slightly racist in context. Wait. No. I'm not surprised at all.
I'm surprised he just didn't just use the term "blickety blackness".
Quote from: MAD on March 09, 2009, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 09, 2009, 09:30:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
I'm surprised he hasn't gotten called on that sounding slightly racist in context. Wait. No. I'm not surprised at all.
I'm surprised he just didn't just use the term "blickety blackness".
Steele wants conservatism to sit on some 22 Spreewells!
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
It's awful what the media did to him during the election. Innocent bystander.
Quote from: BH on March 10, 2009, 08:41:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
It's awful what the media, in conjunction with Obama's thugs did to him during the election. Innocent bystander.
GOP playbook'd.
Quote from: BH on March 10, 2009, 08:41:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
It's awful what the media did to him during the election. Innocent bystander.
How's that plumbing business of his going?
Quote from: IrishYeti on March 10, 2009, 10:09:43 AM
Quote from: BH on March 10, 2009, 08:41:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
It's awful what the media did to him during the election. Innocent bystander.
How's that plumbing business of his going?
Business is in the shitter.
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
Code words are fun!
Quote from: Slakee on March 10, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on March 10, 2009, 10:09:43 AM
Quote from: BH on March 10, 2009, 08:41:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 09, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
It's WAR under the GOP big tent...
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=151455
QuoteMILWAUKEE—Attendees at a gathering of activists today enthusiastically embraced calls to stick to long-time conservative principles and grassroots action in an effort to win back the Congress and White House from Democrats
That sentiment was expressed most bluntly by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." He called on conservatives to be persistent and warned of a "long road ahead" with four years of Obama and a Republican Party that he said lacks leadership and direction.
"Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip hop, put it in a new package and sell it," Wurzelbacher said, knocking Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, whose recent statements, including a dismissive comment about talk show host Rush Limbaugh that he's since apologized for, have drawn the ire of some conservatives.
"You can't sell principles; either you have them or you don't," Wurzelbacher said to applause from most of the 800 in attendance.
It's awful what the media did to him during the election. Innocent bystander.
How's that plumbing business of his going?
Business is in the shitter Crapper.
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crapper)
Yet another Cabinet pick steps down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
At least this time it wasn't taxes.
Quote
"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." ...
Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."
Quote from: morpheus on March 11, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
Yet another Cabinet pick steps down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
At least this time it wasn't taxes.
Quote
"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." ...
Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."
This Israel crap is ridiculous.
Quote from: Slakee on March 11, 2009, 08:42:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 11, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
Yet another Cabinet pick steps down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
At least this time it wasn't taxes.
Quote
"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." ...
Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."
This Israel crap is ridiculous.
Still... it's not like his views weren't known before he was picked.
Quote from: Slakee on March 11, 2009, 08:42:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 11, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
Yet another Cabinet pick steps down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
At least this time it wasn't taxes.
Quote
"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." ...
Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."
This Israel crap is ridiculous.
THIS. I'm no foreign policy expert, but it's pretty ridiculous that if you even suggest that somebody in the Israeli government cut a smelly fart one time or kinda maybe sorta overreacted by blowing up the entire Gaza Strip, you are an ANTI-SEMITE WHO SUPPORTS HAMAS.
That being said, I didn't understand the Freeman pick from the start. Suggesting that the Chinese were "overly cautious" in their response to Tiananmen is just ridiculous.
Quote from: morpheus on March 11, 2009, 08:49:42 AM
Quote from: Slakee on March 11, 2009, 08:42:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 11, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
Yet another Cabinet pick steps down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
At least this time it wasn't taxes.
Quote
"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." ...
Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."
This Israel crap is ridiculous.
Still... it's not like his views weren't known before he was picked.
Yeah, so he thinks Israel is being shitty, right? They are. I guess we're just not allowed to say it. That about it?
Regarding the atheist portion of the thread title, Oleg's people are gaining ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967_pf.html)...
QuoteThe survey of more than 54,000 people conducted between February and November of last year showed that the percentage of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990.
QuoteThe only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population.
Quote from: RV on March 11, 2009, 09:19:13 AM
Regarding the atheist portion of the thread title, Oleg's people are gaining ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967_pf.html)...
QuoteThe survey of more than 54,000 people conducted between February and November of last year showed that the percentage of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990.
QuoteThe only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population.
It's because of Oleg's tireless Evangelism and my own tireless Just Not Believing in Godism.
It's a combination that can't be beat!
Why Bristol Palin is Different (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-bristol-palin-is-different.html)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2009, 07:54:17 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
So, these wily leftist conspirators appear to be conspiring to have private conversations with one another over "electronic mail"?
The only thing that would be more shocking than this is if this secret cabal had conspired face-to-face and had their secret private conversations with one another over beer or coffee or tea or something—perhaps at a private gathering at someone's house.
Maybe they'd serve cookies.
All I can say is: Lord help us if they ever discover the secret of shoutbox technology (http://whereawesomehappens.blogspot.com/2008/09/hilarious-dorks-getting-put-on-blast.html)...
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.
Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2009, 07:54:17 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
Al Yellon banned me from that site.
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.
Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
All those letters look familiar, but I have no idea what they spell.
Quote from: Oleg on March 17, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
All those letters look familiar, but I have no idea what they spell.
I'm with you, Oleg. I'm friends with him on Facebook, so stuff like this greets me at login.
"Attention Ia legislative business lobbyists:I visit w many Repbli can REPs and Sntors. Don't take ur frends 4granted.U spend all time w Dem"
Morph needs to teach this man how to use a Blackberry.
Quote from: Oleg on March 17, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
All those letters look familiar, but I have no idea what they spell.
Pretty sure it's the tracklisting to a Prince album.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.
Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley
Christ Almighty...
QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain
Twitter is one of the many things that I just don't get.
Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.
Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley
Christ Almighty...
QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain
it's simple: he's got a 17-year old chick working as an intern and she just text-abbreviates whatever he says.
Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2009, 07:54:17 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html
So, these wily leftist conspirators appear to be conspiring to have private conversations with one another over "electronic mail"?
The only thing that would be more shocking than this is if this secret cabal had conspired face-to-face and had their secret private conversations with one another over beer or coffee or tea or something—perhaps at a private gathering at someone's house.
Maybe they'd serve cookies.
All I can say is: Lord help us if they ever discover the secret of shoutbox technology (http://whereawesomehappens.blogspot.com/2008/09/hilarious-dorks-getting-put-on-blast.html)...
The dark overlord of the liberal fasclist responds...
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post&5 (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=obligatory_journolist_post&5)
Quote from: Dave B on March 17, 2009, 11:01:48 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.
Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)
u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley
Christ Almighty...
QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain
it's simple: he's got a 17-year old chick working as an intern and she just text-abbreviates whatever he says.
If only that were true. I have a friend who's a speechwriter/spokesperson for Grassley; sadly, the Twittering is all Chuck.
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letters in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
Edit: Says the guy who left off the s.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 17, 2009, 01:12:36 PM
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letter in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
This.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 17, 2009, 01:12:36 PM
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letter in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
Thisx2.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 17, 2009, 01:12:36 PM
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letter in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
OMFG LSA!
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 17, 2009, 01:12:36 PM
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letter in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
8 seconds per keystroke?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 17, 2009, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 17, 2009, 01:12:36 PM
How hard is it to type a fucking coherent sentence? I'll never understand the need to skip letter in an effort to save 8 seconds. If your time is that fucking important, don't write it.
8 seconds per keystroke?
With his tongue sticking out.
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Him being on Leno is retarded.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 20, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Him being on Leno is retarded.
I think that is the first time we've agreed in this thread. See? Obama's bringing us together.
Did Obama fall short on the "lame" vote, cause only lamos watch Jay Leno. At least go on Letterman.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 20, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Him being on Leno is retarded.
Leno is retarded.
Quote from: BH on March 20, 2009, 08:37:47 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 20, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Him being on Leno is retarded.
Leno is retarded.
Barack is retarded
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:32:50 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 20, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 20, 2009, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 20, 2009, 07:41:24 AM
DPD.
Barry makes a retard joke (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/20/obama-makes-late-night-gaffe/). Cool when you're with buddies, not so much when you're President.
I saw him bowl and it was retarded.
Him being on Leno is retarded.
I think that is the first time we've agreed in this thread. See? Obama's bringing us together.
Did Obama fall short on the "lame" vote, cause only lamos watch Jay Leno. At least go on Letterman.
I feel compelled to shirtless manhug you, now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I7WN20090319
QuoteThe U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan, a former law school colleague of President Barack Obama, as U.S. solicitor general -- a post that will have her argue the government's position in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
QuoteOn January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[5] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience (she has never argued a case at trial)[6] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated that would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[7]
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
Que Fork for a Night Court joke.
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I7WN20090319
QuoteThe U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan, a former law school colleague of President Barack Obama, as U.S. solicitor general -- a post that will have her argue the government's position in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
QuoteOn January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[5] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience (she has never argued a case at trial)[6] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated that would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[7]
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
This is a bit of a problem. The SG has deputies, but still, you want the best trial lawyer in the number one trial lawyer's job.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I7WN20090319
QuoteThe U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan, a former law school colleague of President Barack Obama, as U.S. solicitor general -- a post that will have her argue the government's position in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
QuoteOn January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[5] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience (she has never argued a case at trial)[6] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated that would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[7]
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
This is a bit of a problem. The SG has deputies, but still, you want the best trial lawyer in the number one trial lawyer's job.
Its not a trial lawyer's job, its an appelate lawyers job (the skills are different). I believe she received recommendations from the last 6 or 8 Solicitor Generals, so I don't think its a big deal.
Special Olympics bowler: I can beat the president!
Mar 20 01:59 PM US/Eastern
ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.
"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey (KO-lahn Mc-KAHNA-he) told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.
The athletic-minded president made an offhand remark Thursday on "The Tonight Show" comparing his weak bowling to "the Special Olympics or something." He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some of its athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.
McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005.
The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day.
.
Quote from: thehawk on March 20, 2009, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I7WN20090319
QuoteThe U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan, a former law school colleague of President Barack Obama, as U.S. solicitor general -- a post that will have her argue the government's position in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
QuoteOn January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[5] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience (she has never argued a case at trial)[6] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated that would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[7]
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
This is a bit of a problem. The SG has deputies, but still, you want the best trial lawyer in the number one trial lawyer's job.
Its not a trial lawyer's job, its an appelate lawyers job (the skills are different). I believe she received recommendations from the last 6 or 8 Solicitor Generals, so I don't think its a big deal.
I should have said "practicing attorney," but you are of course correct. Doesn't the SG also have to wear morning dress when arguing before SCOTUS?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 20, 2009, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I7WN20090319
QuoteThe U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Elena Kagan, a former law school colleague of President Barack Obama, as U.S. solicitor general -- a post that will have her argue the government's position in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
QuoteOn January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[5] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience (she has never argued a case at trial)[6] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. However, Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated that would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[7]
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
This is a bit of a problem. The SG has deputies, but still, you want the best trial lawyer in the number one trial lawyer's job.
Its not a trial lawyer's job, its an appelate lawyers job (the skills are different). I believe she received recommendations from the last 6 or 8 Solicitor Generals, so I don't think its a big deal.
I should have said "practicing attorney," but you are of course correct. Doesn't the SG also have to wear morning dress when arguing before SCOTUS?
And you have to bring soda for Clarence Thomas.
Quote from: Dave B on March 20, 2009, 01:20:44 PM
Special Olympics bowler: I can beat the president!
Mar 20 01:59 PM US/Eastern
ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.
"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey (KO-lahn Mc-KAHNA-he) told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.
The athletic-minded president made an offhand remark Thursday on "The Tonight Show" comparing his weak bowling to "the Special Olympics or something." He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some of its athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.
McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005.
The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day.
.
I sure hope they give a chance to that big retard.
Quote from: BH on March 20, 2009, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
Que Fork for a Night Court joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pod-uZH8s8
Quote from: Indolent Reader on March 20, 2009, 04:22:23 PM
Quote from: BH on March 20, 2009, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 20, 2009, 11:31:19 AM
So, the person who will be arguing cases for the government in court has no experience in arguing cases in court. I put it to teh lawyers here, is this something regularly done, or even a big deal? I don't know enough about courtroom workings to know the answer.
Que Fork for a Night Court joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pod-uZH8s8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdFhmRdBtno
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe:
Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
That's not very nice.
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Just let that whole hypocrisy thing fly right by, didn't ya?
Soo...
Obama tries to make a self-deprecating joke that offended another special-interest constituency. Big deal. It's not a good thing to say, but it's hardly evidence that he holds the disabled up to ridicule as a practice. He tried to be funny, and it fell flat and it offended people. In 1984, Reagan was conducting a sound check before recording a radio ad and riffed, "I've signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." That was incredibly stupid, it was not funny, and it carried far more serious consequences. Somehow, we escaped nuclear war, and even though people would like to suggest otherwise, if Reagan was determined to bomb the USSR, the Kremlin would have been turned to glass.
At any rate, talk is cheap, especially when it's not written by a team of speechwriters (or when it's not at least carefully considered). I don't think anyone will be advising the President to go on the Tonight Show, Late Night, the Daily Show or the View any time soon.
As for Palin's reaction, I am sure of a few things:
a) More than a couple reporters called her looking for reaction;
b) She almost assuredly did not see the exchange and just reacted to him making a bad Special Olympics joke;
c) She might be a little defensive about her son who has Down's Syndrome.
There's no need to react to that, and play some stupid victimization card. It's irritating, much more so since it's not even a secret that she wants to run in 2012.
As for the "hypocrisy" of the issue, I don't quite see it. It's not a small point that states are going to have to figure out how to continue some programs the stimulus money would fund after the stimulus money runs out. The fact she made a decision and an official in Alaska disagrees with her decision doesn't make it a poor decision any more than if Obama makes a decision and an AP reporter gets a quote from John Boehner decrying the move.
All of these bullshit issues: Obama making an ill-advised off-the-cuff remark (again, if any of you has not made one, you're simply a mute), the AIG bonuses, etc. take our eye off the biggest news of the week. The Fed is going to monetize the debt. Your George Washingtons, Abraham Lincolns, Alexander Hamiltons, Andrew Jacksons, Ulysses Grants, and Benjamin Franklins are looser than anything you'll find on Pre's Eastern European Bachelor Party. Already, you're seeing an increase in commodity prices. Inflation is no fun, and inflation coupled with a stifling recession is downright frightening.
Meanwhile, statewide, we winked and smiled at the side issues of the day for the past 10 years? 25 years? and look where we're at: the tax increases and fee increases Quinn is proposing has me seriously wondering how I'll be able to make it the next few years. Good thing we're going to pick up the tab for the Olympics, though.
TJ Brown is making sense.
Quote from: Brownie on March 21, 2009, 02:59:38 PM
Soo...
Obama tries to make a self-deprecating joke that offended another special-interest constituency. Big deal. It's not a good thing to say, but it's hardly evidence that he holds the disabled up to ridicule as a practice. He tried to be funny, and it fell flat and it offended people. In 1984, Reagan was conducting a sound check before recording a radio ad and riffed, "I've signed legislation outlawing Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." That was incredibly stupid, it was not funny, and it carried far more serious consequences. Somehow, we escaped nuclear war, and even though people would like to suggest otherwise, if Reagan was determined to bomb the USSR, the Kremlin would have been turned to glass.
At any rate, talk is cheap, especially when it's not written by a team of speechwriters (or when it's not at least carefully considered). I don't think anyone will be advising the President to go on the Tonight Show, Late Night, the Daily Show or the View any time soon.
As for Palin's reaction, I am sure of a few things:
a) More than a couple reporters called her looking for reaction;
b) She almost assuredly did not see the exchange and just reacted to him making a bad Special Olympics joke;
c) She might be a little defensive about her son who has Down's Syndrome.
There's no need to react to that, and play some stupid victimization card. It's irritating, much more so since it's not even a secret that she wants to run in 2012.
As for the "hypocrisy" of the issue, I don't quite see it. It's not a small point that states are going to have to figure out how to continue some programs the stimulus money would fund after the stimulus money runs out. The fact she made a decision and an official in Alaska disagrees with her decision doesn't make it a poor decision any more than if Obama makes a decision and an AP reporter gets a quote from John Boehner decrying the move.
All of these bullshit issues: Obama making an ill-advised off-the-cuff remark (again, if any of you has not made one, you're simply a mute), the AIG bonuses, etc. take our eye off the biggest news of the week. The Fed is going to monetize the debt. Your George Washingtons, Abraham Lincolns, Alexander Hamiltons, Andrew Jacksons, Ulysses Grants, and Benjamin Franklins are looser than anything you'll find on Pre's Eastern European Bachelor Party. Already, you're seeing an increase in commodity prices. Inflation is no fun, and inflation coupled with a stifling recession is downright frightening.
Meanwhile, statewide, we winked and smiled at the side issues of the day for the past 10 years? 25 years? and look where we're at: the tax increases and fee increases Quinn is proposing has me seriously wondering how I'll be able to make it the next few years. Good thing we're going to pick up the tab for the Olympics, though.
Absolutely correct on this. I agree.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Just let that whole hypocrisy thing fly right by, didn't ya?
I fully see the "hypocrisy" that one could take from that. However, the article and quote says "which includes." That can be $20 million or it could be $20 dollars. I realize the latter is not what it is, but I think the point is understood. Basically, the article (and none that I found as I read through about 7 articles about this) doesn't say how much was for that. It just says it was in there. I think I've been pretty open-minded about things lately (probably expressed more in the SBox) and I think it's kind of horseshit for the line that every news source uses "including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students" without telling us how much is in there for that, because that is significant. On one hand, she is essentially vilified (sic??) for rejecting this money based off of the wording... And on the other hand, they could actually tell us how much ED and SNS money is in there so we can actually make an informed opinion on if she is doing the right or wrong thing.
I suppose that is what we get from the media. The story that seems to fit how they want it to portray someone or something. I know it's a subtle wording that probably wasn't intended to make her look bad (I'm hoping) but nonetheless, it is what it is, and we, as observers, are left with "Palin is bad."
For anyone: Don't make the argument about how people like Rush and FoxNews do this, too. I know that. It's all horseshit.
As far as Barry's comment, who gives a shit? It was moderately funny. I know the president is supposed to be better than that and know better, but to me, it kind of makes him seem a little more likeable and common. Everyone says stupid shit they shouldn't have all the time. I think I know firsthand.
Quote from: IrishYeti on March 21, 2009, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Just let that whole hypocrisy thing fly right by, didn't ya?
I fully see the "hypocrisy" that one could take from that. However, the article and quote says "which includes." That can be $20 million or it could be $20 dollars. I realize the latter is not what it is, but I think the point is understood. Basically, the article (and none that I found as I read through about 7 articles about this) doesn't say how much was for that. It just says it was in there. I think I've been pretty open-minded about things lately (probably expressed more in the SBox) and I think it's kind of horseshit for the line that every news source uses "including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students" without telling us how much is in there for that, because that is significant. On one hand, she is essentially vilified (sic??) for rejecting this money based off of the wording... And on the other hand, they could actually tell us how much ED and SNS money is in there so we can actually make an informed opinion on if she is doing the right or wrong thing.
I suppose that is what we get from the media. The story that seems to fit how they want it to portray someone or something. I know it's a subtle wording that probably wasn't intended to make her look bad (I'm hoping) but nonetheless, it is what it is, and we, as observers, are left with "Palin is bad."
For anyone: Don't make the argument about how people like Rush and FoxNews do this, too. I know that. It's all horseshit.
As far as Barry's comment, who gives a shit? It was moderately funny. I know the president is supposed to be better than that and know better, but to me, it kind of makes him seem a little more likeable and common. Everyone says stupid shit they shouldn't have all the time. I think I know firsthand.
I think I was having a visceral reaction to her quick politicization of the issue. After reading some local blogs in Alaska (spanning both ends of the political spectrum) and after hearing about her new robo-polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, I really believe that Sarah Palin is exploiting everything that she can for 2012.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on March 21, 2009, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Just let that whole hypocrisy thing fly right by, didn't ya?
I fully see the "hypocrisy" that one could take from that. However, the article and quote says "which includes." That can be $20 million or it could be $20 dollars. I realize the latter is not what it is, but I think the point is understood. Basically, the article (and none that I found as I read through about 7 articles about this) doesn't say how much was for that. It just says it was in there. I think I've been pretty open-minded about things lately (probably expressed more in the SBox) and I think it's kind of horseshit for the line that every news source uses "including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students" without telling us how much is in there for that, because that is significant. On one hand, she is essentially vilified (sic??) for rejecting this money based off of the wording... And on the other hand, they could actually tell us how much ED and SNS money is in there so we can actually make an informed opinion on if she is doing the right or wrong thing.
I suppose that is what we get from the media. The story that seems to fit how they want it to portray someone or something. I know it's a subtle wording that probably wasn't intended to make her look bad (I'm hoping) but nonetheless, it is what it is, and we, as observers, are left with "Palin is bad."
For anyone: Don't make the argument about how people like Rush and FoxNews do this, too. I know that. It's all horseshit.
As far as Barry's comment, who gives a shit? It was moderately funny. I know the president is supposed to be better than that and know better, but to me, it kind of makes him seem a little more likeable and common. Everyone says stupid shit they shouldn't have all the time. I think I know firsthand.
I think I was having a visceral reaction to her quick politicization of the issue. After reading some local blogs in Alaska (spanning both ends of the political spectrum) and after hearing about her new robo-polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, I really believe that Sarah Palin is exploiting everything that she can for 2012.
Yea, I'd very much so bet she is. I'm really not that much of a fan of her... However, I would love to fuck the ever loving shit out of her... and her daughter.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 06:13:32 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on March 21, 2009, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 21, 2009, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Just let that whole hypocrisy thing fly right by, didn't ya?
I fully see the "hypocrisy" that one could take from that. However, the article and quote says "which includes." That can be $20 million or it could be $20 dollars. I realize the latter is not what it is, but I think the point is understood. Basically, the article (and none that I found as I read through about 7 articles about this) doesn't say how much was for that. It just says it was in there. I think I've been pretty open-minded about things lately (probably expressed more in the SBox) and I think it's kind of horseshit for the line that every news source uses "including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students" without telling us how much is in there for that, because that is significant. On one hand, she is essentially vilified (sic??) for rejecting this money based off of the wording... And on the other hand, they could actually tell us how much ED and SNS money is in there so we can actually make an informed opinion on if she is doing the right or wrong thing.
I suppose that is what we get from the media. The story that seems to fit how they want it to portray someone or something. I know it's a subtle wording that probably wasn't intended to make her look bad (I'm hoping) but nonetheless, it is what it is, and we, as observers, are left with "Palin is bad."
For anyone: Don't make the argument about how people like Rush and FoxNews do this, too. I know that. It's all horseshit.
As far as Barry's comment, who gives a shit? It was moderately funny. I know the president is supposed to be better than that and know better, but to me, it kind of makes him seem a little more likeable and common. Everyone says stupid shit they shouldn't have all the time. I think I know firsthand.
I think I was having a visceral reaction to her quick politicization of the issue. After reading some local blogs in Alaska (spanning both ends of the political spectrum) and after hearing about her new robo-polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, I really believe that Sarah Palin is exploiting everything that she can for 2012.
The irony of it is that she has burned her star out too quickly by doing this. Too much of a lightning rod. If she can just go back to being a governor and worry less about the national scene, the better off everyone is.
I have no idea who gives her advice...
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2009, 12:10:24 AM
The irony of it is that she has burned her star out too quickly by doing this. Too much of a lightning rod. If she can just go back to being a governor and worry less about the national scene, the better off everyone is.
I have no idea who gives her advice...
Her husband. This is a chick who wants to be a star, not a leader. Sportscenter is her goal. If the goal changes to giving policy platitudes from the White House instead of sports platitudes from Bristol, she's down with that.
She also wants to make money.
This is an excellent rundown of the whole AIG shitstorm (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print). It being Rolling Stone, the opinion aspect of the article is biased to the left. But if you can take that stuff with a grain of salt, the AIG blow-by-blow is worth a read. And really disturbing.
QuoteKnown for his boldness and arrogance, Cassano took over as chief of AIGFP in 2001. He was the favorite of Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the head of AIG, who admired the younger man's hard-driving ways, even if neither he nor his successors fully understood exactly what it was that Cassano did. According to a source familiar with AIG's internal operations, Cassano basically told senior management, "You know insurance, I know investments, so you do what you do, and I'll do what I do — leave me alone." Given a free hand within the company, Cassano set out from his offices in London to sell a lucrative form of "insurance" to all those investors holding lots of CDOs. His tool of choice was another new financial instrument known as a credit-default swap, or CDS.
QuoteWhat Cassano did was to transform the credit swaps that Morgan popularized into the world's largest bet on the housing boom. In theory, at least, there's nothing wrong with buying a CDS to insure your investments. Investors paid a premium to AIGFP, and in return the company promised to pick up the tab if the mortgage-backed CDOs went bust. But as Cassano went on a selling spree, the deals he made differed from traditional insurance in several significant ways. First, the party selling CDS protection didn't have to post any money upfront. When a $100 corporate bond is sold, for example, someone has to show 100 actual dollars. But when you sell a $100 CDS guarantee, you don't have to show a dime. So Cassano could sell investment banks billions in guarantees without having any single asset to back it up.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2009, 08:37:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2009, 12:10:24 AM
The irony of it is that she has burned her star out too quickly by doing this. Too much of a lightning rod. If she can just go back to being a governor and worry less about the national scene, the better off everyone is.
I have no idea who gives her advice...
Her husband. This is a chick who wants to be a star, not a leader. Sportscenter is her goal. If the goal changes to giving policy platitudes from the White House instead of sports platitudes from Bristol, she's down with that.
She also wants to make money.
SportsCenter seems to be the President's goal, as well. Excuse me for not liking him being on ESPN filling out brackets or on Leno cracking retard jokes (which, I don't have anything against his remark...I make tard wisecracks that aren't wise, ever, all the time).
On Palin, I was a fan. A big fan. However, I was a big fan in the very beginning and I agree with Chuck (oh noz) that her star has burned out far, far too quickly and that she's doing everything she can to draw attention to herself and her efforts in 2012, when all she really should do is shut up and deal with her tasks at hand in Alaska which got her in the spotlight in the first place. She's become fairly annoying to me much in the same way that Obama annoys me...try being more of a statesman and less of a rockstar.
Wonder if Palin and Jindal feel the same way about volcano observation.
Quote from: Fork on March 23, 2009, 09:24:19 AM
Wonder if Palin and Jindal feel the same way about volcano observation.
They go boom.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 23, 2009, 09:22:39 AM
...when all she really should do is shut up and deal with her tasks at hand in Alaska which got her in the spotlight in the first place...
You'd suggest a tit job?
A few days old, but it made me laugh. The Onion:
BREAKING: Obama On Special Olympics Gaffe: "Sorry, I Acted Like A Retard"
"Well, Miss Terkel is certainly a villain..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5vXDe1o9bI
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510360,00.html
(Background here. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/watters-ambush/))
Adding...
QuoteAlong with "America's Most Wanted," "The Factor" has done more for the victims of crime in America than any other television program on the air.
Except maybe "moronic girls" who dress slutty and drink booze (http://www.billoreilly.com/radiofactorlisten?epid=NDA0Nw==). Because, you know... "there you go."
And because "nothing good" comes of getting drunk.
Or, for that matter, women who foolishly try to resist the mighty O'Reilly falafel (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html).
Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2009, 06:43:48 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510360,00.html
QuoteWith NBC's programming a disaster, [Zucker] is almost single-handedly ruining a once-great brand.
That one's not too far from the mark.
(http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122008/photos/biz039.jpg)
Quote from: Wheezer on March 25, 2009, 12:32:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 24, 2009, 06:43:48 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510360,00.html
QuoteWith NBC's programming a disaster, [Zucker] is almost single-handedly ruining a once-great brand.
That one's not too far from the mark.
(http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122008/photos/biz039.jpg)
Leave Oleg out of this.
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
QuoteTake Michelle Obama...please. Every time I turn around, there she is on a magazine cover. Now, normally, like the Mafia, I lay off the spouses, but inasmuch as this particular spouse attended the same racist church as her hubby for 20 years, I'll make an exception in her case. After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
Naturally, the left-wing media is now trying to convince us that this James Brown-look-alike has all the allure, glamour and fashion sense of Jackie Kennedy.
Similarly, I don't know what a Tammy Bruce is either, but it would probably complement (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/03/tammy-bruce-a-g.html) Burt Prelutsky pretty well:
QuoteDiscussing the first lady's recent visit to a Washington, D.C., classroom, Bruce incredulously recalled [Michelle] Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."
"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "... You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House."
"Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic ... categories," she said.
I guess all that makes today's story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/25/black.america.report/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) from CNN all the more timely.
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
Quote... After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
If Affirmative Action wants to send billions of dollars to Africa, I'm sure Affirmative Action has a perfectly good reason for doing so.
Quote from: Tank on March 25, 2009, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
Quote... After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
If Affirmative Action wants to send billions of dollars to Africa, I'm sure Affirmative Action has a perfectly good reason for doing so.
It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand.
Quote from: Tank on March 25, 2009, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
Quote... After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
If Affirmative Action wants to send billions of dollars to Africa, I'm sure Affirmative Action has a perfectly good reason for doing so.
You'd never see a Republican Persident send any money to Africa.
This is the one thing I will concede that GWB did right.
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2009, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 25, 2009, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
Quote... After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
If Affirmative Action wants to send billions of dollars to Africa, I'm sure Affirmative Action has a perfectly good reason for doing so.
You'd never see a Republican Persident send any money to Africa.
This is the one thing I will concede that GWB did right.
Are you sure about that? Do you have a Datase to back you up?
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
Quote from: Tonker on March 26, 2009, 09:05:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2009, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 25, 2009, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2009, 03:05:23 PM
I don't know what a Burt Prelutsky is, but he certainly was able to pen an insightful piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/03/22/let_us_not_praise_famous_men_-_or_women) about Michelle Obama:
Quote... After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country.
If Affirmative Action wants to send billions of dollars to Africa, I'm sure Affirmative Action has a perfectly good reason for doing so.
You'd never see a Republican Persident send any money to Africa.
This is the one thing I will concede that GWB did right.
Are you sure about that? Do you have a Datase to back you up?
Hey, I got the scooby thing right. Cut me some fucking slack, pal.
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now? Why isn't the NCAA the lead agency for trying to fix the BCS if it needs fixin'? This just seems stupid for these guys to use their time on sports considering the plight of the times. Am I out of bounds on this?
Interesting stuff on the correlation between deregulation and financial sector salaries:
QuotePhilippon and Reshef hypothesize that "regulation inhibits the ability to exploit the creativity and innovation of educated and skilled workers [while] deregulation unleashes creativity and innovation and increases demand". In other words, the laxer the regulatory environment, the more ways there are to try and beat the system -- and the more Wall Street is willing to pay for people who can figure out ways to do so.
QuoteEven accounting for the fact that laxer regulatory environments increase the premium on highly-skilled workers, however, Philippon and Reshef find that professionals in the securities industry are overpaid. Specifically, they are overpaid by roughly 40% relative to their educational backgrounds and risk of job loss.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/two-birds-one-stone-regulation-and.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/two-birds-one-stone-regulation-and.html)
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Quote from: RV on March 26, 2009, 09:27:32 AM
Interesting stuff on the correlation between deregulation and financial sector salaries:
QuotePhilippon and Reshef hypothesize that "regulation inhibits the ability to exploit the creativity and innovation of educated and skilled workers [while] deregulation unleashes creativity and innovation and increases demand". In other words, the laxer the regulatory environment, the more ways there are to try and beat the system -- and the more Wall Street is willing to pay for people who can figure out ways to do so.
QuoteEven accounting for the fact that laxer regulatory environments increase the premium on highly-skilled workers, however, Philippon and Reshef find that professionals in the securities industry are overpaid. Specifically, they are overpaid by roughly 40% relative to their educational backgrounds and risk of job loss.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/two-birds-one-stone-regulation-and.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/two-birds-one-stone-regulation-and.html)
On Philippon and Reshef and the bolded statement - I imagine that if they update their statistics on "risk of job loss" past 2006 they might come to a different conclusion. I'm sure that, to take an extreme case, if they had done a paper on "Wages and Capital in the U.S. E-Commerce Industry" and used a sample that ended in 2000, they would say that professionals in technology were overpaid relative to risk of job loss and educational background... and then in 2003 or so they would have sung a much different tune. Of course, one can say the 250,000 or so jobs that have been cut from the financial industry over the past 6 months or so are simply a return to a more "normal" level, a necessary precursor to compensation levels returning to equilibrium. The whole compensation model that prevailed for many years in securities and investment firms is very broken now.
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
Quote from: Oleg on March 26, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
That's it.
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 26, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
That's it.
Indeed. Thanks, Oleg.
Quote from: Oleg on March 26, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
Yes. However I think if you put the emphasis on the word "now" in "why are members of Congress getting into sports now?" then it's a legitimate question. They have the power to do so - no question there - but it's an interesting time to be focusing on how the NCAA decides who its football champion is.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 26, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
Yes. However I think if you put the emphasis on the word "now" in "why are members of Congress getting into sports now?" then it's a legitimate question. They have the power to do so - no question there - but it's an interesting time to be focusing on how the NCAA decides who its football champion is.
If you're a fetus-eating pinko you might enjoy this summary of things to be ANGRY about.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html)
Quote from: RV on March 26, 2009, 10:41:10 AM
If you're a fetus-eating pinko you might enjoy this summary of things to be ANGRY about.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html)
Wow, this is a fascinating article.
Gleen talks about "the incestuous relationship between governments and large [] corporate conglomerates" like that is
prima facie a bad thing. He does not, however, follow that to its obvious logical conclusion, that the people best suited to regulate a business are the people who don't know anything about it. Mainly because if he did, he'd sound like a loon.
On to the "war crimes" piece.
QuoteAnd we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program.
(Yes, I know that's a quote from Turley, but Gleen uses it to make his point.) That Red Cross report's source for information was... the prisoners themselves. And "torture" included "sleep deprivation" and "extreme temperatures." As I am wont to say in such instances, sure.
Quote from: RV on March 26, 2009, 10:41:10 AM
If you're a fetus-eating pinko you might enjoy this summary of things to be ANGRY about.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html)
You guys would be proud of me--I read all of that post. And, fucking wow. Just...fucking wow.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 10:52:49 AM
Quote from: RV on March 26, 2009, 10:41:10 AM
If you're a fetus-eating pinko you might enjoy this summary of things to be ANGRY about.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html)
Wow, this is a fascinating article.
Gleen talks about "the incestuous relationship between governments and large [] corporate conglomerates" like that is prima facie a bad thing. He does not, however, follow that to its obvious logical conclusion, that the people best suited to regulate a business are the people who don't know anything about it. Mainly because if he did, he'd sound like a loon.
Fair point there. I think the anger is more directed at the fact that many of Geithner's plans seem to be based largely on not pissing off the private sector with mean conditions attached to the money, rather than making sure that our taxpayer money for these bailouts is being spent (relatively) wisely.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 10:52:49 AMOn to the "war crimes" piece. QuoteAnd we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program.
(Yes, I know that's a quote from Turley, but Gleen uses it to make his point.) That Red Cross report's source for information was... the prisoners themselves. And "torture" included "sleep deprivation" and "extreme temperatures." As I am wont to say in such instances, sure.
I don't think we're going to agree on this subject, but I'll just point out that the Red Cross report isn't the only thing Greenwald is hanging his hat on - he's written many other times supporting the idea of investigating what happened with Guantanamo/wiretapping/etc, before this Red Cross report came out.
Anyway, I don't agree with everything in the post - but I do agree with the central ideas that there seems to be two sets of rules out there, and that it's ridiculous to ask us as taxpayers to simultaneously "make sacrifices" while bailing out these retards.
Quote from: Oleg on March 26, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:25:17 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 26, 2009, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on March 26, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 09:05:59 AM
Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00
QuoteEveryone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
*forehead slap*
*twiddles thumbs* (http://www.hulu.com/watch/20680/twiddling-thumbs-song)
I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now?
Congress has meddled in sports before. I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one. It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.
Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction? Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?
On one hand, the ultra-conservative side of me says Congress meddling is not right, despite IC and all... However, fuck it. The BCS has pissed me off in their lack of acknowledgment that the current system isn't getting the job done correctly. So Congress, spend my tax dollars and make a fucking playoff. Also, they should read my suggestion on how to do it: http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6230.msg159983#msg159983 because it's right.
I guess this goes in this thread... http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm
"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California. Gil's gonna have to get rid of his Black Crown Vic.
Quote from: morpheus on March 27, 2009, 07:03:08 AM
I guess this goes in this thread... http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm
"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California. Gil's gonna have to get rid of his Black Crown Vic.
A sounder idea.
(http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/green-car.jpg)
Quote from: morpheus on March 27, 2009, 07:03:08 AM
"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California.
Not necessarily.
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/02/a-change-in-paint-might-be-the-next-big-thing-in-the-greening-of-cars-and-trucks.html
QuoteNow, you might think there'd be lots of ways for paint makers to match existing colors without using carbon black - and therefore meet the legislation California's air-quality regulators are working on - but that's just not the case, Poulsen said. There are only the two ways: the IR-transmissive paints or the IR-reflective paints.
IR-transmissive paints contain a transparent pigment that allows infrared and near-infrared light to pass through the base layer to a light-colored primer layer, where the warm infrared light is reflected away from the car. This technology allows the paint companies to get pretty close to color-matching existing dark automotive paints.
But - and this is a big but - having a light-colored primer layer would mean that if your car was stone-chipped or badly dinged, a light-colored spot of primer would appear.
In fact, the primer could be very apparent, depending on the difference in color between the primer and base coats. That's why automakers tend to use a primer that's a close match to the base coat.
The other way paint companies are approaching the problem is with IR-reflective pigments, in which an infrared-reflecting pigment is mixed into the base coat. But thus far the paint companies that serve the automotive industry have been unable to achieve the colors they've wanted in what they refer to fondly as "the darker space."
As a result, California's air quality officials are giving the companies more time - until the 2016 model year - to develop the technologies they need to come up with true black, browns and other dark colors that won't heat-up interiors and encourage use of automotive air-conditioners.
Sounds like forward-looking stuff concerned with minimizing negative externalities that the car companies probably couldn't care less about seriously addressing on their own.
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.
So lets see here.
It's 90 degrees in LA, cars are gridlocked on the highway where it's probably 100+ degrees due to the exhaust gasses and the reflected heat from the cars (of which has to go somewhere, possibly the road itself) and they expect people won't turn on their car ACs.
Instead of redoing car paints, redo the engine, of which actually produces the CO2.
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
Is "the air" somewhere that won't encourage use of air conditioning?
Quote from: BH on March 27, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.
BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.
Quote from: Jon on March 27, 2009, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: BH on March 27, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.
BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.
I don't care if you're a Crypto-Anrcho-Communist, I'd vote for you on that platform.
Quote from: morpheus on March 27, 2009, 09:39:26 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 27, 2009, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: BH on March 27, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.
BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.
I don't care if you're a Crypto-Anrcho-Communist, I'd vote for you on that platform.
I'd be happy with the Jetsons' doorbell.
Quote from: Fork on March 27, 2009, 09:49:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 27, 2009, 09:39:26 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 27, 2009, 09:36:20 AM
Quote from: BH on March 27, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 27, 2009, 08:55:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 27, 2009, 08:44:27 AM
It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...
To where? I'm not getting the energy balance here.
To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.
Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."
What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.
BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.
I don't care if you're a Crypto-Anrcho-Communist, I'd vote for you on that platform.
I'd be happy with the Jetsons' doorbell.
I'd like my talking dog sans speech impediment, however.
I didn't want to start a new thread about this. It is kind of a local issue, but in a way it isn't. As you have undoutedly heard, 4 cops here in Oakland were killed by a parolee who had an assault weapon. My wife, who is a caterer, was asked by the mother of one of the cops to plan for a memorial which took place yesterday. She was told to expect 200, but over 500 showed up. Today there will be a public memorial at the coliseum complex where the Raiders, A's and the Warriors play. Tens of thousands of people are showing up as I write. Yet, believe it or not, two days ago there was a demonstration "honoring" the killer, and condeming the Oakland Police, tying it in with the shooting of a person on New Years Eve by a Transit cop, not an Oakland cop. What can I say? It takes all kinds.
Quote from: CBStew on March 27, 2009, 11:52:52 AM
I didn't want to start a new thread about this. It is kind of a local issue, but in a way it isn't. As you have undoutedly heard, 4 cops here in Oakland were killed by a parolee who had an assault weapon. My wife, who is a caterer, was asked by the mother of one of the cops to plan for a memorial which took place yesterday. She was told to expect 200, but over 500 showed up. Today there will be a public memorial at the coliseum complex where the Raiders, A's and the Warriors play. Tens of thousands of people are showing up as I write. Yet, believe it or not, two days ago there was a demonstration "honoring" the killer, and condeming the Oakland Police, tying it in with the shooting of a person on New Years Eve by a Transit cop, not an Oakland cop. What can I say? It takes all kinds.
http://cbs13.com/local/vigil.shooting.suspect.2.968035.html Unbelievable. The guy kills four policemen after a traffic stop and somehow it's the cops' fault? On a brighter note, it is awesome to see an outpouring of support for the policemen like that observed by your wife.
Steve Chapman with a good take (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0329chapmanmar29,0,1404176.column) on an area of spending that never seems to get a mention from the fiscal responsibility gang.
QuoteThe real question is not why Obama wants to spend so little on defense but why he wants to spend so much. Since 2001, our military outlays have soared by 40 percent, after adjusting for inflation. And that's not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from: RV on March 28, 2009, 09:48:20 AM
Steve Chapman with a good take (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0329chapmanmar29,0,1404176.column) on an area of spending that never seems to get a mention from the fiscal responsibility gang.
QuoteThe real question is not why Obama wants to spend so little on defense but why he wants to spend so much. Since 2001, our military outlays have soared by 40 percent, after adjusting for inflation. And that's not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's a great read. I think defense should always be the top priority of a government. But our DoD has become a center of waste and abuse. I'll argue that some past increases in defense were necessary, but we could have been more efficient this decade. Interestingly enough, that was what Rumsfeld was brought in to do.
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Steve Chapman, we have Jack Bauer on line 2.
No, wait, he's in the air duct above your office. You might want to run.
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Then read an article that is more comprehensive:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Friend of mine who grew up in the Hermosa neighborhood was familair with Padilla growing up. Told me he once "stabbed a Mexican to death in the alley."
That's all I got. Carry on.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?
The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff. I agree with that. However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.
Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever. I'd really rather not.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?
The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff. I agree with that. However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.
Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever. I'd really rather not.
I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
But that doesn't really answer the question. They took Padilla to court. Unless the prosecutors were so sure that Padilla was convicted based on what other evidence they had, why wouldn't they present the Zubaida evidence / confession? Don't you want to pile EVERYTHING on to make a guy look as guilty as possible to a jury?
The Occam's Razor answer is that either there was insufficient evidence to convict Padilla of a dirty bomb plot (which means there was little that Zubaida said that was credible), or that Zubaida's evidence would be inadmissable because, say, Zubaida was tortured.
I'm guessing that the answer is probably somewhat both. I'd also guess that Padilla's plot to use a dirty bomb were as real as my thoughts to buy the Cubs: Yes, he thought about it and how he would do it, but he was nowhere near close to being able to pull it off.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
But that doesn't really answer the question. They took Padilla to court. Unless the prosecutors were so sure that Padilla was convicted based on what other evidence they had, why wouldn't they present the Zubaida evidence / confession? Don't you want to pile EVERYTHING on to make a guy look as guilty as possible to a jury?
The Occam's Razor answer is that either there was insufficient evidence to convict Padilla of a dirty bomb plot (which means there was little that Zubaida said that was credible), or that Zubaida's evidence would be inadmissable because, say, Zubaida was tortured.
I'm guessing that the answer is probably somewhat both. I'd also guess that Padilla's plot to use a dirty bomb were as real as my thoughts to buy the Cubs: Yes, he thought about it and how he would do it, but he was nowhere near close to being able to pull it off.
You are assuming that 1) that's the only plot he was involved with, 2) he would have been stopped had they not interrogated Zubaida, and 3) that the whole point of such interrogation is to make court cases.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 31, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?
The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff. I agree with that. However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.
Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever. I'd really rather not.
I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.
I'd also submit this report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?hpid=topnews) that Zubaida provided Jose Padilla's name
before the 'enhanced interrogations' took place - not because of them.
QuoteThere is little dispute, according to officials from both agencies, that Abu Zubaida provided some valuable intelligence before CIA interrogators began to rough him up, including information that helped identify Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla. Footnotes in the 9/11 Commission report attribute information about a variety of al-Qaeda personnel and activities to interrogations of Abu Zubaida beginning in April 2002 and lasting through February 2004.
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 04:30:49 PM
You are assuming that 1) that's the only plot he was involved with, 2) he would have been stopped had they not interrogated Zubaida, and 3) that the whole point of such interrogation is to make court cases.
1) No, I'm not, as they convicted him on other charges.
2) As they convicted using evidence from other sources, it's unreasonable to believe that Zubaida was the illuminating source.
3) The "point" is irrelevant as there was a trial. Given that there was a trial, no matter what the initial "point" was, in a trial you use all available methods and evidence to get a conviction. If Zubaida provided such, the only reasons not use said methods or evidence is that they were either tainted or non-existent.
Quote from: MAD on March 31, 2009, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Friend of mine who grew up in the Hermosa neighborhood was familair with Padilla growing up. Told me he once "stabbed a Mexican to death in the alley."
That's all I got. Carry on.
Intrepid Reader: powen1So, who the fuck hasn't?
Quote from: ~Apex on March 31, 2009, 07:33:30 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 31, 2009, 03:08:01 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 09:46:18 AM
Steve Chapman (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/03/does-torture-work.html) sums it up nicely again.
QuoteTorture ought to be unacceptable even if it's effective--just as threatening to kill a criminal's children would be unthinkable even if necessary to prevent a terrible crime. But if it doesn't work, it's not only unacceptable but pointless.
His comments refer to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html)...
QuoteIn the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Chapman relies on the WaPo article to make his points... and the WaPo article is full of misinformation and misleading assertions. One example: Zubaida's interrogations led to the capture of Jose Padilla, which the WaPo dismisses as some sort of phantom or false alarm. I guess capturing a guy who had trained in al-Qaeda camps, who was in fact plotting to carry out terrorist acts, and who was tight with Khalid Shekih Mohammed and other al-Qaeda top figures was a "phantom." Tell that to Deputy Attorney General James Comey. http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/azizDOJ_PadillaLink.pdf
QuoteOn May the 8th of 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist, stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare; a highly trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children by destroying apartment buildings; an al Qaeda soldier who still hoped and planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country; an al Qaeda soldier who was trusted enough to spend hour after hour with the leaders of al Qaeda: Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; an al Qaeda soldier who had vital information about our enemy and its plans; and lastly an al Qaeda soldier who, as an American citizen, was free to move in, within and out of this country.
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Friend of mine who grew up in the Hermosa neighborhood was familair with Padilla growing up. Told me he once "stabbed a Mexican to death in the alley."
That's all I got. Carry on.
Intrepid Reader: powen1
So, who the fuck hasn't?
I know exactly who to call when I need a spokesperson.
As they say in Tijuana, "Es Oro Geraldo! Oro!".
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html
QuoteCommenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide. Amazing.
Quote from: morpheus on April 03, 2009, 08:33:43 AM
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html
QuoteCommenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide. Amazing.
Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.
Quote from: Fork on April 03, 2009, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 03, 2009, 08:33:43 AM
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html
QuoteCommenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide. Amazing.
Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.
Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 03, 2009, 08:52:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 03, 2009, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 03, 2009, 08:33:43 AM
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html
QuoteCommenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide. Amazing.
Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.
Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?
Yes... which makes Keller's SAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!! movement even more puzzling.
Quote from: morpheus on April 03, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on April 03, 2009, 08:52:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 03, 2009, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 03, 2009, 08:33:43 AM
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_deluge_.html
QuoteCommenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Yes, saving a newpaper/media company is right up there with saving innocent lives from genocide. Amazing.
Ever since Mort Zuckerman bought the Daily News, there hasn't been a newspaper in NY I'd wrap fish in. The Times is merely the best of a shitty lot.
Isn't news print media pretty much irrelevant now, anyway?
Yes... which makes Keller's SAVE THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!! movement even more puzzling.
It's the SAVE KELLER'S JOB!!! movement.
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Hillary Clinton is really on that list. That wasn't just the mushrooms? She's seriously on that list...Wow.
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Who cares about these two old farts - has Justice Reinhold had anything interesting to say lately?
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Nice representation from Israel. Reason enough to know the Islamics are on the wrong end.
(http://listas.20minutos.es/lists/img/2008-12/66425/1051781_640px.jpg)
(http://listas.20minutos.es/lists/img/2008-12/66425/801335_640px.jpg)
Really? A blonde Jew?
Quote from: RV on April 14, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Who cares about these two old farts - has Justice Reinhold had anything interesting to say lately?
That's
Chief Justice Reinhold to you, buddy.
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 14, 2009, 10:00:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Nice representation from Israel. Reason enough to know the Islamics are on the wrong end.
(GIANT PICTURES)
Really? A blonde Jew?
I can't quite make out their facial features, Chuck.
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
This. I saw the context. It seemed asinine.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
Good thing nobody ever put anything in writing that says we have the right to pursuit of happiness, and that right was inalienable.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 14, 2009, 10:00:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Nice representation from Israel. Reason enough to know the Islamics are on the wrong end.
(GIANT PICTURES)
Really? A blonde Jew?
I can't quite make out their facial features, Chuck.
She's got a bit of Janet Jones-Gretzky in her, circa American Anthem.
And check the eye browns. Something tells me the head boobs don't match the carpet.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 14, 2009, 10:00:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
http://listas.20minutos.es/?do=show&id=66425&c=1233508233
Who knew there were so many reasonably attractive*** female politicians?
*** Note: this adjective can be used to describe almost all the ladies on this list.
Nice representation from Israel. Reason enough to know the Islamics are on the wrong end.
(GIANT PICTURES)
Really? A blonde Jew?
I can't quite make out their facial features, Chuck.
I just viewed them from across the room; twenty sheqel says the second one has, or used to have, a penis.
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
OK. So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse
Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition. Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it. Well done.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
OK. So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition. Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it. Well done.
"Shoa"
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
OK. So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition. Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it. Well done.
Thomas is a fine one to talk about entitlement, since he only got his job because they needed a black guy.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:01:41 AM
I can't quite make out their facial features, Chuck.
If I knew the coding for sizing the images I'd make the adjustment.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Which leaves out some important qualification...
QuoteJustice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.
...
American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."
The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within
a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.
I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least
this.
There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for
guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 10:11:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: Jon on April 14, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Quote'Today there is much focus on our rights," Justice Thomas said. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights."
It makes sense if you include a bit more of the context.
Quote"I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances," he said. "Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"
He gave examples: "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions."
The evolution of certain "rights', such as privacy, is right on par with air-conditioning and telephones.
And, no, even in context, it still doesn't make any sense. Maybe I missed the part about those other "Bills" in my civics classes.
At least foreign law is a tangible thing, Thomas is just making shit up. He just seems to lack a certain intellectual curiosity. It's a bit unnerving.
OK. So when Justice Thomas says, basically, that people these days seem to feel entitled to a lot of shit that they are not entitled to (air conditioning, telephones, televisions), and you conflate that with "rights" in a Constitutional context... and then accuse Thomas of a lack of intellectual incuriosity... it's an interesting juxtaposition. Seems to me you grabbed the standard "bitch about a Conservative Judicial Philosophy" template, and squeezed Thomas's words into it. Well done.
This?
Quote from: Tank on April 14, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Which leaves out some important qualification...
QuoteJustice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.
...
American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."
The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.
I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.
There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.
Wrong. Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal. European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal. Conservatives don't like liberals. Conservatives don't want any liberal legal nonsense in the courts. Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law. QED.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 14, 2009, 12:36:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 14, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Which leaves out some important qualification...
QuoteJustice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.
...
American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."
The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.
I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.
There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.
Wrong. Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal socialists. European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal socialists. Conservatives don't like liberals socialists. Conservatives don't want any liberal socialist legal nonsense in the courts. Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law. QED.
Gil hasn't been keeping up with the latest Movementarian framing directives.
Nowadays any Eurofag, even a multibillionaire monopolist oligarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi), is by definition Redder than Lenin (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31412).
Quote from: Tank on April 14, 2009, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 14, 2009, 12:36:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 14, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 14, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 14, 2009, 09:37:57 AM
Seriously? This fucker (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) is on our Supreme Court?
I know...I'm a bit biased against the ideas of someone like Clarence Thomas, but seriously?
Quote
"I have to admit," he said, "that I'm one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how the dishes were magically cleaned."
Marveling at technology = poor judicial mind. It's science. Or something. You didn't need to bother with anything except the bolded part. Now, if you want to talk about someone who should not be on the Supreme Court, and do it in relevant terms, we can do that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=1&em
Quote"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
Which leaves out some important qualification...
QuoteJustice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.
"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.
...
American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, "is a passing phase." She predicted that "we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts."
The fact of the matter is that our laws, and all legal reasoning thereof, exist within a historical tradition of law; a history and tradition, moreover, that we share in common with many other countries.
I'd expect conservatives to understand and respect at least this.
There's no reason we shouldn't look to of other nations, both common law and civil, within the broader Western tradition for guidance in legal reasoning and prevailing standards. In fact, there's plenty of historical precedent to the contrary, right back to the very writing of the Constitution and the founding of our legal system.
Wrong. Europeans and other foreigners are more likely to be liberal socialists. European and other foreign judges are also more likely to be liberal socialists. Conservatives don't like liberals socialists. Conservatives don't want any liberal socialist legal nonsense in the courts. Therefore, conservatives don't like foreign law. QED.
This too
So does anyone have a problem with appointing a special prosecutor? Patrick Fitzgerald perhaps?
QuoteTogether, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the C.I.A.'s methods and the Justice Department's long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, the slamming of detainees into walls, prolonged sleep deprivation and the dousing of detainees with water as cold as 41 degrees alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention Against Torture.
QuoteThe United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators at war crimes trials after World War II for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?_r=1&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html?_r=1&hp)
Fox News (!) with a dose of sanity re: that Obamafascist DHS report...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWycXKTuPZ8
A lot of worthwhile points and facts, but I'll highlight this one in particular:
QuoteSo there are two assessments. One on the left—the one on the right is the one that's getting the attention because of the leak.
...
And I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush Administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he left office.
I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)
QuoteCheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET
In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:
CHENEY:
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."
"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."
"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."
Makes sense to me.
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 07:25:57 AM
I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)
QuoteCheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET
In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:
CHENEY:
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."
"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."
"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."
Makes sense to me.
Dick Cheney, Champion of Free Flow of Information.
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 07:25:57 AM
I am aware that dick Cheney is PURE EVIL, but tell me this doesn't make sense (reproduced from Drudge, so you don't have to give him the traffic if you don't want to)
QuoteCheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET
In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel's Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration's interrogation tactics:
CHENEY:
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."
"I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."
"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."
Makes sense to me.
Works for me.
Maybe said memos will reconcile why Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0420/p99s01-duts.html) when waterboarding is supposedly so effective that he 'broke' in 35 seconds. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501278/Waterboarding-broke-al-Qaeda-captive-35-seconds-says-CIA-agent-defending-torture.html)
And maybe said memos will explain what moral and legal double standard allows a great country like ours to authorize acts that we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html) for carrying out in World War II.
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Dick Cheney, Champion of Free Flow of Information.
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Deep Goat knows all.
Cheney is actually a pretty cool study, in that he's currently showing a higher profile than he did while in his country's service.
He certainly seems worried that some shit is going to bubble to the surface, now that he's no longer in control of the flow of information.
I'm guessing anything regarding torture isn't what he's worried about.
Seems to me he's worried about some shit floating to the surface but not other shit.
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 01:32:13 PM
Seems to me he's worried about some shit floating to the surface but not other shit.
Yeah, the torture shit is bad, but everyone essentially knew about it anyway.
Either his energy summit or contract steering seem like the sort of thing that would worry him.
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Deep Goat knows all.
Looks like Deep Goat and I got FACED by Cheney.
QuoteThat whole question of whether Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify and release intelligence supposedly proving that the torture worked? Turns out Cheney made the request through the National Archives, a spokesperson for the archives confirms.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/ (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/)
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 06:47:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Deep Goat knows all.
Looks like Deep Goat and I got FACED by Cheney.
QuoteThat whole question of whether Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify and release intelligence supposedly proving that the torture worked? Turns out Cheney made the request through the National Archives, a spokesperson for the archives confirms.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/ (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/)
I've long found Greg Sargent kind of generally douchey.
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 06:47:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 21, 2009, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: RV on April 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
DPD to add: oops (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
QuoteCheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he'd made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn't get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Deep Goat knows all.
Looks like Deep Goat and I got FACED by Cheney.
QuoteThat whole question of whether Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify and release intelligence supposedly proving that the torture worked? Turns out Cheney made the request through the National Archives, a spokesperson for the archives confirms.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/ (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/)
So Cheney filed a request with the CIA, except he didn't. Sounds credible to me.
Wonder if anyone files a FOIA request with both agencies to see if the documents are different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
QuoteAdmiral Blair's assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Quote from: morpheus on April 22, 2009, 11:48:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
QuoteAdmiral Blair's assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
From Blair's memo:
Quote"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
Quote from: morpheus on April 22, 2009, 11:48:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html
QuoteAdmiral Blair's assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Morph, you should know better than to resort to the NY Times.
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 31, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 31, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: RV on March 31, 2009, 02:53:21 PM
Far be it from me to question the assertions of the Bush DOJ, but if Zubaida's statement that Padilla intended to detonate a dirty bomb was confirmed by "multiple independent and corroborating sources" as Ashcroft claimed, why was the dirty bomb plot never mentioned in the government's charges against Padilla? And the fact that Zubaida wasn't used as a witness in the trial against Padilla doesn't exactly speak to his reliability.
Ah. Padilla's just a regular Joe. I get it now.
Maybe an answer of the question would be a better response.
Sure, Chuck. My response is that stopping something from happening and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
My next questions would be: Our justice system that has worked pretty well for a few hundred years all of a sudden shouldn't apply to specific situations or people? And shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff (Cheney and Comey in this case) to prove these "specific attacks" rather than taking their word for it?
The burden of proof in a court is on the plaintiff. I agree with that. However, I thought my last statement, that I wasn't talking about trials, was pretty clear.
Look, until we can see the classified stuff that Cheney alluded to, we can go around and around on this forever. I'd really rather not.
I'll just take Cheney's word. He's good for it.
I'd also submit this report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?hpid=topnews) that Zubaida provided Jose Padilla's name before the 'enhanced interrogations' took place - not because of them.
QuoteThere is little dispute, according to officials from both agencies, that Abu Zubaida provided some valuable intelligence before CIA interrogators began to rough him up, including information that helped identify Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla. Footnotes in the 9/11 Commission report attribute information about a variety of al-Qaeda personnel and activities to interrogations of Abu Zubaida beginning in April 2002 and lasting through February 2004.
Vindication, TORTUREFAGGOTS. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)
QuoteIt is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
QuoteDefenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh's capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don't add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.
QuoteOne of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation.
I can't remember where we were discussing the downfall of the entire global economy, but this would seem to be pretty significant.
http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-cuomo-send-angry-letter-to-tarp-regulators-2009-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-cuomo-send-angry-letter-to-tarp-regulators-2009-4)
Quote from: CT III on April 23, 2009, 11:38:44 AM
I can't remember where we were discussing the downfall of the entire global economy, but this would seem to be pretty significant.
http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-cuomo-send-angry-letter-to-tarp-regulators-2009-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-cuomo-send-angry-letter-to-tarp-regulators-2009-4)
Cuomo needs to build up some heavy artillery if he wants to beat black AND blind.
This article about Ali Soufan (the author of the NY Times piece I linked above), his investigations of the US Cole bombing, the dysfunction of the CIA & FBI leading up to 9/11, and his successes with interrogations, is fascinating and really depressing.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all)
QuoteIn fact, the C.I.A. knew a lot about Khallad and his ties to Al Qaeda. The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have long quarrelled over bureaucratic turf, and their mandates place them at odds. The ultimate goal of the bureau in gathering intelligence is to gain convictions for crimes; for the agency, intelligence itself is the object. If the agency had responded candidly to Soufan's requests, it would have revealed its knowledge of an Al Qaeda cell that was already forming inside the United States. But the agency kept this intelligence to itself.
QuoteThe morning of September 12th, the C.I.A.'s chief of station in Aden went with the agents to the airport in Sanaa. The C.I.A. official was sitting in the lounge with Soufan when he got a call on his cell phone from F.B.I. headquarters.
QuoteWhen Soufan realized that the C.I.A. had known for more than a year and a half that two of the hijackers were in the country he ran into the bathroom and threw up.
GM kills the Indian (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
Quote from: Fork on April 24, 2009, 01:59:17 PM
GM kills the Indian (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
Good bye, Old Friend.
(http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg)
Great googily moogily...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw
You know that DHS report (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_DHS:_Rightwing_Extremism:_Current_Economic_and_Political_Climate_Fueling_Resurgence_in_Radicalization_and_Recruitment,_7_Apr_2009) (written under the fucking
Bush administration, no less (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175015#msg175015)) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to
white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their
recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)...
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8955155
QuoteThe problem is the Homeland Security Secretary has now redefined real terrorists as foreign victims with Miranda rights and access to American courts with lawyers paid for by the American taxpayer, while at the same time the Homeland Security S has redefined pro-life gun-owning veterans who like smaller government and who believe America should secure our borders against invasion from illegal aliens as domestic right-wing extremists, as you have in the report upon the stand.
Homeland Security, I think we should also note, has the Transportation Security Administration. Any of our constituents that go to the airport, they see people that have TSA on their shirts.
You can't get on a plane in the United States, a commercial aircraft, without going through security. What's going to happen now? Will the Federal Government start IDing returning veterans, start IDing gun owners, start IDing pro-lifers and then pull us out of line for special searches at the airports before we are allowed to get on a plane because we could be considered a domestic right-wing terrorist while we would see Osama bin Laden and his friends skate by because they are not, because maybe they would be involved in a manmade disaster. But those who are pro-life gun owners, returning veterans on the other side, they are the real threat?
This is an upside down Alice in Wonderland world. I can see why the American people are so upset right now. They are so upset. They look at what's happening. They shake their head. They say, is this America? Is this what we are used to? We are normal God-fearing people who love this country, and now we are the threat while Osama bin Laden and the people who seek to really bring us harm are let off scot free. And we are going to call them manmade disaster, we have got to be nuanced and so careful so we don't hurt their feelings?
Has this Homeland Security Secretary gone absolutely stark raving mad? She needs to come before Congress. She needs to answer a few questions.
Apparently 'due process' and 'the rule of law' = 'letting Osama off scot free.'
And 'white supremacists' and 'violent antigovernment groups' and 'radical domestic terrorists' = 'conservatives, gun owners, pro-lifers and other normal God-fearing people who love this country.'
Bookmarked for the next time anyone asks me to give Stark Raving Bachmann's point of view a fair hearing.
Quote from: PenFoe on April 24, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 24, 2009, 01:59:17 PM
GM kills the Indian (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
Good bye, Old Friend.
(http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg)
Sweet Jesus, that's an ugly motor. Is that for real?
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2009, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on April 24, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 24, 2009, 01:59:17 PM
GM kills the Indian (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
Good bye, Old Friend.
(http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg)
Sweet Jesus, that's an ugly motor. Is that for real?
That's the Aztek.
You should see it from behind.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000321.html
I recall that the Aztek was a consolation prize on one of the first seasons of
Survivor.
It had a built-in tent.
Quote from: Tank on April 24, 2009, 03:45:36 PM
Great googily moogily...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw
You know that DHS report (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_DHS:_Rightwing_Extremism:_Current_Economic_and_Political_Climate_Fueling_Resurgence_in_Radicalization_and_Recruitment,_7_Apr_2009) (written under the fucking Bush administration, no less (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175015#msg175015)) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?
The United States Army is not in the habit of teaching Infantry Sergeants how to make bombs out of fertilizer. Being a Bradley Gunner or a squad leader does not prepare you to blow up federal buildings. The bombing of a military building was not the result of "honest to goodness military training." It was the result of McVeigh being a fucking psychopath. Should DHS watch out for former math professors who buy Al Gore's book as potential threats send bombs around the country? You have the same sample size (one) to justify that as you do to justify keeping tabs on returning vets.
What new evidence does the DHS have to justify this report? Zero.
QuoteThe DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.
Here's another right-wing nutjob (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/04/napolitano_apologizes_to_vfw_f.html?hpid=news-col-blog) that says the report was bullshit.
QuoteHomeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized directly today to Commander Dave Rehbein, head of the American Legion, after a recently leaked DHS intelligence report suggested that right-wing extremist groups might recruit military veterans returning from overseas deployments. The 45-minute meeting occurred at DHS headquarters in Washington this afternoon.
A detailed account of the meeting from the American Legion states that "Hunched forward with head bowed, the Secretary of Homeland Security looked the National Commander of The American Legion straight in the eye and said, very quietly, 'I'm sorry, Dave.'"
"The report was not worthy of this department, or of veterans," Napolitano said to Rehbein, according Legion spokesman Craig Roberts, who attended the meeting. "It was very badly written and should never have been released," she said.
More here... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090425/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_napolitano_republican_heat)
QuoteNapolitano blamed one of her agency's analysts for prematurely sending out the intelligence assessment to law enforcement, according to Craig Roberts, an American Legion member who attended the meeting.
Vindication, Napolitanobamafagots.
Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2009, 08:34:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2009, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on April 24, 2009, 02:01:20 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 24, 2009, 01:59:17 PM
GM kills the Indian (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
Good bye, Old Friend.
(http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/arquivos_upload/2008/02/198_2738-pontiac-aztec.jpg)
Sweet Jesus, that's an ugly motor. Is that for real?
That's the Aztek.
You should see it from behind.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000321.html
I recall that the Aztek was a consolation prize on one of the first seasons of Survivor.
It had a built-in tent.
The Aztek apologists on that page sicken me.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 25, 2009, 11:18:07 AM
The United States Army is not in the habit of teaching Infantry Sergeants how to make bombs out of fertilizer. Being a Bradley Gunner or a squad leader does not prepare you to blow up federal buildings. The bombing of a military building was not the result of "honest to goodness military training." It was the result of McVeigh being a fucking psychopath. Should DHS watch out for former math professors who buy Al Gore's book as potential threats send bombs around the country? You have the same sample size (one) to justify that as you do to justify keeping tabs on returning vets.
What new evidence does the DHS have to justify this report? Zero.
So, what you're saying is: violent domestic extremists are nothing to worry about?
Nor should domestic law enforcement be concerned that recruitment of members with rigorous military training and real-world combat experience (above and beyond backwoods paintball wargames) would have the potential to increase their operational capability?
Because that's all the report talks about in regard to returning veterans.
Nowhere does it suggest that returning vets
in general constitute a domestic terror threat, only that vets
that actually join up with Neo-Nazi groups or extremist anti-government militias and the like could increase the threats these groups pose.
Quote(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
Quote(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
Here's the 2008 FBI report the DHS analysis bases this judgment on...
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI:_White_Supremacist_Recruitment_of_Military_Personnel_2008
Quote(U) Key Judgments
Except where noted, the confidence levels for the following judgments are considered moderate.
• (U//FOUO) High confidence: Military experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes. Extremist leaders seek to recruit members with military experience in order to exploit their discipline, knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and access to weapons and intelligence.
• (U//FOUO) Although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles within extremist groups and their involvement has the potential to reinvigorate an extremist movement suffering from loss of leadership and in-fighting during the post-9/11 period.
• (U//FOUO) White supremacist extremists hope to revitalize the white supremacist movement by exploiting antigovernment sentiment among opponents of the overseas conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although some veterans of these conflicts have joined the extremist movement, they have not done so in numbers sufficient to stem declines among major national extremist organizations, nor has their participation resulted in a more violent extremist movement.
• (U//FOUO) Looking ahead, current and former military personnel belonging to white supremacist extremist organizations who experience frustration at the inability of these organizations to achieve their goals may choose to found new, more operationally minded and operationally capable groups. The military training veterans bring to the movement and their potential to pass this training on to others can increase the ability of lone offenders to carry out violence from the movement's fringes.
According to the FBI...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html
QuoteMichael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.
"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.
TPD.
The 2006 SPLC report referred to by the DHS...
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66
QuoteAccording to a 1998 study commissioned by the Department of Defense, "Young civilian extremists are encouraged by adult leaders to enlist in the military to gain access to weapons, training, and other military personnel."
The reasons are obvious: Soldiers are trained to be proficient with weapons, combat tactics, and explosives, to train others in their use, and to operate in a highly disciplined culture that is focused on the organized violence of war. This is why military extremists present an elevated threat to public safety, and why extremists groups both recruit active duty personnel -- especially those with access to classified information or sophisticated weaponry -- and influence their members to join the armed forces.
"The threats posed by extremism to the military are simultaneously blatant and subtle," the Defense Department study said. "On the one hand, high-profile terrorist acts and hate crimes committed by active and former military personnel can have seriously detrimental effects on the civil-military relationship as well as on the morale and security of military personnel. On the other hand, even the non-violent activities of military personnel with extremist tendencies (e.g., possessing literature and/or artifacts from the extremist 'movement'; dabbling in extremism through computerized telecommunications activities; proselytizing extremist ideologies, etc.) can have deleterious consequences for the good order, discipline, readiness, and cohesion of military units."
Special Forces soldiers who double as extremist operatives present a special danger, since they have commando skills gained at huge taxpayer expense -- often including urban warfare, long-range reconnaissance, and combat demolitions.
"Hate groups send their guys into the U.S. military because the U.S. military has the best weapons and training," said T.J. Leyden, a former racist skinhead and Marine who recruited inside the Marine Corps for the Hammerskins, a nationwide skinhead gang. He later renounced the neo-Nazi movement and now conducts anti-extremism training seminars on military bases.
"Right now, any white supremacist in Iraq is getting live fire, guerilla warfare experience," Leyden said. "But any white supremacist in Iraq who's a Green Beret or a Navy SEAL or Marine Recon, he's doing covert stuff that's far above and beyond convoy protection and roadblocks. And if he comes back and decides at some point down the road that it's race war time, all that training and combat experience he's received could easily turn around and bite this country in the ass."
Department of Defense investigator Barfield confirmed that threat assessment. "Today's white supremacists in the military become tomorrow's domestic terrorists once they're out," he said. "There needs to be a tighter focus on intercepting the next Timothy McVeigh before he becomes the next Timothy McVeigh."
The 1995 DoD-commissioned study: Gangs, Extremists Groups, and the Military: Screening for Service (http://www.stormingmedia.us/15/1559/A155953.html).
http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic
Quote"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."
It
almost defies imagination.
Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic
Quote"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."
It almost defies imagination.
Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.
Hold on...are you saying we aren't supposed to believe everything we hear on talk radio?
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic
Quote"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."
It almost defies imagination.
Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.
It is unconscionable to think anyone would use DHS for political purposes.
Except, of course, when Tom Ridge held his "unspecified threats" press conferences a) the day after John Kerry announced John Edwards was his running mate, and b) the day after Kerry's acceptance speech, both times praising "the leadership of President Bush"
That was cool.
Quote from: Fork on April 28, 2009, 07:46:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic
Quote"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."
It almost defies imagination.
Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.
It is unconscionable to think anyone would use DHS for political purposes.
Except, of course, when Tom Ridge held his "unspecified threats" press conferences a) the day after John Kerry announced John Edwards was his running mate, and b) the day after Kerry's acceptance speech, both times praising "the leadership of President Bush"
That was cool.
Or that anyone would use military jets for ill-advised photo shoots. I'm not sure the previous White House scheduled a covert photo shoot that might remind the locals of the worst thing they ever witnessed. I guess when you put the guy who was on the Board of Indy Mac in charge of the WH Military Office...
For what it's worth, those are just two announcements in a sea of many. http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/105.htm (bonus points to that site for the ghey Bush/Gannon photoshop)
I think I'm on board with Gil Gunderson on DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?
And I hope we can agree that whoever is in the White House will use the timing of announcements by any of the Federal Government's executive departments to their political advantage. People respond to INCENTIVES.
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
And I hope we can agree that whoever is in the White House will use the timing of announcements by any of the Federal Government's executive departments to their political advantage. People respond to INCENTIVES.
In this context, your catchphrase makes little sense.
Quote from: Tank on April 24, 2009, 03:45:36 PM
Great googily moogily...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw
You know that DHS report (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_DHS:_Rightwing_Extremism:_Current_Economic_and_Political_Climate_Fueling_Resurgence_in_Radicalization_and_Recruitment,_7_Apr_2009) (written under the fucking Bush administration, no less (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175015#msg175015)) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)...
The information gathered may haev been done under the Bush administration but this particular Memo did not. It was dated April 7th, and it commented on the 3 Pittsburgh police officers who were killed.
QuoteThe report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
QuoteHowever, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?
Because the guys that created it were believers in big government. Well, at least big government that they controlled.
A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):
DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs
All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 28, 2009, 07:46:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
http://washingtonindependent.com/40593/concerned-women-asking-about-swine-flu-panic
Quote"Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," said Wright. She pointed to news stories that ask whether the slow-walking of the Sebelius choice will hurt the response to the flu. "If there's even a hint that [Department of Homeland Security] is manipulating the health situation to push a political appointee through, well, it almost defies imagination that they'd be willing to that."
Wright said that she'd heard the speculation "on talk radio," and wanted to be skeptical, but "there's too much of a basis in that argument to easily dismiss it."
It almost defies imagination.
Apart, of course, from the part where she imagines it could be totally true.
It is unconscionable to think anyone would use DHS for political purposes.
Except, of course, when Tom Ridge held his "unspecified threats" press conferences a) the day after John Kerry announced John Edwards was his running mate, and b) the day after Kerry's acceptance speech, both times praising "the leadership of President Bush"
That was cool.
Or that anyone would use military jets for ill-advised photo shoots. I'm not sure the previous White House scheduled a covert photo shoot that might remind the locals of the worst thing they ever witnessed. I guess when you put the guy who was on the Board of Indy Mac in charge of the WH Military Office...
That was Hall of Fame-caliber stupid, right there.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2009, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?
Because the guys that created it were believers in big government. Well, at least big government that they controlled.
A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):
DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs
All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.
This.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2009, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?
Because the guys that created it were believers in big government. Well, at least big government that they controlled.
A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):
DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs
All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.
I can't believe I'm going to say this... CHUCK IS RIGHT! Oh. 10.17(c) doesn't apply to politics, so I guess it's OK.
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 24, 2009, 03:45:36 PM
Great googily moogily...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA33u0PQOvw
You know that DHS report (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_DHS:_Rightwing_Extremism:_Current_Economic_and_Political_Climate_Fueling_Resurgence_in_Radicalization_and_Recruitment,_7_Apr_2009) (written under the fucking Bush administration, no less (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175015#msg175015)) that says domestic law enforcement agencies should remain vigilant in regards to white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups, with a special concern towards their recruitment of veterans (whose honest to goodness military training and experience these groups could use to transform their loud bark to a Timothy McVeigh-, Eric Rudolph- or even Richard Poplawski-like bite)?
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)...
The information gathered may haev been done under the Bush administration but this particular Memo did not. It was dated April 7th, and it commented on the 3 Pittsburgh police officers who were killed.
QuoteThe report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
QuoteHowever, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.
No, but it was commissioned under Bush. Bush wanted the document and the DHS civil servants wrote it during both administrations.
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:46:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2009, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2009, 08:10:26 AM
DHS: why does it exist, and what function does it perform that other departments do not perform (or what is gained from having it)?
Because the guys that created it were believers in big government. Well, at least big government that they controlled.
A terrific president would shut down (at least as individual agencies):
DHS
Energy
Education
Transportation
Agriculture
Labor
Veteran's Affairs
All the functions of these agencies could be either combined into other functions (transportation, energy, ag and labor into commerce; DHS into justice; VA into Defense) or maybe even eliminated.
I can't believe I'm going to say this... CHUCK IS RIGHT! Oh. 10.17(c) doesn't apply to politics, so I guess it's OK.
The purpose of government is to create markets that the private sector cannot create efficiently. National defense, police, courts, roads. One could, perhaps, stretch that purpose to include parks (Dept of Interior) and blighted areas (HUD) as there's very little profit motive in parks and profit in correcting urban blight may have too long of a horizon for an equitable return.
Dennis Byrne checks in (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0428byrneapr28,0,4091949.story) with a truly revolting piece of tough-guy garbage.
QuoteI'd love to see their memos redefining the limits of "enhanced interrogation" as envisioned by Obama and his brain, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "Interrogations can only be conducted over three cups of tea in the presidential suite at the Drake Hotel. Care must be taken that the tea is not too tepid or too hot to cause discomfort to the detainee's lips. Interrogators who fall short of this standard will be shot."
I guess him and Ronnie will just have to agree to disagree on the enforcement of laws against torture. (http://www.antemedius.com/content/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-waterboarding-prisoners-0)
QuoteGeorge W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.
QuoteAt the trial of the Texas sheriff, Assistant US Attorney Scott Woodward said the prisoners who were subjected to waterboarding were not "model citizens," but they were still "victims" of torture.
"We make no bones about it. The victims of these crimes are criminals," Woodward said, according to a copy of the trial transcript.
QuoteOne of the defendants, Deputy Floyd Allen Baker, said during the trial that he thought torture to be an immoral act, but he was unaware that it was illegal. His attorneys cited the "Nuremberg defense," that Baker was acting on orders from his superiors when he subjected prisoners to waterboarding.
QuoteBut the jury in the Baker's case didn't buy the "didn't know it was illegal" defense, convicting the deputy on three counts of civil rights and constitutional violations related to the waterboarding.
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
It was not written under Bush, it was written during the Obama administration and put out by the stupid idiot Napolitano. It is amazing how Bush and his administration can write memos on future events for Obama to put out.
I haven't been watching the news, but apparently this is the contentious section of the memo:
Quote
(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.
Disregarding which administration is responsible for the memo, is the right that hard up for an issue? The only problem I can see with the section is that it says "rightwing extremists will attempt" instead of "rightwing extremists
might attempt." There's no way of knowing without a doubt that this type of recruitment will occur. However, the memo isn't implying that returning veterans are America-hating terrorists.
Rather, it's simply stating that there's a portion of returning veterans who may be having issues integrating themselves back in to civilian life. If the support structure isn't in place to help them, then some of those veterans are going to become prime candidates for recruitment in to extremist groups.
This isn't a new phenomenon. This is a pattern you can see all around the world. Terrorist groups look to recruit marginalized people because they have little to lose in joining up (a low opportunity cost, in morph's parlance). By joining up, they are tying themselves in to a social structure that they lack, that will be supportive of them and may provide tangible benefits like food, shelter, etc (INCENTIVES!). So, the benefits (INCENTIVES!) can easily outweigh the costs.
If veterans have "fallen through the cracks", then there's a chance that they can become disillusioned with government because they perceive it (perhaps, rightly) as having failed them. These
are going to be extremist groups' wet dreams in terms of new membership because they have skillsets that are valuable to the group.
So, how is this pissing on the service of our enlisted people? If anything, it seems to imply that better support for reintegrating returning veterans in to civilian life should be a priority. Isn't that supporting the troops?
I don't know, folks. My initial response upon hearing about this DHS report was to be ANGRY! But then... I found that DHS also released a similar (although not quite as strongly worded) memo about lefist extremists... and upon further reading of this memo I kinda feel like it's being blown out of proportion. There are plenty of things to not be happy about if you lean toward the right.
(http://www.gop.gov/resources/images/features/accountability/chart-first100.jpg)
Oh yeah? Well we'll just see about that, shall we?
I like pictures....
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)
Obama saving 100 million dollars is like me killing 1 ant....
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obamacuts.jpg)
QuoteTo put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 11:42:52 AM
I like pictures....
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)
Obama saving 100 million dollars is like me killing 1 ant....
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obamacuts.jpg)
QuoteTo put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."
THIS?
By no means do I think that 100 million is significant, but in terms of the spending, it helps to look at the picture in reality.
The federal budget is not 3.6 trillion dollars. Approximately 2 trillion of that spending comes in the form of Medicare and Social Security, mandatory payments that the goverment must make by law. The other 1.6 trillion is discretionary spending, meaning that which is at the control of Congress and the President.
So, that makes the request 100 million from each Agency and Department head (which there are alot of, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40+) out of a total 1.6 trillion dollars.
It's not really that much more significant, but it is much better than out of 3.6 trillion.
Just to be accurate.
I take from your silence that the DHS memo really was just a red herring, MikeC?
Quote from: ChuckD on April 28, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
I take from your silence that the DHS memo really was just a red herring, MikeC?
The report I am really not interested in. The findings from the research in alot of these cases is that individuals were tracked as being members of these extremist groups and then joining the military and then returning to these groups. Alot of them were being tracked for the circles they already were in not because they were veterans first. The report doesn't distinguish that fact and simply lables all returning veterans as an area to watch.
It points out Tim McVeigh because he was a veteran as an example. The military didn't teach him how to build a bomb and blow up a building and the military didn't make him the man he was. He was that person before he joined and he was that person after he left.
Also an area that you quote is that white supremist groups and such are getting trainining in the Armed Forces. Yeah and their point is in the memo? Again its just targeting military personal when it is already well known these groups have been infiltrating and gaining training from law enforcement, to CIA, and FBI for over the last 20 years. Should the report also mention that police officers and FBI personal are potential risks? No it only specifically states military.
Its kinda like saying all black people are more prone to violence and the government needs to watch the black population. Yeah i think government already did that for a long period of time. It was just a poorly written memo trying to paint all veterans as a risk, which is just pure horse shit.
I was just responding to the fact it wasn't written by the Bush Administration at all. It came out of the Homeland Security office during the Obama administration with current events being expressed in it. This memo wasn't just laying around from the Bush people and Nap decides to put it out. It was written and put out by her office. I was just amazed no one bothered to challenge that fact and people just accepted that Bush could tell the future.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 28, 2009, 12:20:09 PM
By no means do I think that 100 million is significant, but in terms of the spending, it helps to look at the picture in reality.
The federal budget is not 3.6 trillion dollars. Approximately 2 trillion of that spending comes in the form of Medicare and Social Security, mandatory payments that the goverment must make by law. The other 1.6 trillion is discretionary spending, meaning that which is at the control of Congress and the President.
So, that makes the request 100 million from each Agency and Department head (which there are alot of, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40+) out of a total 1.6 trillion dollars.
It's not really that much more significant, but it is much better than out of 3.6 trillion.
Just to be accurate.
Where are you including interest on the debt?
And for those complaining that Obama isn't cutting enough (me!) were you complaining about the LBJ-on-Roids spending the last eight years (I was)?
At least the guy is cutting SOMETHING.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2009, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 28, 2009, 12:20:09 PM
By no means do I think that 100 million is significant, but in terms of the spending, it helps to look at the picture in reality.
The federal budget is not 3.6 trillion dollars. Approximately 2 trillion of that spending comes in the form of Medicare and Social Security, mandatory payments that the goverment must make by law. The other 1.6 trillion is discretionary spending, meaning that which is at the control of Congress and the President.
So, that makes the request 100 million from each Agency and Department head (which there are alot of, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40+) out of a total 1.6 trillion dollars.
It's not really that much more significant, but it is much better than out of 3.6 trillion.
Just to be accurate.
Where are you including interest on the debt?
And for those complaining that Obama isn't cutting enough (me!) were you complaining about the LBJ-on-Roids spending the last eight years (I was)?
At least the guy is cutting SOMETHING.
I didn't want to write a dissertation on the budget. But, that interest would have to be tacked into the mandatory spending section.
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on April 28, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
I take from your silence that the DHS memo really was just a red herring, MikeC?
The report I am really not interested in. The findings from the research in alot of these cases is that individuals were tracked as being members of these extremist groups and then joining the military and then returning to these groups. Alot of them were being tracked for the circles they already were in not because they were veterans first. The report doesn't distinguish that fact and simply lables all returning veterans as an area to watch.
That is absolutely not what the report is stating, Mike. It's
not suggesting that extremist groups are infiltrating the military. It's suggesting that
"a small percentage" of
"returning" veterans will be targeted by extremist groups. This isn't a blanket generalization of all military personnel. The report isn't saying that TEC, JD, or any of the other veterans that frequent this board are radical terrorists. It's not throwing their service under a bus. It's simply stating that there's the potential that extremist groups will recruit "a small percentage" of returning veterans.
Quote(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Quote
It points out Tim McVeigh because he was a veteran as an example. The military didn't teach him how to build a bomb and blow up a building and the military didn't make him the man he was. He was that person before he joined and he was that person after he left.
He's certainly not indicative of all military personnel. However, his military experience certainly had an impact on his eventual decision to blow up the building:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm
QuoteHe admits to killing two Iraqis, but was upset at what he saw as the needless death of countless Iraqis at the end of the Gulf War.
The army, he says, taught him how to switch off his emotions.
McVeigh was tipped for promotion and on his return, he tried to join the elite Green Berets. He took a battery of IQ, personality and aptitude tests, but, out of condition from lack of exercise in the Gulf, found the physical rigours of the training camp too tough and dropped out after two days.
Disillusioned, he went back to the regular army but soon gave up and returned to live with his father.
McVeigh took a series of dead-end jobs and followed gun shows across the country.
So, we have a returning vet who experienced some awful shit while he was in the military, probably had some emotional issues as a result, had trouble reintegrating in to civilian life, became disillusioned with the government, and basically had no good reason (a wife, career, friends) to not lash out.
Quote
Also an area that you quote is that white supremist groups and such are getting trainining in the Armed Forces. Yeah and their point is in the memo? Again its just targeting military personal when it is already well known these groups have been infiltrating and gaining training from law enforcement, to CIA, and FBI for over the last 20 years. Should the report also mention that police officers and FBI personal are potential risks? No it only specifically states military.
Again, read the passage. It's talking about returning veterans. It's not suggesting that the extremist groups are infiltrating military/law enforcement organizations. That's a completely different can of worms. It's a valid point--maybe it should be addressed in the memo--but it's different from the one in question.
Quote
Its kinda like saying all black people are more prone to violence and the government needs to watch the black population. Yeah i think government already did that for a long period of time.
No, it's not "kinda like saying" that at all.
QuoteIt was just a poorly written memo trying to paint all veterans as a risk, which is just pure horse shit.
If that's what you think, then you didn't read it.
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
The report... simply lables all returning veterans as an area to watch.
No it doesn't.
Not even once.
I refer you to:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175881#msg175881
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175904#msg175904
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176166#msg176166
Adding...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-dhs-watching-returning-veterans-only.html
QuoteIt's important to understand how FBI investigations into these kinds of activities take place: The FBI is constrained by DOJ guidelines that do not allow them to investigate organizations merely because of incendiary rhetoric or politically worrisome beliefs. They only open investigations into the activities of members of such groups when there is evidence of actual criminal activity.
And it's at that time that the presence of an extremist with a military background becomes not merely relevant, but potentially important. This is especially so considering one of the realities of the extremist right -- namely, that the vast majority of its members are incapable of anything remotely resembling a terrorist act; what they actually specialize in is the Verbose Bellyache. Yet simultaneously they have developed over recent years a decidedly militaristic culture that prizes actual military background.
It's worth noting that this report was not even laying out an investigative program, but merely highlighting areas of certain
potential concern (among many) that domestic law enforcement should be aware of.
One of those being: the potential threats posed by violent right wing extremists with military training and combat experience.
It really is that simple.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 28, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I didn't want to write a dissertation on the budget. But, that interest would have to be tacked into the mandatory spending section.
Right, but is interest included in the $2 trillion you note or is it in addition? Makes the percentages even better.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2009, 02:30:13 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on April 28, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I didn't want to write a dissertation on the budget. But, that interest would have to be tacked into the mandatory spending section.
Right, but is interest included in the $2 trillion you note or is it in addition? Makes the percentages even better.
It would be in the 2 trillion since those payments need to be made under US law.
Like i said i don't care personally about the memo and what it said i just can see how people look at it and get offended. I put this memo right up there with the lefts outrage over the Bin Laden determined to strike memo or whatever that was. See its proof BUSH KNEW 9/11 was coming. Yeah ok whatever.
Again i commented to say this wasn't from the Bush Administration, it was from Obama's.
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
Like i said i don't care personally about the memo and what it said i just can see how people look at it and get offended.
You also said the memo was...
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
...trying to paint all veterans as a risk, which is just pure horse shit.
Which (while not really true at all in the sense of stating a true fact) does seem to suggest that you were among those who
looked at it (assuming for a moment that you actually in fact looked at it) and
got offended.
Quote from: Tank on April 28, 2009, 05:15:29 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
Like i said i don't care personally about the memo and what it said i just can see how people look at it and get offended.
You also said the memo was...
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
...trying to paint all veterans as a risk, which is just pure horse shit.
Which (while not really true at all in the sense of stating a true fact) does seem to suggest that you were among those who looked at it (assuming for a moment that you actually in fact looked at it) and got offended.
You have to understand veterans as a whole are super sensitive to being labeled by the left. The left loves to explain how nothing more than the uneducated, and minorities join the military, because they have no other choice. Then we got people on the left like Kerry, Obama, and Murtha who think all our soldiers do is air raid villages, bust into homes in the middle of the night terrorizing women and children. Now a report comes out from the DHS under Obama suggesting some could be violent and could join extremist groups.
The Democrats spend most of their time bashing the troops, and their mission, and the majority see it as another example of the left trying to demonize veterans/soldiers. The Vietnam era vets are especially pissed about it because these were the labels being put on them, hence why American Legion demanded and got an apology.
I think the outrage was overdone, but i can see where alot of it is coming from and i think some politicians are doing it just for political purposes and not because they care.
I am more interested in a potential socialized GM, how TARP is turning into a criminal enterprise, how bailouts are not helping countries like Great Britian, Spain, and Germany who are much farther along in the process than we are, Nancy Pelosi's sheer stupidity in saying she knew nothing about water boarding and such when she sat on the committee that approved these practices, John Murtha's scandal involving PMA group, The Car Czar caught in a pay for play scandal, and finally, not that important on the grand scale of things, but watching the buck being passed around with the NYC flyover by Air Force One. FAA now has released a memo saying this could scare the shit out of people and Obama and his boys still thought it was a grand idea. Now the latest news is that the Photo Op has been renamed "training mission." Ohhhhh yeah Obama must think everyone is an idiot. I can't wait till he tells us it was a blimp.
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AMYou have to understand veterans as a whole are super sensitive to being labeled by the left. The left loves to explain how nothing more than the uneducated, and minorities join the military, because they have no other choice. Then we got people on the left like Kerry, Obama, and Murtha who think all our soldiers do is air raid villages, bust into homes in the middle of the night terrorizing women and children.
Congratulations on your appointment as Spokesman for All Veterans Everywhere. And it's about time someone accused 'the left' of hating the troops, I haven't heard that old chestnut for a couple years now. Bravo.
Quote from: RV on April 29, 2009, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AMYou have to understand veterans as a whole are super sensitive to being labeled by the left. The left loves to explain how nothing more than the uneducated, and minorities join the military, because they have no other choice. Then we got people on the left like Kerry, Obama, and Murtha who think all our soldiers do is air raid villages, bust into homes in the middle of the night terrorizing women and children.
Congratulations on your appointment as Spokesman for All Veterans Everywhere. And it's about time someone accused 'the left' of hating the troops, I haven't heard that old chestnut for a couple years now. Bravo.
And what the Hell do Kerry and Murtha know about being veterans?
Quote from: Frank on April 29, 2009, 09:07:13 AM
Quote from: RV on April 29, 2009, 09:02:58 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AMYou have to understand veterans as a whole are super sensitive to being labeled by the left. The left loves to explain how nothing more than the uneducated, and minorities join the military, because they have no other choice. Then we got people on the left like Kerry, Obama, and Murtha who think all our soldiers do is air raid villages, bust into homes in the middle of the night terrorizing women and children.
Congratulations on your appointment as Spokesman for All Veterans Everywhere. And it's about time someone accused 'the left' of hating the troops, I haven't heard that old chestnut for a couple years now. Bravo.
And what the Hell do Kerry and Murtha know about being veterans?
In MikeC's defense, he was only noting the tendencies of Kerry and Murtha in more recent times to view US soliders in a more negative light, regardless of whether they fought in wars years ago.
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 28, 2009, 05:15:29 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 05:03:18 PM
Like i said i don't care personally about the memo and what it said i just can see how people look at it and get offended.
You also said the memo was...
Quote from: MikeC on April 28, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
...trying to paint all veterans as a risk, which is just pure horse shit.
Which (while not really true at all in the sense of stating a true fact) does seem to suggest that you were among those who looked at it (assuming for a moment that you actually in fact looked at it) and got offended.
You have to understand veterans as a whole are super sensitive to being labeled by the left. The left loves to explain how nothing more than the uneducated, and minorities join the military, because they have no other choice. Then we got people on the left like Kerry, Obama, and Murtha who think all our soldiers do is air raid villages, bust into homes in the middle of the night terrorizing women and children. Now a report comes out from the DHS under Obama suggesting some could be violent and could join extremist groups.
The Democrats spend most of their time bashing the troops, and their mission, and the majority see it as another example of the left trying to demonize veterans/soldiers. The Vietnam era vets are especially pissed about it because these were the labels being put on them, hence why American Legion demanded and got an apology.
I think the outrage was overdone, but i can see where alot of it is coming from and i think some politicians are doing it just for political purposes and not because they care.
I am more interested in a potential socialized GM, how TARP is turning into a criminal enterprise, how bailouts are not helping countries like Great Britian, Spain, and Germany who are much farther along in the process than we are, Nancy Pelosi's sheer stupidity in saying she knew nothing about water boarding and such when she sat on the committee that approved these practices, John Murtha's scandal involving PMA group, The Car Czar caught in a pay for play scandal, and finally, not that important on the grand scale of things, but watching the buck being passed around with the NYC flyover by Air Force One. FAA now has released a memo saying this could scare the shit out of people and Obama and his boys still thought it was a grand idea. Now the latest news is that the Photo Op has been renamed "training mission." Ohhhhh yeah Obama must think everyone is an idiot. I can't wait till he tells us it was a blimp.
So, waterboarding is torture then? Good that we wrapped that up.
Quote from: JD on March 20, 2009, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on March 20, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
OMG Sarah Palin is totally outraged about President Obama's gaffe: Quote"I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics," Governor Palin said. "This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
"These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."
Wait a minute:
QuoteGov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.
The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
QuotePalin said she's sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn't be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. "It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we're willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska," Palin said.
So she doesn't want to take money to fund programs that they might not be able to pay for later? She's so two-faced. Putting her whole state's interest ahead of a select group of people.
Update... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042803087.html)
QuoteAlaska Gov. Sarah Palin will sign bills accepting most of the federal stimulus funds available to the state, her spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Palin initially said she would accept only about two-thirds of the $930 million available to Alaska.
Quote
Palin had warned about the state having to finance projects created by the stimulus funds after the federal money runs out. She earlier called the stimulus package "an unsustainable, debt-ridden package of funds."
Alaska's Legislature conducted more than 20 public hearings on the federal stimulus package, and legislative leaders said they couldn't find any of the strings attached to the funds that Palin had warned about.
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
To be honest, TEC is kind of a dick.
Quote from: Frank on April 29, 2009, 07:50:48 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
To be honest, TEC is kind of a dick.
Well, yeah. But opinion on the Iraq War varies, and discussions about it are often divisive. Everyone agrees that I'm a dick.
Quote from: Tink on April 29, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
Quote from: Frank on April 29, 2009, 07:50:48 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
To be honest, TEC is kind of a dick.
Well, yeah. But opinion on the Iraq War varies, and discussions about it are often divisive. Everyone agrees that I'm a dick.
You're a uniter, not a divider.
Quote from: Frank on April 29, 2009, 09:29:33 PM
Quote from: Tink on April 29, 2009, 07:58:03 PM
Quote from: Frank on April 29, 2009, 07:50:48 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
To be honest, TEC is kind of a dick.
Well, yeah. But opinion on the Iraq War varies, and discussions about it are often divisive. Everyone agrees that I'm a dick.
You're a uniter, not a divider.
Just like Joe Kmak.
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
Do you just invent people and ideas with which to argue?
Quote from: MAD on April 30, 2009, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
Do you just invent people and ideas with which to argue?
Is this your first MikeC post?
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
The only thing I openly hope fails is your respiratory system.
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: butthead on April 29, 2009, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 29, 2009, 08:57:29 AM
bashing the troops, and their mission
Again with this shit. People are allowed to have an opinion about the mission. You can try and twist it all you want, but it ain't bashing the troops. That really chaps my hide.
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
Mike, come on. Look, I'm as anti-war as one could be, but even you must understand that there's a difference between being anti-war and anti-troop. As much as I hope that Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld spend the next decade of their lives sleeping in a bunker getting shot at, I certainly hope for the safe return of every single soldier in the war. What's more, a blanker statement like "openly hoping they would fail at their mission" is really no argument at all, and I think you see that.
This would sort of be like my arguing that you want troops to die because you want to send them into war. Why do you want to see Americans die, Mike? Why?
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
(http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 30, 2009, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 30, 2009, 03:14:42 PM
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but openly hoping they would fail at their mission is an entirely different matter. Accusing them of crimes that didn't happen, for blanket statements lumping all troops under a certain stereotype that makes them look bad to the public is bashing them.
(http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg)
Pretty sure this pic is a +1. REC'D!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193
QuoteNPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.
The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.
At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court's age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.
...
Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.
President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.
By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is anticipated to have a 60th Democrat, as the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to approve the recount that elected Democrat Al Franken over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in that state.
Quote from: Tank on April 30, 2009, 10:03:20 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193
QuoteNPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.
The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.
At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court. In fact, he is in the younger half of the court's age range, with five justices older and just three younger. So far as anyone knows, he is in good health. But he has made clear to friends for some time that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.
...
Possible nominees who have been mentioned as being on a theoretical short list include Elena Kagan, the current solicitor general who represents the government before the Supreme Court; Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and Diane Wood, a federal judge in Chicago who taught at the University of Chicago at the same time future President Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law there.
President Obama's choice has an excellent chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, where Democrats now have an advantage of 59 seats to the Republicans' 40.
By the time a vote on a successor is taken, the Senate is anticipated to have a 60th Democrat, as the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to approve the recount that elected Democrat Al Franken over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in that state.
We gotta get a message through to Barry Hussein...if he has a
filibusterFreedom Stall-proof majority, we need to get Oleg on the court.
JournoList, anyone?
http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+nixon&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en
It's quite impressive how quickly and widely the theme of the day gets spread.
Quote from: morpheus on May 01, 2009, 07:46:50 AM
JournoList, anyone?
http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+nixon&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en
It's quite impressive how quickly and widely the theme of the day gets spread.
Condi Rice is no Tricky Dick.
Like it or not, but Condi was always pretty much a lightweight - her testimony at the 9/11 Commission was a trainwreck. Besides, she was Secretary of State, not Attorney General. Her legal viewpoint shouldn't carry that much weight.
Tempest in a teapot.
Quote from: morpheus on May 01, 2009, 07:46:50 AM
JournoList, anyone?
http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+nixon&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en
It's quite impressive how quickly and widely the theme of the day gets spread.
Quote from: Condi"By definition," she repeated, "if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
Quote from: Tricky Dick"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
Far be it from me to rain on your LIBRUL MEDIA CONSPIRACY parade, but even an idiot like me could see the obvious similarity in the two quotes before I got my daily fax from Journolist Corporation.
Whether or not you support the general idea of the government backstopping Chrysler, I hope we can all agree this is a bad idea. This is an interview by Frank Beckman (who? some talk radio dude out of Detroit) with Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney who represents some of the creditors of Chrysler.
http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525
Starting at the 1:30 mark (emphasis mine):
QuoteLauria: Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.
Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?
Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.
Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2009, 07:59:02 AM
Whether or not you support the general idea of the government backstopping Chrysler, I hope we can all agree this is a bad idea. This is an interview by Frank Beckman (who? some talk radio dude out of Detroit) with Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney who represents some of the creditors of Chrysler.
http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525
Starting at the 1:30 mark (emphasis mine):
QuoteLauria: Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.
Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?
Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.
FWIW (and both the White House and Perella Weinberg have every reason to deny this), both the White House and Perella Weinberg deny this...
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/white-house-perella-weinberg-deny-claims-of-threat-to-firm/
Quote from: Tank on May 04, 2009, 08:36:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2009, 07:59:02 AM
Whether or not you support the general idea of the government backstopping Chrysler, I hope we can all agree this is a bad idea. This is an interview by Frank Beckman (who? some talk radio dude out of Detroit) with Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney who represents some of the creditors of Chrysler.
http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525
Starting at the 1:30 mark (emphasis mine):
QuoteLauria: Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.
Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?
Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.
FWIW (and both the White House and Perella Weinberg have every reason to deny this), both the White House and Perella Weinberg deny this...
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/white-house-perella-weinberg-deny-claims-of-threat-to-firm/
Intrepid reader: MorphSure, what threatened person is going to admit they're being threatened?
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/shysterball/article/sotamayer-for-supreme-court/
QuoteI'm told that some of you people actually follow non-baseball news. Not sure why you'd do that, but I guess it takes all kinds. Anyway, for those that care, among the names on President Obama's short list to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court is Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-c_n_194470.html). If she's picked, I'm assuming that there will be a moderate amount of scrutiny of her judicial record, her philosophy, her political views and all of that stuff, but for our purposes, you should know that she's the judge who, on March 30, 1995, issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/01/us/baseball-woman-in-the-news-strike-zone-arbitrator-sonia-sotomayor.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Sotomayor,%20Sonia) preventing the owners from unilaterally implementing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and using replacement players, effectively ending the 1994 baseball strike.
Update on THAT WHOLE BANKRUPTCY THING:
http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/everybody-open-your-hymnals-to-section-363/
There are some very interesting legal issues here, with arguments from both sides included in the summary. The Fifth Amendment argument that Lauria is using (with Brandeis cited as precedent) I find pretty compelling, but let's see how it plays out.
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 10:05:32 AM
Update on THAT WHOLE BANKRUPTCY THING:
http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/everybody-open-your-hymnals-to-section-363/
There are some very interesting legal issues here, with arguments from both sides included in the summary. The Fifth Amendment argument that Lauria is using (with Brandeis cited as precedent) I find pretty compelling, but let's see how it plays out.
Good stuff. But this sums it all up:
QuoteWhat did you expect would happen when you invite the government into your company?
As to the 5th amendment argument, that's terrific stuff. One would have to read the security agreement carefully to see how the collateral was pledged.
There are other industries hurting (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/seal+black+Atlantic+Canada+Industry/1564814/story.html), you know.
This story isn't going away...
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
This story isn't going away...
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
They don't seem to care to specify the
nature of the threats they're claiming were made. At least not there.
Is this about threatening to sic the IRS or SEC on them?
Or, is this just a matter of threats to their public reputations by telling the world that the administration thinks these guys are on the wrong side of the issue, making plain that their interests are at the expense of the workers and their pensions and thus sullying these creditors' reputations in the public eye?
The former (which was suggested in "this (as yet unproven) yarn" (http://finemrespice.com/node/56)... where they also take the opportunity to call the administration "fascist" and all but call Rahm a ballet-loving fag for good measure) would be undeniably awful and, I have to figure, quite illegal.
The latter, on the other hand, sounds more like hardball PR than anything else:
we will make you famous, the American people will know your names.Depending on the specifics it could well be
ugly PR hardball, but hardly fascism.
Either way, it doesn't make me want to invest in an American company, be it equity or bonds. Contract law no longer applies here in the USA, if the President decides the contract sucks.
In before MikeC!
Quote from: Tank on May 05, 2009, 05:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
This story isn't going away...
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5
They don't seem to care to specify the nature of the threats they're claiming were made. At least not there.
Is this about threatening to sic the IRS or SEC on them?
Or, is this just a matter of threats to their public reputations by telling the world that the administration thinks these guys are on the wrong side of the issue, making plain that their interests are at the expense of the workers and their pensions and thus sullying these creditors' reputations in the public eye?
The former (which was suggested in "this (as yet unproven) yarn" (http://finemrespice.com/node/56)... where they also take the opportunity to call the administration "fascist" and all but call Rahm a ballet-loving fag for good measure) would be undeniably awful and, I have to figure, quite illegal.
The latter, on the other hand, sounds more like hardball PR than anything else: we will make you famous, the American people will know your names.
Depending on the specifics it could well be ugly PR hardball, but hardly fascism.
So your going to defend the Obama Administration over these tactics?
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist. If allowed to go through it will scare off other investors for other companies to pick up their debt. Already China is pulling back its debt purchases as the US Government has to step in and buy the debt due to lack of foriegn investment.
The most appalling part is using the power of the White House and the Press corps to get the creditors to back away from their legal rights. Obama knows he has a bunch of kool-aid drinking supporters that will get the pitch forks out to castrate these creditors that don't go along with the plan. It is just a big old scam to secure the union votes, fuck everyone else.
I hope the creditors win out, this should not being happening in the US but it just might if Obama has his way. What a frightening step.
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
THIS
And one more thing. The debt we are talking about is regularly traded. That means that the holders are, far more likely than not, "vultures" who bought the debt at a significant discount and while knowing the government was involved. They made a bet that, in effect, the government would bail them out by giving them more than the market was then pricing the debt. They played chicken, and they are losing (their little PR gambit is how they hope to not lose). The US government is doing what any large creditor in a bankruptcy does, which is throw its weight around to get what it wants (and since its my tax dollars, that's what I want them to do), and the company is using the rights given to debtors, all debtors, under the Bankruptcy Code.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
You hate the troops.
Quote from: powen01 on May 05, 2009, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
You hate the troops.
He doesn't remember 9/11, either.
Quote from: ChuckD on May 05, 2009, 08:19:50 PM
In before MikeC!
This turned out to be remarkably prescient. Well played, Mr. Dickens.
Quote from: thehawk on May 05, 2009, 10:42:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
THIS
And one more thing. The debt we are talking about is regularly traded. That means that the holders are, far more likely than not, "vultures" who bought the debt at a significant discount and while knowing the government was involved. They made a bet that, in effect, the government would bail them out by giving them more than the market was then pricing the debt. They played chicken, and they are losing (their little PR gambit is how they hope to not lose). The US government is doing what any large creditor in a bankruptcy does, which is throw its weight around to get what it wants (and since its my tax dollars, that's what I want them to do), and the company is using the rights given to debtors, all debtors, under the Bankruptcy Code.
Hawk, you're not really arguing that this should make a difference, are you? I don't care who the holders are. The point is that the bondholders have bought into legal, binding, secured debt contracts with Chrysler. Now, unless Chuck's "read the security agreement" warning turns out to be right and there's some loophole that has yet to be disclosed, then it's pretty clear the government is trying to use its unique position to rewrite existing legal contracts as it sees fit. And this is a bad idea.
Quote from: morpheus on May 06, 2009, 07:48:08 AM
Hawk, you're not really arguing that this should make a difference, are you? I don't care who the holders are. The point is that the bondholders have bought into legal, binding, secured debt contracts with Chrysler. Now, unless Chuck's "read the security agreement" warning turns out to be right and there's some loophole that has yet to be disclosed, then it's pretty clear the government is trying to use its unique position to rewrite existing legal contracts as it sees fit. And this is a bad idea.
Perhaps, Morph. If the bondholders are of the vulture type, like the passengers on Transamerica flight 209, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!
As to the "read the security agreement" part, let's see how this plays out.
As to the government forcing the rewrite of contracts, they knew the devil they were dancing with.
Maybe a signing statement would smooth everything out?
Fuck Chrysler. If they were stupid enough to hire Bob Nardelli after he ran Home Depot into the ground (and got $200MM to go away), they deserve what they get.
Quote from: morpheus on May 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 05, 2009, 08:19:50 PM
In before MikeC!
This turned out to be remarkably prescient. Well played, Mr. Dickens.
I'd be willing to wager it was more "observant" than "prescient."
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2009, 08:12:54 AM
Fuck Chrysler. If they were stupid enough to hire Bob Nardelli after he ran Home Depot into the ground (and got $200MM to go away), they deserve what they get.
Not that Fork has any personal bitterness.
Quote from: Tank on May 06, 2009, 08:30:49 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 05, 2009, 08:19:50 PM
In before MikeC!
This turned out to be remarkably prescient. Well played, Mr. Dickens.
I'd be willing to wager it was more "observant" than "prescient."
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2009, 08:12:54 AM
Fuck Chrysler. If they were stupid enough to hire Bob Nardelli after he ran Home Depot into the ground (and got $200MM to go away), they deserve what they get.
Not that Fork has any personal bitterness.
It isn't personal. I just think CEOs are like baseball managers, where job performance and overall competence has no bearing on future opportuniities.
Nardelli is just the Dusty Baker of business.
Quote from: Tank on May 06, 2009, 08:30:49 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 06, 2009, 07:39:41 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 05, 2009, 08:19:50 PM
In before MikeC!
This turned out to be remarkably prescient. Well played, Mr. Dickens.
I'd be willing to wager it was more "observant" than "prescient."
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2009, 08:12:54 AM
Fuck Chrysler. If they were stupid enough to hire Bob Nardelli after he ran Home Depot into the ground (and got $200MM to go away), they deserve what they get.
Not that Fork has any personal bitterness.
Morph obviously doesn't have Desipio Platinum with the "MikeC Alert" extension module.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
A brilliant comment that doesn't explain anything. It must be fun to be an Obama clone and just automatically be on his side for everything but this is a very serious issue with some lasting impact if it happens.
Like i said before, just forget for a minute that the creditors are going to take it in the pants if this deal goes down. Why is the White House along with the Press Corps going to engage in the policy of personal destruction of private citizens, who did nothing wrong. Think about that aspect for a minute and its pretty chilling.
Get past your hate of me and think of the consequences of these actions. I know damn well if Bush was doing this, this board would be on fire with comments. But its Obama, ho hum, who gives a fuck.
Quote from: MikeC on May 06, 2009, 09:00:56 AM
A brilliant comment that doesn't explain anything. It must be fun to be an Obama clone and just automatically be on his side for everything but this is a very serious issue with some lasting impact if it happens.
Like i said before, just forget for a minute that the creditors are going to take it in the pants if this deal goes down. Why is the White House along with the Press Corps going to engage in the policy of personal destruction of private citizens, who did nothing wrong. Think about that aspect for a minute and its pretty chilling.
Get past your hate of me and think of the consequences of these actions. I know damn well if Bush was doing this, this board would be on fire with comments. But its Obama, ho hum, who gives a fuck.
Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.
[he pauses, pretending to be stumped, while the crowd urges him on]
All right. Dirty: your name wouldn't be Dick, would it?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 06, 2009, 09:09:15 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 06, 2009, 09:00:56 AM
A brilliant comment that doesn't explain anything. It must be fun to be an Obama clone and just automatically be on his side for everything but this is a very serious issue with some lasting impact if it happens.
Like i said before, just forget for a minute that the creditors are going to take it in the pants if this deal goes down. Why is the White House along with the Press Corps going to engage in the policy of personal destruction of private citizens, who did nothing wrong. Think about that aspect for a minute and its pretty chilling.
Get past your hate of me and think of the consequences of these actions. I know damn well if Bush was doing this, this board would be on fire with comments. But its Obama, ho hum, who gives a fuck.
Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.
[he pauses, pretending to be stumped, while the crowd urges him on]
All right. Dirty: your name wouldn't be Dick, would it?
I guess when your completly brain dead on the issue we get your last two posts.
His completely brain dead what?
I need closure on this anecdote!
To be clear this is the main issue being argued....
QuoteLauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
So tell me again how Obama was correct is re-writing bankruptcy law and then using the White House and the Press as a scare tactic to force people to go along with it? Even Chuck to Chuck's two cent brain can see this is just plain wrong, he just doesn't want to accept Obama is a fucking idiot.
Quote from: MAD on May 06, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
His completely brain dead what?
I need closure on this anecdote!
I see what you did their.
Quote from: MikeC on May 06, 2009, 09:21:39 AM
To be clear this is the main issue being argued....
QuoteLauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.
This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.
So tell me again how Obama was correct is re-writing bankruptcy law and then using the White House and the Press as a scare tactic to force people to go along with it? Even Chuck to Chuck's two cent brain can see this is just plain wrong, he just doesn't want to accept Obama is a fucking idiot.
Shut up Paul, you're a douche.
I just made some popcorn - let's do this!
Quote from: morpheus on May 06, 2009, 07:48:08 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 05, 2009, 10:42:38 PM
And one more thing. The debt we are talking about is regularly traded. That means that the holders are, far more likely than not, "vultures" who bought the debt at a significant discount and while knowing the government was involved. They made a bet that, in effect, the government would bail them out by giving them more than the market was then pricing the debt. They played chicken, and they are losing (their little PR gambit is how they hope to not lose). The US government is doing what any large creditor in a bankruptcy does, which is throw its weight around to get what it wants (and since its my tax dollars, that's what I want them to do), and the company is using the rights given to debtors, all debtors, under the Bankruptcy Code.
Hawk, you're not really arguing that this should make a difference, are you? I don't care who the holders are. The point is that the bondholders have bought into legal, binding, secured debt contracts with Chrysler. Now, unless Chuck's "read the security agreement" warning turns out to be right and there's some loophole that has yet to be disclosed, then it's pretty clear the government is trying to use its unique position to rewrite existing legal contracts as it sees fit. And this is a bad idea.
I could argue that Hamilton convincing Washington to pay all Revolutionary War bondholders at par value, even when many of them bought them for pennies on the dollar from the original creditors (and soldiers), did as much for confidence in the U.S. financial system as any of Hamilton's other reforms, which are about as big government as I endorse.
A few days ago, in the SBox, I replied to Morph that I hadn't really looked into this story yet, especially as my area of work does not concern bankruptcy explicitly.
But after examining it further, I do have a couple of notes to make. First of all, is anyone surprised by the fact that the government, once it got into bed with the auto industry, is now wielding its power absolutely? This does not shock me at all. These are the inherent risks of bailouts. I'm a supporter of creative destruction and it would have applied pretty well to the domestic auto industry, in my opinion. It would have been painful, certainly (especially for those employed by the auto makers themselves and the subsidiary companies, i.e. the suppliers), but the country as a whole may have been better off in the long run. However, what's done is done, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
Second, I am loathe to take the word of an attorney (I can feel the self-abnegation), especially one who represents a hedge fund. Attorneys like to use the media for their goals, and on occasion, they lie. This isn't news, so I would be careful in taking Lauria's word at face value. However, if substantiated, this could be somewhat damaging for the administration.
Third, assuming what is done is done, I am intrigued by the new face of the UAW and Chrysler. Not only from a bargaining position is this interesting, but I would say that the anti-trust implications are just as interesting. We don't know the full details of what the new Chrysler will look like, but anti-trust law is a tricky devil.
DPD, but the Patriot Act is still in full force. Will this divide the Right?
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2009, 09:23:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 06, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
His completely brain dead what?
I need closure on this anecdote!
I see what you did their.
He was talking about my cat, Mrs. Kitzle, who died two days before Thanksgiving in 2007. I miss her very much and it is crewel to remind me that she is gone.
Quote from: CBStew on May 06, 2009, 06:36:03 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2009, 09:23:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 06, 2009, 09:18:13 AM
His completely brain dead what?
I need closure on this anecdote!
I see what you did their.
He was talking about my cat, Mrs. Kitzle, who died two days before Thanksgiving in 2007. I miss her very much and it is crewel to remind me that she is gone.
Goodbye crewel world!
(http://angrybear.blogspot.com/cat.jpg)
O weight. I meant to say that she dyed too days before Thanksgiving.
Quote from: CBStew on May 06, 2009, 06:47:16 PM
O weight. I meant to say that she dyed too days before Thanksgiving.
Eye am sew sorry four your laws.
Quote from: powen01 on May 06, 2009, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 06, 2009, 06:47:16 PM
O weight. I meant to say that she dyed too days before Thanksgiving.
Eye am sew sorry four your laws.
shell be in my pary. i am truley sorry for your lots. (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)
LOLcats are the worst thing that has ever happened to this world.
This is pretty disturbing. No oversight of a trillion dollars - what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8)
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2009, 07:13:25 PM
LOLcats are the worst thing that has ever happened to this world.
I'm off the hook!
Interesting take on the $17 billion in cuts: (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/why_peter_orszag_reminds_me_of_john_mccain.php)
QuoteMost of what was under discussion was the $17 billion in new cuts, which has been gently mocked as a drop in the $3.4 trillion ocean of a budget. Orszag's defense was this: "We can no longer afford broken window budgeting." Which meant: Even if the program cuts are small, perpetuating small, crappy programs sends the wrong signal -- namely, the signal that we are willing to perpetuate small, crappy programs.
QuoteMCCAIN: [...] Maybe to Senator Obama it's not a lot of money. But the point is that -- you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18 billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years? [...] It's a system that's got to be cleaned up.
Quote from: Canadouche on May 07, 2009, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2009, 07:13:25 PM
LOLcats are the worst thing that has ever happened to this world.
I'm off the hook!
Canada is not part of the world.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on May 07, 2009, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 07, 2009, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2009, 07:13:25 PM
LOLcats are the worst thing that has ever happened to this world.
I'm off the hook!
Canada is not part of the world.A KurtEvans joke? I don't get it.
/fixed
Quote from: Canadouche on May 07, 2009, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on May 07, 2009, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 07, 2009, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2009, 07:13:25 PM
LOLcats are the worst thing that has ever happened to this world.
I'm off the hook!
Canada is not part of the world.A KurtEvans joke? I don't get it.
/fixed
I don't get this KurtEvans correction at all.
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
1) Blago is a crook.
2) Alexi is a crook.
3) Obama's biggest fuck up to date is standing behind crook #2. Anyone who wanted to go after Obama through Rezko would be like going after Michael Corleone through Fredo and ignoring Tom Hagen.
4) Obama standing behind Blago is meaningless given his position at the time. If Blago was going to win, he needed Richie Daley. When Daley was silent on Paul Vallas, that was all Blago needed.
5) So, you are mad that politicians are grand standing? I'm sure you are shocked to find gambling in Rick's Cafe American.
Oh, and fuck B of A in every possible entrance.
I'm just wondering if it's going to be Pat Quinn, Lisa Madigan, Alexei Giannoulias or Alexei Ramirez coming after American Chartered next.
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
Second'd. Not that I'm at all opposed to what was said, but I don't tend to appreciate examples of rank partianship.
Nevertheless, for those at all interested in labor law news, I have two tidbits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/business/07union.html?_r=1&ref=politics
and...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/economy/06hire.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=greenhouse&st=cse
This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/cheney-mistake-for-gop-to-moderate/) is the balls. The man who is part of the reason the GOP feels a need to "rebrand" is throwing his two cents in.
As long as I'm here, the GOP's problem isn't so much the brand as it is the party's main leadership and priorities. As a Democrat, it's fun to watch them scramble, but as an American, there needs to be a balance in place to keep each side honest.
At the Presidential level, if Obama's numbers stay high, either Romney or Palin will get the nod in 2012, which will probably lead to a bottoming out in the party, which will bring new leadership, and hopefully a candidate in 2016 who will have a more practical platform to run on, other than gay marriage and abortion - two issues which, regardless of your personal beliefs, are basically state issues anyway, and out of Presidential jurisdiction.
At the Congressional level, they would need to look at 1994, and put some sort of comprehensive legislative platform together, since right now Congressional Republicans are viewed worse than Congressional Democrats, who are a bunch of fucking boobs.
Just voting against a popular President as a block won't win them any seats in 2010. They need to bring something new to the table. Just slapping a label on the same old shit won't get it done.
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/cheney-mistake-for-gop-to-moderate/) is the balls. The man who is part of the reason the GOP feels a need to "rebrand" is throwing his two cents in.
As long as I'm here, the GOP's problem isn't so much the brand as it is the party's main leadership and priorities. As a Democrat, it's fun to watch them scramble, but as an American, there needs to be a balance in place to keep each side honest.
At the Presidential level, if Obama's numbers stay high, either Romney or Palin will get the nod in 2012, which will probably lead to a bottoming out in the party, which will bring new leadership, and hopefully a candidate in 2016 who will have a more practical platform to run on, other than gay marriage and abortion - two issues which, regardless of your personal beliefs, are basically state issues anyway, and out of Presidential jurisdiction.
At the Congressional level, they would need to look at 1994, and put some sort of comprehensive legislative platform together, since right now Congressional Republicans are viewed worse than Congressional Democrats, who are a bunch of fucking boobs.
Just voting against a popular President as a block won't win them any seats in 2010. They need to bring something new to the table. Just slapping a label on the same old shit won't get it done.
A big plate of hot, crispy applewood bacon would be a good start.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 08:14:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/cheney-mistake-for-gop-to-moderate/) is the balls. The man who is part of the reason the GOP feels a need to "rebrand" is throwing his two cents in.
As long as I'm here, the GOP's problem isn't so much the brand as it is the party's main leadership and priorities. As a Democrat, it's fun to watch them scramble, but as an American, there needs to be a balance in place to keep each side honest.
At the Presidential level, if Obama's numbers stay high, either Romney or Palin will get the nod in 2012, which will probably lead to a bottoming out in the party, which will bring new leadership, and hopefully a candidate in 2016 who will have a more practical platform to run on, other than gay marriage and abortion - two issues which, regardless of your personal beliefs, are basically state issues anyway, and out of Presidential jurisdiction.
At the Congressional level, they would need to look at 1994, and put some sort of comprehensive legislative platform together, since right now Congressional Republicans are viewed worse than Congressional Democrats, who are a bunch of fucking boobs.
Just voting against a popular President as a block won't win them any seats in 2010. They need to bring something new to the table. Just slapping a label on the same old shit won't get it done.
A big plate of hot, crispy applewood bacon would be a good start.
DIBS ON YETI'S PORTION!!!
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/cheney-mistake-for-gop-to-moderate/) is the balls. The man who is part of the reason the GOP feels a need to "rebrand" is throwing his two cents in.
QuoteFormer Vice President Dick Cheney is weighing into the heated internal debate over the future of the Republican Party, declaring it would be a mistake for the GOP to "moderate."
Of course, Dick's not the only party heavy throwing his deadweight around.
There's also this guy...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html
QuoteWell, more elections. Big Government is never popular in theory, but the disaster aid, school lunches and prescription drugs that make up Big Government have become wildly popular in practice, especially now that so many people are hurting. Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
But calling him "The One" is so funny! Even after all this time!
Repercussions of Obama's attempts to undercut bondholders...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD981KVDG4
QuoteWeak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.
The government had to pay greater interest than expected in a sale of 30-year Treasurys. That is worrisome to traders because it could signal that it will become harder for Washington to finance its ambitious economic recovery plans. The higher interest rates also could push up costs for borrowing in areas like mortgages.
Who the hell wants to buy bonds from the government when they have already shown the ability to fuck over bond holders.
By the way congrats to Obama on losing 2 million jobs on his watch, that 787 billion stimulus and 700 billion bailout package are working brilliantly.
Quote from: MikeC on May 08, 2009, 09:14:56 AM
Repercussions of Obama's attempts to undercut bondholders...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD981KVDG4
QuoteWeak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.
The government had to pay greater interest than expected in a sale of 30-year Treasurys. That is worrisome to traders because it could signal that it will become harder for Washington to finance its ambitious economic recovery plans. The higher interest rates also could push up costs for borrowing in areas like mortgages.
Who the hell wants to buy bonds from the government when they have already shown the ability to fuck over bond holders.
By the way congrats to Obama on losing 2 million jobs on his watch, that 787 billion stimulus and 700 billion bailout package are working brilliantly.
You are fucking ridiculous, you know that? Why don't you take a little time away from the Michelle Malkin (and whatever other tripe you eat with both hands), and apply a little root cause analysis to the economic problem, instead of blaming the fire department for the house being on fire?
Then maybe, just maybe, you'll stop your feeble attempts to pin all this on Obama.
Sheesh. you fucked up a perfectly good Friday.
Quote from: MikeC on May 08, 2009, 09:14:56 AM
By the way congrats to Obama on losing 2 million jobs on his watch, that 787 billion stimulus and 700 billion bailout package are working brilliantly.
This is dumb, even for you.
Quote from: Eli on May 08, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
But calling him "The One" is so funny! Even after all this time!
Why, yes, it is.
I agree that Bush blew a ton of political capital, but when Obama had political capital in Illinois in 2006, he stood with Giannoulias, Blagojevich and Todd Stroger when he could have stayed in Washington. His endorsement of Stroger (and non-endorsement of Forest Claypool in the Spring primary) would actually be fuckup No. 2 (after Chuck's correct assertion that Giannoulias was fuckup No. 1). Fuckup No. 3 would be not supporting someone --
anyone in the 2006 Dem. Gov. primary.
So Obama left us with a mess in Illinois and three months later left his Senate seat virtually vacant during his Presidential campaign. This isn't Obama's crime as much as a symptom of a broken primary system that requires a nearly 2-year campaign. But, after all the fawning over the guy -- he's eminently likable, and is decent as politicians go, I'm more than happy to admit -- it's a bit frustrating to listen to how this guy has put a premium on competence unlike his predecessor, blah blah blah.
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 08, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
But calling him "The One" is so funny! Even after all this time!
Why, yes, it is.
I agree that Bush blew a ton of political capital, but when Obama had political capital in Illinois in 2006, he stood with Giannoulias, Blagojevich and Todd Stroger when he could have stayed in Washington. His endorsement of Stroger (and non-endorsement of Forest Claypool in the Spring primary) would actually be fuckup No. 2 (after Chuck's correct assertion that Giannoulias was fuckup No. 1). Fuckup No. 3 would be not supporting someone -- anyone in the 2006 Dem. Gov. primary.
So Obama left us with a mess in Illinois and three months later left his Senate seat virtually vacant during his Presidential campaign. This isn't Obama's crime as much as a symptom of a broken primary system that requires a nearly 2-year campaign. But, after all the fawning over the guy -- he's eminently likable, and is decent as politicians go, I'm more than happy to admit -- it's a bit frustrating to listen to how this guy has put a premium on competence unlike his predecessor, blah blah blah.
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
TJ is the Conservative that Aaron Sorkin always dreamed about.
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 09:40:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 08, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
But calling him "The One" is so funny! Even after all this time!
Why, yes, it is.
I agree that Bush blew a ton of political capital, but when Obama had political capital in Illinois in 2006, he stood with Giannoulias, Blagojevich and Todd Stroger when he could have stayed in Washington. His endorsement of Stroger (and non-endorsement of Forest Claypool in the Spring primary) would actually be fuckup No. 2 (after Chuck's correct assertion that Giannoulias was fuckup No. 1). Fuckup No. 3 would be not supporting someone -- anyone in the 2006 Dem. Gov. primary.
So Obama left us with a mess in Illinois and three months later left his Senate seat virtually vacant during his Presidential campaign. This isn't Obama's crime as much as a symptom of a broken primary system that requires a nearly 2-year campaign. But, after all the fawning over the guy -- he's eminently likable, and is decent as politicians go, I'm more than happy to admit -- it's a bit frustrating to listen to how this guy has put a premium on competence unlike his predecessor, blah blah blah.
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
TJ is the Conservative that Aaron Sorkin always dreamed about.
TJ is Hawkeye Pierce?
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 08, 2009, 08:43:13 AM
Quote from: RV on May 07, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 07, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
I will let our resident bankers comment on The One's Fiefdom here in Illinois.
Last December, the former Governor (for whom our President supported in Gubernatorial Elections at least thrice) threatened to pull all state business from BofA if it pulled the plug on Republic Windows. Unfortunately, Patrick Fitzgerald (the bum that The One's predecessor in the US Senate recommended for the job more or less sealing his fate in IL) had the FBI bring The One's choice for Governor twice and Republic remained open so we'd never know if The One's choice for Gov. would have made good on that threat.
Now, The One's mobbed-up choice for state treasurer takes time away from buying new cars for the poorly performing Bright Start Savings Plan (a failure he blames on Oppenheimer Funds, one of the big losers in The One's Chrysler deal) to stomp his feet in front of HartMarx, the venerable suit maker (one of The One's favorites). Apparently, big bad Wells Fargo (which, incidentally, is undercapitalized) might approve a sale to one of two groups that could attempt to keep the Des Plaines and Rock Island factories open. It also might have to liquidate if it doesn't come to a deal.
Thoughts?
This would be a lot easier to comprehend without the cute nicknames.
But calling him "The One" is so funny! Even after all this time!
Why, yes, it is.
I agree that Bush blew a ton of political capital, but when Obama had political capital in Illinois in 2006, he stood with Giannoulias, Blagojevich and Todd Stroger when he could have stayed in Washington. His endorsement of Stroger (and non-endorsement of Forest Claypool in the Spring primary) would actually be fuckup No. 2 (after Chuck's correct assertion that Giannoulias was fuckup No. 1). Fuckup No. 3 would be not supporting someone -- anyone in the 2006 Dem. Gov. primary.
So Obama left us with a mess in Illinois and three months later left his Senate seat virtually vacant during his Presidential campaign. This isn't Obama's crime as much as a symptom of a broken primary system that requires a nearly 2-year campaign. But, after all the fawning over the guy -- he's eminently likable, and is decent as politicians go, I'm more than happy to admit -- it's a bit frustrating to listen to how this guy has put a premium on competence unlike his predecessor, blah blah blah.
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
On Stroger/Claypool, I agreed with you a year ago, and I still do. If Obama somehow endorses Stroger in 2010, it will be unforgiveable. But Carlton is such a complete piece of shit that even the party hacks might not let him run in 2010. Who knows.
Quote from: RV on March 03, 2008, 12:52:02 PM
Quote from: TJ on March 03, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
I'm glad that Barack Obama, with all the political capital he had in 2006, stood up to the establishment and said "Enough's Enough. Yes We Can!" It was awesome how Obama refused to endorse Stroger or Blago or any of Daley's guys the next year. That was gutsy for him to say that he cannot endorse politics as usual in Illinois or Cook County.
TJ, I'm a big Obama backer, but this is my biggest misgiving about him. Those endorsements really are disturbing. Since I can't defend him I'll just say that every politician makes unfortunate compromises from time to time, and cling to the (probably false) hope that if elected, he'll lay the smack down on these turds running our city and state.
As far as Fitzgerald goes, I didn't really follow politics until a couple years ago, but from everything I've read he was indeed a solid guy. Instead of focusing on Fitzgerald being "10 times better" than Obama (I'm interested in what kind of nonpartisan laptop science is used to measure such a thing), shouldn't more of your anger be focused on the current state of the GOP in Illinois, and in general, that has marginalized reasonable dudes like Peter Fitzgerald?
Quote from: MikeC on May 08, 2009, 09:14:56 AM
Repercussions of Obama's attempts to undercut bondholders...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD981KVDG4
QuoteWeak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.
The government had to pay greater interest than expected in a sale of 30-year Treasurys. That is worrisome to traders because it could signal that it will become harder for Washington to finance its ambitious economic recovery plans. The higher interest rates also could push up costs for borrowing in areas like mortgages.
Who the hell wants to buy bonds from the government when they have already shown the ability to fuck over bond holders.
By the way congrats to Obama on losing 2 million jobs on his watch, that 787 billion stimulus and 700 billion bailout package are working brilliantly.
Seriously, Mike... You don't really believe that Obama's meddling in a
corporate bond's settlement in a bankruptcy proceeding has anything at all to do with demand for U.S.
Treasury bonds, do you? Now, if you had argued that the ridiculous levels of proposed deficit spending by this Administration have led to a marginal decrease in demand for long-dated Treasuries, I'd be more sympathetic. But the Obama Administration's conduct in the Chrysler settlement, as reprehensible as it may be, has nothing at all to do with Treasury bond demand.
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
No he wasn't. While Obama left his seat after 4 years of nondescript accomplishments, Fitzgerald did only one good thing. The rest of what he did was either also nondescript or horrible. His good thing? Getting Patrick Fitzgerald in the US Attorney slot. The terrible: Standing in the way of O'Hare expansion. He was the most anti-business Republican I'd ever seen. And this guy was a banker!
The awful awful offsets his good. Peter Fitz is gone. Good riddance. Can we have Alan Dixon back?
Quote from: TJ on March 03, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
I'm glad that Barack Obama, with all the political capital he had in 2006, stood up to the establishment and said "Enough's Enough. Yes We Can!" It was awesome how Obama refused to endorse Stroger or Blago or any of Daley's guys the next year. That was gutsy for him to say that he cannot endorse politics as usual in Illinois or Cook County.
Stroger is done. The Daley's have made that clear this week.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
No he wasn't. While Obama left his seat after 4 years of nondescript accomplishments, Fitzgerald did only one good thing. The rest of what he did was either also nondescript or horrible. His good thing? Getting Patrick Fitzgerald in the US Attorney slot. The terrible: Standing in the way of O'Hare expansion. He was the most anti-business Republican I'd ever seen. And this guy was a banker!
The awful awful offsets his good. Peter Fitz is gone. Good riddance. Can we have Alan Dixon back?
Quote from: TJ on March 03, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
I'm glad that Barack Obama, with all the political capital he had in 2006, stood up to the establishment and said "Enough's Enough. Yes We Can!" It was awesome how Obama refused to endorse Stroger or Blago or any of Daley's guys the next year. That was gutsy for him to say that he cannot endorse politics as usual in Illinois or Cook County.
Stroger is done. The Daley's have made that clear this week.
Besides, there is no way in Hell Obama would ever want to ever acknowledge the quagmire that is Cook County politics ever again. Presidents generally don't endorse non-Federal candidates below Governor anyway.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
No he wasn't. While Obama left his seat after 4 years of nondescript accomplishments, Fitzgerald did only one good thing. The rest of what he did was either also nondescript or horrible. His good thing? Getting Patrick Fitzgerald in the US Attorney slot. The terrible: Standing in the way of O'Hare expansion. He was the most anti-business Republican I'd ever seen. And this guy was a banker!
The problem was that ORD expansion was a state issue and the federal government had no business meddling in it.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 09:54:12 AM
As far as Fitzgerald goes, I didn't really follow politics until a couple years ago, but from everything I've read he was indeed a solid guy. Instead of focusing on Fitzgerald being "10 times better" than Obama (I'm interested in what kind of nonpartisan laptop science is used to measure such a thing), shouldn't more of your anger be focused on the current state of the GOP in Illinois, and in general, that has marginalized reasonable dudes like Peter Fitzgerald?
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
Oh, there's plenty of anger to go around. Much of it is reserved for the IL Republican Party that resorted to Alan Keyes either because they couldn't twist Steve Rauschenberger's or John Borling's arms to run for Senate in the general election clearing the way for Alan Keyes, and because they didn't prepare for the Jack Ryan divorce file being opened in June 2004, and because they thrust George Ryan on IL in 1998 because "it was his turn," and because they let a 2002 gubernatorial primary tear them apart, and because they have simply waved the white flag in Chicago and Cook instead of seriously working a strategy to chip away at the majorities, and because they let Bush sell his "compassionate conservative" bullshit which only led to a gargantuan increase in discretionary spending, and because Congressional Republicans fell into the same trap Congressional Democrats fell into in the 1980s and early 1990s with their arrogance and disregard for ethics, and because trivial intramural squabbles seem to dominate.
But I can reserve some ANGER for my elected officeholders. Once they're elected, they belong to me as well. And using the Illinois Treasurer's Office to mount a campaign for U.S. Senate sucks. Bullying a firm from acting in its best interests sucks.
Using the Presidency for bullying the "holdouts" that are simply trying to uphold their fiduciary responsibility sucks.
Quote from: morpheus on May 08, 2009, 10:00:22 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 08, 2009, 09:14:56 AM
Repercussions of Obama's attempts to undercut bondholders...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD981KVDG4
QuoteWeak demand at a Treasury bond auction touched off worries in the stock market Thursday about the government's ability to raise funds to fight the recession.
The government had to pay greater interest than expected in a sale of 30-year Treasurys. That is worrisome to traders because it could signal that it will become harder for Washington to finance its ambitious economic recovery plans. The higher interest rates also could push up costs for borrowing in areas like mortgages.
Who the hell wants to buy bonds from the government when they have already shown the ability to fuck over bond holders.
By the way congrats to Obama on losing 2 million jobs on his watch, that 787 billion stimulus and 700 billion bailout package are working brilliantly.
Seriously, Mike... You don't really believe that Obama's meddling in a corporate bond's settlement in a bankruptcy proceeding has anything at all to do with demand for U.S. Treasury bonds, do you? Now, if you had argued that the ridiculous levels of proposed deficit spending by this Administration have led to a marginal decrease in demand for long-dated Treasuries, I'd be more sympathetic. But the Obama Administration's conduct in the Chrysler settlement, as reprehensible as it may be, has nothing at all to do with Treasury bond demand.
Maybe so, at least you put it out there thoughtfully. Yes i do agree the massive deficit spending probably has a larger effect on Treasury bond demand.
But you know anything is possible, countries are blocking the import of pork because of swine flu when pork has nothing to do with it. So its not out of the question to think Treasury bond sales are not in some way affected by what is going on with Chrysler and GM.
It isn't a sole reason it's just a piece of the overall picture that the public is getting about our financial sector and the Chrysler/GM/Obama process isn't helping.
I respect your response and the way you handled it Morph. The other responses just give me the urge to be as much of an asshole and bitchy as they are.
The MikeC Guide to Posting About Politics
1. Post a bunch of dogshit about a topic you most likely understand nothing about, with no link to the Instapundit or Malkin post from which it originates.
2. Wait for the totally predictable reaction from the Commie Pinkofags on the board, in which they point out the various ways in which the post is wrong or misguided, because they are HIGH ON HOPIUM.
3. Hope that morph, TJ or some other conservative mines through the smegma that you've posted, and presents a non-frothing-at-the-tardmouth, coherent argument on your behalf.
4. Pretend that you were right to begin with, and complain about the ridiculous hysteria and despicable name-calling by the OBAMANUTS who just don't understand that THIS IS FASCISM, PEOPLE!
5. If all else fails, remind the bleeding-heart baby killers that they hate the troops.
10. Profit!
*These steps don't always play out in order, I'm picturing more of a choose-your-own-adventure type decision tree, but I'm not as photoshoppically gifted as ChuckD or morph, so this will have to do for now.
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 10:47:39 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
No he wasn't. While Obama left his seat after 4 years of nondescript accomplishments, Fitzgerald did only one good thing. The rest of what he did was either also nondescript or horrible. His good thing? Getting Patrick Fitzgerald in the US Attorney slot. The terrible: Standing in the way of O'Hare expansion. He was the most anti-business Republican I'd ever seen. And this guy was a banker!
The problem was that ORD expansion was a state issue and the federal government had no business meddling in it.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 09:54:12 AM
As far as Fitzgerald goes, I didn't really follow politics until a couple years ago, but from everything I've read he was indeed a solid guy. Instead of focusing on Fitzgerald being "10 times better" than Obama (I'm interested in what kind of nonpartisan laptop science is used to measure such a thing), shouldn't more of your anger be focused on the current state of the GOP in Illinois, and in general, that has marginalized reasonable dudes like Peter Fitzgerald?
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
What's my point? I guess it's that only by a pure perfect storm of Party incompetence did the State of Illinois manage to elect a guy with integrity to office.
Quote from: MikeC on May 08, 2009, 10:57:30 AM
But you know anything is possible, countries are blocking the import of pork because of swine flu when pork has nothing to do with it. So its not out of the question to think Treasury bond sales are not in some way affected by what is going on with Chrysler and GM.
I see. Use the acknowledgment that there is no link between two unrelated items as a reason to think there is a link between two other unrelated items.
Or maybe what you are getting at is that uninformed people are making the decisions on T-bonds similar to uniformed people that make the decisions on pork imports.
Do you have any fucking clue how bond prices work? Do you have any fucking clue about finance at all? Nothing you have EVER said, here or at cubspundit.blogspot.com suggests you do.
Is your checkbook balanced? Here's a hint: If you still have checks in your checkbook, that doesn't automatically mean you have money left in your account.
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 11:51:33 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 10:47:39 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
Peter Fitzgerald was 10 times the U.S. Senator that Obama was. (He was also at least 10 times the Illinois Senator as well.) But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
No he wasn't. While Obama left his seat after 4 years of nondescript accomplishments, Fitzgerald did only one good thing. The rest of what he did was either also nondescript or horrible. His good thing? Getting Patrick Fitzgerald in the US Attorney slot. The terrible: Standing in the way of O'Hare expansion. He was the most anti-business Republican I'd ever seen. And this guy was a banker!
The problem was that ORD expansion was a state issue and the federal government had no business meddling in it.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 09:54:12 AM
As far as Fitzgerald goes, I didn't really follow politics until a couple years ago, but from everything I've read he was indeed a solid guy. Instead of focusing on Fitzgerald being "10 times better" than Obama (I'm interested in what kind of nonpartisan laptop science is used to measure such a thing), shouldn't more of your anger be focused on the current state of the GOP in Illinois, and in general, that has marginalized reasonable dudes like Peter Fitzgerald?
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 09:34:34 AM
But my party chased him out because he wouldn't pal around with Hastert and Kjellander. And that sucks. But the GOP wouldn't have chased him out if voters here truly cared about "integrity" and "competence."
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
What's my point? I guess it's that only by a pure perfect storm of Party incompetence did the State of Illinois manage to elect a guy with integrity to office.
I didn't live/vote in IL in '98, but why would they convince Dems to vote in the GOP primary when there was a competitive Gov. primary? I know that's a reason Salvi beat Kustra in 1996 (with no Dem primary races to speak of), but in 1998?
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 11:11:22 AM
The MikeC Guide to Posting About Politics
1. Post a bunch of dogshit about a topic you most likely understand nothing about, with no link to the Instapundit or Malkin post from which it originates.
2. Wait for the totally predictable reaction from the Commie Pinkofags on the board, in which they point out the various ways in which the post is wrong or misguided, because they are HIGH ON HOPIUM.
3. Hope that morph, TJ or some other conservative mines through the smegma that you've posted, and presents a non-frothing-at-the-tardmouth, coherent argument on your behalf.
4. Pretend that you were right to begin with, and complain about the ridiculous hysteria and despicable name-calling by the OBAMANUTS who just don't understand that THIS IS FASCISM, PEOPLE!
5. If all else fails, remind the bleeding-heart baby killers that they hate the troops.
10. Profit!
*These steps don't always play out in order, I'm picturing more of a choose-your-own-adventure type decision tree, but I'm not as photoshoppically gifted as ChuckD or morph, so this will have to do for now.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2i29ame.jpg)
Teh Paul - sexual magnetism + political activism = MikeC
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 11:51:33 AM
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
And the only reason Braun ever ran is because Dixon voted in favor of confirming Clarence Thomas.
So here's your chain:
Bush I nominates Thomas.
Dixon votes to confirm.
Al Hofeld and Mosely-Braun challenge him in the primary. Hofeld and Dixon split the white vote and Braun wins.
Braun defeats a racist GOP candidate by the name of Richard Williamson, who the GOP didn't care about because Dixon was a DINO and the IL GOP wanted to keep him in office.
Braun is an atrocious senator and loses easily to Fitz.
Fitz pisses off the IL GOP and Daley and decides not to run for re-election.
Obama wins the senate seat.
Obama wins the presidency.
So, to sum up, no Bush nomination of Clarence Thomas and Dixon is in his seat through January 1999 and maybe longer. Braun never runs. Fitz never rund against her. Obama never gets the open seat to run for.
Clarence Thomas got Obama the presidency.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 11:51:33 AM
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
And the only reason Braun ever ran is because Dixon voted in favor of confirming Clarence Thomas.
So here's your chain:
Bush I nominates Thomas.
Dixon votes to confirm.
Al Hofeld and Mosely-Braun challenge him in the primary. Hofeld and Dixon split the white vote and Braun wins.
Braun defeats a racist GOP candidate by the name of Richard Williamson, who the GOP didn't care about because Dixon was a DINO and the IL GOP wanted to keep him in office.
Braun is an atrocious senator and loses easily to Fitz.
Fitz pisses off the IL GOP and Daley and decides not to run for re-election.
Obama wins the senate seat.
Obama wins the presidency.
So, to sum up, no Bush nomination of Clarence Thomas and Dixon is in his seat through January 1999 and maybe longer. Braun never runs. Fitz never rund against her. Obama never gets the open seat to run for.
Clarence Thomas got Obama the presidency.
So what you're saying is, Conan created Stewart who then created Colbert?
So, Conan created Colbert?
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 12:26:39 PM
Teh Paul - sexual magnetism + political activism = MikeC
Pretty sure teh aPul had teh political activism too. He's just on the other side of the spectrum.
Quote from: morpheus on May 08, 2009, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 12:26:39 PM
Teh Paul - sexual magnetism + political activism = MikeC
Pretty sure teh aPul had teh political activism too. He's just on the other side of the spectrum.
teh aPul had no time for such mundane pursuits.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 11:51:33 AM
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
And the only reason Braun ever ran is because Dixon voted in favor of confirming Clarence Thomas.
So here's your chain:
Bush I nominates Thomas.
Dixon votes to confirm.
Al Hofeld and Mosely-Braun challenge him in the primary. Hofeld and Dixon split the white vote and Braun wins.
Braun defeats a racist GOP candidate by the name of Richard Williamson, who the GOP didn't care about because Dixon was a DINO and the IL GOP wanted to keep him in office.
Braun is an atrocious senator and loses easily to Fitz.
Fitz pisses off the IL GOP and Daley and decides not to run for re-election.
Obama wins the senate seat.
Obama wins the presidency.
So, to sum up, no Bush nomination of Clarence Thomas and Dixon is in his seat through January 1999 and maybe longer. Braun never runs. Fitz never rund against her. Obama never gets the open seat to run for.
Clarence Thomas got Obama the presidency.
You're leaving out some stuff where Dem Party favorite and asshole extraordinare Blair Hull loses the primary to Obama after his divorce records are unsealed, and qualified GOP challenger Jack Ryan drops out of the race for the similar reasons, leaving Obama to destroy Allan Keyes.
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 12:59:00 PM
You're leaving out some stuff where Dem Party favorite and asshole extraordinare Blair Hull loses the primary to Obama after his divorce records are unsealed, and qualified GOP challenger Jack Ryan drops out of the race for the similar reasons, leaving Obama to destroy Allan Keyes.
Blair was a long shot behind Dan Hynes who many assumed would cruise to victory on the backs of his family.
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 12:59:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 08, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 11:51:33 AM
Let's not forget that Fitzgerald's election was an accident of monumental proportions. The Dem machine refused to dump Carol Moseley-Braun after her disastrous term in the Senate, so the GOP decided they'd run Loleta Didrickson against her. Fitzgerald was mostly lucky. The GOP never wanted anything to do with him, and he squeaked by Didrickson in the primary, largely because the Dems decided Fitzgerald was the more beatable of the two candidates for Moseley-Braun and ramped a huge effort (specifically around college campuses) to convince Dem voters to vote in the GOP primary for Fitzgerald. Of course, the whole thing backfired on the Dem's when it turned out that Moseley-Braun was the rare candidate who was too corrupt to win even with Machine backing. So it's somewhat erroneous to say that Fitzgerald was chased out of the Illinois GOP, when he was barely ever in.
And the only reason Braun ever ran is because Dixon voted in favor of confirming Clarence Thomas.
So here's your chain:
Bush I nominates Thomas.
Dixon votes to confirm.
Al Hofeld and Mosely-Braun challenge him in the primary. Hofeld and Dixon split the white vote and Braun wins.
Braun defeats a racist GOP candidate by the name of Richard Williamson, who the GOP didn't care about because Dixon was a DINO and the IL GOP wanted to keep him in office.
Braun is an atrocious senator and loses easily to Fitz.
Fitz pisses off the IL GOP and Daley and decides not to run for re-election.
Obama wins the senate seat.
Obama wins the presidency.
So, to sum up, no Bush nomination of Clarence Thomas and Dixon is in his seat through January 1999 and maybe longer. Braun never runs. Fitz never rund against her. Obama never gets the open seat to run for.
Clarence Thomas got Obama the presidency.
You're leaving out some stuff where Dem Party favorite and asshole extraordinare Blair Hull loses the primary to Obama after his divorce records are unsealed, and qualified GOP challenger Jack Ryan drops out of the race for the similar reasons, leaving Obama to destroy Allan Keyes.
Ironically, all thanks to the Tribune.
You also left out the part how Judy Baar Topinka dicked around for 6 weeks trying to find a replacement candidate. All the candidates on which everyone could agree didn't want to run, and then there were some watered-down unknown candidates. And then there was Oberweis, who had burned too many bridges during the primary. Finally, there was the dalliance with Ditka who enjoyed the week in the spotlight. By the time they named Keyes, no one in their right mind would run.
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 01:20:32 PM
You also left out the part how Judy Baar Topinka dicked around for 6 weeks trying to find a replacement candidate. All the candidates on which everyone could agree didn't want to run, and then there were some watered-down unknown candidates. And then there was Oberweis, who had burned too many bridges during the primary. Finally, there was the dalliance with Ditka who enjoyed the week in the spotlight. By the time they named Keyes, no one in their right mind would run.
SENATOR DITKER!! I still hold out hope that he changes his mind and runs for office someday. With Doug Buffone and Ed O' Bradovich as his campaign strategists, encouraging Da Cotch to run more play action and line stunts, the reanimated corpse of Paul Simon himself wouldn't stand a chance.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 01:20:32 PM
You also left out the part how Judy Baar Topinka dicked around for 6 weeks trying to find a replacement candidate. All the candidates on which everyone could agree didn't want to run, and then there were some watered-down unknown candidates. And then there was Oberweis, who had burned too many bridges during the primary. Finally, there was the dalliance with Ditka who enjoyed the week in the spotlight. By the time they named Keyes, no one in their right mind would run.
SENATOR DITKER!! I still hold out hope that he changes his mind and runs for office someday. With Doug Buffone and Ed O' Bradovich as his campaign strategists, encouraging Da Cotch to run more play action and line stunts, the reanimated corpse of Paul Simon himself wouldn't stand a chance.
I'd run against Ditka, just so he could scream at me during a debate. That would be awesome.
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 01:20:32 PM
You also left out the part how Judy Baar Topinka dicked around for 6 weeks trying to find a replacement candidate. All the candidates on which everyone could agree didn't want to run, and then there were some watered-down unknown candidates. And then there was Oberweis, who had burned too many bridges during the primary. Finally, there was the dalliance with Ditka who enjoyed the week in the spotlight. By the time they named Keyes, no one in their right mind would run.
SENATOR DITKER!! I still hold out hope that he changes his mind and runs for office someday. With Doug Buffone and Ed O' Bradovich as his campaign strategists, encouraging Da Cotch to run more play action and line stunts, the reanimated corpse of Paul Simon himself wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't think America is ready to have an Orange Senator yet.
Quote from: CT III on May 08, 2009, 02:18:47 PM
Quote from: RV on May 08, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 08, 2009, 01:20:32 PM
You also left out the part how Judy Baar Topinka dicked around for 6 weeks trying to find a replacement candidate. All the candidates on which everyone could agree didn't want to run, and then there were some watered-down unknown candidates. And then there was Oberweis, who had burned too many bridges during the primary. Finally, there was the dalliance with Ditka who enjoyed the week in the spotlight. By the time they named Keyes, no one in their right mind would run.
SENATOR DITKER!! I still hold out hope that he changes his mind and runs for office someday. With Doug Buffone and Ed O' Bradovich as his campaign strategists, encouraging Da Cotch to run more play action and line stunts, the reanimated corpse of Paul Simon himself wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't think America is ready to have an Orange Senator yet.
O RLY?
(http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/archives/kerry%20orange.jpg)
Quote from: morpheus on May 08, 2009, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 08, 2009, 12:26:39 PM
Teh Paul - sexual magnetism + political activism = MikeC
Pretty sure teh aPul had teh political activism too. He's just on the other side of the spectrum.
Teh Paul - sexual magnetism + |political activism| = MikeC
The annual SS/Medicare Trustees report is out today. (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html)
Bad:
QuoteSocial Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.
Way worse:
QuoteThe Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two.
(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/actuaryreports-thumb-240x517.jpg)
I had written something really dumb here.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You have a bacon vending machine and you've been holding out?
Fucking prick.
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You need to find out how Lieberman voted on this one.
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 13, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
I hope you're drinking diet.
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 13, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.
I know "The Party Of No" is just a Democratic talking point, but this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/13/obama-official-expected-to-be-rejected-by-senate-wednesday-2/) doesn't help matters any.
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 10:13:49 AM
I know "The Party Of No" is just a Democratic talking point, but this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/13/obama-official-expected-to-be-rejected-by-senate-wednesday-2/) doesn't help matters any.
Yes, it doesn't. I totally disagree with the idea of not confirming a specific appointee because of a general Administration policy (seriously). However... what's the current count in the Senate? 59 Dem?
Also,
QuoteShe says Bennett is blocking Hayes because the Department of Interior "has not provided any information he requested regarding the Secretary's unilateral decision to cancel the oil and gas leases."
Would it be that difficult to provide information on a decision that (apparently) was made by the nominee in question? Just sayin' - if the decision is a big enough deal that RINOs like Snowe or Collins couldn't be convinced...
Quote from: Brownie on May 13, 2009, 10:12:18 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 13, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.
I haven't really read about the specific proposals, and I avoided yesterday's SBox "soda tax" argument like the plague, but my less-than-totally-informed opinion is that sin taxes are generally bad policy and worse politics.
Still more on Chrysler. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
QuoteBy stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
There's all kinds of wrong about this deal.
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 12:03:46 PM
Still more on Chrysler. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
QuoteBy stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
There's all kinds of wrong about this deal.
and a guy who was in the FTC under W. is the best guy to critique what Obama does.
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 12:03:46 PM
Still more on Chrysler. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
QuoteBy stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
There's all kinds of wrong about this deal.
and a guy who was in the FTC under W. is the best guy to critique what Obama does.
You're not serious, are you? That's really your response to an Administration that basically said through its actions that contract law is what they say it is? That re-ordered the seniority of claims on Chrysler's assets to directly benefit a constituency that helped get the Administration into office?
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 12:35:46 PM
...an Administration that basically said through its actions that contract law is what they say it is?
I'm still waiting on details of what exactly they threatened to do if the creditors did not voluntarily sign on to their plan.
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2009, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 13, 2009, 10:12:18 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 13, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.
I haven't really read about the specific proposals, and I avoided yesterday's SBox "soda tax" argument like the plague, but my less-than-totally-informed opinion is that sin taxes are generally bad policy and worse politics.
I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes. If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 13, 2009, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2009, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 13, 2009, 10:12:18 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 13, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 13, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html
QuoteIf you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation's health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years...
...Still, it's easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
They can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
What a shock that a guy from Iowa thinks taxing soda is a bad idea. The state probably makes a helluva lot more on HFCS than they ever will on Ethanol.
It is a bad idea. Give me (normal tax rate) soda, or give me death
This. I'm not a big fan of sin taxes.
I haven't really read about the specific proposals, and I avoided yesterday's SBox "soda tax" argument like the plague, but my less-than-totally-informed opinion is that sin taxes are generally bad policy and worse politics.
I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes. If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 13, 2009, 01:34:13 PM
I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes. If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?
Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.
Quote from: ChuckD on May 13, 2009, 01:42:52 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 13, 2009, 01:34:13 PM
I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes. If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?
Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.
You need to go down to Decatur and see the Archer Daniels Midland HQ. They have a big statue out front of Mr. Corn Subsidy himself, Ronald Reagan.
Quote from: ChuckD on May 13, 2009, 01:42:52 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 13, 2009, 01:34:13 PM
I don't get why they are trying to tax something that the government subsidizes. If the idea is to get more revenue while making sugary sodas more expensive, wouldn't eliminating the sugar subsidy be the first step?
Few soft drinks/pop/soda use sugar; it's all HFCS except for a few niche producers. But, your point stands as far as corn subsidies go. I won't get in to the soda tax issue (again), but let's just say I'm less than a fan of corn subsidization.
(http://noids.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/6a00d8345250f069e201127904d57628a4-550wi.jpg)
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
Idea two is awesome.
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things. If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.
Number 3 is downright socialist, though. Not sure if Newt will like it.
I, however, do like it!
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I'm sold.
The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP. Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5. No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3.
Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.
Lovely:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/arkansas-gop-senate-candidate-apologizes-for-calling-schumer-that-jew.php?ref=fp2
Arkansas state Sen. Kim Hendren, who is currently the only announced Republican candidate for U.S. Senator against Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln in 2010, has apologized for referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as "that Jew," at a county Republican meeting last week.
"I don't use a teleprompter and occasionally I put my foot in my month," Hendren told Arkansas blogger Jason Tolbert.
"At the meeting I was attempting to explain that unlike Sen. Schumer, I believe in traditional values, like we used to see on 'The Andy Griffith Show,'" he explained. "I made the mistake of referring to Sen. Schumer as 'that Jew' and I should not have put it that way as this took away from what I was trying to say."
-------------
The teleprompter bit is clearly a dig at Obama because we all know that without a promper Obama's as dumb as a box of rocks. So it must be OK for this guy to be ass stupid as well.
And it's nice to know that he DOES apologize for using the term "that Jew" but DOES NOT for suggesting that Jews don't share in traditional values.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 14, 2009, 04:37:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I'm sold.
The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP. Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5. No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3 or pro-1.
Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.
Reality'd. As evidenced by Obama's lame-ass jokey reaction to the 'legalize pot' question in his internet town hall meeting, I don't think any of the gasbags in power in
either party currently support something so sensible. They still want to be TOUGH ON CRIME and KEEP THE CRACKHEADS OUT OF YOUR CUPBOARD.
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:46:40 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 14, 2009, 04:37:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I'm sold.
The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP. Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5. No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3 or pro-1.
Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.
Reality'd. As evidenced by Obama's lame-ass jokey reaction to the 'legalize pot' question in his internet town hall meeting, I don't think any of the gasbags in power in either party currently support something so sensible. They still want to be TOUGH ON CRIME and KEEP THE CRACKHEADS OUT OF YOUR CUPBOARD.
I think you'd find Dmes who support 1 but for the GOPs who would demonize them for being soft on crime / weak on family values. Cowards.
Quote from: Oleg on May 14, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things. If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.
Number 3 is downright socialist, though. Not sure if Newt will like it.
I, however, do like it!
As an expansion to what was talked about in the SBox:
#3: I agree with this, but here's the thing I wonder about. Often times you can see people getting the help from the government that don't seem to be helping themselves. Everyone knows they are out there (using the Link card to by snickers and pepsi, for example.. And you could argue the government just needs to stop that and they should). Those are the cases where I would not be all for helping out the lower class. Some may not like that, and I understand, but it's the way I feel. Now, the tough part is: How does the government determine that? I am not dumb enough to believe that they could do it completely fairly and accurately but it is, and always has been, a concern of mine on Welfare (for one).
I'm not sure of what the solution would be to make it better in my view, but it's something that they should try to work on. I do know that there are politicians who have considered drug-testing for Welfare recipients (conflict with #1 kind of) but I think I support that. Even if drugs were legal, they should be considered a commodity that people don't need. However, with that there is also the change in the prices of drugs and demand (as Oleg was talking about in the SBox) so that could be a moot point, but it is a thought.
I'll touch on more later but I have to run now...
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 14, 2009, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 14, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things. If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.
Number 3 is downright socialist, though. Not sure if Newt will like it.
I, however, do like it!
As an expansion to what was talked about in the SBox:
#3: I agree with this, but here's the thing I wonder about. Often times you can see people getting the help from the government that don't seem to be helping themselves. Everyone knows they are out there (using the Link card to by snickers and pepsi, for example.. And you could argue the government just needs to stop that and they should). Those are the cases where I would not be all for helping out the lower class. Some may not like that, and I understand, but it's the way I feel. Now, the tough part is: How does the government determine that? I am not dumb enough to believe that they could do it completely fairly and accurately but it is, and always has been, a concern of mine on Welfare (for one).
I'm not sure of what the solution would be to make it better in my view, but it's something that they should try to work on. I do know that there are politicians who have considered drug-testing for Welfare recipients (conflict with #1 kind of) but I think I support that. Even if drugs were legal, they should be considered a commodity that people don't need. However, with that there is also the change in the prices of drugs and demand (as Oleg was talking about in the SBox) so that could be a moot point, but it is a thought.
I'll touch on more later but I have to run now...
Post lunch SBox discussions are eluding me of late. I'll have to duck out of trial prep meetings more often.
Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents
Are the documents they are showing authentic?
Quote from: MikeC on May 14, 2009, 06:22:52 PM
Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents
Are the documents they are showing authentic?
You should really learn to use the internet sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch)
QuoteFounded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."
QuoteIn 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.
With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.
Quote from: Oleg on May 14, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 14, 2009, 04:24:17 PM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 04:17:34 PM
Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.
http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i (http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i)
I like all five. Excellent.
I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things. If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.
Number 3 is downright socialist, though. Not sure if Newt will like it.
I, however, do like it!
Number 3 is
not socialist...
Quote3. Means-test Everything – If it is to exist, every federal social program should be designed to help the very poor. The middle class only a little. The rich none. Government welfare programs for the rich, such as Medicare, are insane. Let's say so. (That includes a louder call for bringing Medicare back from the precipice.) Shame rich, old people: "You cannot continue to rob the next generation and get away with it. You have more resources and your healthcare costs more. Pay for it. You owe it to 'the children.'" Thus: No welfare for the rich. No corporate welfare.
This is the state affecting as few people as possible, not a socialist concept as I understand it. Many conservatives have argued for means-testing of government benefits as a way of shrinking those programs. It's a libertarian concept.
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 07:12:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 14, 2009, 06:22:52 PM
Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents
Are the documents they are showing authentic?
You should really learn to use the internet sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch)
QuoteFounded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."
QuoteIn 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.
With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.
Nice insult, just asking opinion. If accurate its disturbing to see it in writing the process to forced nationalism.
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 07:12:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 14, 2009, 06:22:52 PM
Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents
Are the documents they are showing authentic?
You should really learn to use the internet sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch)
QuoteFounded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."
QuoteIn 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.
With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.
Just curious, does the fact that Judicial Watch got funding from Scaife somehow invalidate their work? And I don't think that Judicial Watch had anything at all to do with THAT WHOLE THING concerning the Vince Foster conspiracy theory nonsense. As I recall it, JW continued to file suits in a similar vein when Bush was president (Cheney Energy Task Force, maybe?), so it's hardly some lapdog of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I find it funny that these sorts of arguments are made, that because they accepted funding from [evil person X] all work must be invalid. If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: RV on May 14, 2009, 07:12:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 14, 2009, 06:22:52 PM
Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents
Are the documents they are showing authentic?
You should really learn to use the internet sometime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch)
QuoteFounded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."
QuoteIn 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.
With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.
All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.
Just curious, does the fact that Judicial Watch got funding from Scaife somehow invalidate their work? And I don't think that Judicial Watch had anything at all to do with THAT WHOLE THING concerning the Vince Foster conspiracy theory nonsense. As I recall it, JW continued to file suits in a similar vein when Bush was president (Cheney Energy Task Force, maybe?), so it's hardly some lapdog of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I find it funny that these sorts of arguments are made, that because they accepted funding from [evil person X] all work must be invalid. If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
No, the Scaife funding does not invalidate their work. I'm a big fan of transparency, and the documents they've managed to obtain speak for themselves. I was simply answering MikeC's question about the reputation of Judicial Watch. I think the history and funding of any organization has some relevance when you're trying to determine if there's any bias present.
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
They're jagoffs. They just happen to be OUR jagoffs.
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
THIS is why I brought it up. It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros. Shoah.
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
THIS is why I brought it up. It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros. Shoah.
I think it's more about your expectations as an audience. Look, I have no illusions about what moveon.org or any of the right-wing crap is. I don't think their studies or conclusions are invalid, I just think you, as an audience, need to understand where they're coming from.
Personally, I'll watch Olbermann, but if you think I don't understand that he has an point of view that he hammers home, than I don't think YOU KNOW ME AT ALL.
I guess it's just up to each of us as cerebral beings to distinguish between the fluff and the real facts.
Scaife has an ax to grind with the Democrats. Soros has an ax to grind with the conservatives. Neither has a monopoly on truthiness.
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
THIS is why I brought it up. It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros. Shoah.
MoveOn is the BCB of politics (despite BCB's whacko lefty ultimate ownership). Holocaust. Shoah. Whatever.
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 09:32:37 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 08:42:33 AM
If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?
Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.
No, it's not.
They're jagoffs. They just happen to be OUR jagoffs.
For a long time, Republicans controlled the message. It's easy for conservatives, all they have to talk about is maintaining the status quo, and voila.
I used to get despondent when I'd walk around a demonstration or some sort of a leftist gathering and notice that there were a hundred different groups with a hundred different agendas, and they couldn't seem to find a way to come together and pool their resources to come up with one consistent message that resonated with a bunch of progressives all at once. It was annoying. All these groups were afraid of alienating one demographic or another. The environmentalists were afraid of aligning with the "legalize drugs" crowd because they didn't want to turn off anyone from their message.
This created a disparate groups of people, none of whom wanted to work with anyone else. It turned the progressive landscape into a bunch of groups who didn't have the resources, on their own, to make any headway with any of their beliefs. Sure, you had Greenpeace and the ACLU and the unions, etc., but at a grassroots level, it was a no win situation.
On the right, it was simple. Pro-war, pro-military, anti-immigration...it all lined up so nicely, and since the more affluent tended to be conservative, there was no shortage of funding.
When Soros came along, all of a sudden you had an organization that was able to speak to all these different groups with one voice. All of a sudden, there was a clear path to fund raising, coalition building, and a way to get your message out, all through one "portal".
At its heart, there is a definite agenda. But, d'ur. That's what it's there for.
The difference between moveon and Scaife is that moveon is still a political organization, and they make no bones about it. Scaife is a media tycoon. He pretends that his message is non-partisan, because he uses the media, his media, to send it out. It's still an area where the conservatives have an edge ont he progressives, using the media. The internet has evened the playing field, but it's still not there.
So, there you have it. My long-winded defense of moveon.org.
GO HAWKS!
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
Quote from: RV on May 15, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
He didn't campaign against Obama until after Moveon helped give Lamont the nomination in 2006.
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: RV on May 15, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
He didn't campaign against Obama until after Moveon helped give Lamont the nomination in 2006.
And he still caucuses with the Democrats.
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I suppose, but couldn't you boil down any organization to that level. After all, we really do have only two political parties. As much as we'd like to think so, even the blogosphere goes beyond BCB and Desipio.
The war was an awful idea from the beginning. Lieberman's support for it, especially as late as 2006, was unacceptable. It has nothing to do with any sort of groupthink. Also, consider that moveon really grew out of the anti-war movement, and there you go.
(Before anyone wants to start any sort of judgment argument about the war, please note I am only talking about the war from the point of view of the left, for the sake of discussing the fall of Joe Lieberman in the eyes of the left. Thank you.)
edit: Changed date of support to 2006, to cover TJ's post.
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I suppose, but couldn't you boil down any organization to that level. After all, we really do have only two political parties. As much as we'd like to think so, even the blogosphere goes beyond BCB and Desipio.
The war was an awful idea from the beginning. Lieberman's support for it, especially as late as 2006, was unacceptable. It has nothing to do with any sort of groupthink. Also, consider that moveon really grew out of the anti-war movement, and there you go.
(Before anyone wants to start any sort of judgment argument about the war, please note I am only talking about the war from the point of view of the left, for the sake of discussing the fall of Joe Lieberman in the eyes of the left. Thank you.)
edit: Changed date of support to 2006, to cover TJ's post.
I thought moveon was started in response to THAT WHOLE impeachment THING, based on the idea that we should all just "Move On" from the highest law enforcement executive in the country defying the laws of said country. Yeah, it later shifted to the anti-war movement, but that's not where it "grew out of." Unless you meant that further growth in the organization could be tied to the anti-war movement, in which case you can put [ s ] tags around this post.
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: RV on May 15, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
He didn't campaign against Obama until after Moveon helped give Lamont the nomination in 2006.
Ah, I'm a moran.
Speaking of cluelessness, can we build a consensus on Todd Stroger being a douchesquirt? Gil if you're going to run for Board President in 2010 we need to get the ball rolling.
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 10:43:43 AM
I thought moveon was started in response to THAT WHOLE impeachment THING, based on the idea that we should all just "Move On" from the highest law enforcement executive in the country defying the laws of said country.
Clinton should've just had someone from the OLC write a memo stating that it was legal to lie under oath about humjobs. Problem solved! [/provocative]
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: RV on May 15, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
He didn't campaign against Obama until after Moveon helped give Lamont the nomination in 2006.
But Obama campaigned for Lieberman in person during the primary.
Quote from: morpheus on May 15, 2009, 10:43:43 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 15, 2009, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I suppose, but couldn't you boil down any organization to that level. After all, we really do have only two political parties. As much as we'd like to think so, even the blogosphere goes beyond BCB and Desipio.
The war was an awful idea from the beginning. Lieberman's support for it, especially as late as 2006, was unacceptable. It has nothing to do with any sort of groupthink. Also, consider that moveon really grew out of the anti-war movement, and there you go.
(Before anyone wants to start any sort of judgment argument about the war, please note I am only talking about the war from the point of view of the left, for the sake of discussing the fall of Joe Lieberman in the eyes of the left. Thank you.)
edit: Changed date of support to 2006, to cover TJ's post.
I thought moveon was started in response to THAT WHOLE impeachment THING, based on the idea that we should all just "Move On" from the highest law enforcement executive in the country defying the laws of said country. Yeah, it later shifted to the anti-war movement, but that's not where it "grew out of." Unless you meant that further growth in the organization could be tied to the anti-war movement, in which case you can put [ s ] tags around this post.
OK...whatever. I have no idea what an [ s ] tag is, so if you feel it's appropriate, sure.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 15, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: RV on May 15, 2009, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
Even though I think Lieberman is pretty douchey, the fact is, he's a Liberal Democrat through-and-through, with the one exception being his support of the War. That was enough.
As Chuck said, they're like BCB, they want groupthink to prevail. Even when you agree with most of it, it's a bad idea.
I'm guessing that whole 'campaigning against Obama' thing may have been a factor.
He didn't campaign against Obama until after Moveon helped give Lamont the nomination in 2006.
But Obama campaigned for Lieberman in person during the primary.
And Lieberman has carried some water for Obama this legislative session.
Bush campaigned for Specter during the 2004 primary and for what?
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
And Lieberman has carried some water for Obama this legislative session.
But he did not reciprocate during the campaign. I mean, the guy took the lectern at the RNC.
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
Bush campaigned for Specter during the 2004 primary and for what?
I don't recall Specter campaigning for Kerry.
Quote from: Fork on May 15, 2009, 10:21:30 AM
My beef with moveon is they started with good intentions, but have now decided getting Liberals elected isn't enough, they need to be Liberal to their liking, and must adhere to every box on the checklist.
They're a liberal policy advocacy group.
Yes, they help push to get liberals into elected office in furtherance of their particular policy goals.
But they also push liberals who've been elected to office to actually
support these particular policy goals, and seek to challenge those that don't.
The policy's the thing.
Crazy, I know.
But you can't have an international Jew money-changer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros) conspiracy without breaking a few eggs.
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
Bush campaigned for Specter during the 2004 primary and for what?
Is Specter's move to the Dem Party thwarting the post-White House Bush administration's carefully laid strategy to crush some brews and dominate with the bros down in Crawford?
This is hard for me to admit, but...
Good for you University of Notre Dame.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kennedys-cancer-in-remission-2009-05-19.html
QuoteSen. Edward Kennedy's brain cancer is in remission and he is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess to spearhead healthcare reform, according to Democratic colleagues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he spoke with Kennedy's wife, Vicki, in the past few days and was told the 77-year-old lawmaker is "doing fine."
Reid said Kennedy's cancer is in remission and added that while the lawmaker is going through another regiment of treatment, the procedure "is not unusual."
"This is something we expected," he said.
Quote from: flannj on May 17, 2009, 09:38:55 PM
This is hard for me to admit, but...
Good for you University of Notre Dame.
I assume that you are referring to its football program.
Quote from: CBStew on May 19, 2009, 06:28:13 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 17, 2009, 09:38:55 PM
This is hard for me to admit, but...
Good for you University of Notre Dame.
I assume that you are referring to its football program.
Did they fire FrontButt?
Harry Reid and Senate Democrats: groveling douchebags (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003120881) who humbly capitulate to ridiculous fear-mongering.
QuoteQUESTION: If the United States -- if the United States thinks that these people should be held, why shouldn't they be held in the United States? Why shouldn't the U.S. take those risks, the attendant risk of holding them, since it's the one that says they should be held?
REID: I think there's a general feeling, as I've already said, that the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn't want terrorists to be released in the United States. And I think we're going to stick with that.
QUESTION: What about in imprisoned in the United States?
REID: If you're...
(CROSSTALK)
REID: If people are -- if terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don't want is them be put in prisons in the United States. We don't want them around the United States.
I agree Harry, it would be a grave danger to our society to have guys like Jose Padilla (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/22/terror/main3737332.shtml), John Walker Lindh (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/04/lindh.statement/), Timothy Mcveigh (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.mcveigh/index.html), and Richard Reid (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/02/05/440/48412) housed in our unreliable and easy-to-escape-from American prisons. We should probably build some sort of floating island in Antarctic airspace or possibly drill deep into the earth's crust (somewhere close to the magma core) to construct some sort of underground detention facility. Then we'll know
for sure that we're safe.
What a fucking joke.
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein Soetoro won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
(obviously fake) Birth Certificate'd.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
I think it'll depend on where the Dems think they can pick up a Senate seat. Keep in mind, if Reid loses, Obama's (and our) pal Durbin will be the (most likely) majority leader. However, I don't think anyone will want to risk going back to the 59 Dem majority.
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
I think it'll depend on where the Dems think they can pick up a Senate seat. Keep in mind, if Reid loses, Obama's (and our) pal Durbin will be the (most likely) majority leader. However, I don't think anyone will want to risk going back to the 59 Dem majority.
If the GOP really thinks the "rebranding" will work, rather than introducing an actual legislative agenda, the Dems will pick up seats.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
I think it'll depend on where the Dems think they can pick up a Senate seat. Keep in mind, if Reid loses, Obama's (and our) pal Durbin will be the (most likely) majority leader. However, I don't think anyone will want to risk going back to the 59 Dem majority.
If the GOP really thinks the "rebranding" will work, rather than introducing an actual legislative agenda, the Dems will pick up seats.
True...but I still think there's a chance either Nelson flips to the GOP. The GOP rebranding (and I find that whole thing to be full of hilarity) is for the 2012 election as a set-up for 2016. The Dems won't have the Obama tailwind in the mid-terms. I haven't seen the list of whose seats are up (with the exception of Spector), so I don't know where the Dems can make an inroad.
I do agree that Reid may be a likely goner, but there will be a huge push by the unions to get the vote out for him.
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 11:12:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
I think it'll depend on where the Dems think they can pick up a Senate seat. Keep in mind, if Reid loses, Obama's (and our) pal Durbin will be the (most likely) majority leader. However, I don't think anyone will want to risk going back to the 59 Dem majority.
If the GOP really thinks the "rebranding" will work, rather than introducing an actual legislative agenda, the Dems will pick up seats.
True...but I still think there's a chance either Nelson flips to the GOP. The GOP rebranding (and I find that whole thing to be full of hilarity) is for the 2012 election as a set-up for 2016. The Dems won't have the Obama tailwind in the mid-terms. I haven't seen the list of whose seats are up (with the exception of Spector), so I don't know where the Dems can make an inroad.
I do agree that Reid may be a likely goner, but there will be a huge push by the unions to get the vote out for him.
It's the second term re-up for the Contract With America guys. A buttload of GOP seats with a lot of Bush residue on them. Very winnable.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 11:12:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
The GOP is going after Reid's Senate seat. I have a strong suspicion that Barry Hussein won't break much of a sweat fundraising or campaigning for him.
I think it'll depend on where the Dems think they can pick up a Senate seat. Keep in mind, if Reid loses, Obama's (and our) pal Durbin will be the (most likely) majority leader. However, I don't think anyone will want to risk going back to the 59 Dem majority.
If the GOP really thinks the "rebranding" will work, rather than introducing an actual legislative agenda, the Dems will pick up seats.
True...but I still think there's a chance either Nelson flips to the GOP. The GOP rebranding (and I find that whole thing to be full of hilarity) is for the 2012 election as a set-up for 2016. The Dems won't have the Obama tailwind in the mid-terms. I haven't seen the list of whose seats are up (with the exception of Spector), so I don't know where the Dems can make an inroad.
I do agree that Reid may be a likely goner, but there will be a huge push by the unions to get the vote out for him.
It's the second term re-up for the Contract With America guys. A buttload of GOP seats with a lot of Bush residue on them. Very winnable.
Ah right. Judd Gregg is retiring in NH. Kit Bond is retiring in MO. Those may be winnable. Jim Bunning can't get his foot out of his mouth, so if he runs again, teh Dems have a shot at KY, which seems weird. Not as weird as my typing, with a straight face, that the GOP has a shot at Burris's seat. I wonder if the Dems have a shot at Mel Martinez's seat. Or the Ohio (Voinivich) seat.
Other than that, I have a feeling all other races will stay with the incumbent, unless something very strange happens.
Time to start reading 538 again.
Quote from: MAD on May 20, 2009, 12:20:03 AM
Quote from: CBStew on May 19, 2009, 06:28:13 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 17, 2009, 09:38:55 PM
This is hard for me to admit, but...
Good for you University of Notre Dame.
I assume that you are referring to its football program.
Did they fire FrontButt?
I had to ask my boss (who has some good ND connections) if there's a magic number of wins Weis needs to hit this year. He says he's pretty sure there is, but he guesses only about 6 people know exactly what that number is.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on May 20, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
I had to ask my boss (who has some good ND connections) if there's a magic number of wins Weis needs to hit this year. He says he's pretty sure there is, but he guesses only about 6 people know exactly what that number is.
I'll guess that number is 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11.
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 11:36:43 AM
Ah right. Judd Gregg is retiring in NH. Kit Bond is retiring in MO. Those may be winnable. Jim Bunning can't get his foot out of his mouth, so if he runs again, teh Dems have a shot at KY, which seems weird. Not as weird as my typing, with a straight face, that the GOP has a shot at Burris's seat. I wonder if the Dems have a shot at Mel Martinez's seat. Or the Ohio (Voinivich) seat.
Other than that, I have a feeling all other races will stay with the incumbent, unless something very strange happens.
Time to start reading 538 again.
The GOP is trying to push Bunning out before he gets to the General, because he's toast once he gets there.
The GOP is also still pretty badly tainted in Ohio, so they might be able to take Voinovich's seat.
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 20, 2009, 11:36:43 AM
Ah right. Judd Gregg is retiring in NH. Kit Bond is retiring in MO. Those may be winnable. Jim Bunning can't get his foot out of his mouth, so if he runs again, teh Dems have a shot at KY, which seems weird. Not as weird as my typing, with a straight face, that the GOP has a shot at Burris's seat. I wonder if the Dems have a shot at Mel Martinez's seat. Or the Ohio (Voinivich) seat.
Other than that, I have a feeling all other races will stay with the incumbent, unless something very strange happens.
Time to start reading 538 again.
The GOP is trying to push Bunning out before he gets to the General, because he's toast once he gets there.
The GOP is also still pretty badly tainted in Ohio, so they might be able to take Voinovich's seat.
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Yeah, that's a plus 4 in my book, althoug I have a feeling that Bunning seat will be much closer than I care to think about. I really hope that bullheaded freak will run and win the primary. I just think that Reid has far too much influence over the unions in Nevada to worry about getting any support from the administration.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
What? How can that skinny Cuban douche-missile have a shot at the Guv's Mansion? This state is more corrupt than even I could have dreamed.
(My insincere apologies if that joke was used somewhere in the previous 84 pages of this Clusterfuck)
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
The Governor's mansion belongs to Lisa right now.
Quote from: Apexx on May 20, 2009, 01:27:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
What? How can that skinny Cuban douche-missile have a shot at the Guv's Mansion? This state is more corrupt than even I could have dreamed.
(My insincere apologies if that joke was used somewhere in the previous 84 pages of this Clusterfuck)
He IS the best player in Chicago, however.
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2009, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 20, 2009, 01:27:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Burris probably won't get out of the primary here - Schakowsky (among others) will have too much money and organization.
Burris may not get IN the primary.
Jan would not be my first choice on the Dem side. But she'd be above Alexi.
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
What? How can that skinny Cuban douche-missile have a shot at the Guv's Mansion? This state is more corrupt than even I could have dreamed.
(My insincere apologies if that joke was used somewhere in the previous 84 pages of this Clusterfuck)
He IS the best player in Chicago, however.
If they could just find him a position to dominate, he'd be all set. The Bears need a wideout. The Bulls need a center... Maybe the best player in Chicago just hasn't found his sport yet.
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
Alexi is looking toward the Governor's mansion - that's where the big bucks are.
there's a chick in his way.
Quote from: Apexx on May 20, 2009, 01:53:04 PM
The Bulls need a center
Sorry, that job is locked down.
(http://www.yardbarker.com/media/2/7/27529aa462f33715b44be8935c3887a4825fe289/xl/05906741.jpg)
Oy (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/19/yet-another-kennedy-to-enter-national-politics/).
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
In fairness, Murdock is getting his ducks in a row to run for Gov. in 2012 to succeed Mitch Daniels, who is considering running for President.
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Alot of people are about to get ripped off just so Obama can keep that union voting for him and his people while funneling cash to their campaigns.
But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews.
What a simpleton view of world politics. No GITMO, less terrorists! No Prisons, less crime! No cops, less criminals!
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Alot of people are about to get ripped off just so Obama can keep that union voting for him and his people while funneling cash to their campaigns.
But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews.
What a simpleton view of world politics. No GITMO, less terrorists! No Prisons, less crime! No cops, less criminals!
GIT 'R DONE MIKEC!
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
What a simpleton view of world politics.
Holy sweet-fucking-irony-on-a-stick.
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Alot of people are about to get ripped off just so Obama can keep that union voting for him and his people while funneling cash to their campaigns.
This:
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 05, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 05, 2009, 08:58:00 PM
The creditors have legal rights that the administration apparently feel don't exist.
As someone who has made a career knowing what creditor rights are I ask you one question:
Have you read the security agreement?
As I know what your answer would be, my response to you is: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about. The uniformed preaching to the ill informed makes me puke.
Oh, and how's Kerry Wood doing in Arizona?
That.
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews.
What a simpleton view of world politics.
Simple, indeed.
Oh, wait... you meant the views of
the people you disagree with?
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Alot of people are about to get ripped off just so Obama can keep that union voting for him and his people while funneling cash to their campaigns.
But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews.
What a simpleton view of world politics. No GITMO, less terrorists! No Prisons, less crime! No cops, less criminals!
No, a simpleton view would be that we're safer because we invaded Iraq.
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
There's a switch at the prison. Once they finally hit it - terrorists love us again. It's going to be legendary.
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/
Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."
The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac
QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.
Shoah.
Alot of people are about to get ripped off just so Obama can keep that union voting for him and his people while funneling cash to their campaigns.
But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews.
What a simpleton view of world politics. No GITMO, less terrorists! No Prisons, less crime! No cops, less criminals!
Now we've got the Jews after us? This can't be good.
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
There's a switch at the prison. Once they finally hit it - terrorists love us again. It's going to be legendary.
I for one, can't wait for that day. That
messiah Obama, is there anything that he can't fix?
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
There's a switch at the prison. Once they finally hit it - terrorists love us again. It's going to be legendary.
I for one, can't wait for that day. That messiah Obama, is there anything that he can't fix?
Mike Fontenot's swing?
Neal Cotts's pitch command?
Geo Soto's workout regiment?
Quote from: Oleg on May 21, 2009, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
There's a switch at the prison. Once they finally hit it - terrorists love us again. It's going to be legendary.
I for one, can't wait for that day. That messiah Obama, is there anything that he can't fix?
Mike Fontenot's swing?
Neal Cotts's pitch command?
Geo Soto's workout regiment?
Chronic shortness?
Quote from: Fork on May 21, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 21, 2009, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: air2300 on May 21, 2009, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 21, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
So if we shut down GITMO terrorists will love us?
Yes, that's exactly why they shut down GITMO.
There's a switch at the prison. Once they finally hit it - terrorists love us again. It's going to be legendary.
I for one, can't wait for that day. That messiah Obama, is there anything that he can't fix?
Mike Fontenot's swing?
Neal Cotts's pitch command?
Geo Soto's workout regiment?
Chronic shortness?
HEY-O!
MikeC, I try not to respond to you, but I have to call you out on this one.
"But hey the news today is Gitmo has made us less safe and created more terrorists. Hmmmm there were a shitload of terrorists running around way before GITMO and even a few managed to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day. I don't think GITMO pisses them off Mr. President, its our general existence on this planet that gets them riled up along with the Jews."
???
"...our general existence...that gets them riled up along with the Jews" Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you meant that terrorists resent the existence of Americans and the existence of the Jews. Or did you mean the existence of the United States as a country and Israel as a country? There is a difference between Jews and Israel. Some Jews live in Israel, but more of them live in the United States than in Israel. If you did not mean Israel as a nation, and did intend to refer to Jewish existence, why did you distinguish between "our existence" and the Jews' existence? Are you one of those who believe that like England, and Saudi Arabia, the United States has an official religion and it isn't Judaism? If my point is obscure, let me state it plainly. I resent that you distinguish between non-Jewish Americans and Americans who are Jewish. Apparently you believe that terrorists make that distinction. What makes you different from them?
Quote from: Eli on May 20, 2009, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 20, 2009, 01:53:04 PM
The Bulls need a center
Sorry, that job is locked down.
(http://www.yardbarker.com/media/2/7/27529aa462f33715b44be8935c3887a4825fe289/xl/05906741.jpg)
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? That will end well during the teams' meetings next year. It's going to be a funny moment.
Quote from: CBStew on May 21, 2009, 03:37:05 PM
I resent that you distinguish between non-Jewish Americans and Americans who are Jewish. Apparently you believe that terrorists make that distinction. What makes you different from them?
Clearly not IQ points.
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 20, 2009, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 20, 2009, 01:53:04 PM
The Bulls need a center
Sorry, that job is locked down.
(http://www.yardbarker.com/media/2/7/27529aa462f33715b44be8935c3887a4825fe289/xl/05906741.jpg)
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? That will end well during the teams' meetings next year. It's going to be a funny moment.
JokeQueen. Man, that's outstanding. I even mean it. Your next Old Style is on me.
Oh, this should be good.
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE54K68I20090521?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Quote"The wealthy, at some point, decided they didn't have enough wealth...They wanted more -- a lot more. So they systematically set about to fleece the American people out of their hard-earned money. Now, why would they do this? That is what I seek to discover in this movie."
Shoah.
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 10:49:07 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? That will end well during the teams' meetings next year. It's going to be a funny moment.
JokeQueen. Man, that's outstanding. I even mean it. Your next Old Style is on me.
Hook him up next Tuesday, if you're man enough to come out and play first base, cuz I got a calf, arpf!
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
Quote from: MAD on May 22, 2009, 09:46:32 AM
Quote from: Slakee on May 21, 2009, 10:49:07 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? That will end well during the teams' meetings next year. It's going to be a funny moment.
JokeQueen. Man, that's outstanding. I even mean it. Your next Old Style is on me.
Hook him up next Tuesday, if you're man enough to come out and play first base, cuz I got a calf, arpf!
I'll be dat.
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
Well, he does have as many NBA Championships as Patrick Ewing...
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
I implicitly trust your ability to judge talent. HART FOR CLOSER IN 2010!
That's fine. Patrick Ewing's a first-ballot hall of famer and one of the top 50 players in NBA History. He has the same number of titles as Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King. Slouches all. Sure.
Keep on defending Noah, guys. We'll see who laughs last. My tongue-in-cheek Scales-for-President-esque mancrush for Kevin Hart notwithstanding, I like my chances here.
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 10:07:30 AM
That's fine. Patrick Ewing's a first-ballot hall of famer and one of the top 50 players in NBA History. He has the same number of titles as Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King. Slouches all. Sure.
Keep on defending Noah, guys. We'll see who laughs last. My tongue-in-cheek Scales-for-President-esque mancrush for Kevin Hart notwithstanding, I like my chances here.
So, you're saying that Noah will not be as good as Patrick Ewing. That's what you're saying? Care to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Quote from: Oleg on May 22, 2009, 10:17:20 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 10:07:30 AM
That's fine. Patrick Ewing's a first-ballot hall of famer and one of the top 50 players in NBA History. He has the same number of titles as Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King. Slouches all. Sure.
Keep on defending Noah, guys. We'll see who laughs last. My tongue-in-cheek Scales-for-President-esque mancrush for Kevin Hart notwithstanding, I like my chances here.
So, you're saying that Noah will not be as good as Patrick Ewing. That's what you're saying? Care to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow?
I'm saying that and I'm saying he won't be as good as Brad Miller was in his prime too. And if I look online I can tell you exactly what time the sun will
come rise tomorrow in whatever city you happen to be in.
And even if he does manage to reach the lofty standard of that aforementioned un-drafted free-agent-turned NBA All-Star, he'll still be the most collassal douchevessel in the NBA with the distance between he and the next in line unable to be covered by man or science. And never the twain shall meet. Enjoy.
In fairness, CT brought up Patrick Ewing in a spirited display of poke-sticking...
Quote from: MAD on May 22, 2009, 10:34:04 AM
In fairness, CT brought up Patrick Ewing in a spirited display of poke-sticking...
Intrepid Reader: OlegMan, why you gotta bring up old shit!
Quote from: MAD on May 22, 2009, 10:34:04 AM
In fairness, CT brought up Patrick Ewing in a spirited display of poke-sticking...
Huey knows the score.
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
You know Noah and Garnett play different positions, right?
Why is this in the Chairman Maobama thread again?
Quote from: PenFoe on May 22, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
You know Noah and Garnett play different positions, right?
Why is this in the Chairman Maobama thread again?
Two guys named Alexi and Alexei.
Quote from: PenFoe on May 22, 2009, 11:55:36 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Apexx on May 21, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
Oh, right. How could I forget the JokeQueen Rennaissance that occurred while Kevin Garnett looked on in street clothes? about 18 months ago during his rookie season.
Not that you pay any attention to the NBA, but whatever'd.
Oh, so he's good now? Ok. Trade him for a center. The chick they have playing there now only averages about 7 and 7. That's rounding up, mind you. But hey, sweet dunk and take down of Rondo. I do look forward to seeing him vs. Garnett next year in an actual game. That should be epic.
You know Noah and Garnett play different positions, right?
Why is this in the Chairman Maobama thread again?
So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball? Is that how that works? Oh, dang. The NBA done changed a lot since I remember it.
"Damn JokeQueen! KG's pissin' on you!"
"What'dya 'spec me to do about it? He's a forward, I'm a center! And tell him to quit hogging all the boards and blocking my shots! That shit aint cool."
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 01:11:54 PM
So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?
It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 01:11:54 PM
So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?
It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.
So you're saying there's a chance he may play next year?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP4RUHRcN3E
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 01:21:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 22, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Quote from: Apexx on May 22, 2009, 01:11:54 PM
So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?
It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.
So you're saying there's a chance he may play next year?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP4RUHRcN3E
Intrepid reader KG:
ANYTHING IS POSSSIIIBBLLLLLLEEEEE!
HA!
This has been fun. EG, thanks for being a good sport about it. Here's a parting shot for your jagoff lottery pick entering his third year averaging: a tall seven & seven (http://new.music.yahoo.com/atmosphere/tracks/a-tall-seven-and-seven--41907858).
Everybody have a great weekend.
It's Sotomayor (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html).
An interesting coincidence. (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html)
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:02:04 AM
An interesting coincidence. (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html)
So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?
RED ALERT!
QuoteI have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
Okay.
But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of
those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?
Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").
Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians,
local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.
Quote from: Fork on May 26, 2009, 07:52:12 AM
It's Sotomayor (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html).
Remember when Bork said this:
"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
No, he didn't say that? Did Scalia? John Roberts?
No?
That's right, no one said it. But Sotomayor said this:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
She'll sail through, but not before a few uncomfortable moments.
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 08:39:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:02:04 AM
An interesting coincidence. (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html)
So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?
RED ALERT!
QuoteI have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
Okay.
But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?
Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").
Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.
It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-vassos-leaders-2229235-gay-marriage) to do business in California. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ147155.DTL)
Here's a more comprehensive list. Far more than 80 dealers here. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15760333/Chrysler-Report)
This is a fair question. More important is how the dealers are being closed. Chrysler (and the government) are going to see a fight from the dealers, especially those who went into debt at Chrysler's insistence over the last couple of years, and now will be left with nothing.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 26, 2009, 07:52:12 AM
It's Sotomayor (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html).
Remember when Bork said this:
"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
No, he didn't say that? Did Scalia? John Roberts?
No?
That's right, no one said it. But Sotomayor said this:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
She'll sail through, but not before a few uncomfortable moments.
Another good one:
Quote"All of the legal defense funds out there-- they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."
Source: https://childedlaw.org/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor (43-minute mark)
She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.
They should be discussed. As was this quote:
QuoteI realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal. And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.
People don't have to be perfect to serve. If they had to, we'd have anarchy.
Perhaps that would be good?
Thrill hit the nail on the head. Small business owners are simply more likely to donate to Republicans. It's not a coincidence; it's an effect of the ideological differences between the parties on economic issues. Had these closings occurred under Bush, the result would be the same. A large majority of those afflicted would be owned by Republicans. If you are a supplier, you tend to favor supply-side policies. Supply-side policies are (generally) advanced by Republicans. If welfare was expanded tomorrow and a list of the new recipients was released, we'd likely find that the people on the list had donated to Democrats. Would that be indicative of political favoritism? Poor people vote Democratic; Democrats generally favor social welfare programs that benefit the poor.
Additionally, just glancing over that list, a lot of the owners are located in the South. I imagine you'd find--regardless of socioeconomic status or political ideology-- that a person in a southern state is a lot more likely to donate to the GOP. If you want the attention of your congressman and all of them are Republicans, you're going to be a "Republican donor" (even if you're a Democratic voter).
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 09:04:13 AM
It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-vassos-leaders-2229235-gay-marriage) to do business in California. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ147155.DTL)
I'm confused. How is this relevant to the Chrysler closings?
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 09:04:13 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 08:39:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:02:04 AM
An interesting coincidence. (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html)
So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?
RED ALERT!
QuoteI have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.
Okay.
But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?
Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").
Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.
It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-vassos-leaders-2229235-gay-marriage) to do business in California. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ147155.DTL)
Okay.
But that's a totally separate issue. A flip sentence on my part that had nothing to do my central point at all.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 09:04:13 AM
Here's a more comprehensive list. Far more than 80 dealers here. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15760333/Chrysler-Report)
This is a fair question. More important is how the dealers are being closed. Chrysler (and the government) are going to see a fight from the dealers, especially those who went into debt at Chrysler's insistence over the last couple of years, and now will be left with nothing.
I had looked at that briefly. And, again, all I see at this point is what I said before: a lot of business owners who have given donations to a variety of politicians. Just scrolling through it, I immediately see quite a few donations to Democrats.
I'm still looking for the
correlation being alleged, TJ. Where is it?
This is a pointless exercise until someone looks at the other side of the ledger. Are the dealerships of Obama donors being kept open while those owned by donors to Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin are being shut down?
But, no matter. I'm sure this will be lighting up Hannity's show or Fox and Friends today, so it will be well on its way to being considered legit news in many quarters—real news that just serves to confirm everything we already assumed about "Obama and the Chicago Way."
I am not sure I understand your point.
I think you got it correct with this sentence
QuoteGiving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you meant that terrorists resent the existence of Americans and the existence of the Jews.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 09:42:52 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.
They should be discussed. As was this quote:
QuoteI realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal. And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.
People don't have to be perfect to serve. If they had to, we'd have anarchy.
Perhaps that would be good?
Was this meant to address what I posted? I'm guessing no.
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
Another good one:
Quote"All of the legal defense funds out there-- they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."
Source: https://childedlaw.org/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor (43-minute mark)
As politically incorrect as that statement might be to say out loud, it is pretty much 100% correct. The court of appeals rules on the legality of thousands of cases every year (as opposed to the less than 100 usually seen by the Supreme Court), thereby essentially either codifying, clarifying or destroying thousands of laws in the process. The laws of this country are almost exclusively under the control of the court of appeals.
The only real response to this quote should be "no shit."
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 09:42:52 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.
They should be discussed. As was this quote:
QuoteI realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal. And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.
People don't have to be perfect to serve. If they had to, we'd have anarchy.
Perhaps that would be good?
Was this meant to address what I posted? I'm guessing no.
It was to show that statements from jurists that reflect their mind are not always politically correct. And that hasn't prevented them from serving. It should be discussed. And then, based on this, she should be confirmed (I'm not talking about other stuff that may yet come out). Same as it went for Rehnquist.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 11:49:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 10:31:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 09:42:52 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.
They should be discussed. As was this quote:
QuoteI realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.
That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal. And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.
People don't have to be perfect to serve. If they had to, we'd have anarchy.
Perhaps that would be good?
Was this meant to address what I posted? I'm guessing no.
It was to show that statements from jurists that reflect their mind are not always politically correct. And that hasn't prevented them from serving. It should be discussed. And then, based on this, she should be confirmed (I'm not talking about other stuff that may yet come out). Same as it went for Rehnquist.
Tell Obama that. After all, he voted "no" on Alito.
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.
I'd like to hear more about this, too.
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 11:50:20 AM
Tell Obama that. After all, he voted "no" on Alito.
I didn't like his Alito vote. I also didn't like Orin Hatch holding up bench nominations during the Clinton years and creating large case backlogs.
Fact is, times have changed. Votes of 98-0 (Scalia in 1986) will never be seen anytime soon. Given the environment, Obama's Alito vote is understandable even if it was wrong.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning? Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning? Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 01:23:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.
I'd like to hear more about this, too.
http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525 (http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525)
As Chuck noted, the second circuit's decision was consistent with
Kelo. Yes,
Kelo sucks, but...
QuoteYour beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
[/Chuck being right]
Also, the
Agitator article is pretty misleading:
QuoteThe panel's entire analysis: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."
I mean, technically, that's correct, so long as you ignore the statute of limitations which lapsed a year and a half prior to Didden taking action.
Finally, I thought the Chrysler dealership graft scandal was "today's thing for the right to be mad about"? Are we switching to a half-day cycle? I just want to know so I can keep my list updated.
Quote from: ChuckD on May 26, 2009, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 01:23:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
I remember that case. IIRC, it really did royally suck.
I'd like to hear more about this, too.
http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525 (http://vlex.com/vid/didden-village-port-chester-summ-ord-20315525)
As Chuck noted, the second circuit's decision was consistent with Kelo. Yes, Kelo sucks, but...
QuoteYour beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
[/Chuck being right]
Also, the Agitator article is pretty misleading:
QuoteThe panel's entire analysis: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."
I mean, technically, that's correct, so long as you ignore the statute of limitations which lapsed a year and a half prior to Didden taking action.
Finally, I thought the Chrysler dealership graft scandal was "today's thing for the right to be mad about"? Are we switching to a half-day cycle? I just want to know so I can keep my list updated.
Oh, there's enough ANGER to cover multiple subjects. You should know that.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning? Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?
2007 - Sotomayor and colleagues rule contra to Kelo.
2008 - Overturned on appeal at SCOTUS.
2009 - TJ complains that Sotomayor doesn't follow judicial precedent.
If So Soto, a moderate compared to who could have been nominated, causes this much angst, I can't wait for the howls when Obama nominates replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens. And, if re-elected, possibly even Scalia or Kennedy.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past... (http://www.theagitator.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-on-takings-and-property-rights/)
I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.
So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning? Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.
That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?
2007 - Sotomayor and colleagues rule contra to Kelo.
2008 - Overturned on appeal at SCOTUS.
2009 - TJ complains that Sotomayor doesn't follow judicial precedent.
If So Soto, a moderate compared to who could have been nominated, causes this much angst, I can't wait for the howls when Obama nominates replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens. And, if re-elected, possibly even Scalia or Kennedy.
I want to know more about here. That's all. And I do not like
Kelo, and I do not like
Didden. Maybe her hands were tied, but the case was a bit different from
Kelo.
I'm not necessarily opposed to Sotomayor. If she doesn't sail through, I'll be shocked. I just want there to be
some due diligence.
But sure, who gives a fuck about the next Supreme Court Justice? I have no concerns at all.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 02:30:53 PM
I'm not necessarily opposed to Sotomayor. If she doesn't sail through, I'll be shocked. I just want there to be some due diligence.
This.
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
DRLP, son.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176665#msg176665
(At least the MLB side of it is.)
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.
I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.
What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
DRLP, son.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176665#msg176665
(At least the MLB side of it is.)
I'll take that one. I don't really read this thread that much these days. Too many intelligent words going on
I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?
Quote from: Slakee on May 26, 2009, 05:31:41 PM
I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?
I was going to come up with some smarmy clever response... and then I realized I'm Irish Yeti and I don't do that very well..
Dempster Rotation Lieber Pen.
While I wasn't there at the time, it came from the shoutbox, indeed. Apparently once the news broke, everyone in the shoutbox repeated the news... or something like that.
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.
I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.
What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?
Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity. Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story
Quote...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.
On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.
Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."
You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no." No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said."
I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise. Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Slakee on May 26, 2009, 05:31:41 PM
I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?
I was going to come up with some smarmy clever response... and then I realized I'm Irish Yeti and I don't do that very well..
Dempster Rotation Lieber Pen.
While I wasn't there at the time, it came from the shoutbox, indeed. Apparently once the news broke, everyone in the shoutbox repeated the news... or something like that.
You've got it. After that news occurred, whenever someone would breathlessly e-run into the ShoutBox with "breaking news" that had been broken the day before, someone would say something like "in related news, Dempster Rotation, Lieber Pen." Sometimes a link (http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/03/dempster-marqui.html) to the news article saying that Dempster was in the rotation and Lieber was moving to the pen would be used. After a while, someone (probably Thrillho, but alas, I cannot recall) got the idea to shorten it to DRLP, and thusly, an historic Internet Tradition was established. There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced. They just happen.
I want to know more, but if I was one of the 100 that matter, you'd have me as leaning in favor of confirming. I'd want to know more given the Didden ruling.
Quote from: morpheus on May 27, 2009, 08:14:31 AM
There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced. They just happen.
Egregious? Or simply consistent obnoxiousness?
And it's Orton.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 27, 2009, 08:42:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 27, 2009, 08:14:31 AM
There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced. They just happen.
Egregious? Or simply consistent obnoxiousness?
And it's Orton.
The latter is probably a better description, you're right. But as for the bolded part... I can't tell if you're writing in green or not.
Quote from: morpheus on May 27, 2009, 08:05:12 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.
I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.
What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?
Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity. Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story
Quote...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.
On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.
Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."
You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no." No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said."
I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise. Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?
I can't speak for that individual opinion and how appropriate a per curiam opinion was in that particular case. As for her overall 'intellectual curiosity' - here is the Almanac of Federal Judiciary (which seems to be an unbiased source of anonymous attorneys' opinions, from what I can tell) on Sotomayor:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/05/almanac-of-the-federal-judiciary---sonia-sotomayor.php?page=5 (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/05/almanac-of-the-federal-judiciary---sonia-sotomayor.php?page=5)
Some excerpts:
QuoteShe is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough. She looks at the practical issues. It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. She is bright, but doesn't always get the facts.
QuoteShe is very outspoken. She is overly aggressive. She abuses lawyers. She makes inappopriate outbursts.
QuoteShe is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared. She will cut you off and cross examine you. She is an active questioner. She can get harsh in oral argument.
QuoteShe writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions. Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think it's helpful to look at a range of opinions and the body of work, in addition to questioning some of her more controversial opinions.
Quote from: Slakee on May 26, 2009, 05:31:41 PM
I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?
Sorry.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on May 27, 2009, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: Slakee on May 26, 2009, 05:31:41 PM
I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?
Sorry.
Why are you apologizing? You never go there.
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
DPD. FWIW, here's a take on Sotomayor, Ricci, and empathy. (http://www.slate.com/id/2218393/)
QuoteMr. Ricci did not challenge the constitutionality of Title VII. So the only real question before the court was whether New Haven had reason to believe that if the city used the test results it would be sued under Title VII. Mr. Ricci's specific circumstances—his race, his dyslexia, and his professional aggravation—have no bearing on that legal question at all.
QuoteSo why did every report on the case begin and end with Ricci's compelling employment story? Might it have something to do with the fact that the conservative organizations supporting Ricci used his sympathetic tale as the centerpiece of a successful media blitz leading up to oral argument before the court? Could it be that they wanted to make sure the justices understood just how Title VII could impact the lives of ordinary Americans like Frank Ricci? Could they—oh the horror!—have wanted the justices to empathize with Ricci's plight?
QuoteAnd we want to be clear that there is nothing wrong with spotlighting your client's sympathetic life story; indeed, failing to do so could be considered a form of legal malpractice.
QuoteEvery time Justice Antonin Scalia writes a habeas opinion that begins with the depiction of a gruesome murder, he is evincing empathy toward the victim.
QuoteThe best judges combine empathy with adherence to the rule of law. Given that both liberals and conservatives have long sought to benefit from that fact, isn't it high time we were all honest enough to admit it?
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else). Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:54:09 PM
QuoteThe best judges combine empathy with adherence to the rule of law. Given that both liberals and conservatives have long sought to benefit from that fact, isn't it high time we were all honest enough to admit it?
The robot justices of the 21st century will be incapable of empathy.
No point to starting to think of justices as human
now.
Quote from: Brownie on May 27, 2009, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else). Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.
Addressed in the article:
QuoteThe third class of health-cost proposals, I explained, would push people to use medical savings accounts and hold high-deductible insurance policies: "They'd have more of their own money on the line, and that'd drive them to bargain with you and other surgeons, right?"
He gave me a quizzical look. We tried to imagine the scenario. A cardiologist tells an elderly woman that she needs bypass surgery and has Dr. Dyke see her. They discuss the blockages in her heart, the operation, the risks. And now they're supposed to haggle over the price as if he were selling a rug in a souk? "I'll do three vessels for thirty thousand, but if you take four I'll throw in an extra night in the I.C.U."—that sort of thing? Dyke shook his head. "Who comes up with this stuff?" he asked. "Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure."
I do agree that there should be re-aligning of incentives for doctors - the question is whether the health care market is one that's efficient enough to react to the demands of the sheeple.
Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:54:47 AM
But Sotomayor said this:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Rod Dreher with the exculpatory (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html):
QuoteThe NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.
Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.
Acknowledging that judges are human? How empathic.
You wouldn't necessarily have a high deductible plan. You'd buy a plan that you're most comfortable with, and you'd pick an insurance company that (you'd hope) would negotiate the best rates with the health care providers. It wouldn't be much different than what you have now, except the insurance company (jn many ways your contractor) is more accountable to you. That and if you change jobs (or lose your job) you don't have to worry about COBRA.
A major factor to look at is Sotomayor's 60% overturn rate when he decisions reach the higher court.
I think she runs counter to everything stated in the oath of the Supreme Court...
Quote"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.
For me i am keeping on eye on the dealership closings and could they be politically motivated? Some of which has been discussed here lightly...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/even-gop-congressman-loses-chrysler.html
That site is reporting Big Dem Donor group keeps all 6 of their dealerships, competition from non-donors was wiped out.
I certainly hope our government isn't politically targeting private citizens based on whether they donated to him or not and then deciding if they keep their dealership. Right now there doesn't appear to be any known strategy to why 5 star dealerships are getting shuttered and less profitable ones are staying open. You would think if they wanted to get Chrysler off the ground again it would keep the most profitable dealerships but that doesn't appear to be happening which is why people are looking at other explanations to why this is happening. It is certainly an interesting if not scary angle.
The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures look to be heavy GOP donors.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html
Ton of links and dealerships that get the axe and stay open.
Quote from: MikeC on May 27, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
A major factor to look at is Sotomayor's 60% overturn rate when he decisions reach the higher court.
I think she runs counter to everything stated in the oath of the Supreme Court...
Quote"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html)
QuoteThere are two fairly obvious problems with this. Firstly, only five of Sotomayor's opinions have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. That's hardly enough to reach a statistically sound conclusion. Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don't begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five. If you came into the office on a Monday morning, and I asked you whether you'd gotten out over the weekend, you probably wouldn't say: "Yes, I got out 66.67% of the time!" -- you'd just tell me that you went out on Friday and Saturday and then sat around and watched basketball on Sunday.
QuoteBut secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times' criteria. According to MediaMatters.org, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.
But you're right. She will almost certainly be unable to uphold her Supreme Court oath as well as that studmuffin Alito, who was totally not awesome (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/index1.html) at your completely arbitrary measure of not having his opinions overturned.
QuoteSamuel Alito once wrote that employees who allege sex discrimination ought to have a tougher time proving their claims. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Alito once argued that Congress hadn't granted state workers the family-leave benefits that are mandated for other employees. The high court rejected his thinking again.
And Alito, now President Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, once embraced a standard that would make it harder to punish water polluters. But the Supreme Court didn't go along.
But I should give you more credit. Surely you were raising holy hell about that judicial activist Samuel Alito back when he was nominated.
Quote from: MikeC on May 27, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures of the small minority of dealerships that are owned by persons who have in the past contributed to political causes look to be heavy GOP donors.
Edited for the ginormous fucking distinction. Like 100 fold.
Edit: Fine. Maybe 80 fold.
Edit2: 20 fold. I'll go with 20 fold. Or maybe 50.
Edit3: By the way, thanks for using spellcheck yesterday, MikeC.
Quote from: ChuckD on May 27, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 27, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures of the small minority of dealerships that are owned by persons who have in the past contributed to political causes look to be heavy GOP donors.
Edited for the ginormous fucking distinction. Like 100 fold.
Edit: Fine. Maybe 80 fold.
Edit2: 20 fold. I'll go with 20 fold. Or maybe 50.
Edit3: By the way, thanks for using spellcheck yesterday, MikeC.
Why doesn't Desipio offer a "run-on sentence" check?
Quote from: MikeC on May 27, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.
I'm pretty sure you originally thought Harriet Miers was a helluva pick.
Quote from: morpheus on May 27, 2009, 08:05:12 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 26, 2009, 03:10:54 PM
SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html
To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.
I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.
What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?
Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity. Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story
Quote...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.
On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.
Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."
You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no." No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said."
I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise. Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?
It is when the judges reviewing the mindfuck that is and was this case don't want to think about their judgment. However, if I recall correctly, the first opinion of the Circuit Court had a very lengthy paean to the diligence of the district judge.
The oral argument is beautiful to listen to. Everyone is aiming at convincing Kennedy. Wonderful. Also, so many questions from the Justices that by the end of the argument, you'd think they didn't know what the fuck they were originally talking about.
PROVOCATIVE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court)
QuoteIn 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.
First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.
Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)
Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).
Quote from: RV on May 29, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court)
QuoteIn 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.
First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.
Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)
Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).
The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past. It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.
Quote from: morpheus on May 29, 2009, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: RV on May 29, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court)
QuoteIn 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.
First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.
Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)
Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).
The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past. It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.
I'll tell you where you can put your conservative yardstick...
Quote from: Tank on May 29, 2009, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 29, 2009, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: RV on May 29, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court)
QuoteIn 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.
First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.
Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)
Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).
The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past. It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.
I'll tell you where you can put your conservative yardstick...
Tank-mandated yardstick placement? What's next, you collectivist pig, price controls on bootstraps?
Quote from: Fork on May 27, 2009, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: MikeC on May 27, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.
I'm pretty sure you originally thought Harriet Miers was a helluva pick.
This is pathetic. "Not so glowing track record"? That radical right wing line is simply nonsense. She has written over 300 hundred decisions. I don't know how many of those sought a hearing in the Supreme Court, but the Supremes have only taken 5 of her cases, and they upheld her in 2 of those. That means she has apparently been right, 99% of the time. By the way, that is a far better average than Alito. So if she is a lightweight in the eyes of this fringe group, what does that make Alito?
So very ill...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
Quote from: Tank on May 30, 2009, 12:19:41 AM
So very ill...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
That's Morph's ringtone.
Unless my lizard brain is completely misunderstanding this post, we can lay the DEALER CLOSING CONSPIRACY! stuff to rest in the Vince Foster Mausoleum.
QuoteAfter all, there is no positive relationship whatsoever in the data on Democratic, Republican, Obama or McCain donations -- which until Singer's analysis was posted approximately 10 hours ago -- had been the focus of the dealergate hypothesis.
QuotePredictably, this has not prevented people like Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross from claiming that Singer's data confirms their hypothesis. Of course, it does not confirm their original hypothesis, which was that donors to Republican candidates were more likely to have their dealership closed. Instead, a new hypothesis has evolved -- it's all about those dirty, rotten Clintons! -- the sole reed of evidence for which is Singer's overstated conclusion (but not really her underlying data itself).
QuoteWhenever you see a Magically Mystery Hypothesis like this one -- one which constantly transforms itself to fit the (lack of) available evidence -- you should be skpetical.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html)
Quote from: RV on May 31, 2009, 05:38:38 PM
Unless my lizard brain is completely misunderstanding this post, we can lay the DEALER CLOSING CONSPIRACY! stuff to rest in the Vince Foster Mausoleum.
QuoteAfter all, there is no positive relationship whatsoever in the data on Democratic, Republican, Obama or McCain donations -- which until Singer's analysis was posted approximately 10 hours ago -- had been the focus of the dealergate hypothesis.
QuotePredictably, this has not prevented people like Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross from claiming that Singer's data confirms their hypothesis. Of course, it does not confirm their original hypothesis, which was that donors to Republican candidates were more likely to have their dealership closed. Instead, a new hypothesis has evolved -- it's all about those dirty, rotten Clintons! -- the sole reed of evidence for which is Singer's overstated conclusion (but not really her underlying data itself).
QuoteWhenever you see a Magically Mystery Hypothesis like this one -- one which constantly transforms itself to fit the (lack of) available evidence -- you should be skpetical.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html)
QuoteThe way this data is being used is almost the same. Singer ran six sets of regression analysis: one each for Obama, McCain, Clinton, Democratic and Republican donors, and another for those dealers who had made no political contributions at all. She was therefore testing six hypotheses. If these hypothesis were independent from one another (which, to be clear, in this case they aren't), the odds that at least one of the six would return a p-value of .125 or lower are better than 50:50! Not only are false positives possible -- they are practically inevitable, particularly if you test enough hypotheses and tolerate a low enough threshold for statistical significance.
First, keep this, this, and more this in mind.
I don't have anywhere near the background of Silver, but I wouldn't be as quick to disregard the Clinton connection. No, it doesn't meet the .05 threshold, but it's definitely intriguing. Even more so given this:
Quote from: Zero HedgeSteven Rattner, the Car Czar, is married to Maureen White, one-time national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. What does Maureen do now? From her website:
Maureen White is currently Chairman of the Board of Overseers of The International Rescue Committee (IRC), a member of the North American Advisory Board for the London School of Economics, and a National Finance Chair of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. (emphasis ours)
My take is that
political motives and conspiracies are certainly ruled out--that's not going to surprise anyone save for a few mouthbreathing proponents of Ron Paulitics. Obama's dick is still dangling out of my mouth. But there's still a reasonable argument to be made for further investigation in to any possible
personal motives of Rattner. There's no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since nobody has been able to look over/replicate Zero Hedge's findings. However, if the numbers check out, I see no reason to not proceed with an objective inquiry. It's unlikely to happen as it it'll be Malkin and Ross leading the charge and asking for Obama's head, but I can dream.
Shocking.
Who would have guessed that a conspiracy theory that failed from the start to show even a modest anecdotal correlation to support it would turn out to be nothing more than wishful-thinking bullshit.
Simply shocking.
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 09:51:22 AM
This is a pointless exercise until someone looks at the other side of the ledger. Are the dealerships of Obama donors being kept open while those owned by donors to Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin are being shut down?
Apparently the answer is a resounding "no," though I'd still like to see the p-value of donors to Feingold and Durbin.
Someone's getting railroaded here! And I won't rest until I decide who it is.
In the "No Shit, Sherlock" department (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.speech/index.html)...
Quote from: Fork on June 02, 2009, 07:50:58 AM
In the "No Shit, Sherlock" department (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.speech/index.html)...
(http://i43.tinypic.com/33l00zm.jpg)
Helen Thomas threatened to pour that glass of ice water down his throat if he didn't give up the goods.
Verifying a voter's identity and citizenship at the time of registration? Racist.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/06/02/immigration0602.html
QuoteMatt Carrothers, a spokesman for Handel [the Georgia Secretary of State], said he could not respond to King's [the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division] contention that minorities were more likely to be flagged because the department would not reveal its methodology.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/asmussen/
I know it's hard to believe that a Soetoro dong chugger like myself might disagree with a lot of what Obama's done (continuation of the Bush state secrets policy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/obama-justice-department-continues-bushs-state-secrets-argumentagain.html), the 'preventitive detention' proposal (http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=313882), suppression of detainee photos (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301751.html), no movement yet on Don't Ask Don't Tell (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/politics/main5049944.shtml), his hilarious! dismissal of pot legalization (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/obama-addresses.html), that whole 'let's move forward' thing (http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2009/05/torture-versus-freedom.html), to name a few) he deserves credit for this (http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/obama-and-resolving-israeli-palestinian.html):
QuoteObama has already ruffled the feathers of Israeli hawks by forthrightly asking for an end to the building of new settlements, and a freeze on the growth of existing ones. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is insisting that "natural growth" must be allowed in the existing settlements, but this stance is widely considered a ruse intended to allow for settlement expansion through relocating people, not just having babies. Obama is not falling for it, and continues to argue for a settlement freeze.
This enables the right wing of the American Jewish population (all 14 of them) to say "I told you so". They warned the rest of us that Obama was going to be "bad for the Jews". However, I am in the camp of those who said that the unconfined settlement expansion was bad for Israel, and that its long term security depended upon contained, defensible borders and a stable Palestine state that had no settlers living among them to continuously stir the pot.
Quote from: CBStew on June 03, 2009, 03:38:12 PM
This enables the right wing of the American Jewish population (all 14 of them) to say "I told you so". They warned the rest of us that Obama was going to be "bad for the Jews". However, I am in the camp of those who said that the unconfined settlement expansion was bad for Israel, and that its long term security depended upon contained, defensible borders and a stable Palestine state that had no settlers living among them to continuously stir the pot.
How long have you been an anti-Semite, Stew?
Abe Foxman's gonna have your head on a platter.
A reverse dutch auction? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/04bach.html?_r=1) I think a double dutch rudder might realize more Medicare savings.
QuoteWe agree to treat Medicare patients for a set rate, and Medicare agrees to take all of us on board, whether or not our services are needed in the city or town where we practice. As a result, doctors — in particular, specialists — flock to some parts of the country and shun others. The trouble with this is that when there are too many doctors in one area, too much money gets spent on health care.
QuoteThe White House budget director, Peter Orszag, has highlighted regional variations as a key source of overspending on health care. Such wasteful spending by Medicare and by private insurance could add up to as much as $700 billion a year — enough to provide insurance for everyone who doesn't have it now.
To realize some of these savings, Medicare could use an approach called a reverse Dutch auction to set up competition for doctors in oversupplied regions.
Quote from: fiveouts on May 26, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 26, 2009, 09:24:22 AM
Another good one:
Quote"All of the legal defense funds out there-- they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."
Source: https://childedlaw.org/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor (43-minute mark)
As politically incorrect as that statement might be to say out loud, it is pretty much 100% correct. The court of appeals rules on the legality of thousands of cases every year (as opposed to the less than 100 usually seen by the Supreme Court), thereby essentially either codifying, clarifying or destroying thousands of laws in the process. The laws of this country are almost exclusively under the control of the court of appeals.
The only real response to this quote should be "no shit."
Somewhat relatedly... What a fucking clueless asshole (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html).
(Fair warning: internets inside baseball ahead.)
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
I finally read this whole article.
It's worth your time.
The upshot seems to be a suggestion by Gawande that lower costs and better patient care are not in fact diametrically opposed, but rather go hand in hand, regardless of who's ultimately footing the bill.
Another deadly terrorist (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7778310&page=1) returns to the battlefield (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/05/times-editors-note-gitmo/):
QuoteIn an exclusive interview with ABC News, Boumediene said the interrogators at Gitmo never once asked him about this alleged plot, which he denied playing any part it.
"I'm a normal man," said Boumediene, who at the time of his arrest worked for the Red Crescent, providing help to orphans and others in need. "I'm not a terrorist."
QuoteHe was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies. He called the charges false and ludicrous.
"They search my car, my office, nothing. Cell phone, nothing. Nothing. Nothing," he said.
The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed. But under pressure from the Bush administration, the Bosnian government handed him over to the U.S. military.
QuoteBoumediene said he understands, to a degree, how the attacks of Sept. 11 prompted strong reactions from the U.S. government.
"The first month, okay, no problem, the building, the 11 of September, the people, they are scared, but not 7 years. They can know whose innocent, who's not innocent, who's terrorist, who's not terrorist," he said.
"I give you 2 years, no problem, but not 7 years."
Well i am just glad we passed the stimulus package so unemployment would top off at 8% and not hit 9.4%......oh wait....
(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009/05/stimulus-vs-unemployment-april.gif)
Well I'm glad if you're glad, big guy.
Fascinating stuff from MSNBC:
Obama: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don't have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.
Olbermann: And it went up higher since you've been the senator and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.
Obama: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.
-------------
I made a few mistakes in the transcription. Where it says "senator" read "governor." Where it says "Olbermann" read "Hannity." Where it says "MSNBC" read "Fox." And where it says "Obama" read "Palin."
Nice to see Sarah is the Redistributor-in-Chief of her socialist state.
Quote from: MikeC on June 08, 2009, 09:35:39 PM
Well i am just glad we passed the stimulus package so unemployment would top off at 8% and not hit 9.4%......oh wait....
(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2009/05/stimulus-vs-unemployment-april.gif)
I ain't gonna pay a dime in income taxes this year thanks to that dude.. Actually, the government's going to pay me. This is a good year. I just wish I could tell my company to stop withholding from my checks.
Quote from: MikeC on June 08, 2009, 09:35:39 PM
Well i am just glad we passed the stimulus package so unemployment would top off at 8% and not hit 9.4%......oh wait....
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
...oh, wait...
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 09, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
Fascinating stuff from MSNBC:
Obama: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don't have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.
Olbermann: And it went up higher since you've been the senator and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.
Obama: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.
-------------
I made a few mistakes in the transcription. Where it says "senator" read "governor." Where it says "Olbermann" read "Hannity." Where it says "MSNBC" read "Fox." And where it says "Obama" read "Palin."
Nice to see Sarah is the Redistributor-in-Chief of her socialist state.
I could not care less about Sarah Palin.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 09, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
Fascinating stuff from MSNBC:
Obama: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don't have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.
Olbermann: And it went up higher since you've been the senator and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.
Obama: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.
-------------
I made a few mistakes in the transcription. Where it says "senator" read "governor." Where it says "Olbermann" read "Hannity." Where it says "MSNBC" read "Fox." And where it says "Obama" read "Palin."
Nice to see Sarah is the Redistributor-in-Chief of her socialist state.
I could not care less about Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is effective as in indicator only...if she gets the nomination in 2012, it means either the GOP has thrown in the towel, or they haven't learned a damn thing.
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 09, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
Fascinating stuff from MSNBC:
Obama: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don't have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.
Olbermann: And it went up higher since you've been the senator and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.
Obama: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.
-------------
I made a few mistakes in the transcription. Where it says "senator" read "governor." Where it says "Olbermann" read "Hannity." Where it says "MSNBC" read "Fox." And where it says "Obama" read "Palin."
Nice to see Sarah is the Redistributor-in-Chief of her socialist state.
I could not care less about Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is effective as in indicator only...if she gets the nomination in 2012, it means either the GOP has thrown in the towel, or they haven't learned a damn thing.
Let her get it in 2012 and lose. I want a clean slate for the GOP in 2016 when my guy JON HUNTSMAN wins the White House.
PS - Have I said too much about my man-crush on Hunstman, which, by the way, he's totally cool with?
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Perhaps he came to copy Fork's words, then ran off to Malkin's blog and pasted them into a search engine.
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Posting in the Rock Band thread. That is SO me.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 03:49:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Posting in the Rock Band thread. That is SO me.
NHERD!!
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Having message board problems on my end.
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
Having message board problems on my end.
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
All the journalists are new?
I don't think that means what you thought it meant.
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it ever occur to you that your graph illustrates just how fucked up the previous Administration left the country, that even more drastic measures need to be taken to try and reverse the damage?
I saw your post, then saw MikeC was online. I became hopeful that maybe he'd reply to your post, so I did a quick check of how he responded:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rr5gex.jpg)
Perfect.
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
Obama's been in office for just under 5 months, but the economic mess is obviously his fault.
Would I also be correct in assuming that when Bush was in office for just under 8 months, 9/11 was Clinton's fault?
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
Obama's been in office for just under 5 months, but the economic mess is obviously his fault.
Would I also be correct in assuming that when Bush was in office for just under 8 months, 9/11 was Clinton's fault?
While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
Obama's been in office for just under 5 months, but the economic mess is obviously his fault.
Would I also be correct in assuming that when Bush was in office for just under 8 months, 9/11 was Clinton's fault?
While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
All of this.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
All presidents get away with statements like that all the time from a timid press.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
Furthermore, with banks lending fewer dollars, companies are going to need to retain profits to replace the lost lent capital with retained earnings. This means that profits will not be spent on new employees until a new equilibrium between debt and equity is reached on company balance sheets.
Don't expect hiring to improve for at least another 12 months.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 09, 2009, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
I did see the post and was about to comment but it wouldn't let me as for the statement....
I don't know how much longer Obama can keep blaming Bush for everything, which is where you clearly got your comment from. I heard the drivel coming out of the White House about how their prediction was thrown off by uncovering even worse economic conditions "inherited from Bush."
You know what wasn't inherited? Those bitter pissed off journalists who would go as far as to invent news out of thin air to discredit Bush but let Obama continue to talk about "saved or created" x amount of jobs. Man, could you imagine if the Bush Administration was peddling the "saved" jobs line? .
Maybe Obama will accept responsibility for something in 3 years? 4? 8? I don't know, but blaming everything that doesn't go Obama's way on Bush is already growing old to the American pubic. Obama's worst problem is himself right now, he made a bunch of promises on the economy and they are not panning out. He also made a bunch of promises all over the political spectrum that he isn't keeping. How many times did he go on prime time television to say we need to pass the stimulus now to avoid all these horrific scenarios? It sure wasn't Bush, it was Obama and his promises are ringing pretty hollow now.
Obama's been in office for just under 5 months, but the economic mess is obviously his fault.
Would I also be correct in assuming that when Bush was in office for just under 8 months, 9/11 was Clinton's fault?
While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
But the bottom line that our friend with the awesome avatar fails to grasp is that the economy, or anything else involving politics, doesn't start or stop on a dime.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 09, 2009, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
While the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
All presidents get away with statements like that all the time from a timid press.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
Furthermore, with banks lending fewer dollars, companies are going to need to retain profits to replace the lost lent capital with retained earnings. This means that profits will not be spent on new employees until a new equilibrium between debt and equity is reached on company balance sheets.
Don't expect hiring to improve for at least another 12 months.
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
When discussing future government spending, one must remember three words and three words only: Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare. Discretionary spending is nothing compared to entitlements.
On a side note, I have a terrible feeling that a VAT is coming.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
No, no, I feel ya... Not the greatest comparison in hindsight. I just worry that political expediency takes precedence over long-term economic planning (with BOTH parties)... I hope you enjoyed your dinner.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security THE SOCIAL SECURIZI SCHEME, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
Poke-sticked.
Quote from: morpheus on June 09, 2009, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security THE SOCIAL SECURIZI SCHEME, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
Poke-sticked.
Haha. You're going to ruin his dinner, ya jerk.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
When discussing future government spending, one must remember three words and three words only: Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare. Discretionary spending is nothing compared to entitlements.
Medicare, indeed.
Health care spending is out of control in this country.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
When discussing future government spending, one must remember three words and three words only: Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare. Discretionary spending is nothing compared to entitlements.
Medicare, indeed.
Health care spending is out of control in this country.
Speaking of Medicare...this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html) is good, right?
QuotePresident Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law.
QuoteA previous PAYGO mandate helped erase federal budget deficits in the 1990s, and subsequent ineffective rules contributed to the current budget deficits, Obama said. Now the PAYGO rules should be the law, he said.
But isn't this a rather large exception? Was it excepted under previous PAYGO rules?
QuoteSome costs would be exempt, including Medicare payments to doctors, the estate and gift tax, and tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2002, the White House statement said.
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 09:03:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 09, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
Bingo bongo. Companies are trying to get back investors at this point. It's still a cost cutting game at this point to show something in the black, see how long you can run the ship on a skeleton crew and then when you anticipate a true increase in demand, starting bringing in new bodies.
Things will improve over the course of the next 4-6... years. Of course, we'll know the true effects of all the stimulus packages then... and I am increasingly worried about inflation right now. It is a very real problem, and much like the mess of social security, it will one day come calling. I would be interested to see how we are going to confront that one. Has the Obama team touched on how they plan to deal with this yet?
If, like the mess of Social Security, inflation takes 35-70 years to "come calling" (if it ever does)...
You know what? Nevermind. I gotta go get dinner.
When discussing future government spending, one must remember three words and three words only: Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare. Discretionary spending is nothing compared to entitlements.
Medicare, indeed.
Health care spending is out of control in this country.
Speaking of Medicare...this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html) is good, right?
QuotePresident Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law.
QuoteA previous PAYGO mandate helped erase federal budget deficits in the 1990s, and subsequent ineffective rules contributed to the current budget deficits, Obama said. Now the PAYGO rules should be the law, he said.
But isn't this a rather large exception? Was it excepted under previous PAYGO rules?
QuoteSome costs would be exempt, including Medicare payments to doctors, the estate and gift tax, and tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2002, the White House statement said.
It's a huge exception and one that any proposed PAYGO law must have because of mandatory spending increases, i.e. Medicare.
DPD, but more evidence of the MEXICOS taking over.
Que MissVal: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/walmart_supermercado_061009
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 11:02:39 AM
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
I'll be watching this one closely, as there could be a precedent set for my lawsuit arguing that the snozberries do
not indeed taste like, nor have they ever tasted like, snozberries. Lionel told me my case is a winner, or my pizza's free!
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 11:28:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 11:02:39 AM
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
I'll be watching this one closely, as there could be a precedent set for my lawsuit arguing that the snozberries do not indeed taste like, nor have they ever tasted like, snozberries. Lionel told me my case is a winner, or my pizza's free!
His false-advertising suit against the producers of "The Never Ending Story" should be reviewed by every law student.
Quote from: CT III on June 10, 2009, 11:35:50 AM
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 11:28:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 11:02:39 AM
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
I'll be watching this one closely, as there could be a precedent set for my lawsuit arguing that the snozberries do not indeed taste like, nor have they ever tasted like, snozberries. Lionel told me my case is a winner, or my pizza's free!
His false-advertising suit against the producers of "The Never Ending Story" should be reviewed by every law student.
Contingent fees
.? No
, money down.
Quote from: thehawk on June 10, 2009, 11:37:26 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 10, 2009, 11:35:50 AM
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 11:28:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 11:02:39 AM
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
I'll be watching this one closely, as there could be a precedent set for my lawsuit arguing that the snozberries do not indeed taste like, nor have they ever tasted like, snozberries. Lionel told me my case is a winner, or my pizza's free!
His false-advertising suit against the producers of "The Never Ending Story" should be reviewed by every law student.
Contingent fees.? No, money down.
That cut scene is printed and pasted on my office door. Amazing.
Quote from: thehawk on June 10, 2009, 11:37:26 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 10, 2009, 11:35:50 AM
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 11:28:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 11:02:39 AM
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/06/reasonable-consumer-would-know-crunchberries-are-not-real-judge-rules.html
QuoteAccording to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word "berries" in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product's namesake, Cap'n Crunch, aggressively "thrusting a spoonful of 'Crunchberries' at the prospective buyer." Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a "combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries." Yet in actuality, the product contained "no berries of any kind." Plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and our notorious and ever-popular California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Awesome.
I'll be watching this one closely, as there could be a precedent set for my lawsuit arguing that the snozberries do not indeed taste like, nor have they ever tasted like, snozberries. Lionel told me my case is a winner, or my pizza's free!
His false-advertising suit against the producers of "The Never Ending Story" should be reviewed by every law student.
Contingent fees.? Works on contingency? No, money down!
Oops, it shouldn't have this Bar Association logo here, either'd
The judge has been a little unhappy since I accidentally ran over his dog. Except replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly" and replace "dog" with the word "son".
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.
The fake label I started for Urban Thoreau is looking to expand into producing other fictional artists. What sort of music will your band not play?
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.
The fake label I started for Urban Thoreau is looking to expand into producing other fictional artists. What sort of music will your band not play?
did you get my fake demo for Gluteus Maximus and the Mammary Glands?
Quote from: Fork on June 10, 2009, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.
The fake label I started for Urban Thoreau is looking to expand into producing other fictional artists. What sort of music will your band not play?
did you get my fake demo for Gluteus Maximus and the Mammary Glands?
No.
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2009, 01:15:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 10, 2009, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 11:01:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
You should ask ChuckD about the time he saw MikeC using the spellchecker.
Many brains knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Shoutbox that day, I can tell you.
Well, as we all know, spell check isn't always perfect.
Quote from: MikeC on June 09, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
... already growing old to the American pubic.
When I finally get around to starting my fake band, "American Pubic" is going to be the name of our first fake album.
The fake label I started for Urban Thoreau is looking to expand into producing other fictional artists. What sort of music will your band not play?
did you get my fake demo for Gluteus Maximus and the Mammary Glands?
No.
I wasn't asking you, fake roadie.
QuoteWhile the unemployment rate bumped up 0.2%, the nonfarm payrolls only lost about 300K last month ,better than expected. There are signs that at least the economy's descent is slowing, although MikeC does have a grain of truth in there - I think his criticism of the "saved or created" language is exactly right. How in the world the press corps continues to let that statement be made without any challenge at all escapes me. How does one know how many jobs were "saved"? Versus what baseline?
If you're going to try to judge the effects of Obamanomics it's too soon. Labor markets tend to lag the general economy, so I'd expect to see the unemployment rate turn well after the economy has turned. It makes sense intuitively - companies don't hire until they have noticeably higher demand for their products. In my opinion it is still too soon to judge what effects the stimulus package may have. In either direction. Let's see how it plays out.
Its true that major parts of the stimulus bill don't kick in in 2009. Thats the point I am trying to make with Obama's lies to the American public. All these prime time spots and his administration saying we need the stimulus now so x, y, z don't happen in 2009. How this stimulus money has already saved 150,000 jobs, how he is gonna "create or save" 2 million jobs in the next 2 years. He is just telling you what you want to hear.
So he knows full well spending isn't going to really kick in till 2010 and that means all his graphs and speeches were pure bullshit because unemployment was going to go up in 2009 regardless if a stimulus bill was passed or not.
Just this week he promised this....
QuotePresident Barack Obama is announcing Monday that he is ramping up stimulus spending exponentially in the next three months, allowing the administration to "save or create" 600,000 jobs — four times as many as during the first 100 days since he signed the bill.
The spending plans include national parks, summer youth jobs, veterans' medical centers, police and teachers.
Obama will make the announcement during a late-morning Cabinet meeting, when Vice President Joe Biden will present a Roadmap to Recovery, which the White House calls "an administration-wide effort to accelerate implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in its second 100 days."
"As a result of this accelerated pace of activity, over 600,000 jobs are expected to be created or saved by the Recovery
Act in the second 100 days," compared with roughly 150,000 in the first 100 days, the White House said.
600,000 "saved or created" new jobs! Woooohooo, has anyone figured out how you calculate a saved job yet? Has the press even bothered to ask? Do they even care?
I like this passage from an article...
Quote"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."
Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.
...
"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.
Quote from: MikeC on June 10, 2009, 01:41:54 PM
I like this passage from an article...
Most people also like sources. Call me crazy.
What a fake band bonerslayer that was.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 01:45:18 PM
What a fake band bonerslayer that was.
Just when I was finally having some fake fun again.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 10, 2009, 01:45:18 PM
What a fake band bonerslayer that was.
That's a great name for an all-chick band.
MikeC's sources:
Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html
The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html
Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point. Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009. These points are pretty clear.
I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."
It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem. It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.
And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011570ed8474970b-800wi)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2009, 02:01:28 PM
It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem. It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.
And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)
As asinine as the tax cuts were in 2001 (a "projected" surplus is still unrealized. Besides, we had a shitload of debt), the notion of making them permanent while at war is the economic equivalent of eating paste.
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
MikeC's sources:
Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html
The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html
Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point. Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009. These points are pretty clear.
I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."
FWIW, Jake Tapper has been questioning the administration on this. I wouldn't say it's gone unchallenged.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html)
Quote from: RV on June 10, 2009, 02:14:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
MikeC's sources:
Obama's promises : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html
The article that he likes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html
Anyway, for what it's worth, I agree - this whole "saved or created" metric is pure bullshit, and I cannot fathom how it's gone unchallenged by the press to this point. Also, the stimulus was originally supposed to be targeted and temporary (the language I recall being used) and instead most of it didn't even get going until after 2009. These points are pretty clear.
I was going to go ahead and source those quotes for MikeC... but now I think that I need to plug my own new band, "Fake Roadie."
FWIW, Jake Tapper has been questioning the administration on this. I wouldn't say it's gone unchallenged.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-qs-for-os-wh-682009.html)
I was really trying to go back to fake band names. But, since you insist.
QuoteTAPPER: A couple questions. One, last week, I assume you were -- you weren't here in your D.C. quarters, but...
GIBBS: I think I saw you in France.
TAPPER: Yes. It was lovely. The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics testified before Congress, and he was asked about the 450,000 claim. Can you substantiate...
GIBBS: The 450...?
TAPPER (correcting self): ...150,000 job claim. And he was asked if he could substantiate the claim. And he called -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner said, "No, that would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate." He was asked, again, "So you're saying you can't verify that the administration's policies have created an additional 150,000 jobs?" And he said, "No, we're busy just counting jobs. Is it fair for the administration to use a statistic like 150,000 jobs saved or created when the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not stand by the number?
GIBBS: I would point you to what -- what Jared talked about and the two reports that are on the Internet. I do think it's fair. And I haven't seen the report, having been overseas, but, yes, we continue to think it's fair.
TAPPER: OK. And the other question I had is, ABC interviewed Lakhdar Boumedinne, the former Guantanamo detainee...
Some challenge. "The government agency that counts jobs cannot possibly substantiate the claims you're making." "No, we think it's fair." "OK... let's move on." How was Gibbs able to withstand it?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2009, 02:01:28 PM
It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem. It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.
And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011570ed8474970b-800wi)
I'm upset at the percentage of government spending as a percentage of GDP. I was upset about it 15 years ago. I was upset about it 5 years ago. And I am furious about it now.
And Chuck, if I cut my prices on bus parts, I have no room to bitch about a salesman turning in a bullshit expense report or a vendor jacking prices up 25% or reneging on a contract?
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 02:38:34 PM
I'm upset at the percentage of government spending as a percentage of GDP. I was upset about it 15 years ago. I was upset about it 5 years ago. And I am furious about it now.
Good. I agree. Too bad a (small r)epublican form of government doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility.
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 02:38:34 PM
And Chuck, if I cut my prices on bus parts, I have no room to bitch about a salesman turning in a bullshit expense report or a vendor jacking prices up 25% or reneging on a contract?
No you don't, but the two issues may not correlate. You may be cutting prices because you have no choice. It's either that or go out of business. Or maybe it's that to force a competitor to close up shop. And the salesman is simply over his T&E budget by a few percent because the last salesman blew the T&E budget and left you with no sales.
Having just taken a course on economic impact modeling, I'll try to shed some light on how the numbers are produced.
The method used to estimate the jobs is based upon an Input-Output analysis of data that's collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. IO Analysis looks at how a marginal dollar spent by one company (output) is re-spent by its suppliers (input) within an economic area. So, if we give the hypothetical Chicago Obamadong Corp. a hypothetical dollar, they're going to spend it on molding equipment, latex, staples, etc--anything that's needed to implant dongs in the mouths of Obamanazis. Each of those suppliers then spends the fraction of the dollar they receive from Obamadong to purchase inputs from their suppliers. Por ejemplo, the staple manufacturer, also located in Chicago, takes the 20 cents or whatever they received from Obamadong and pays 10 cents to a metal refinery in PITTSBURGH for raw inputs. The 20 cents would be counted as regional economic activity, but the 10 cents would not--it's been "externalized" and is now creating economic activity in PITTSBURGH. The process repeats itself until the original dollar has been completely externalized. This is the main principle behind "buy local" campaigns or, at the national level, "buy American." More spending within the economy = less externalization = more economic growth.
Anyway, at the end of the process, the total of the times the original dollar is spent are summed to produce a "multiplier." So, Obamadong spends the original dollar, and by the time it has completely externalized, the original dollar has been spent 3.5 more times by Chicago-area entities in the company's supply chain. The multiplier would be 4.5, or 1+3.5. With the multiplier, you can determine the number of jobs impacted. Simply take the total employment of Obamadong (or the entire dong implantation industry sector) and divide it by the total economic output. The result is the number of jobs per dollar of output.
I won't go in to exactly how you create the model, but it's pretty widely accepted as a sound methodology. This guy (anti-Communist, FWIW) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Leontief) won a Nobel Prize in economics for discovering the matrix inversion that makes the thing run. Here's a full text available online if you really want to look in to the matter. (http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Schaffer/TOC.html) You can do it in Excel if you have the data, or there's software called IMPLAN (http://www.implan.com/) that automates much of the process.
The model works in two ways. You can stimulate the final demand (adding a positive value) for an industry and determine how much additional output would be produced by the economy as a whole. Or, you can contract the final demand (adding a negative value) and see how much would be lost.
Here is the shit you probably care about: If the market is allowed to contract, jobs will be lost. This can be predicted by estimating the contraction, plugging the values in to the model's final demand, summing the resulting lost output across all industries, and converting that in to jobs. This is the baseline prediction; it's what will happen without any intervention. For example, let's say that a 5% contraction in consumer spending is estimated to reduce jobs across all industries by 1 million.
Now, we want to predict the impact of the stimulus funds. The stimulus funds are plugged in to the model and they offset some of the contraction, but not completely. The model spits out some figures that show a 5% contraction in consumer spending coupled with the stimulus would result in a reduction in employment by 200,000. The difference between the two figures is 800,000. Some of those jobs are new because government spending cannot perfectly match the consumer spending patterns which would have occurred otherwise (nor would they want to). But other jobs are saved by the stimulus because the government spending does somewhat overlap with those spending patterns.
Some jobs are saved. Others are created. There's no way to calculate specifically the number of jobs saved or the number of jobs created. But be aware that there is a way of calculating the "number of jobs saved or created."
There are, however, problems with the approach.
For one, BEA data doesn't differentiate between full-time and part-time employment. Of these 150,000 jobs, 50,000 might be full-time, salaried jobs with benefits but the remainder might be part-time jobs at retail stores. Some better detail about the jobs and the associated impacts on employee compensation would be good to have.
The model is also only accurate in extrapolating the past economy forward through the future. That is to say, if a major retooling of the economy occurs, then all (a lot of) bets are off. As an example, if you were evaluating the impact of the newspaper industry, you would need to use data from 2005-7. However, it's commonly agreed that newspapers are entering a world of pain. Adjustments would need to be done or else the economic activity produced by the industry will be overvalued.
They're probably also being extremely generous with attributing "new jobs" when, in reality, these jobs would stay around regardless of whether the stimulus occurred. For instance, if the demand for trucking is currently maxed out, then the new demands on the sector by the stimulus money isn't going to create as many new jobs. Some jobs will be created, yes, but more likely is that it's simply going to shift capacity from other uses and raise the market clearing price for trucking services.
I will say that I take issue with the use of the "rule of thumb" where 1% of GDP is assumed to equal 1,000,000 jobs. It seems like lazy work when BEA/BLS have information regarding input/output and employment at extremely detailed levels of analysis. That's all I'll say about it. Back to your regular programming.
In short, they're plugging this stuff into an econometric model and reporting the results as fact?
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
In short, they're plugging this stuff into an econometric model and reporting the results as fact estimated impacts?
Yes.
One more point...
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/919/barrefaelibikini1a02n.jpg)
Quote from: ChuckD on June 10, 2009, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 10, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
In short, they're plugging this stuff into an econometric model and reporting the results as fact estimated impacts?
Yes.
One more point...
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/919/barrefaelibikini1a02n.jpg)
I'm told Bar's totally back on the market...
Intrepid Reader: Kurt : I prefer the one on the right.
Deficit analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp) from the old pink lady:
QuoteThe story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
QuoteThe first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing.
QuoteAbout 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush.
QuoteMr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
QuoteAbout 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
QuoteAlan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”
“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”
Edited to add the methodology used for those who are interested:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/how-we-crunched-the-deficit-numbers/?ref=economy (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/how-we-crunched-the-deficit-numbers/?ref=economy)
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Deficit analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp) from the old pink lady:
QuoteThe story of today's deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush's policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
QuoteThe first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing.
QuoteAbout 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush.
QuoteMr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
QuoteAbout 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
QuoteAlan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: "Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he's not fixing it."
"And," he added, "not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse."
Edited to add the methodology used for those who are interested:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/how-we-crunched-the-deficit-numbers/?ref=economy (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/how-we-crunched-the-deficit-numbers/?ref=economy)
Now (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/what-caused-the-budget-deficit.php), with a pie chart!
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/deficit.jpg)
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue
producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
I also found this interesting:
QuoteIf the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don't cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.
Any economist who says that cap-and-trade (which I what I believe the writer is referring to, but he's being vague)
won't be a drag on the economy and cost the government tax revenues,
ceteris paribus, is crazy, dumb, or lying. There's no way in hell that consumption won't be reduced, because the higher prices resulting from cap-and-trade will simply be passed on to the consumer. Higher consumer energy prices -> Lower discretionary personal spending -> lower consumption -> lower GDP -> lower incomes -> lower tax revenues (and also higher unemployment, as final aggregate demand is reduced).
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
I also found this interesting:
QuoteIf the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don't cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.
Any economist who says that cap-and-trade (which I what I believe the writer is referring to, but he's being vague) won't be a drag on the economy and cost the government tax revenues, ceteris paribus, is crazy, dumb, or lying. There's no way in hell that consumption won't be reduced, because the higher prices resulting from cap-and-trade will simply be passed on to the consumer. Higher consumer energy prices -> Lower discretionary personal spending -> lower consumption -> lower GDP -> lower incomes -> lower tax revenues (and also higher unemployment, as final aggregate demand is reduced).
The long-term effect is the INCENTIVE to come up with sources of energy that emit less carbon, thus being more cost-efficient. Better for the environment, and for the ledger.
The AMA does not approve of the Obama plan for health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
QuoteWASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors' group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America's largest physician organization.
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:08:45 AM
The AMA does not approve of the Obama plan for health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
QuoteWASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors' group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America's largest physician organization.
In other news, Germany surrendered in 1945.
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
I also found this interesting:
QuoteIf the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don't cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.
Any economist who says that cap-and-trade (which I what I believe the writer is referring to, but he's being vague) won't be a drag on the economy and cost the government tax revenues, ceteris paribus, is crazy, dumb, or lying. There's no way in hell that consumption won't be reduced, because the higher prices resulting from cap-and-trade will simply be passed on to the consumer. Higher consumer energy prices -> Lower discretionary personal spending -> lower consumption -> lower GDP -> lower incomes -> lower tax revenues (and also higher unemployment, as final aggregate demand is reduced).
The long-term effect is the INCENTIVE to come up with sources of energy that emit less carbon, thus being more cost-efficient. Better for the environment, and for the ledger.
1) it's a great INCENTIVE... but does that INCENTIVE not exist now? Whoever ends up being the inventor of the Mr. Fusion power supply for Doc Brown's DeLorean is going to make crazy stupid money.
2) You're getting away from my point anyway. The point is that cap-and-trade is going to hose the economy under any model you choose, unless you decide to include a prediction that there will be a structural break such as the invention of the Mr. Fusion. We cannot assume such a break, so therefore we have to analyze the economy under the current set of state variables. Again: higher energy costs will hurt the consumer. Hurt consumers spend less. Consumption is something like 3/4 of GDP, so lower consumption leads to GDP contraction, which leads to job losses... and so on. A notable effect of all this is a smaller tax base. That was my point. Cap and trade leads to tax revenue loss, so saying that it does not cost the government anything is disingenuous.
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:18:50 AM
The long-term effect is the INCENTIVE to come up with sources of energy that emit less carbon, thus being more cost-efficient. Better for the environment, and for the ledger.
1) it's a great INCENTIVE... but does that INCENTIVE not exist now? Whoever ends up being the inventor of the Mr. Fusion power supply for Doc Brown's DeLorean is going to make crazy stupid money.
2) You're getting away from my point anyway.
The point is that cap-and-trade is going to hose the economy under any model you choose, unless you decide to include a prediction that there will be a structural break such as the invention of the Mr. Fusion. We cannot assume such a break, so therefore we have to analyze the economy under the current set of state variables. Again: higher energy costs will hurt the consumer. Hurt consumers spend less. Consumption is something like 3/4 of GDP, so lower consumption leads to GDP contraction, which leads to job losses... and so on. A notable effect of all this is a smaller tax base. That was my point. Cap and trade leads to tax revenue loss, so saying that it does not cost the government anything is disingenuous.
[/quote]
It's fucked anyway. Perfect time for implementing new strategies and policies.
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
Two things:
- The 1/3 isn't just the tax cuts - it also includes the prescription drug benefit (and other Bush legislation).
- On dynamic scoring (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882137/posts):
QuoteIn Washington, the debate became a bureaucratic battle focusing on the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the two agencies responsible for advising Congress on the costs of budget and tax changes. By convention, both use "static" scorekeeping that assumes budget and tax changes have no effect on overall economic growth. Supply-side proponents have criticized both agencies relentlessly for this, but to no avail -- until last week.
Enter Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist on leave from Syracuse University and an avowed advocate of supply-side "dynamic" scoring. A few months ago, Republican congressional leaders plucked him out of a job at the White House and made him director of the CBO. Last week, in his agency's analysis of President Bush's tax and budget plan, he provided his new bosses with their first taste of dynamic scoring.
QuoteAnd in no case does Mr. Bush's tax cut come close to paying for itself over the next 10 years.
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
Two things:
- The 1/3 isn't just the tax cuts - it also includes the prescription drug benefit (and other Bush legislation).
- On dynamic scoring (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882137/posts):
QuoteIn Washington, the debate became a bureaucratic battle focusing on the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the two agencies responsible for advising Congress on the costs of budget and tax changes. By convention, both use "static" scorekeeping that assumes budget and tax changes have no effect on overall economic growth. Supply-side proponents have criticized both agencies relentlessly for this, but to no avail -- until last week.
Enter Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist on leave from Syracuse University and an avowed advocate of supply-side "dynamic" scoring. A few months ago, Republican congressional leaders plucked him out of a job at the White House and made him director of the CBO. Last week, in his agency's analysis of President Bush's tax and budget plan, he provided his new bosses with their first taste of dynamic scoring.
QuoteAnd in no case does Mr. Bush's tax cut come close to paying for itself over the next 10 years.
I'm sure glad I said above that I wasn't going to argue that the tax cuts paid for themselves. Otherwise you might have wasted your time by trying to counter such an argument.
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
On another topic, some fairly comprehensive coverage of the Iranian presidential election vis a vis the West...
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/10/all_quiet_on_the_western_front
The candidates...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4989
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 10:40:58 AM
On another topic, some fairly comprehensive coverage of the Iranian presidential election vis a vis the West...
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/10/all_quiet_on_the_western_front
The candidates...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4989
QuoteDespite dramatic images this week of the largest campaign demonstrations taking place in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, including a human chain of as many as a million supporters for former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leading opposition candidate, the Obama administration has remained largely silent.
That's almost "Hussein." Conicidence? I think not.
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 09:23:20 AM
Economics shit
I assume they used a static scoring model... and I'd be interested to see the same figures dynamically scored. I.e., the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 changed how people behaved. We've been over this, so I'm not going to argue that they were net revenue producers but I will argue that the true effect is not 1/3 of the swing. We don't know what the economy would have done in absence of those tax cuts - we don't have the counterfactual.
Two things:
- The 1/3 isn't just the tax cuts - it also includes the prescription drug benefit (and other Bush legislation).
- On dynamic scoring (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882137/posts):
QuoteIn Washington, the debate became a bureaucratic battle focusing on the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the two agencies responsible for advising Congress on the costs of budget and tax changes. By convention, both use "static" scorekeeping that assumes budget and tax changes have no effect on overall economic growth. Supply-side proponents have criticized both agencies relentlessly for this, but to no avail -- until last week.
Enter Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist on leave from Syracuse University and an avowed advocate of supply-side "dynamic" scoring. A few months ago, Republican congressional leaders plucked him out of a job at the White House and made him director of the CBO. Last week, in his agency's analysis of President Bush's tax and budget plan, he provided his new bosses with their first taste of dynamic scoring.
QuoteAnd in no case does Mr. Bush's tax cut come close to paying for itself over the next 10 years.
I'm sure glad I said above that I wasn't going to argue that the tax cuts paid for themselves. Otherwise you might have wasted your time by trying to counter such an argument.
Fair point. Your argument was about the effect on the economy, not on government revenues. This is probably a more relevant quote from the article:
QuoteThe results: Some provisions of the president's plan would speed up the economy; others would slow it down. Using some models, the plan would reduce the budget deficit from what it otherwise would have been; using others, it would widen the deficit.
But in every case, the effects are relatively small.
Getting back to the deficits, I think my overall point is that if we consider the CBO report (using dynamic scoring) predicted that the effect on the economy wouldn't be significant in either direction (positive or negative), taken
along with the fact that we had a war to pay for, wasn't
this particular set of tax cuts pretty irresponsible?
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
What about cuts?
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
The Laffer Curve is bullshit at all put extremely high or low marginal tax rates. Many economists, including the one who taught my Labor Econ course correctly point out that minor changes in marginal rates may actually have multiplicative effects on revenues. At full or near full employment, the only way to get more income tax revenue is to get non-workers to begin working. Where is the biggest pool of non-job seeking adults? Married women. Lowering tax rates may actually disincent them to work as their spouse's take home pay increases under a tax cut. If you raise the marginal tax rates, you could not only get mroe revenue from current workers, but get new workers to being working to make up the shortfall in lost spousal income.
The Laffer Curve works at the +90% margins and the -10% margins. Not much else.
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
This.
Also, the CBO scored the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period.A net loser overall.
Would a carbon tax simply be better?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
This.
Also, the CBO scored the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
A net loser overall.
Would a carbon tax simply be better?
Am I reading this correctly? It would cost roughly $35 billion (net) over 10 years to go a good way towards a better environment? What is that...like 3 months of the Iraq war?
Let's stop invading other countries, and we're golden!
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
This fucking this.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 11, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
The Laffer Curve is bullshit at all put extremely high or low marginal tax rates. Many economists, including the one who taught my Labor Econ course correctly point out that minor changes in marginal rates may actually have multiplicative effects on revenues. At full or near full employment, the only way to get more income tax revenue is to get non-workers to begin working. Where is the biggest pool of non-job seeking adults? Married women. Lowering tax rates may actually disincent them to work as their spouse's take home pay increases under a tax cut. If you raise the marginal tax rates, you could not only get mroe revenue from current workers, but get new workers to being working to make up the shortfall in lost spousal income.
The Laffer Curve works at the +90% margins and the -10% margins. Not much else.
Or the other way to get more income tax revenue is to get people and companies to boost their earnings. Say I make more next year than my wife and I combined make this year and she elects to quit her job? Our income goes up. Say that I am willing work later more than I was at the smaller salary, and I produce more value for the company? Earnings go up, possibly more people need to be hired. At full employment, maybe it means overtime.
At a certain point, why bust my ass for another $1 when the government is going to take $0.37/$0.39/$0.40/$0.75 away? Hell, my wife's working her ass off too. I'm just going to go home, watch the Cubs fail to hit Wandy Rodriguez and go to bed.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
This.
Also, the CBO scored the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
A net loser overall.
Would a carbon tax simply be better?
Yes. But I think this (http://plumer.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#7054986747353485298) accurately describes why it won't happen.
QuoteAs far as policies to reduce greenhouse emissions go, most economists would argue that a straight-up carbon tax would work more effectively than a cap-and-trade regime, like the one Europe's struggling with. But politicians usually avoid even talking about carbon taxes—all of the big climate bills in the Senate involve cap-and-trade—for fear of being branded a puppy-hating socialist and all that.
Cap and trade is far from the best solution, but probably the best that can be done in the current political climate.
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 11, 2009, 10:37:59 AM
Bottom line is, the Laffer Curve is bullshit.
No, Fork. You just have to know where you are on the curve, making it difficult to actually apply. At some point raising tax rates is counterproductive, and at other points it raises government revenues by much less than you'd expect in a linear world. That's all.
This fucking this.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 11, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
The Laffer Curve is bullshit at all put extremely high or low marginal tax rates. Many economists, including the one who taught my Labor Econ course correctly point out that minor changes in marginal rates may actually have multiplicative effects on revenues. At full or near full employment, the only way to get more income tax revenue is to get non-workers to begin working. Where is the biggest pool of non-job seeking adults? Married women. Lowering tax rates may actually disincent them to work as their spouse's take home pay increases under a tax cut. If you raise the marginal tax rates, you could not only get mroe revenue from current workers, but get new workers to being working to make up the shortfall in lost spousal income.
The Laffer Curve works at the +90% margins and the -10% margins. Not much else.
Or the other way to get more income tax revenue is to get people and companies to boost their earnings. Say I make more next year than my wife and I combined make this year and she elects to quit her job? Our income goes up. Say that I am willing work later more than I was at the smaller salary, and I produce more value for the company? Earnings go up, possibly more people need to be hired. At full employment, maybe it means overtime.
At a certain point, why bust my ass for another $1 when the government is going to take $0.37/$0.39/$0.40/$0.75 away? Hell, my wife's working her ass off too. I'm just going to go home, watch the Cubs fail to hit Wandy Rodriguez and go to bed.
Or not. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/29/1111862390380.html)
QuoteA pay increase or a tax cut makes extra work both more attractive and less necessary. It is impossible to tell on the basis of theory whether a tax cut would increase the number of hours people put in at work or cut them. Or do nothing much at all if the two effects more or less cancelled each other out.
QuoteSo in 1994 four American economists decided to investigate the group of workers they thought most free to respond positively to a hike in their hourly rates of pay.
New York taxi drivers are free to vary the number of hours they work each day up to a maximum of 12 hours a shift. After paying a fixed fee for use of the cab, they keep every fare they earn. And their hourly rate of pay varies from day to day. On good days, when business is brisk, their hourly rate of pay is quite high. On bad days it can be appallingly low.
QuoteA Caltech University economist, Colin Camerer, and his team examined more than 1000 taxi company documents providing data on the daily pay rates and hours of work of about 500 drivers. What they found appeared to defy common sense.
Typically on those days when business was good, New York taxi drivers knocked off the earliest. On those days when their hourly pay was at its lowest, they worked the longest. It's the opposite response to that assumed by the Centre for Independent Studies. Camerer concluded that taxi drivers were "target earners" who kept driving each day until they made a certain amount of money.
QuoteAfter surveying studies on all types of work Farber concludes that the response of men to an increase in pay is usually "very small and not significantly different from zero".
Intriguingly, he finds that for women, particularly married women considering returning to work, the response to a pay hike or a tax cut is a good deal larger.
Chuck is right? My whole worldview is shattered.
I sort of come from the school that if you're not motivated by money, great! Be happy, and live your life, and work as long as you'd like to. If you are motivated by money, great! Work for it as hard as you can, be happy and work the long hours if you'd like to.
Time and a half is pretty standard for overtime. That's fair. At the very least, paying someone the same rate they've been being paid to work extra is fair. A progressive tax system makes extra income pay less for each marginal dollar worked. OK, I can live with the progressive tax, but as the rate increases, my marginal pay drops at various intervals. Again, you're talking about people who are already making enough money to be taxed in the first place, people who are making enough money to be taxed in a higher bracket. These people's incomes generally speaking come from taking risks, so if you're increasing a cost (taxes), your EBITDA might look good, but the bottom line might not support the risk/grief you're taking on.
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 11:38:37 AM
RV's "STUDIES"
All that study shows is that either the less experienced taxi drivers didn't understand their INCENTIVE structure, or that they gained more utility by targeting an income level rather than maximizing profit. It would be impossible to generalize these findings to much of anything, especially when considering which income bracket they came from; the marginal gain from an extra unit of work, given the shape of the "average" indifference curve, just wasn't that much. As TJ noted, this changes quite a bit when you move up the income spectrum - an extra unit of work can mean a lot more in marginal gain.
Quote(Interestingly, he found that not all drivers behaved that way. The more experienced drivers did tend to work longer hours on those days when business was good, as assumed by the centre, but the effect was small and overwhelmed by the behaviour of the less experienced drivers.)
Quote from: Oleg on June 11, 2009, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:08:45 AM
The AMA does not approve of the Obama plan for health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
QuoteWASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors' group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America's largest physician organization.
In other news, Germany surrendered in 1945.
Not that AMA opposition to reform is anything new (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16962482), but they've "clarified" their position:
QuoteToday's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/hardball_on_health_care.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/hardball_on_health_care.html)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2009, 02:01:28 PM
It's not Obama's "lies" that are the problem. It's the lack of introspection from the "loyal Bushies" taht leads to them being ignored.
And, if you are upset about the debt now (ME!) you better have been upset about the tax cuts in 2001 (ME!)
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011570ed8474970b-800wi)
I wouldn't classify myself as upset about the deficits Bush ran up, but i certainly didn't like it. However there is debate on whether Clinton even had budget surpluses when his administration was still adding billions to the national debt. Clinton claimed the national debt was reduced by 360 billion his last 3 years when instead there was a 281 billion increase in those same 3 years to the national debt.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/855368/the-clinton-budget-surplus-fact-or-fiction-
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
To be honest that was before the time i even cared about politics or understood what side of the political spectrum i most identified with. Hell i wanted Al Gore to beat Bush. I would like Morpheus opinion (if he would )if it's one of those examples of "fuzzy math."
Anyways i am just gonna roll on like Clinton had his surplus and Bush didn't. I Didn't like the idea of cutting taxes, i like the idea of keeping the taxes the same and doing what we could to bring down the debt. Two factors that i believe hindered Bush early on was the recession from the Dot.Com bubble bursting and the events of 9/11. So no matter what the economy is taking 2 massive blows and i think that fundamentally changed how he envisioned government.
The other aspect of the deficit spending was Bush is going to be extremely generous to the military. The Clinton years saw a dramatic decrease in military spending from research and development, sea lift capacity, and just plain not buying the military much needed upgrades in weapons systems and parts. So a big part of Clinton's budget surplus is coming on the back of stripping the military by denying them funding. Bush was going to increase defense spending anyways during his years but dramatically began doing that after 9/11. I don't even want to get into the debate of whether we should be in Iraq or not. What did happen after 9/11 is that we needed to act and do it quickly to buy time. What were we buying time for? To get our military up to speed. Clinton gutted the armed forces and our nation needed time to get our equipment ready for deployment, and get our military sea lift capacity back in order which was also damaged. The sea lift capacity was especially dire as it prevented us from projecting our home based divisions over seas.
So i can see why he is running a deficit and what he believed could get the economy back on track. We can argue till we are blue in the face on whether the tax cuts improved the economy or not or whether the market corrected itself. He dealt with a recession, he dealt with 9/11, he dealt with Katrina, he liberated 2 countries that have a real chance at freedom and he ran what was then i think record deficits. I can live with the reasons why he ran a deficit. So besides a recession that Obama has bean dealt explains his projected budget deficits through 2019? Is he gonna liberate Iran and North Korea? Is there another Katrina on the horizon? Is any American City going to suffer a 9/11 type attack? His budget plans don't factor in any unforeseen catastrophes or disasters. Imagine what the federal budget would look like if Obama suffered anything like what happened during the Bush years. No i don't agree with the Bush deficit spending, but i do agree with some of the actions that needed to be taken that made him rack up that kind of spending. I am having a real hard time seeing how Obama can justify his.
(http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg)
MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D. NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended. However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.
And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down. It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.
Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements. It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D. NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended. However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.
Yes, this. Very much so, this. Conservatives should (and many do) have a major problem with these bills.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down. It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.
I agree, but Bush's original plan was to do more with less. That was Rumsfeld's charge when he came in to be SecDef in 2001. The execution sucked. However, I think Gates might actually be up to the task of bringing military costs under control.
Quote
Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements. It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president.
That is the problem with entitlements. You can't get rid of them once they're there. Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it. No one dare touch Medicare. We all saw what happened when Bush vetoed an expansion of SCHIP.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements. It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president.
By "entitlements" I assume you're talking first and foremost about Medicare.
Maybe Obama should think about trying to reign in out-of-control health care spending.
Someone should write that down and stuff it in the White House "Idea Box."
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
MikeC, you also have to consider the impact of Bush's other big ticket items, such as NCLB and Medicare Part D. NCLB is one thing, as it can, and probably will, be amended. However, Part D added another costly entitlement onto an already costly entitlement.
And yes, the DoD's budget should be pared down. It is the largest share of discretionary spending and has was too many money holes.
Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements. It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president.
Gil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.
As for the question about the national debt, it's easy to look that up. According to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds statements, total liabilities of the Federal Government went from $4.546T in Q4 1997 to $4.232T in Q4 2000, or about a $330B decrease. On the other hand, the Office of Management and Budget says that Gross Federal Debt went from $5.369T in 1997 to $5.628T in 2000. That breaks down into debt held by the "public" ($3.772T to $3.409T) and "held by Federal Government Accounts" ($1.597T to $2.219T). There's where the difference is likely coming from - debt
held by the public went down by some $300B but debt
held by the Federal Government went up by some $500B. Now, what part of the Federal Government is holding Federal debt?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/histint.html
QuoteGross Federal debt is composed both of Federal debt held (owned) by the public and Federal debt held by Federal Government accounts, which is mostly held by trust funds. Federal debt held by the public consists of all Federal debt held outside the Federal Government accounts. For example, it includes debt held by individuals, private banks and insurance companies, the Federal Reserve Banks, and foreign central banks. The sale (or repayment) of Federal debt to the public is the principal means of financing a Federal budget deficit (or disposing of a Federal budget surplus).
Yep, Social Security and Medicare. In other words, this is indeed a case of "fuzzy math" - it all depends on whether or not you include SS and Medicare as part of total Federal debt or not.
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.
And rightly so.
Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?
Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.
It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 03:28:21 PM
Finally, you may debate the merits of Obama's Keynesian spending, but I think you'd get much farther if you attacked him for the paucity of action on entitlements. It is simply unacceptable that he would be quiet on this issue, especially when you consider that this country cannot afford (literally) to continue kicking the can to the next president.
By "entitlements" I assume you're talking first and foremost about Medicare.
Maybe Obama should think about trying to reign in out-of-control health care spending.
Someone should write that down and stuff it in the White House "Idea Box."
Of course. I applaud him for trying to reform the system, but I would like to see some wholesale changes, such as the elimination of Part D.
I would like to see this Idea Box, as well.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.
And rightly so.
Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?
Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.
It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.
OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 03:50:59 PMGil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.
morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much
as the rest of the world combined on our military:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SYg1Py3KfRI/AAAAAAAABn4/FGXCf9Hg5AU/s400/defense.png)
Or that defense spending accounts for around
40% of the federal budget:
(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)
But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?
If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 04:10:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 03:50:59 PMGil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.
morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SYg1Py3KfRI/AAAAAAAABn4/FGXCf9Hg5AU/s400/defense.png)
Or that defense spending accounts for around 40% of the federal budget:
(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)
But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?
If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.
What % of the Federal budget is the correct one for Defense? Just curious. I desire a smaller and less intrusive government, but defense is an area where the government provides a comparative advantage, as opposed to, say, agriculture.
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.
And rightly so.
Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?
Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.
It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.
OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?
What if you double down and lose
everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society
let you?
More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?
Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any
practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?
No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.
Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.
It is not, fundamentally, an
investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).
Moreover, it's not just a safety net for
individuals.
It's
social insurance that insures both individuals
and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.
And rightly so.
Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?
Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.
It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.
OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?
What if you double down and lose everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society let you?
More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?
Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?
No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.
Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.
It is not, fundamentally, an investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).
Moreover, it's not just a safety net for individuals.
It's social insurance that insures both individuals and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.
Under the scenario that you laid out, Thrill, I think this country would then be the functional equivalent of a third-world country. Huge portions of the country without resources, or food, or medicine.
SS was also an attempt to increase employment. During the Depression, there were incredible numbers of elderly who were without the means to obtain the basic needs of daily living. These people sought employment in whatever fields they could, and in doing so, crowded out others from similarly obtaining employment. SS removed those people from the labor pool and made finding employment somewhat easier for others.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 11, 2009, 05:13:35 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 04:04:53 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2009, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 03:40:48 PM
Bush tried to shift Social Security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, and was skewered for it.
And rightly so.
Had he succeed, can you even imagine the Sturm und Drang that would have ensued in the wake of the recession's transformation of those defined contributions into much much less benefits?
Social Security is not a wealth generator. It's a safety net.
It's there as a hedge against risk in case everything else goes south. This is not a role defined contributions are fit to serve on a massive public scale.
OK, so will you let me take my hedge and double it down? Or maybe you can allow me to invest it as I see fit, and either live or die by the sword but at least be a free man able to make a foolish decision? SS still promises me monthly payments when I get old, right?
What if you double down and lose everything (savings, investments, property) due to some unforeseen tragedy? Would you really die by that sword? Would we as a society let you?
More to the point: what if broad swathes of the public do the same and find their safety nets evaporate at exactly the wrong time (be it retirement, disability or a loved one's untimely death) because they had everything pegged it to the ups and downs of the business cycle?
Say, for sake of this scenario, we see a new Great Depression (the original Depression being the context from which SS was birthed) that leaves millions indigent. Do you really expect, in any practical sense, our nation to say, "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"?
No. If these people were to become a burden on their families and the communities around them, society would wind up paying the price (both monetarily and socially) in any event. Either because that's just the right thing to do or because it would be politically untenable to do otherwise.
Social Security allows to to ameliorate some of that.
It is not, fundamentally, an investment. It's a safety net that provides for a risk floor (and, actually, a fairly low one at that).
Moreover, it's not just a safety net for individuals.
It's social insurance that insures both individuals and the society that would be forced to deal with them in any event against a certain amount of catastrophic risk, through a broad and all-inclusive risk pool, and defined benefits that are not completely handcuffed to the business cycle.
Under the scenario that you laid out, Thrill, I think this country would then be the functional equivalent of a third-world country. Huge portions of the country without resources, or food, or medicine.
SS was also an attempt to increase employment. During the Depression, there were incredible numbers of elderly who were without the means to obtain the basic needs of daily living. These people sought employment in whatever fields they could, and in doing so, crowded out others from similarly obtaining employment. SS removed those people from the labor pool and made finding employment somewhat easier for others.
But, waiiiit.... Who says you have to (or even should) invest in Enron shares? What if you have low risk tolerance so simply elect to invest in Treasuries? Would you not have as good (if not better) return than old fashioned SS?
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 04:10:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 03:50:59 PMGil makes good points here, although I'd argue that if there was an area that the Federal Government should be spending money in, it would be DoD.
morph, this isn't directed at you, but I absolutely cannot fathom how the desire for smaller government/less spending can be reconciled with a polite dismissal of the fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SYg1Py3KfRI/AAAAAAAABn4/FGXCf9Hg5AU/s400/defense.png)
Or that defense spending accounts for around 40% of the federal budget:
(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)
But meh, I'm sure there's no fat to be trimmed there. Let's focus on 60% of the budget and ignore 40% of it. We've got a Cold War to win, right?
If there's a true third rail in politics, it's defense spending. No one from either party wants to address this element of the deficit.
I can deal with Defense being 50% of the budget, even... if some cuts come from useless areas... And by useless, I mean Welfare and Health Care... Low rate of return things. The right things
Paul Vallas will not be riding to the rescue of you Strogerites in 2010.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article)
Quote from: CT III on June 11, 2009, 10:06:49 PM
Paul Vallas will not be riding to the rescue of you Strogerites in 2010.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1618674,paul-vallas-election-chicago-061109.article)
And to think that this very morning I had gotten my hopes up that he would eschew the County Board presidency for the mayor's seat.
Quote from: RV on June 11, 2009, 02:36:52 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 11, 2009, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 11, 2009, 10:08:45 AM
The AMA does not approve of the Obama plan for health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
QuoteWASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors' group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America's largest physician organization.
In other news, Germany surrendered in 1945.
Not that AMA opposition to reform is anything new (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16962482), but they've "clarified" their position:
QuoteToday's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/hardball_on_health_care.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/hardball_on_health_care.html)
Adding: (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/11/ama-drug-lobby-publicoption/)
QuoteCurrently, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the nation's largest pharmaceutical lobbying group, is pursuing a multimillion dollar campaign against many aspects of health reform. A public insurance plan might pay less for branded drugs, or would opt for generics in many cases, so drug companies want to maintain the status quo. But if this is the concern, why is AMA stepping up to the plate for the drug lobby?
AMA derives at least a fifth of its budget from drug companies through an arrangement known as "licensure." The program consists of AMA selling drug companies its "Masterfile" of doctor profiles, spanning everything from detailed biographic information to an individual doctor's prescription-writing history. The program is extremely controversial since drug companies in turn use the information to aggressively market their products to doctors. Controversial drugs Vioxx and Avandia, which have subsequently been found to pose significant risks to patients, have been marketed to doctors, in some cases, using information obtained from the AMA.
Next week's MikeC copy–paste outrage today!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-fires-controversial-inspector-general-.html
QuoteWith little public notice, President Obama Thursday fired the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin.
Saying he was "exercising my power as president," Mr. Obama suspended Walpin with pay, saying his termination would be "effective 30 days from now."
The president wrote that "it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector general."
The decision was announced, such as it was, in letters the president wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden in his role as president of the Senate.
White House counsel Greg Craig, responding to a letter of concern about Walpin's termination from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that the "Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin's conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency."
Craig said that the White House was "aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president's decision was carefully considered." He noted that Walpin's termination "is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican)."
Exactly what conduct issues necessitated review was unclear; the White House and the office of the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California would not comment.
A source familiar with the president's thinking told ABC News that "Mr. Walpin's overall conduct in a variety of circumstances -- well beyond the scope of the Assistant U.S. Attorney's referral -- led the president to conclude that Mr. Walpin should be replaced by someone who could effectively provide the kind of independent oversight that the president values."
Walpin had been criticized for the way he handled an investigation into Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the president's.
...
Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.
Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, "the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer."
"No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance," Grassley wrote in a letter to the president.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general
QuoteIn August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.
"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.
Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.
In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.
Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/06/flagrant-foul.html
QuoteWhatever the merits of the administration's decision to terminate Gerald Walpin, we feel strongly that the President should fully inform Congress of the justification for such decisions, in accordance with the IG Reform Act, so as to protect the independence of IGs. As we noted in our first report on the IG system, Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence, "an IG who lacks independence is unlikely to be effective." Even the appearance of political favoritism can cast a shadow on the independence of the IG community.
Continued...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americorps_ig_who_clashed_with_ally.php
Quote- In April 2008, federal agents (meaning Walpin's IG office, it seems, though the reporting is unclear) began investigating the use of federal grant money by the St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit then run by Johnson.
- The following month, local law enforcement announced that no criminal case could be made against Johnson, but the federal probe continued.
...
- In September, the federal probe was turned over to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento.
- Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
- Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
- The Bee would later find that, since its inception in 1994, the NCSC had suspended only two other organizations and three other people, and that the irregularities at St. HOPE were similar to those found at other nonprofits that were not suspended.
...
- On November 4, Johnson won the mayor's race 57-42 over Fargo.
- Two days later, US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges. Scott said he had asked Walpin's office to go back and conduct a line-by-line audit to help determine whether civil charges should be filed, implying that Walpin's probe had been insufficiently detailed.
...
- In April, the US Attorney's office announced a settlement with Johnson, which would involve Johnson, St. HOPE, and the other official repaying over $400,000 in grants it received, and would allow him to again receive federal money.
- That same month, the new acting US attorney, Lawrence Brown wrote a letter to a federal oversight body for inspectors general, asking it to review Walpin's work on the St. HOPE investigation. According to the AP, Brown wrote: "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent."
- Then in May, Walpin submitted a "Special Report to Congress" that called the settlement "a farce" and declared that claiming it was in the government's interest "is an attempt to pull the wool over the public's eyes."
...
So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing. (That's especially true given that it could have affected the outcome of a closely fought election -- which is exactly why the FBI has specific policies forbidding public comments about ongoing investigations during political campaign season.) Then, even once the relevant authorities had determined that no crime had been committed and agreed on an appropriate remedy, Walpin worked to undermine that agreement by appealing to Congress.
The White House should probably offer some more specific details about its reasons for firing Walpin, beyond simply referring to Brown's letter -- a spokesman didn't respond to our request for comment. That's especially true given that Walpin had been skirmishing with an Obama ally, raising the specter of a politicized firing. But on its face, it seems like Obama may have had ample reason for making the decision he did.
Back to the Iranian Presidential election...
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/12/iran_elections_update
QuoteLeading Iranian opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi was due to give a press conference at 10am Tehran time (8 1/2 hours ahead of EST), a Washington-based Iran hand tells The Cable. Two hours earlier, final vote counts (according to state counters) are expected to be announced.
"If [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei comes and endorses the results prior to 10am, then a Mousavi protest will be more than a confrontation, but war," the Iran hand says.
Meantime, an international human rights group says that it has received unconfirmed reports that Mousavi may have been taken into custody by Iranian intelligence officials.
"We were told by very reliable sources that Mousavi was detained on his way to meet the Supreme Leader by members of the intelligence ministry and taken to a safe house to prevent him from making any public announcement," Hadi Ghaemi, of the Hague-based NGO, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, told The Cable.
(A source who just spoke to someone who went to the Mousavi headquarters said the person disputed that Mousavi was detained. The situation is not clear.)
Ghaemi said that the Tehran campaign headquarters of Mousavi and another opposition presidential candidate Mehdi Karoubi have been surrounded by intelligence services.
"Security and armed forces have completely taken control of the situation and Karrubi and Mousavi both have been intimidated to accept defeat," Ghaemi wrote. "Both their HQs been seized and shut. Khamanei has summoned Karrubi and told him 'to shut up.' Similarly Mousavi has been forced to accept defeat."
"Based on this information, the claim is that using armed presence and use of force the coup is completed. Ahmadinejad's supporters are reportedly already in the streets of Tehran and celebrating their 'victory.' Mousavi and Karrubi and their supporters are so intimidated they don't dare to make any public challenges. I am told none of their top staff would do an interview. A very sad day for Iranian people...."
"Moussavi's official website, www.ghalamnews.ir, reported that when his supporters gathered around his headquarters to celebrate what they believed was his victory based on reports of his representatives at polling stations, police forces confronted them using pepper spray and violently dispersed them. Moussavi's headquarters have been since shut, similar to Karroubi's headquarters," the human rights group said in a press release.
Ghaemi said opposition forces believe there was massive fraud in the vote count but cannot figure out or yet prove where it occurred, perhaps in the computer system pre-planned in advance. He said that they are frightened.
Iran hands have used words like "coup" to describe what they believe may be taking place.
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2009/06/electionfraud/
QuotePartial Vote Count Declaring Ahmadinejad Win Amidst Allegations of Widespread Fraud "Gross violation of the right to a free and fair election"
(13 June 2009) [As of 7 am Tehran time] After a disputed election, the offices of two reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi were seized and locked by intelligence and security forces. As the Interior Ministry is declaring Ahmadinejad as the victor, the security apparatus loyal to him have taken to the streets in an overwhelming show of force.
According to unconfirmed reports, Mir Hossein Moussavi may have been detained by intelligence agents as he traveled to the Supreme Leader's residence to meet with him.
By all indications, the government of Ahmadinejad, which is in charge of conducting the elections and counting votes, is using a combination of intimidation and military might to prevent any challenges to announced results of the election.
"It appears that a coup has taken place in Iran overnight to force the results on other parties. These elections cannot be considered fair by any measure under such circumstances," said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
Moussavi's official website, www.ghalamnews.ir, reported that when his supporters gathered around his headquarters to celebrate what they believed was his victory based on reports of his representatives at polling stations, police forces confronted them using pepper spray and violently dispersed them. Moussavi's headquarters have been since shut, similar to Karroubi's headquarters.
At 11 PM Tehran time, Moussavi told a press conference, "I am the absolute winner of the election by a very wide margin. It is our duty to defend people's votes. There is no turning back."
However, since then the situation seems to have drastically shifted in favor of Ahmadinejad, with continuous announcements of his wide margin of victory. According to reports from Tehran, heavy armed agents, many in plainclothes, have taken control of major intersections.
As of this writing, crowds of Ahmadinejad's supporters are reportedly already celebrating his victory in the streets.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran expressed its serious concerns about the vote counting process and the intimidation of candidates to accept results of government counts without any challenge. The Campaign is also seriously concerned about the safety of Moussavi and Karroubi and their top advisors, as well as the possibility of violence against any protestors who may publicly challenge the government.
"The Iranian people, throughout this entire election process, believed that through peaceful and legal means significant change could be achieved and they participated enthusiastically, but their right to a free and fair election has been grossly violated," Ghaemi said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
My work phone sits in a drawer, untouched and unseen. Sweet.
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Define "new"...
QuoteThe IRS move, which is spurring efforts by the wireless industry and others to kill the idea, would mark a stricter enforcement of an existing rule that classifies employer-provided cellphones as a taxable benefit, rather than a 24-hour-a-day work tool.
Under a 1989 law, workers who use company-provided mobile phones for personal calls are supposed to count the value of those calls as income and pay federal income taxes accordingly.
But businesses and workers have long ignored the requirement, prompting the IRS to consider steps the agency said would make it easier for businesses and workers to comply.
...
Over the past couple of years, the IRS has begun challenging employers over the accounting of workers' cellphone expenses during tax audits, said Mr. Carpenter, the trade-group spokesman.
The 1989 law requires that company-provided wireless services be included in a worker's gross income -- unless the employee keeps detailed records showing the device was used only for work.
Following one IRS audit, the University of California system owed additional payroll taxes because it couldn't substantiate that employees' cellphone use was solely work-related.
John Harper, the mayor of Rowlett, Texas, said his town wrestled with whether to declare as worker income a portion of the 100 cellphones provided to city employees, but decided it was too much work.
And, no... that doesn't mean it's not retarded.
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't where white?
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't wear white?
I swee that you swee what I did there.
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't wear white?
I swee that you swee what I did there.
Get a room, you two.
Quote from: MAD on June 15, 2009, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't wear white?
I swee that you swee what I did there.
Get a room, you two.
Why pick on me?
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on June 15, 2009, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't wear white?
I swee that you swee what I did there.
Get a room, you two.
Why pick on me?
Apparently sometimes Good Guys don't weat Tronsuits...
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 11:31:06 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on June 15, 2009, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 15, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 15, 2009, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 15, 2009, 08:31:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 15, 2009, 08:27:57 AM
http://dcinterns.blogspot.com/
Nonpartisan awesomeness.
Heh.
There is a disease which is probably spread by mosquitoes which are bred along the banks of the Potomac. I think that the disease causes everyone who works in DC, not merely in government, to believe that the rest of the world is the boondocks, and nothing important can possibly happen anywhere else.
Its probably waterborne, I've seen it infect residents around the Hudson and East Rivers as well.
Apparently it's also carried in the dirty water along the banks of the river Charles.
Sometimes good guys don't wear white?
I swee that you swee what I did there.
Get a room, you two.
Why pick on me?
Apparently sometimes Good Guys don't weat Tronsuits...
He's bugging you, based on your hair length.
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Quote from: Slak on June 16, 2009, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Ted Nugent?
Quote from: Slak on June 16, 2009, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Toby Keith.
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
Does the fact that ABC News is also a sponsor on Drudge constitute a bacon loop?
Seriously, this is a bit weird.
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
This is one network with the President. Did each network give the Democrats time when they devoted time to Bush?
If it were an address across every network, the complaint would be valid.
Besides, between Fox and MSNBC, I'm sure each agenda is being pushed to the fullest extent anyway.
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
You're not even trying any more, are you?
Unlike some others around here, when there are disagreements, the points can be debated reasonably and intelligently. Not just a regurgitation of other people's talking points.
Comar has become the Sox fan of politics. He's uniformed yet argumentative but unwilling to have a debate of ideas.
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
Unless you're reading BREAKING NEWS AROO AROO! on the Drudge Report.
Quote from: RV on June 16, 2009, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
Unless you're reading BREAKING NEWS AROO AROO! on the Drudge Report.
PANK hew fi-oh twuck?
Quote from: RV on June 16, 2009, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
Unless you're reading BREAKING NEWS AROO AROO! on the Drudge Report.
RV, you aren't making sense. I know you wanted to use your siren noise... but couldn't you have tied it to the topic somehow?
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: RV on June 16, 2009, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
Unless you're reading BREAKING NEWS AROO AROO! on the Drudge Report.
RV, you aren't making sense. I know you wanted to use your siren noise... but couldn't you have tied it to the topic somehow?
It just seems strange in my tiny lizard brain to use a Drudge story (that consists largely of a regurgitated angry memo from the RNC) as a jumping off point to complain about biased media coverage.
Quote from: morpheus on June 16, 2009, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 16, 2009, 09:15:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
You're not even trying any more, are you?
I would note that none of you addressed the substantive point. Whenever there's a State of the Union, for example, there's always a response from the oppposition party. Why not in this case?
That was his substantive point?
QuoteOn the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
So far I gather that ABC will be broadcasting from the White House, apparently with (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/white-house-to-host-primetime-televised-conversation-june-24.html)
an interview of the President and
a townhall-style Q&A.
OMG.
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED!!!!
(http://i42.tinypic.com/20uy6nk.jpg)
ABC = PRAVDA!!!!!!!!
Scarborough broadcasted from the White House in February. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/morning_joe_broadcasts_from_white_house_109296.asp)
Seriously, this is the best you've got? I'm disappointed.
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 09:11:17 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 16, 2009, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Toby Keith.
No way. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/toby-keith-praises-obama_n_119930.html)
Quote from: Oleg on June 16, 2009, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 09:11:17 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 16, 2009, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Toby Keith.
No way. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/toby-keith-praises-obama_n_119930.html)
Looks like the Obamafascists have gotten to
him, too!
Quote from: ChuckD on June 16, 2009, 09:55:44 AM
Scarborough broadcasted from the White House in February. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/morning_joe_broadcasts_from_white_house_109296.asp)
Seriously, this is the best you've got? I'm disappointed.
And, as tribute (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/marijuana-legalization-mo_n_215838.html) to ChuckD's post #420...
Quote from: Oleg on June 16, 2009, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 09:11:17 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 16, 2009, 09:04:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 16, 2009, 08:52:38 AM
Somehow after looking at Drudge's latest headliner i come to the thinking that this would never ever happen under George Bush.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
Media broadcasting from the Whitehouse to push a policy with no opposing views. What is this Cuba? Venezuela? Russia?
Damn that right leaning media is sure giving Obama a hard time. I wish they would just let Obama get his message out and stop getting in his way.
What kind of music do you listen to?
Toby Keith.
No way. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/19/toby-keith-praises-obama_n_119930.html)
Well, color me bamboozled, whatever color that is.
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 10:01:56 AM
Well, color me bamboozled, whatever color that is.
Intrepid Reader: TankBlack? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboozled)
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 10:02:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2009, 10:01:56 AM
Well, color me bamboozled, whatever color that is.
Intrepid Reader: Tank
Black? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboozled)
quit it wit the fucking posing lik eyou're super cool but really you're just stupoid and not smart.
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 11:51:07 PM
http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2009/06/electionfraud/
QuotePartial Vote Count Declaring Ahmadinejad Win Amidst Allegations of Widespread Fraud "Gross violation of the right to a free and fair election"
(13 June 2009) [As of 7 am Tehran time] After a disputed election, the offices of two reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi were seized and locked by intelligence and security forces. As the Interior Ministry is declaring Ahmadinejad as the victor, the security apparatus loyal to him have taken to the streets in an overwhelming show of force.
According to unconfirmed reports, Mir Hossein Moussavi may have been detained by intelligence agents as he traveled to the Supreme Leader's residence to meet with him.
By all indications, the government of Ahmadinejad, which is in charge of conducting the elections and counting votes, is using a combination of intimidation and military might to prevent any challenges to announced results of the election.
"It appears that a coup has taken place in Iran overnight to force the results on other parties. These elections cannot be considered fair by any measure under such circumstances," said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
Moussavi's official website, www.ghalamnews.ir, reported that when his supporters gathered around his headquarters to celebrate what they believed was his victory based on reports of his representatives at polling stations, police forces confronted them using pepper spray and violently dispersed them. Moussavi's headquarters have been since shut, similar to Karroubi's headquarters.
At 11 PM Tehran time, Moussavi told a press conference, "I am the absolute winner of the election by a very wide margin. It is our duty to defend people's votes. There is no turning back."
However, since then the situation seems to have drastically shifted in favor of Ahmadinejad, with continuous announcements of his wide margin of victory. According to reports from Tehran, heavy armed agents, many in plainclothes, have taken control of major intersections.
As of this writing, crowds of Ahmadinejad's supporters are reportedly already celebrating his victory in the streets.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran expressed its serious concerns about the vote counting process and the intimidation of candidates to accept results of government counts without any challenge. The Campaign is also seriously concerned about the safety of Moussavi and Karroubi and their top advisors, as well as the possibility of violence against any protestors who may publicly challenge the government.
"The Iranian people, throughout this entire election process, believed that through peaceful and legal means significant change could be achieved and they participated enthusiastically, but their right to a free and fair election has been grossly violated," Ghaemi said.
Some powerful still shots of the post election riots:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html)
Quote from: flannj on June 16, 2009, 12:46:52 PM
Some powerful still shots of the post election riots:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html)
Nice to see they've found things to burn other than American flags.
Intrepid Reader: Mike C
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-viral-obama-swats-fly-story,0,3687720.htmlstory
Those dickchugging bastards. Why is this news?
*But seriously, why are there over 900 news results for this?
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 12:45:27 AM
Intrepid Reader: Mike C
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-viral-obama-swats-fly-story,0,3687720.htmlstory
Those dickchugging bastards. Why is this news?
*But seriously, why are there over 900 news results for this?
I'd be more impressed if he'd gotten it with a pair of chopsticks...
(http://i39.tinypic.com/znamon.png)
That shit was
impossible.
It's time for your weekly ball-gargling update on how awesome Obama is doing. Or not.
Bad (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/17/transparency/index.html) on transparency.
Quote"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government" -- Barack Obama, January 28, 2009
QuotePresident Obama has embraced Bush administration justifications for denying public access to White House visitor logs even as advisers say they are reviewing the policy of keeping secret the official record of comings and goings.
Bad on "state secrets."
QuoteYesterday, the Justice Department [in a case brought against Bush officials for illegal spying] embraced the argument that the state secrets privilege . . . should shut down any litigation against the National Security Agency for its arguably illegal warrantless surveillance program.
QuotePresident Obama yesterday chose secrecy over disclosure, saying he will seek to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by U.S. authorities abroad.
Bad on DOMA. (http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html)
Quote"DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles." This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out. He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court.
At least this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-to-extend-benefits-to-samesex-partners-of-federal-employees.html) is good. But I can't help but think it's meant as a distraction from the incest
QuoteABC News has learned that tomorrow President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum extending benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:39:37 AM
It's time for your weekly ball-gargling update on how awesome Obama is doing. Or not.
Bad (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/17/transparency/index.html) on transparency.
Quote"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government" -- Barack Obama, January 28, 2009
QuotePresident Obama has embraced Bush administration justifications for denying public access to White House visitor logs even as advisers say they are reviewing the policy of keeping secret the official record of comings and goings.
Bad on "state secrets."
QuoteYesterday, the Justice Department [in a case brought against Bush officials for illegal spying] embraced the argument that the state secrets privilege . . . should shut down any litigation against the National Security Agency for its arguably illegal warrantless surveillance program.
QuotePresident Obama yesterday chose secrecy over disclosure, saying he will seek to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by U.S. authorities abroad.
Bad on DOMA. (http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html)
Quote"DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles." This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out. He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court.
At least this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-to-extend-benefits-to-samesex-partners-of-federal-employees.html) is good. But I can't help but think it's meant as a distraction from the incest
QuoteABC News has learned that tomorrow President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum extending benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.
Now that's change I can believe in!
New development in the Inspector General firing....he is senile!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/obama-playing-hardball-on-walpin-as-key-dem-calls-foul/
Ahhhh smell that corruption in the White House. Hope and Change, Hope and Change.
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Looks like those FUCKERS have dropped their plan to soak Billy Bootstrap for using his car phone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imuYW1tJf4rY4gLu0NzabcB9W9fgD98RVKF00). I'll remain vigilant for news of any other perfidious stealth taxes.
QuoteThe Obama administration asked Congress on Tuesday to repeal a widely ignored tax on the personal use of company cell phones after sparking an outcry last week when it sought ideas for enforcing the law.
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 12:45:27 AM
Intrepid Reader: Mike C
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-viral-obama-swats-fly-story,0,3687720.htmlstory
Those dickchugging bastards. Why is this news?
*But seriously, why are there over 900 news results for this?
I guess anyone who thinks Obama
wouldn't hurt a fly had better think again! LOL!
Quote from: MikeC on June 17, 2009, 08:48:31 AM
New development in the Inspector General firing....he is senile!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/obama-playing-hardball-on-walpin-as-key-dem-calls-foul/
Ahhhh smell that corruption in the White House. Hope and Change, Hope and Change.
He would have gotten AWAY with it if the letter hadn't been sent to Obama cock-chuggers Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Looks like those FUCKERS have dropped their plan to soak Billy Bootstrap for using his car phone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imuYW1tJf4rY4gLu0NzabcB9W9fgD98RVKF00). I'll remain vigilant for news of any other perfidious stealth taxes.
QuoteThe Obama administration asked Congress on Tuesday to repeal a widely ignored tax on the personal use of company cell phones after sparking an outcry last week when it sought ideas for enforcing the law.
Just watch inflation numbers over the next several months! Talk about a stealth tax! Wheeeeee!
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Looks like those FUCKERS have dropped their plan to soak Billy Bootstrap for using his car phone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imuYW1tJf4rY4gLu0NzabcB9W9fgD98RVKF00). I'll remain vigilant for news of any other perfidious stealth taxes.
QuoteThe Obama administration asked Congress on Tuesday to repeal a widely ignored tax on the personal use of company cell phones after sparking an outcry last week when it sought ideas for enforcing the law.
Just watch inflation numbers over the next several months! Talk about a stealth tax! Wheeeeee!
the minute the first BAILOUT was announced, you had to know we'd see hyperinflation.
FWIW, another perspective (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americorps_ig_who_clashed_with_ally.php#more) on the IG firing, pulled from Sacramento Bee articles on the story.
QuoteIn April 2008, federal agents (meaning Walpin's IG office, it seems, though the reporting is unclear) began investigating the use of federal grant money by the St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit then run by Johnson.
The following month, local law enforcement announced that no criminal case could be made against Johnson, but the federal probe continued.
In September, the federal probe was turned over to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento.
Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges. Scott said he had asked Walpin's office to go back and conduct a line-by-line audit to help determine whether civil charges should be filed, implying that Walpin's probe had been insufficiently detailed.
In April, the US Attorney's office announced a settlement with Johnson, which would involve Johnson, St. HOPE, and the other official repaying over $400,000 in grants it received, and would allow him to again receive federal money.
That same month, the new acting US attorney, Lawrence Brown wrote a letter to a federal oversight body for inspectors general, asking it to review Walpin's work on the St. HOPE investigation. According to the AP, Brown wrote: "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent."
So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 08:55:25 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 13, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
Fuckers. But remember, no new taxes on anyone making less than $250K. Or something.
Looks like those FUCKERS have dropped their plan to soak Billy Bootstrap for using his car phone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5imuYW1tJf4rY4gLu0NzabcB9W9fgD98RVKF00). I'll remain vigilant for news of any other perfidious stealth taxes.
QuoteThe Obama administration asked Congress on Tuesday to repeal a widely ignored tax on the personal use of company cell phones after sparking an outcry last week when it sought ideas for enforcing the law.
Just watch inflation numbers over the next several months! Talk about a stealth tax! Wheeeeee!
Those pinkos at the Trib say inflation fears are overblown. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/chi-tc-biz-inflation-0616-0617-jun17,0,6292572.column)
Quote"To get inflation, you need plenty of money and plenty of demand," said Mairs and Power Balanced Fund manager William Frels. "There is plenty of money but not plenty of demand."
QuoteChicago Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Evans said this week that he remains more concerned about the possibility of deflation than inflation, but he acknowledged that inflation is difficult to access until it has taken hold of the economy.
To avert inflation, Evans said, the Fed would need to pull back some of the supply of money in the system. That's a feat worrying some investors. But, he said, the Fed was creative with its rescue maneuvers and can be equally creative when unwinding them.
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:58:07 AM
FWIW, another perspective (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americorps_ig_who_clashed_with_ally.php#more) on the IG firing, pulled from Sacramento Bee articles on the story.
QuoteIn April 2008, federal agents (meaning Walpin's IG office, it seems, though the reporting is unclear) began investigating the use of federal grant money by the St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit then run by Johnson.
The following month, local law enforcement announced that no criminal case could be made against Johnson, but the federal probe continued.
In September, the federal probe was turned over to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento.
Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges. Scott said he had asked Walpin's office to go back and conduct a line-by-line audit to help determine whether civil charges should be filed, implying that Walpin's probe had been insufficiently detailed.
In April, the US Attorney's office announced a settlement with Johnson, which would involve Johnson, St. HOPE, and the other official repaying over $400,000 in grants it received, and would allow him to again receive federal money.
That same month, the new acting US attorney, Lawrence Brown wrote a letter to a federal oversight body for inspectors general, asking it to review Walpin's work on the St. HOPE investigation. According to the AP, Brown wrote: "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent."
So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing.
Intrepid Reader: Five Days AgoHi (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg181143#msg181143).
1. I agree with Fork. TARP (and the host of other bailouts in 2008) helpe prime the pump. However, neither Geithner, nor the Fed, nor Congress, nor Obama have done much to curb the spending. Instead, he's proposing new spending.
2. Right now, everyone's squirreling away their money. It's best to put your $$ in hard assets now. I'm certain we'll see inflation near 10 percent in the next couple years.
But sure, nothing to see here.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
1. I agree with Fork. TARP (and the host of other bailouts in 2008) helpe prime the pump. However, neither Geithner, nor the Fed, nor Congress, nor Obama have done much to curb the spending. Instead, he's proposing new spending.
2. Right now, everyone's squirreling away their money. It's best to put your $$ in hard assets now. I'm certain we'll see inflation near 10 percent in the next couple years.
But sure, nothing to see here.
I, for one, am squirrelling like a motherfucker.
Everyone, refi now if you can. You'll get over like a fat fucking rat.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 09:52:52 AM
I, for one, am squirrelling like a motherfucker.
Everyone, refi now if you can. You'll get over like a fat fucking rat.
This.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
It's best to put your $$ in hard assets now.
Hard assets like bus parts?
DPD.
I want to congratulate you, Chicago residents, all of us, Cook County and Illinois residents, and finally you federal taxpayers (who one day might be delivering a BAILOUT to Springfield, who will deliver BAILOUTS to Cook County and Chicago) and occasional Chicago tourists.
We're all on the hook for guaranteed profits for the 2016 games! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/contract-no-modifications-chicago-2016-olympic-games-lausanne-switzerland-international-committee.html)
Chicago's bid from the Olympics went from, "Yeah, we can do it with what we've got, and then we can get money from corporations to build other buildings..." to "OK, we'll upgrade CTA and other infrastructure..." to "Soldier Field isn't big enough, so we'll big a temporary Olympic stadium that will turn into a 3,000-seat theater in the park when it's over..." to "OK, we've sold our soul!"
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 17, 2009, 09:55:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
It's best to put your $$ in hard assets now.
Hard assets like bus parts?
Sure.
But what does the bus part industry have to offer
me, the investor, over something like holdings in the Dr. Ron Paul Amalgamated Gold Bank?
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:54:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 09:52:52 AM
I, for one, am squirrelling like a motherfucker.
Everyone, refi now if you can. You'll get over like a fat fucking rat.
This.
I refi'ed at 4.875%, 30 year fixed, no points, just closed on it last week. [pats self on back]
Deflation is only a short-term threat at best. The sheer quantity of borrowing that will have to be done to meet financing needs for all of the upcoming deficit spending
(http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg)
means that at some point, given the current CBO projections, the US will probably have to monetize some portion of the debt taken on. Monetization always leads to inflation. It just becomes a matter of degree and timing, really. That Trib article RV posted does not address the monetization issue, only the relatively short-term risk of inflation due to the large (and necessary, IMO) money supply increase over the past year. The monetization/inflation story is a longer-term one, in my view.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
DPD.
I want to congratulate you, Chicago residents, all of us, Cook County and Illinois residents, and finally you federal taxpayers (who one day might be delivering a BAILOUT to Springfield, who will deliver BAILOUTS to Cook County and Chicago) and occasional Chicago tourists.
We're all on the hook for guaranteed profits for the 2016 games! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/contract-no-modifications-chicago-2016-olympic-games-lausanne-switzerland-international-committee.html)
Chicago's bid from the Olympics went from, "Yeah, we can do it with what we've got, and then we can get money from corporations to build other buildings..." to "OK, we'll upgrade CTA and other infrastructure..." to "Soldier Field isn't big enough, so we'll big a temporary Olympic stadium that will turn into a 3,000-seat theater in the park when it's over..." to "OK, we've sold our soul!"
Is there any way to sell short on this boondoggle?
Can you buy credit default swaps on TIFs?
Quote from: morpheus on June 17, 2009, 10:40:47 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 09:54:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 09:52:52 AM
I, for one, am squirrelling like a motherfucker.
Everyone, refi now if you can. You'll get over like a fat fucking rat.
This.
I refi'ed at 4.875%, 30 year fixed, no points, just closed on it last week. [pats self on back]
Deflation is only a short-term threat at best. The sheer quantity of borrowing that will have to be done to meet financing needs for all of the upcoming deficit spending means that at some point, given the current CBO projections, the US will probably have to monetize some portion of the debt taken on. Monetization always leads to inflation. It just becomes a matter of degree and timing, really. That Trib article RV posted does not address the monetization issue, only the relatively short-term risk of inflation due to the large (and necessary, IMO) money supply increase over the past year. The monetization/inflation story is a longer-term one, in my view.
It seems that this is up for debate. I'm not nearly smart enough to understand what these brainiacs are arguing about, but Krugmarx and others think that we're in the middle of a Japan-like liquidity trap, when monetization did not lead to inflation. Like you pointed out, this is a long-term issue, so we'll have to check back in 5 or 10 years to see which econofags are VINDICATED.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-why-krugmans-not-worried-about-inflation-2009-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-why-krugmans-not-worried-about-inflation-2009-6)
http://www.businessinsider.com/oh-relax-about-inflation-already-paul-krugmans-always-right-2009-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/oh-relax-about-inflation-already-paul-krugmans-always-right-2009-6)
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
THIS THIS THIS
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
I'm telling you, vote for me in 2012. Jetsons Shit for everyone.
Quote from: Jon on June 17, 2009, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
I'm telling you, vote for me in 2012. Jetsons Shit for everyone.
I'm still waiting for the bumper sticker.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 17, 2009, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
I'm telling you, vote for me in 2012. Jetsons Shit for everyone.
I'm still waiting for the bumper sticker.
If only there were a Jetsons Hitler Puncher Bumper Sticker...
Quote from: morpheus on June 17, 2009, 11:35:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 17, 2009, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
I'm telling you, vote for me in 2012. Jetsons Shit for everyone.
I'm still waiting for the bumper sticker.
If only there were a Jetsons Hitler Puncher Bumper Sticker...
Maybe George and Astro watching Hitler get caught in the treadmill
Quote from: morpheus on June 17, 2009, 11:35:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: Jon on June 17, 2009, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2009, 11:06:20 AM
Monetization always leads to inflation.
Not if it's countered with reduced demand elsewhere. If government spending dials back as private demand rises, inflation should be minimized as total demand does not change.
Now, getting the government to reduce spending is probably unrealistic. All politicians get reelected based on what they bring to the district, not on their tax cut votes.
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
Garbage pickup? That'll become obsolete when floating boots and flying autogyros are introduced in the 1990s, and we won't need to concern ourselves with the waste hills accumulating down on that lousy, useless terra firma.
I'm telling you, vote for me in 2012. Jetsons Shit for everyone.
I'm still waiting for the bumper sticker.
If only there were a Jetsons Hitler Puncher Bumper Sticker...
Get out of my head.
Some context (http://progressillinois.com/2009/6/17/il-govt-not-bloated) for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.
QuoteFor instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita
Quotethe number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years
QuoteMeanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke? The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.
So does this mean that the rest of the state has a
really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 08:58:07 AM
FWIW, another perspective (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americorps_ig_who_clashed_with_ally.php#more) on the IG firing, pulled from Sacramento Bee articles on the story.
QuoteIn April 2008, federal agents (meaning Walpin's IG office, it seems, though the reporting is unclear) began investigating the use of federal grant money by the St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit then run by Johnson.
The following month, local law enforcement announced that no criminal case could be made against Johnson, but the federal probe continued.
In September, the federal probe was turned over to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento.
Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
US attorney McGregor Scott, a Bush appointee, announced that the investigation into the misuse of funds did not warrant criminal charges. Scott said he had asked Walpin's office to go back and conduct a line-by-line audit to help determine whether civil charges should be filed, implying that Walpin's probe had been insufficiently detailed.
In April, the US Attorney's office announced a settlement with Johnson, which would involve Johnson, St. HOPE, and the other official repaying over $400,000 in grants it received, and would allow him to again receive federal money.
That same month, the new acting US attorney, Lawrence Brown wrote a letter to a federal oversight body for inspectors general, asking it to review Walpin's work on the St. HOPE investigation. According to the AP, Brown wrote: "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent."
So here's what it sounds like: Johnson and his non-profit ran a very loose operation, which deserved some kind of sanction. But Walpin's action -- in publicly suggesting, without much apparent evidence, that Johnson might have committed a crime, and having Johnson barred from receiving federal funds, ultimately jeopardizing the fortunes of the city as a whole after Johnson became mayor -- was out of all proportion to the wrongdoing.
If that angle is true why didn't the Obama Administration just come out and say it? Instead they went the route of character assassination on a guy that doesn't look too confused or forgetful.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html
QuoteThe bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.
....
QuoteMore importantly, Walpin's response sheds light on the process by which St. Hope will allegedly return to the government about half of the $850,000 grant it received from AmeriCorps. Walpin accused the U.S. attorney's office of undermining Walpin's attempt at "suspension and debarment" -- that is, from taking action that prevents an organization that has engaged in misconduct from receiving any other federal money.
So it looks like his attempt to stop them from receiving more federal money was part of the IG's job.
Certainly a different angle on the whole process but one that leaves out some critical information.
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Some context (http://progressillinois.com/2009/6/17/il-govt-not-bloated) for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.
QuoteFor instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita
Quotethe number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years
QuoteMeanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke? The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.
So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).
If you’re looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don’t pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up… I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I’m not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.
Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it’s that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I’m sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren’t nearly as bad. In BC’s neck of the woods, it’s 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it’s 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN’s 9.35% buttfucking).
It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:10:40 PM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Some context (http://progressillinois.com/2009/6/17/il-govt-not-bloated) for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.
QuoteFor instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita
Quotethe number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years
QuoteMeanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke? The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.
So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).
If you're looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don't pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up... I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.
Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it's that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I'm sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren't nearly as bad. In BC's neck of the woods, it's 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it's 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN's 9.35% buttfucking).
It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.
TN's buttfucking comes with no state income tax.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 03:22:16 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:10:40 PM
Quote from: RV on June 17, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Some context (http://progressillinois.com/2009/6/17/il-govt-not-bloated) for the Springfield budget clusterfuck. I was surprised to read that Illinois is actually on the lower end of spending and state employees compared to the rest of the country.
QuoteFor instance, contrary to arguments that Illinois government should be drastically cut, it turns out that we have the second smallest number of state employees per capita
Quotethe number of government workers in Illinois has dropped by 22 percent over the past eight years
QuoteMeanwhile, Illinois state spending -- which ranked 39th in the nation in 2007 at $4,628 per capita -- has been relatively flat over the past decade. Because Illinois is the fifth wealthiest state in the country, it begs a fairly straightforward question: If spending is so low, how can the state be so broke? The answer is simple. As the Tax Foundation reports, Illinois taxpayers paid a mere $4,346 per capita in state and local taxes combined in 2007, which amounts to one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation. Add ongoing pension deferrals with recession-related revenue drops and you've got a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall.
So does this mean that the rest of the state has a really low tax burden? Because I'm fairly certain Cook County residents don't have a particularly low effective tax rate. (Apologies for the libofag link, but it was a good accumulation of links to STUDIES).
If you’re looking at individual state income tax rates, then Illinois is one of the lowest (omitting those they don’t pay individual income tax, of course) in the country. As far as states with flat rates, Illinois is the lowest. Many of the states with tiered tax systems have laughable levels (i.e OK: 0-1000, 1001-2500, 2501-3750, 3751-4900, 4901-7200, and 8201-up… I would venture to guess that 80%+ of the taxpayers fall into that 8201-Up (5.5% tax rate) category). So basically, those states, with the tiered system more than likely paying more taxes as well. An individual income tax hike is inevitable. I have been just waiting for it to go into effect. I’m not saying I agree with it, but the with the budget issues here it is just a matter of time.
Sales Tax: Up in Cook county, you guys are getting raped. 10.25% right? I know it’s that rate in some areas of Chicago, and 10% in other areas. Well, I’m sure you know that the state rate is 6.25% and the rest is a local tax. So 4% of your raping is going to the county and city. As far as down here, the local taxes aren’t nearly as bad. In BC’s neck of the woods, it’s 6.25% (no local). In Springfield, it’s 7.75%. For the most part it is in between those two numbers down here. The average sales tax rate in IL is 7.60% (Compare that to TN’s 9.35% buttfucking).
It is true that Cook County residents have a much higher tax burden than the rest of the state, but you can really look to your local governments for that problem.
TN's buttfucking comes with no state income tax.
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
The income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 03:26:40 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
The fact that it doesn't rain everyday income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.
More likely'd
Quote from: PenFoe on June 17, 2009, 04:42:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 03:26:40 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
The fact that it's got a beautiful ocean and gulf to go to and a bunch of fun shit to do fact that it doesn't rain everydayincome and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.
More likely'd
Most likely'd
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 05:28:18 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on June 17, 2009, 04:42:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 03:26:40 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
The fact that it's got a beautiful ocean and gulf to go to and a bunch of fun shit to do fact that it doesn't rain everydayincome and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.
More likely'd
Most likely'd
KD resents the inference, at least gastromically. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6844.0)
Florida is the Austrailia of America
We send our criminals there? (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-clever-ruth-madoff-now-says-she-lives-in-florida-2009-3)
Quote from: PenFoe on June 17, 2009, 04:42:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 03:26:40 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 17, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
True. One could point at the fact that Florida, among others, have lower sales tax rates, but they can make do since people actually *want* to go to Florida
The fact that it doesn't rain everyday income and sales tax rates might have something to do with it.
More likely'd
Good call, it almost never rains in Florida.
Good stuff on health care rationing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1245247700-F7TmlLZrPg84dfvTMtjOww):
QuoteIn truth, rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. Even in the United States, the richest society in human history, we are constantly rationing. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of steak and wild-caught salmon.
Health care, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn't. Already, we cannot afford every form of medical care that we might like. So we ration.
QuoteMilton Friedman's beloved line is a good way to frame the issue: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The choice isn't between rationing and not rationing. It's between rationing well and rationing badly.
Yes, we ration lakefront homes and cuts of steak. However, the rationing is done through economic choice.
Quote from: Brownie on June 17, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
Yes, we ration lakefront homes and cuts of steak. However, the rationing is done through economic choice.
Economic choice, yes.
A certain amount of economic luck, too.
But that's not really the point. Let's try to move beyond the analogy...
QuoteThere are three main ways that the health care system already imposes rationing on us. The first is the most counterintuitive, because it doesn't involve denying medical care. It involves denying just about everything else.
...
Research by Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra of Harvard has found that, on average, a 10 percent increase in health premiums leads to a 2.3 percent decline in inflation-adjusted pay. Victor Fuchs, a Stanford economist, and Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist now in the Obama administration, published an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association last year that nicely captured the tradeoff. When health costs have grown fastest over the last two decades, they wrote, wages have grown slowest, and vice versa.
...
The second kind of rationing involves the uninsured. The high cost of care means that some employers can't afford to offer health insurance and still pay a competitive wage. Those high costs mean that individuals can't buy insurance on their own.
The uninsured still receive some health care, obviously. But they get less care, and worse care, than they need. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that 18,000 people died in 2000 because they lacked insurance. By 2006, the number had risen to 22,000, according to the Urban Institute.
The final form of rationing is the one I described near the beginning of this column: the failure to provide certain types of care, even to people with health insurance. Doctors are generally not paid to do the blocking and tackling of medicine: collaboration, probing conversations with patients, small steps that avoid medical errors. Many doctors still do such things, out of professional pride. But the full medical system doesn't do nearly enough.
That's rationing — and it has real consequences.
... Over all, the survival rates for many diseases in this country are no better than they are in countries that spend far less on health care. People here are less likely to have long-term survival after colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia or a kidney transplant than they are in Canada — that bastion of rationing.
Other examples from earlier in the article...
QuoteWe spend billions of dollars on operations, tests and drugs that haven't been proved to make people healthier. Yet we have not spent the money to install computerized medical records — and we suffer more medical errors than many other countries.
We underpay primary care doctors, relative to specialists, and they keep us stewing in waiting rooms while they try to see as many patients as possible. We don't reimburse different specialists for time spent collaborating with one another, and many hard-to-diagnose conditions go untreated. We don't pay nurses to counsel people on how to improve their diets or remember to take their pills, and manageable cases of diabetes and heart disease become fatal.
"Just because there isn't some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness," as Dr. Mark McClellan, head of Medicare in the Bush administration, says, "that doesn't mean you aren't getting some treatments."
Yes: choices have been made.
Many choices, though, are more structurally determined and made for us, often at least in part via a system of skewed incentives.
Quote from: Fork on June 17, 2009, 11:11:12 AM
Stew can tell us all about the ballot initiatives in his home state, where Californians voted themselves all kinds of nifty programs, but didn't want taxes raised.
This is a large problem, everyone wants it all...they don't want to pay taxes, but they still want the garbage picked up.
This. The ballot initiatives in California are ridiculous.
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 17, 2009, 05:33:57 PM
Florida is the Austrailia of America
Australia is where Cubans go to live and Jews go to die?
More IG problems for Obama? I guess Walpin isn't the only confused and out of touch Inspector General investigating sensitive issues.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/not-just-walpin-3-ig-firings-being-questioned.html
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
Sorry dude - he's already gone...
Quote from: Slak on June 18, 2009, 09:39:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
Sorry dude - he's already gone...
Rolled off on his Segway to patrol the mall?
QuotePlease just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
Ahhhh why so pissy? Its no different than you guys over the years doing it to Bush. What is the matter can't handle it now? I got it over the many years reading the comments on this site, you guys hated Bush and everything he did. Did you guys stop? Nawww you guys had a nice little back slapping good time hating on Bush and everything he did. You guys also did a pretty good job of forcing a few posters who didn't agree with you guys to just simply give up because your guys favorite tactic was "Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again."
On the political, economic, and foreign relations side, i never wanted Obama to win. On the flip side its a joy to not have Bush or any Republican as President. Its now Obama's turn to correct everything he claimed was wrong with the Bush presidency. You know that "fierce moral urgency" of "hope and change." Turns out the same stuff he claimed was being abused by Bush is now perfectly fine for Obama. Funny how its suddenly OK for some things just because a symbol gets changed from an R to a D. Even the press suddenly developed amnesia when those symbols changed. But don't accuse them of being biased, ohhhhhh nooooooooo.
I am having so much fun bringing up every questionable Obama Administration policy, action, or indiscretion. This is stuff Obama said he would change, fix, cleanup, or stop doing. The fact is he has done very little of what he has promised and done a whole lot of spending of tax payer dollars.
I am not here to be your friend on politics, i am not here to change your mind. I am just the guy pointing out a problem with IG's now. And if you don't like it you can build a website, register users and censor comments till you get a nice happy Al Yellon type site so all your little lemming friends can slap each other on the ass and say how horrible Bush was.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
And if you don't like it you can build a website, register users and censor comments till you get a nice happy Al Yellon type site so all your little lemming friends can slap each other on the ass and say how horrible Bush was.
So I guess I should at least thank you for building this one then.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
I am not here to be your friend on politics
What kind of friend of mine do you want to be?
Quotei am not here to change your mind.
Obviously. As I said, you aren't interested in reasoned debate, just firing Qassams (directionless, weak missiles) and going back into hiding.
See you next press release.
What is it that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan used to say to each other's staffers when they'd pay social visits? "We're all friends here after 5:00."
Obama's IG issue is interesting, and I don't buy the White House's explanation (although I have a hard time believing KJ is a crook). I don't support many of Obama's positions, but I don't take joy in his missteps, and I hope like Hell that he knows what he's doing in re: Iran and North Korea. No one here hates America, except maybe for Chuck. He hates everything. Isn't that right, Chuck?
Quote from: Brownie on June 18, 2009, 11:08:25 AM
What is it that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan used to say to each other's staffers when they'd pay social visits? "We're all friends here after 5:00."
Obama's IG issue is interesting, and I don't buy the White House's explanation (although I have a hard time believing KJ is a crook). I don't support many of Obama's positions, but I don't take joy in his missteps, and I hope like Hell that he knows what he's doing in re: Iran and North Korea. No one here hates America, except maybe for Chuck. He hates everything. Isn't that right, Chuck?
I like Life cereal.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
You guys also did a pretty good job of forcing a few posters who didn't agree with you guys to just simply give up because your guys favorite tactic was "Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again."
I don't know what to say.
I just wanted to quote this.
It should be noted on the Walpin issue that the White House attempted to remove him quickly by giving him an hour to resign or be fired. Obama is the one who sponsored legislation requiring a 30 day notice to Congress before taking any action.
I guess that law was only ment for the evil Bush. Obama would never ever abuse his power, and always follows the letter of the law. It would help if he started to follow the ones he sponsored though.
But hey more attacks towards me, keep avoiding the issue.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:18:36 AM
It should be noted on the Walpin issue that the White House attempted to remove him quickly by giving him an hour to resign or be fired. Obama is the one who sponsored legislation requiring a 30 day notice to Congress before taking any action.
I guess that law was only ment for the evil Bush. Obama would never ever abuse his power, and always follows the letter of the law. It would help if he started to follow the ones he sponsored though.
But hey more attacks towards me, keep avoiding the issue.
You're absolutely right on this one. Obama promised more transparency and he's failed to deliver often. I can beat the drum all day on this. But RV even brought this up earlier this week. Mike, a good place to look for some analysis is reason.com as they have been very critical of both Bush and Obama. They've been all over this crap.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:18:36 AM
It should be noted on the Walpin issue that the White House attempted to remove him quickly by giving him an hour to resign or be fired. Obama is the one who sponsored legislation requiring a 30 day notice to Congress before taking any action.
I guess that law was only ment for the evil Bush. Obama would never ever abuse his power, and always follows the letter of the law. It would help if he started to follow the ones he sponsored though.
But hey more attacks towards me, keep avoiding the issue.
If you've been reading this thread, you'd see that I actually agree with your general point about executive power/state secrets (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg181504#msg181504). And I haven't seen any posters around here actually making the 'Obama did it, so it's OK with me!' argument. I think your use of this particular strawman is what gets people's dander up, because it's disingenuous, and doesn't contribute to a meaningful argument.
On the IG, I agree with the decision to remove Walpin. It appears that he was overreaching on the Kevin Johnson issue for political purposes. But I absolutely agree that his removal should have been subject to the 30 day rule, and not done in the dark of night. Hypocrisy sucks no matter what party the hypocrite is in.
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
I am having so much fun bringing up every questionable Obama Administration policy, action, or indiscretion. This is stuff Obama said he would change, fix, cleanup, or stop doing.
A salute to "The Organizer" by Jeff Cahill, right?
I don't want MikeC to leave, because if he does he will take his avatar with him. I rarely read what MikeC has to say. But I exercise my right to criticize him anyway. I am like those folks who gathered to protest Letterman. It was obvious that they have never watched the Letterman Show.
Quote from: Wheezer on June 18, 2009, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 18, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
I am having so much fun bringing up every questionable Obama Administration policy, action, or indiscretion. This is stuff Obama said he would change, fix, cleanup, or stop doing.
A salute to "The Organizer" by Jeff Cahill, right?
Nope
MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/):
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
QuoteEvery time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
Quote from: RV on June 18, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/):
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
QuoteEvery time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices)
and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2009, 12:58:11 PM
Quote from: RV on June 18, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/):
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
QuoteEvery time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?
Yes.
But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2009, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2009, 12:58:11 PM
Quote from: RV on June 18, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/):
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
QuoteEvery time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?
Yes.
But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...
I'm predicting criticism of the practice continuing under Obama.
Quote from: Tank on June 18, 2009, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 18, 2009, 12:58:11 PM
Quote from: RV on June 18, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/18/spying/):
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
QuoteEvery time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?
Yes.
But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...
MikeC has too many fans to disappoint if he doesn't come back. I read this thread
because of MikeC and in spite of boring political nonsense that I was dumb enough to try and care about a few months back. I don't even disagree with MikeC because I literally have no idea what he's talking about.
Don't leave us Michael. I need your sweet lovin' arms to hold me...
I guess this goes here, since it's about politics.
I don't know about all this other stuff you guys are hollerin' about (except that MikeC is almost definitely wrong) but I do know that this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17cavecreek.html) is how my town settles tied elections.
Hilarious:
http://petehisameme.wordpress.com/ (http://petehisameme.wordpress.com/)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
You know, even though I don't really care for what MikeC usually has to say, I wouldn't say that he should stop. There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides. In addition to that, this site is where you can whatever you want, whenever you want, so I really couldn't care fucking less.
Going over the top with the ad hominem attacks on the President is dumb, but if I were as devoted to the right as much as MikeC evidently is, I too would probably see this as comeuppance for the years of abuse that W. received.
So, in short, whatevs.
Seacrest...out!
On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:11:39 PM
On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.
Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:11:39 PM
On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.
Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?
Or you could support neither, knowing that neither would have any real governing power either way and instead of calling it a day listen to what the protester's are actually saying. They've had it with the Islamic laws and beliefs that have stifled their society and want what the West has. Freedom to choose their own government. Do you know that without the Guardian Council's consent, no one can run for office anywhere in Iran? So the term "Reformist" is a relative term. He's on the ballot thanks to allies within the regime who don't like head snake and his pet monkey and would like to see some heinous shit go down in order to move up the ladder themselves. Of course he's no liberal in teh classic sense or any other. These Mullahs are quite long in the tooth, and while they know that the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader would never allow their monkey to lose his perch, they counted on a little turmoil so that they may make a move before it's too late for them. But they may have overplayed their hand because... Nah. Nobody gives a shit.
What's Mike C blabbering on about again?
I'm more interested in this inevitable war with North Korea.
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 19, 2009, 07:10:04 AM
I'm more interested in this inevitable war with North Korea.
Thank God the South will take the bullet for us on that one.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 19, 2009, 07:19:45 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 19, 2009, 07:10:04 AM
I'm more interested in this inevitable war with North Korea.
Thank God the South will take the bullet for us on that one.
According to most military strategists, the North Koreans will target major metropolitan cities first with nukes, drive their tanks through our cities without using turn signals and/or leaving them engaged, and then open Korean barbecues at animal shelters.
This may well be the best campaign spot ever.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ly0DD5Gv0Hw
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
You know, even though I don't really care for what MikeC usually has to say, I wouldn't say that he should stop. There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides. In addition to that, this site is where you can whatever you want, whenever you want, so I really couldn't care fucking less.
Going over the top with the ad hominem attacks on the President is dumb, but if I were as devoted to the right as much as MikeC evidently is, I too would probably see this as comeuppance for the years of abuse that W. received.
So, in short, whatevs.
Seacrest...out!
I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck. No, wait. That's not right. I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.
The only site you'll ever need site where you can whatever you want whenever you want, so I couldn't fucking care less.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:44:37 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:11:39 PM
On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.
Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?
Or you could support neither, knowing that neither would have any real governing power either way and instead of calling it a day listen to what the protester's are actually saying. They've had it with the Islamic laws and beliefs that have stifled their society and want what the West has. Freedom to choose their own government. Do you know that without the Guardian Council's consent, no one can run for office anywhere in Iran? So the term "Reformist" is a relative term. He's on the ballot thanks to allies within the regime who don't like head snake and his pet monkey and would like to see some heinous shit go down in order to move up the ladder themselves. Of course he's no liberal in teh classic sense or any other. These Mullahs are quite long in the tooth, and while they know that the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader would never allow their monkey to lose his perch, they counted on a little turmoil so that they may make a move before it's too late for them. But they may have overplayed their hand because... Nah. Nobody gives a shit.
What's Mike C blabbering on about again?
Very much THOSE THINGS. Listen to the protesters? See how it plays out? Instead of wearing green and bloviating about 'supporting democracy' as if Mousavi is the second coming of Dr. King? What a novel idea.
I find this Juan Cole fella's web log (http://juancole.com/) to be a good starting point for reading up on anything Middle East.
QuoteThe protesters hope that President Obama will maintain his relative silence on the movement, lest he unintentionally tar them with the brush of imperialist stooges.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides.
Agreed. I love the debate. Nothing is black and white. But "debate" that consists of someone walking into a room and yelling, "BLACK!" and walking away again is not vigorous opposition.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 19, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides.
Agreed. I love the debate. Nothing is black and white. But "debate" that consists of someone walking into a room and yelling, "BLACK!" and walking away again is not vigorous opposition.
TDubbs?
Just because I know some of you have Michele Bachmann's cock hanging out of your mouths (did I do that right?):
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/17/exclusive-minn-lawmaker-fears-census-abuse/
QuoteOutspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
Quote from: RV on June 19, 2009, 09:03:26 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:44:37 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 18, 2009, 11:11:39 PM
On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.
Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?
Or you could support neither, knowing that neither would have any real governing power either way and instead of calling it a day listen to what the protester's are actually saying. They've had it with the Islamic laws and beliefs that have stifled their society and want what the West has. Freedom to choose their own government. Do you know that without the Guardian Council's consent, no one can run for office anywhere in Iran? So the term "Reformist" is a relative term. He's on the ballot thanks to allies within the regime who don't like head snake and his pet monkey and would like to see some heinous shit go down in order to move up the ladder themselves. Of course he's no liberal in teh classic sense or any other. These Mullahs are quite long in the tooth, and while they know that the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader would never allow their monkey to lose his perch, they counted on a little turmoil so that they may make a move before it's too late for them. But they may have overplayed their hand because... Nah. Nobody gives a shit.
What's Mike C blabbering on about again?
Very much THOSE THINGS. Listen to the protesters? See how it plays out? Instead of wearing green and bloviating about 'supporting democracy' as if Mousavi is the second coming of Dr. King? What a novel idea.
I find this Juan Cole fella's web log (http://juancole.com/) to be a good starting point for reading up on anything Middle East.
QuoteThe protesters hope that President Obama will maintain his relative silence on the movement, lest he unintentionally tar them with the brush of imperialist stooges.
Mousavi is a "moderate" in Iranian political circles, which sandwiches him somewhere between Hitler and Bob Knight by Western Standards. But by acting as the face of protests and demonstrations which the Ayatolllah has vowed to repress forcefully, he's putting himself in grave danger. The people he represents probably don't believe in much of what he'd do if he were in fact elected. But what they needed was for somebody to stand up and make a play against these turds. He's got former president Khatami (Ahmedinejad's "reformist" predacessor) as one of his most vocal allies. Khatami was very much in favor of repaired relations with the U.S. but was overruled and fucked every which way by the Mullahs. What we have is a diverse, yet vast and youthful groundswell of defiance against the Islamic State. I don't think it matters who it was that mobilized it at this point. If Mousavi and his allies get what they want, a free and true election for the right to run the country, he may not have a shot in hell. The hardliners would either boycott or trot another one of their monkeys out there. The youth and true reformists would probably find a new voice, perhaps one that has been silenced, imprisoned or exiled. Mousavi would have to be taken care of politically in any coalition though, I believe, because he is still connected and respected.
But Khamenae'i still controls the military. So we may see blood spilling in the streets and an end to this Persian Spring before it really gets started. That would eventually spell doom for the Mullahs though. Because no pretense of true control and popular support could be imposed any longer. Not for their aged and backward supporters, their Syrian allies, their Lebanese terrorist arm or anybody else for that matter. These fuckers are older than dirt too. So their day will come and a power struggle will eventually occur.
I say we send Hillary and Biden over there to sort this whole mess out. They'll rock the whole world with their brilliant ideas.
QuoteSince April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).
I would be concerned with private citizens E-mails being read. I don't have a problem with private citizens E-mail being read if they are connected to terrorism. Something similar the Reps and Dems fought over was wiretaps, we wanted to listen in on people making phone calls to known terrorists. And i am not exactly sure but they fought over the right of a terrorist making a phone call overseas to the US and not being able to listen to that.
If its a bunch of people sitting at desks reading billions of e-mails, i got a problem with that. If its a computer scanning through billions of e-mails picking out ones with questionable ties, i have less of a problem with that. My guess is they scan through the e-mails and the questionable ones are put off to the side and then they are read by an actual human being. That is where the problem comes in and where they probably need a court order. I would have no problem with the NSA flagging that e-mail (not reading it) and then open up an investigation on that individual so they get enough for a court order.
Quote from: MikeC on June 19, 2009, 11:09:52 AM
Wow. Actual debate and opinions. What a novel approach.
Who stole MikeC's login?
Quote from: MikeC on June 19, 2009, 11:09:52 AM
I would be concerned with private citizens E-mails being read. I don't have a problem with private citizens E-mail being read if they are connected to terrorism.
While I object to NSA overstepping its bounds on general principles, any expectation of privacy when it comes to cleartext E-mail is folly. The postcard analogy is correct.
Quote from: Oleg on June 19, 2009, 08:45:26 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
You know, even though I don't really care for what MikeC usually has to say, I wouldn't say that he should stop. There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides. In addition to that, this site is where you can whatever you want, whenever you want, so I really couldn't care fucking less.
Going over the top with the ad hominem attacks on the President is dumb, but if I were as devoted to the right as much as MikeC evidently is, I too would probably see this as comeuppance for the years of abuse that W. received.
So, in short, whatevs.
Seacrest...out!
I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck. No, wait. That's not right. I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.
Spellcheck doesn't always catch missing verbs, like "post" or "say" in this instance.
Point still stands though.
And getting back to the NSA/Email issue, I think I somewhat agree with MikeC in that those who are suspected of terrorism should be "observed" by the government. However, the argument then becomes, who defines a suspected terrorist, what evidence can be seized, what types of information can be monitored, and under what conditions can the government do so. This was precisely the logic behind FISA. A problem was created by the Bush administration and Congress, in the aftermath of 9/11 - when the people and the government were simultaneously scared shitless - to simply give the NSA whatever they wanted, because it was tough on terrorism.
This is the problem with legislating during a crisis; a major problem for this country, sadly.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 19, 2009, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 19, 2009, 08:45:26 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 18, 2009, 09:31:58 AM
Please just stop, Mike. You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.
Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.
We get it. You hate Obama and everything he does. If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature. Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.
Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.
You know, even though I don't really care for what MikeC usually has to say, I wouldn't say that he should stop. There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides. In addition to that, this site is where you can whatever you want, whenever you want, so I really couldn't care fucking less.
Going over the top with the ad hominem attacks on the President is dumb, but if I were as devoted to the right as much as MikeC evidently is, I too would probably see this as comeuppance for the years of abuse that W. received.
So, in short, whatevs.
Seacrest...out!
I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck. No, wait. That's not right. I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.
Spellcheck doesn't always catch missing verbs, like "post" or "say" in this instance.
Point still stands though.
And getting back to the NSA/Email issue, I think I somewhat agree with MikeC in that those who are suspected of terrorism should be "observed" by the government. However, the argument then becomes, who defines a suspected terrorist, what evidence can be seized, what types of information can be monitored, and under what conditions can the government do so. This was precisely the logic behind FISA. A problem was created by the Bush administration and Congress, in the aftermath of 9/11 - when the people and the government were simultaneously scared shitless - to simply give the NSA whatever they wanted, because it was tough on terrorism.
This is the problem with legislating during a crisis; a major problem for this country, sadly.
I thinik that is clearly the main issue at stake.
What your left with is a leap of faith moment. Is your nation evil? Do you believe they are out to do harm to the average American? Do you view the US as a Soviet or Cuba style state? If you believe any of that then having the NSA spy on anything needs to be stopped. However i am of the believe that our nation does it best to protect its citizens and do the right thing in helping people all over the world. I don't mind snooping on a limited scope, i wouldn't be cool with the NSA investigating groups or people simpe because they have an opposing view to the party in power. But if those groups start buying large quantities of ammonia nitrate and talk about blowing up government places, i certainly hope the NSA is listening.
Its a massive privacy concern and your damned if you do and damned if you don't. If something happens and the NSA could have easily picked up on it but were not allowed to people will be pissed. And if the NSA targets someone and they are innocent, people are going to be pissed. I just think they are trying to get as much info as they can and make the best possible decision on how to protect this nation.
Quote from: MikeC on June 19, 2009, 01:59:37 PM
I thinik that is clearly the main issue at stake.
What your left with is a leap of faith moment. Is your nation evil? Do you believe they are out to do harm to the average American? Do you view the US as a Soviet or Cuba style state?
So, anyone concerned about civil liberties, privacy or potential abuses of power/access in this case necessarily thinks the United States is "evil" and out to harm the "average American"?
Quote from: MikeC on June 19, 2009, 01:59:37 PM
What your left with is a leap of faith moment. Is your nation evil? Do you believe they are out to do harm to the average American? Do you view the US as a Soviet or Cuba style state? If you believe any of that then having the NSA spy on anything needs to be stopped. However i am of the believe that our nation does it best to protect its citizens and do the right thing in helping people all over the world. I don't mind snooping on a limited scope, i wouldn't be cool with the NSA investigating groups or people simpe because they have an opposing view to the party in power. But if those groups start buying large quantities of ammonia nitrate and talk about blowing up government places, i certainly hope the NSA is listening.
"Anything"? NSA is still primarily a foreign-SIGINT operation last I heard.
I believe the NSA and MI6 have arrangements to jointly listen in each other domestic population, so as not to violate their internal jurisdictional mandates. Admittedly, I am unsure about this, so I am probably wrong.
MikeC, it shouldn't be the burden of the individual citizen to prove that they have no nefarious intent so that the government cannot listen to them. The government should first prove to the FISA court that such conditions and evidence establish that such and such citizens are conspiring and that further surveillance is needed.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 19, 2009, 05:22:24 PM
I believe the NSA and MI6 have arrangements to jointly listen in each other domestic population, so as not to violate their internal jurisdictional mandates. Admittedly, I am unsure about this, so I am probably wrong.
It wouldn't surprise me, but there's still a pragmatic issue--Menwith Hill and Australasian post(s) don't cover all US communication satellites, for example. MI6 seems unlikely to be able to grab anything that NSA wouldn't be
allowed able to in the first place.
[Edit.--Asymmetric, right.]
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 19, 2009, 05:22:24 PM
I believe the NSA and MI6 have arrangements to jointly listen in each other domestic population, so as not to violate their internal jurisdictional mandates. Admittedly, I am unsure about this, so I am probably wrong.
MikeC, it shouldn't be the burden of the individual citizen to prove that they have no nefarious intent so that the government cannot listen to them. The government should first prove to the FISA court that such conditions and evidence establish that such and such citizens are conspiring and that further surveillance is needed.
It's funny how conservatives bash the government for being bloated, inefficient, and incapable of doing anything well.
But we need to have "faith" that they'll do the right thing with our private information.
National Defense is a government program!
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
(http://i43.tinypic.com/ih7d46.jpg)
Quote from: Tank on June 19, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
It's always the dentists.
Quote from: Wheezer on June 19, 2009, 09:53:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 19, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
It's always the dentists.
(http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/image/Szell.jpg)
Quote from: Wheezer on June 19, 2009, 09:53:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 19, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
It's always the dentists.
Wheezer's a
rabid anti-dentite.
Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs... "Hey, denty!"
Next thing you know, he's saying they should have their own
schools.
Quote from: Tank on June 19, 2009, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 19, 2009, 09:53:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 19, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
It's always the dentists.
Wheezer's a rabid anti-dentite.
Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs... "Hey, denty!"
Next thing you know, he's saying they should have their own schools.
They
do have their own schools.
(http://www.drlenhorowitz.com/images/len_pic_owl.JPG)
"So far a Nobel Prize hasn't been awarded to Dr. Len Horowitz, but it should have been.
He relays some of the most provocative and important information in the world today."--Col. Bo Gritz
Not exactly timely, I know, but...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/znov13.jpg)
More here:
http://obamathedevil.com/CARTOONS.html
(http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/assets_c/2009/03/Ed%20Kendrick-thumb-250x166-thumb-250x166.jpg)
"'This is so important that my personal safety and my life will be at risk while I get this message out,' said [9/11 'truther'] Dr. Kendrick. 'This is the most important issue of our time.'"
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3686/edbrowndeescd8.jpg)
"The Browns have been barricaded inside their home for several months, after being convicted of tax evasion. They did not even attend their sentencing hearing, in which they were sentenced to five years in prison. The couple has not paid their taxes in more than a decade and owe nearly a quarter of a million dollars in back taxes.
"Elaine Brown once had her own dentist office in Lebanon.
"Ed Brown says he is armed and has promised a Waco like ending, saying he will not be taken alive."
(http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=LL&Date=20070830&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=708300552&Ref=AR&Profile=1039&MaxW=250&border=0)
"[Children's dentist Nancy Montgomery-Ware] hasn't filed a federal income tax return since 1999, she said, after 'doing my own research and gaining new understanding that really there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen.' Also, she said, the United States has the status of a corporation, and no person can be a citizen of a corporation.
"[Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachelle] Desvaux-Bedke cross-examined Montgomery-Ware, asking her about previous instances in which she had acknowledged that she was a U.S. citizen. In a loan application, for instance, she stated in several places that she was a citizen.
"Montgomery-Ware said she wrote 'All rights reserved' on most sections of the application but accidentally missed a couple of places. 'They didn't give me a choice to put my true status,' she said."
So with all the pundits warning that health care reform is IN DANGER after the DISASTROUS CBO scores for the bills coming out of the Finance and HELP committees (which were actually partial scores, not for the complete bills), I wonder why the Wyden/Bennett bill (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/05/healthy-america.html) isn't getting more attention.
QuoteFor the Republicans, it gives them a plan that moves away from the third-party, employer-based payment system to one of individual responsibility. For the Democrats, it provides a plan that assures everyone will have access to coverage and provides the financing to get about everyone covered in the short-term.
QuoteBut here's the big one: Last week the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said the Wyden-Bennett plan could be operational by 2012 and would be budget neutral by 2014! In health care terms, parting the Red Sea would be an easier accomplishment.
From all appearances, this is an actual bipartisan bill. One where a couple senators actually sat down over a long period of time (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/how_to_get_a_good_cbo_score_an.html) and, you know, tried to come up with a solution they could both live with.
QuoteI was shot in the tailbone with good luck from the standpoint of the timetable. Peter Orszag, who was then the director of the CBO, and I spent 18 months together. It was every week on the sofas in our office going back and forth with various iterations and alternatives for the legislation.
As opposed to what currently passes for bipartisanship - "centrists" like Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe sitting down and randomly adding and removing random aspects of the bill until we end up with a bill that doesn't make sense and doesn't please either the left or the right.
I'm not smart enough to know why, as a buttplugging pinko I shouldn't like this bill, or why morph as a slave-beating fascist shouldn't like it. Enlighten me, politifaggots.
Fuck that - I'm not going to ignore Wheezer. So what's up man?
Quote from: Wheezer on June 20, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
"So far a Nobel Prize hasn't been awarded to Dr. Len Horowitz, but it should have been.
He relays some of the most provocative and important information in the world today."--Col. Bo Gritz
Ah, Bo Gritz. One of my favorite nut-jobs.
Quote from: Slak on June 20, 2009, 11:12:31 AM
Fuck that - I'm not going to ignore Wheezer. So what's up man?
So... Dentists, huh?
Must be all the off-hours off-label nitrous use.
Quote from: CT III on June 20, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 20, 2009, 09:52:44 AM
"So far a Nobel Prize hasn't been awarded to Dr. Len Horowitz, but it should have been.
He relays some of the most provocative and important information in the world today."--Col. Bo Gritz
Ah, Bo Gritz. One of my favorite nut-jobs.
The most decorated American officer in history. (http://www.lenhorowitz.com/)
Quote from: Tank on June 20, 2009, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 20, 2009, 11:12:31 AM
Fuck that - I'm not going to ignore Wheezer. So what's up man?
So... Dentists, huh?
Must be all the off-hours off-label nitrous use.
My own dentist can't administer nitrous oxide, as a result of the inadequate ventilation in his offices. I was surprised that we wound up arguing about the (almost nonexistent, B12 related) toxicity of the stuff during my last filling. I don't think I've ever managed to elicit any crazy conspiracy theories from him, which is just as well, since finding guys who can work competently without local anesthesia seems to be quite the nuisance.
Quote from: Wheezer on June 20, 2009, 12:55:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 20, 2009, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 20, 2009, 11:12:31 AM
Fuck that - I'm not going to ignore Wheezer. So what's up man?
So... Dentists, huh?
Must be all the off-hours off-label nitrous use.
My own dentist can't administer nitrous oxide, as a result of the inadequate ventilation in his offices. I was surprised that we wound up arguing about the (almost nonexistent, B12 related) toxicity of the stuff during my last filling. I don't think I've ever managed to elicit any crazy conspiracy theories from him, which is just as well, since finding guys who can work competently without local anesthesia seems to be quite the nuisance.
Nitrous Oxide has been banned here in Holland - presumably for reasons of toxicity. Shame, as I had been looking forward to getting a good old lungful of gas-and-air during Mrs. Tonk's two deliveries. I was present at another delivery, years ago (one that was nothing to do with me, really - it's a long story), and the nitrous really made the party go with a swing.
Quote from: Tonker on June 22, 2009, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 20, 2009, 12:55:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 20, 2009, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 20, 2009, 11:12:31 AM
Fuck that - I'm not going to ignore Wheezer. So what's up man?
So... Dentists, huh?
Must be all the off-hours off-label nitrous use.
My own dentist can't administer nitrous oxide, as a result of the inadequate ventilation in his offices. I was surprised that we wound up arguing about the (almost nonexistent, B12 related) toxicity of the stuff during my last filling. I don't think I've ever managed to elicit any crazy conspiracy theories from him, which is just as well, since finding guys who can work competently without local anesthesia seems to be quite the nuisance.
Nitrous Oxide has been banned here in Holland - presumably for reasons of toxicity. Shame, as I had been looking forward to getting a good old lungful of gas-and-air during Mrs. Tonk's two deliveries. I was present at another delivery, years ago (one that was nothing to do with me, really - it's a long story), and the nitrous really made the party go with a swing.
Tonk, you are quite the tease.
Quote from: CBStew on June 22, 2009, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 22, 2009, 08:56:19 AM
Nitrous Oxide has been banned here in Holland - presumably for reasons of toxicity. Shame, as I had been looking forward to getting a good old lungful of gas-and-air during Mrs. Tonk's two deliveries. I was present at another delivery, years ago (one that was nothing to do with me, really - it's a long story), and the nitrous really made the party go with a swing.
Tonk, you are quite the tease.
I would also remark that claims about the danger of smoking in the presence of ether are greatly overstated. Ventilation is everything, just as with dentists and wooden shoes.
Pat Buchanan's English Only "Conferenece"
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201157140f2fc970b-500wi)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/malkin-award-nominee-8.html (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/malkin-award-nominee-8.html)
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 22, 2009, 06:06:59 PM
Pat Buchanan's English Only "Conferenece"
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201157140f2fc970b-500wi)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/malkin-award-nominee-8.html (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/malkin-award-nominee-8.html)
What a fucking joke.
Frank Herbert (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) apparently wants to join the Desipio Subcommittee on Unabashed Obama DickChugging.
QuotePolicies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.
QuoteAmericans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.
And yet we've embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we've tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it "prolonged detention"), but he wants to make sure it is carried out — here comes the oxymoron — fairly and nonabusively.
QuoteThe Obama administration is also continuing the Bush administration's abuse of the state-secrets privilege. Lawyers from the Obama Justice Department have argued, as did lawyers from the Bush administration before them, that a lawsuit involving extraordinary rendition and allegations of extreme torture should be dismissed outright because discussions of such matters in court would harm national security.
No mention yet of South Carolina's AWOL governor?
What exactly are we paying Jon for anyways?
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/836552.html
QuoteS.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's staff said this morning that the governor, who went mysteriously incommunicado for several days, plans to return to his office Wednesday.
Late Monday, his office said the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, ending four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.
...
Neither Sanford's office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, had been able to reach Sanford since he left the mansion Thursday in a black Suburban SUV assigned to his security detail, said state Sen. Jake Knotts , R-Lexington, and three others familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified.
On Monday, Sawyer would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.
Sanford's last known location was near Atlanta late last week. A mobile telephone tower there picked up a signal from his phone, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Since then, the governor's state and personal phones had been turned off, and Sanford had not responded to phone or text messages, a source said. Most mobile phones cannot be tracked if they are turned off.
First lady Jenny Sanford said Monday her husband has been gone for several days over Father's Day weekend and she did not know where.
She said she was not concerned.
"He was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press while vacationing with the couple's four sons at their Sullivan's Island beach house.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19837234/detail.html
QuoteOn Tuesday, sources told News 4's Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.
Sanford has been out of reach for more than four days, including Father's Day.
Sawyer has emphasized that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that it wasn't something the staff or Jenny Sanford were concerned about.
But sources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.
WYFF News 4 has not yet confirmed where the plane was going or how the governor got to the airport, but it is clear there are two very different stories.
News 4 called the governor's office, and was told again by staffers that they stand by their original statement that the governor is hiking the Appalachian Trail. They did not want to comment on this story.
Weird.
Quote from: RV on June 23, 2009, 09:46:10 AM
Frank Herbert (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) apparently wants to join the Desipio Subcommittee on Unabashed Obama DickChugging.
I'm waiting for Cactus Ed.
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2009, 07:22:25 PM
No mention yet of South Carolina's AWOL governor?
What exactly are we paying Jon for anyways?
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/836552.html
QuoteS.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's staff said this morning that the governor, who went mysteriously incommunicado for several days, plans to return to his office Wednesday.
Late Monday, his office said the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, ending four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.
...
Neither Sanford's office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, had been able to reach Sanford since he left the mansion Thursday in a black Suburban SUV assigned to his security detail, said state Sen. Jake Knotts , R-Lexington, and three others familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified.
On Monday, Sawyer would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.
Sanford's last known location was near Atlanta late last week. A mobile telephone tower there picked up a signal from his phone, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Since then, the governor's state and personal phones had been turned off, and Sanford had not responded to phone or text messages, a source said. Most mobile phones cannot be tracked if they are turned off.
First lady Jenny Sanford said Monday her husband has been gone for several days over Father's Day weekend and she did not know where.
She said she was not concerned.
"He was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press while vacationing with the couple's four sons at their Sullivan's Island beach house.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19837234/detail.html
QuoteOn Tuesday, sources told News 4's Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.
Sanford has been out of reach for more than four days, including Father's Day.
Sawyer has emphasized that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that it wasn't something the staff or Jenny Sanford were concerned about.
But sources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.
WYFF News 4 has not yet confirmed where the plane was going or how the governor got to the airport, but it is clear there are two very different stories.
News 4 called the governor's office, and was told again by staffers that they stand by their original statement that the governor is hiking the Appalachian Trail. They did not want to comment on this story.
Weird.
Look, can't a guy just get away from the family for a few days to have an orgy with some male prostitutes without being hassled?
Cripes.
Quote from: CT III on June 23, 2009, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2009, 07:22:25 PM
No mention yet of South Carolina's AWOL governor?
What exactly are we paying Jon for anyways?
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/836552.html
QuoteS.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's staff said this morning that the governor, who went mysteriously incommunicado for several days, plans to return to his office Wednesday.
Late Monday, his office said the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, ending four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.
...
Neither Sanford's office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, had been able to reach Sanford since he left the mansion Thursday in a black Suburban SUV assigned to his security detail, said state Sen. Jake Knotts , R-Lexington, and three others familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified.
On Monday, Sawyer would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.
Sanford's last known location was near Atlanta late last week. A mobile telephone tower there picked up a signal from his phone, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Since then, the governor's state and personal phones had been turned off, and Sanford had not responded to phone or text messages, a source said. Most mobile phones cannot be tracked if they are turned off.
First lady Jenny Sanford said Monday her husband has been gone for several days over Father's Day weekend and she did not know where.
She said she was not concerned.
"He was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press while vacationing with the couple's four sons at their Sullivan's Island beach house.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19837234/detail.html
QuoteOn Tuesday, sources told News 4's Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.
Sanford has been out of reach for more than four days, including Father's Day.
Sawyer has emphasized that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that it wasn't something the staff or Jenny Sanford were concerned about.
But sources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.
WYFF News 4 has not yet confirmed where the plane was going or how the governor got to the airport, but it is clear there are two very different stories.
News 4 called the governor's office, and was told again by staffers that they stand by their original statement that the governor is hiking the Appalachian Trail. They did not want to comment on this story.
Weird.
Look, can't a guy just get away from the family for a few days to have an orgy with some male prostitutes without being hassled?
Cripes.
Jon or Sanford?
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2009, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: CT III on June 23, 2009, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2009, 07:22:25 PM
No mention yet of South Carolina's AWOL governor?
What exactly are we paying Jon for anyways?
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/836552.html
QuoteS.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's staff said this morning that the governor, who went mysteriously incommunicado for several days, plans to return to his office Wednesday.
Late Monday, his office said the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, ending four days during which staff and state officials said they had not heard from him.
...
Neither Sanford's office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, had been able to reach Sanford since he left the mansion Thursday in a black Suburban SUV assigned to his security detail, said state Sen. Jake Knotts , R-Lexington, and three others familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified.
On Monday, Sawyer would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.
Sanford's last known location was near Atlanta late last week. A mobile telephone tower there picked up a signal from his phone, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Since then, the governor's state and personal phones had been turned off, and Sanford had not responded to phone or text messages, a source said. Most mobile phones cannot be tracked if they are turned off.
First lady Jenny Sanford said Monday her husband has been gone for several days over Father's Day weekend and she did not know where.
She said she was not concerned.
"He was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press while vacationing with the couple's four sons at their Sullivan's Island beach house.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19837234/detail.html
QuoteOn Tuesday, sources told News 4's Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.
Sanford has been out of reach for more than four days, including Father's Day.
Sawyer has emphasized that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that it wasn't something the staff or Jenny Sanford were concerned about.
But sources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.
WYFF News 4 has not yet confirmed where the plane was going or how the governor got to the airport, but it is clear there are two very different stories.
News 4 called the governor's office, and was told again by staffers that they stand by their original statement that the governor is hiking the Appalachian Trail. They did not want to comment on this story.
Weird.
Look, can't a guy just get away from the family for a few days to have an orgy with some male prostitutes without being hassled?
Cripes.
Jon or Sanford?
Both. Maybe even together.
I'm getting paid?
For the record, I found Sanford smarmy way back when he ran for state senate.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/23/sanford-disappears-to-hike-appalachian-trail-on-naked-hiking-day/
QuoteWe're not suggesting that the formerly missing Governor of South Carolina specifically ditched his family and security detail to go hiking on Naked Hiking Day. It's just that one of the days he hit the trail also happened to be the aforementioned holiday. [Editor's note: This paragraph was changed to make clear that the governor's timing was a coincidence.]
...
But many wondered aloud how this traditional, family-loving, Republican governor of a southern state could miss Fathers Day. After all he's got four children! Was something sinister in the air?
Then it took a Farrelly brothers screenplay type of twist. Sanford had not disappeared. According to his spokesman, he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. Coincidentally, on Naked Hiking Day.
It's a big tradition. Many hikers celebrate the summer solstice by hiking au naturel. It just so happened the solstice occurred on Fathers Day — one of the days Sanford was hiking.
Late last night his spokesman, Joel Sawyer expressed remorse for not divulging details earlier.
"The governor is hiking along the Appalachian Trail," Sawyer said. "I apologize for taking so long to send this update, and was waiting to see if a more definitive idea of what part of the Trail he was on before we did so."
If he did participate in the summer solstice celebration (which we acknowledge is not likely), he could get into some real trouble. Rangers and police warn that people caught outdoors in the altogether could be charged with indecent exposure. Managers of the Appalachian Trail, where the tradition is sometimes observed by those trekking from Georgia to Maine, also discourage nudity.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/23/car-believed-to-be-sanfords-found-at-south-carolina-airport/
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
So you can scrub this guy from the Presidential contenenders' list then?
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
Or a better family to spend his Father's Day with.
Maybe he just wanted to destroy any potential 2012 presidential bid early and in style.
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
So you can scrub this guy from the Presidential contenenders' list then?
Abruptly left his family behind over Father's Day, incommunicado in an undisclosed South American location for a week, to get away from the pressures of running the government of the nation's 24th largest state?
Yeah... Pretty sure you can cross him off.
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
So you can scrub this guy from the Presidential contenenders' list then?
Nice.
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 08:53:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
So you can scrub this guy from the Presidential contenenders' list then?
Nice.
It's not all Borscht Belt around here, you know...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2009, 09:09:56 AMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html)
Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
[/quote]
Not the point. Bush scripted his press conferences (he even said so during one "This is scripted" he slipped out) and that was seen as done as a way to get a guy uncomfortable with talking off the cuff through a presser. If you do that, it becomes less a press conference and more of a campaign event.
Obama should be better than this.
Quote from: RV on June 24, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2009, 09:09:56 AMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html)
Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.
Maybe. From the original post I put up:
QuoteUPDATE, 8:48 p.m.: Nico Pitney e-mailed to say that it was the White House that approached him with a request to ask an Iran question, not vice versa. On Huffington Post, he wrote today: "Last night, after emailing with a few people about Obama's press conference and what he might say, I decided to throw it open to our readers. I received a call from White House staff saying they had seen what I'd written and thought the President might be interested in receiving a question directly from an Iranian."
White House spokesman Bill Burton, asked to comment, offered this: "He wasn't planted nor was the question pre-planned. He happened to ask the best question on the issue of Iran, and it isn't one that we knew in advance nor that we asked him to pose." Further, Burton added: "There was no agreement to call on him if he asked about Iran." Finally, he posited: "This is just silly -- did you really think that we needed to pre-arrange questions about Iran in order to get them?"
No, the White House didn't need to. But according to an e-mail Pitney sent to his Huffington Post colleagues Monday night, that's just what the White House did. "The White House called earlier this evening and asked if I could ask a question of President Obama at his press conference tomorrow on behalf of an Iranian," he wrote. "I'm about to post a solicitation to the blog/Facebook/Twitter, etc. It seems fairly likely that this will happen but as they told me, 'it's not 100 percent until he calls your name.'"
And
QuoteStill, the private agreement -- to call on a questioner under condition that he ask his question on a particular topic in a particular way -- is very close to what the left justifiably deplored when there were accusations (denied by the media) that the White House was pre-screening reporters and their questions before news conferences.
And Pitney was not the only "plant" at yesterday's news conference. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language E.F.E. news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see if she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. "Okay, Macarena Vidal," Obama called out, as the regulars adopted baffled expressions. She asked about Chile and Colombia.
A couple more questions and Obama called it a day. "Mr. President!" yelled Mike Allen of Politico. "May I ask about Afghanistan?" Obama kept going. "No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?"
Sorry, those weren't pre-arranged.
I just read Chuck's reply, and as is much more likely on non-baseball-related topics, he is right.
Quote from: RV on June 24, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2009, 09:09:56 AMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html)
Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.
This is kind of a special case, considering Pitney has been actively soliciting emails directly from ordinary Iranians and was positioned better than other reporters in the room to ask a question on their behalf. Obama acknowledged as much before calling on him:
Quote"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
I suppose there's a bit of PR stage management involved in the White House's desire to field a question "from an Iranian" in the first place, but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the question was a tough and direct one (and not, apparently, itself arranged or scripted beforehand):
QuoteUnder which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?
As for the Spanish-language reporter... is that all that unusual or conscience-shocking considering the visit of the Chilean President later in the day?
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 01:06:13 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 27, 2009, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else). Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.
Addressed in the article:
QuoteThe third class of health-cost proposals, I explained, would push people to use medical savings accounts and hold high-deductible insurance policies: "They'd have more of their own money on the line, and that'd drive them to bargain with you and other surgeons, right?"
He gave me a quizzical look. We tried to imagine the scenario. A cardiologist tells an elderly woman that she needs bypass surgery and has Dr. Dyke see her. They discuss the blockages in her heart, the operation, the risks. And now they're supposed to haggle over the price as if he were selling a rug in a souk? "I'll do three vessels for thirty thousand, but if you take four I'll throw in an extra night in the I.C.U."—that sort of thing? Dyke shook his head. "Who comes up with this stuff?" he asked. "Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure."
I do agree that there should be re-aligning of incentives for doctors - the question is whether the health care market is one that's efficient enough to react to the demands of the sheeple.
Here's a follow up interview with the dude who wrote the New Yorker health care article. The guy drops the word "incentives" enough to make morph stain his momjorts.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/an_interview_with_atul_gawande.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/an_interview_with_atul_gawande.html)
Serial Obama cynic John Kass says Obama is right on Iran. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-24-jun24,0,2750310.column)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/ (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/)
QuoteSouth Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, his eyes red, admitted to having an extramarital affair Wednesday with an Argentine woman.
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 08:52:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 24, 2009, 07:53:22 AM
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html (http://www.thestate.com/local/story/838823.html)
QuoteGov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford must have found a better male prostitute orgy in Argentina.
So you can scrub this guy from the Presidential contenenders' list then?
Abruptly left his family behind over Father's Day, incommunicado in an undisclosed South American location for a week, to get away from the pressures of running the government of the nation's 24th largest state?
Yeah... Pretty sure you can cross him off.
He snuck out to Argentina to carry on an affair with an Argentine woman? This has to be the most bizarre story I've heard out of a politician this side of Budd Dwyer eating a bullet. He's toast.
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2009, 01:41:29 PM
He snuck out to Argentina to carry on an affair with an Argentine woman?
Didn't he sneak out to Argentina to END the affair?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2009, 01:41:29 PM
He snuck out to Argentina to carry on an affair with an Argentine woman?
Didn't he sneak out to Argentina to END the affair?
They have these crazy things called phones now.
Quote from: Slak on June 24, 2009, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2009, 01:41:29 PM
He snuck out to Argentina to carry on an affair with an Argentine woman?
Didn't he sneak out to Argentina to END the affair?
They have these crazy things called phones now.
You can't do a breakup tango with a phone.
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Slak on June 24, 2009, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2009, 01:41:29 PM
He snuck out to Argentina to carry on an affair with an Argentine woman?
Didn't he sneak out to Argentina to END the affair?
They have these crazy things called phones now.
You can't do a breakup tango with a phone.
And now, the GOP's leading advocate for the anti-stimulus cause is...Sarah Palin.
Well, at least it wasn't a gay affair.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
Well, at least it wasn't a gay affair.
Really?
I was hoping it would be all cocaine and hookers and bears.
Maybe a few international gangsters... Awkward questions at customs...
Nazi gold.
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
Well, at least it wasn't a gay affair.
Really?
I was hoping it would be all cocaine and hookers and bears.
Maybe a few international gangsters... Awkward questions at customs... Nazi gold.
It could have been a tranny. I've heard those South American trannies are deceptive to the hetero-eye.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
Well, at least it wasn't a gay affair.
Really?
I was hoping it would be all cocaine and hookers and bears.
Maybe a few international gangsters... Awkward questions at customs... Nazi gold.
It could have been a tranny. I've heard those South American trannies are deceptive to the hetero-eye.
Any bets on how long it'll be before we get a picture? It was what, 3 days on Spitzer's Swallower?
In other news, Fox says Sanford changed parties. FOX NEWS: WE OPINE, YOU SUPINE.
(http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/3/fnc_20090624_sanford.jpg)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2009, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:47:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 03:22:00 PM
Well, at least it wasn't a gay affair.
Really?
I was hoping it would be all cocaine and hookers and bears.
Maybe a few international gangsters... Awkward questions at customs... Nazi gold.
It could have been a tranny. I've heard those South American trannies are deceptive to the hetero-eye.
Any bets on how long it'll be before we get a picture? It was what, 3 days on Spitzer's Swallower?
In other news, Fox says Sanford changed parties. FOX NEWS: WE OPINE, YOU SUPINE.
(http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/3/fnc_20090624_sanford.jpg)
I, for one, am shocked.
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8506/originalk.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/originalk.jpg/)
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8592/36b7f3386fb7cf7fe5a4248.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/36b7f3386fb7cf7fe5a4248.jpg/)
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8608/lamar2020d.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/lamar2020d.jpg/)
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6521/mccaindfox.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/mccaindfox.jpg/)
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8287/toomeypartyswitch.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/toomeypartyswitch.jpg/)
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6281/oreillyfoleyd3.jpg) (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/oreillyfoleyd3.jpg/)
Christ, is there a website that has all of these or something?
Quote from: MAD on June 24, 2009, 04:30:45 PM
Christ, is there a website that has all of these or something?
Not just a website, but a whole cable "news" channel.
Quote from: MAD on June 24, 2009, 04:30:45 PM
Christ, is there a website that has all of these or something?
Not that I know of. I pulled them all out of here (http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/8vbpn/can_we_all_agree_that_this_is_not_an_accident/) and rehosted them.
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
If you can't keep your commitment to your spouse, what assurances can you give that you'll be committed to your constituents?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 10:48:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
If you can't keep your commitment to your spouse, what assurances can you give that you'll be committed to your constituents?
I can't really get worked up about his marital problems as such.
Indeed, my sense that this a is a private thing and none of our business is only reinforced by skimming through his mash notes to the mistress (http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html).
I mean, sure... insofar as the man may have taken it upon himself to judge other couples' personal commitments to one another (yes, the gays) as unworthy of the rarefied status he's apparently taken for granted, fuck him.
But beyond that, his conduct within the covenant of marriage is something between him and his wife.
His conduct as the chief executive of his state, however, is another matter.
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24–7.
And he never would have done this if he hadn't been trying to keep his infidelity under the radar.
The joke of it is, The State had clearly been working up a story on this affair for months. Chances are, it was going to come out eventually in any event. And yet, he managed to turn what should be a private issue into a reckless dereliction of his office.
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24-7.
Fuck that, he either flew Delta or connected in Miami. Higher political aspirations, indeed.
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 24, 2009, 10:48:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
If you can't keep your commitment to your spouse, what assurances can you give that you'll be committed to your constituents?
I can't really get worked up about his marital problems as such.
Indeed, my sense that this a is a private thing and none of our business is only reinforced by skimming through his mash notes to the mistress (http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html).
I mean, sure... insofar as the man may have taken it upon himself to judge other couples' personal commitments to one another (yes, the gays) as unworthy of the rarefied status he's apparently taken for granted, fuck him.
But beyond that, his conduct within the covenant of marriage is something between him and his wife.
His conduct as the chief executive of his state, however, is another matter.
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24–7.
And he never would have done this if he hadn't been trying to keep his infidelity under the radar.
The joke of it is, The State had clearly been working up a story on this affair for months. Chances are, it was going to come out eventually in any event. And yet, he managed to turn what should be a private issue into a reckless dereliction of his office.
The marital problems can be an indicator of future behavior, risk-taking, etc, so for me, they play into my confidence in an elected official. As well, you expose yourself and others in your administration to blackmail and or undue influence from outside sources. I would love to think that personal dalliances should be private, but unfortunately, that just isn't the case for public officials. He obviously wasn't capable of making this a solely private matter.
Unfortunately, just because guys like this are hypocrites (and disgusting too), doesn't take away from their arguments for or against gay marriage, etc... Separate issues to a certain degree, and a logical fallacy to connect the two.
That being said, I don't need an elected official to tell me who they think should or should not get married. The fact that hetero married politicians can't keep their dicks in their pants isn't exactly helping their cause either. I support the right of two adults of sound mind to have a marriage, civil union, or whatever; and I would like to state for the record that I cannot keep my dick in my pants either.
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24-7.
Fuck that, he either flew Delta or connected in Miami. Higher political aspirations, indeed.
Argentinian pussy is pretty much the bomb, son.
Quote from: powen01 on June 25, 2009, 12:05:54 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24-7.
Fuck that, he either flew Delta or connected in Miami. Higher political aspirations, indeed.
Argentinian pussy is pretty much the bomb, son.
You want I make the milanesa completa?
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:08:10 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 25, 2009, 12:05:54 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24-7.
Fuck that, he either flew Delta or connected in Miami. Higher political aspirations, indeed.
Argentinian pussy is pretty much the bomb, son.
You want I make the milanesa completa?
With some mayonesa on the side? What the hell. Just throw in some pure de papas and I'm golden.
Quote from: powen01 on June 25, 2009, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:08:10 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 25, 2009, 12:05:54 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 11:48:14 PM
Traveling to a country 5000 miles away without so much as informing those in charge of his safety, anyone else in the government or even his own staff is pretty fucking irresponsible for someone whose job requires them to be on call 24-7.
Fuck that, he either flew Delta or connected in Miami. Higher political aspirations, indeed.
Argentinian pussy is pretty much the bomb, son.
You want I make the milanesa completa?
With some mayonesa on the side? What the hell. Just throw in some pure de papas and I'm golden.
Are you minding the Macedonio (http://www.uiowa.edu/~xchanges/archives/spring2007/macedonio/macedonio.html)? Somewhat to my surprise, his granddaughter really went for "Three Feet High and Rising."
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
I think the points made in the thread about extortion and it leading to unnecessary risks are valid ones.
But more to the point, I think that it matters when you're a candidate heavy on "family" and "Biblical" values. If his politics weren't, in part, about the sanctity of marriage, I wouldn't give a shit, but he's held himself to a standard through his stated beliefs, and he should be crucified on the cross he built.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 25, 2009, 02:33:51 AM
But more to the point, I think that it matters when you're a candidate heavy on "family" and "Biblical" values. If his politics weren't, in part, about the sanctity of marriage, I wouldn't give a shit, but he's held himself to a standard through his stated beliefs, and he should be crucified on the cross he built.
Yah, but where are the free-love governors anyway? (Put another way, since when does gloating demand rationalization?)
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 25, 2009, 02:33:51 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2009, 09:12:29 PM
Am I the only one who thinks whether someone can keep their pants zipped and their wicks dry doesn't make anyone better or worse at their job (unless they're a priest)?
I think the points made in the thread about extortion and it leading to unnecessary risks are valid ones.
But more to the point, I think that it matters when you're a candidate heavy on "family" and "Biblical" values. If his politics weren't, in part, about the sanctity of marriage, I wouldn't give a shit, but he's held himself to a standard through his stated beliefs, and he should be crucified on the cross he built.
This.
I don't care what a candidate does in his personal life as long as it doesn't negatively affect his job. However, when a candidate starts with family values, the sanctity of God, and things of this nature that candidate should be crucified on said cross when affairs and such occur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCSLR4gsgmA
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 04:07:58 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 25, 2009, 02:33:51 AM
But more to the point, I think that it matters when you're a candidate heavy on "family" and "Biblical" values. If his politics weren't, in part, about the sanctity of marriage, I wouldn't give a shit, but he's held himself to a standard through his stated beliefs, and he should be crucified on the cross he built.
Yah, but where are the free-love governors anyway? (Put another way, since when does gloating demand rationalization?)
Say what you want about Ted Kennedy, but he's one of the very few pro-drinking-and-fucking pols left.
As far as a hypocritical politician? I'm gonna need CT's fainting couch for that, whether it's Larry Craig's wide stance, Algore's carbon footprint, Sarah Palin's Arctic Socialism, or John Edwards' slaves.
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2009, 07:28:29 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 25, 2009, 04:07:58 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 25, 2009, 02:33:51 AM
But more to the point, I think that it matters when you're a candidate heavy on "family" and "Biblical" values. If his politics weren't, in part, about the sanctity of marriage, I wouldn't give a shit, but he's held himself to a standard through his stated beliefs, and he should be crucified on the cross he built.
Yah, but where are the free-love governors anyway? (Put another way, since when does gloating demand rationalization?)
Say what you want about Ted Kennedy, but he's one of the very few pro-drinking-and-fucking pols left.
As far as a hypocritical politician? I'm gonna need CT's fainting couch for that, whether it's Larry Craig's wide stance, Algore's carbon footprint, Sarah Palin's Arctic Socialism, or John Edwards' slaves.
Heritage, not Hate. We only keep slaves to honor our Great-Grandparents.
I recall when President Bush was repeatedly accused of putting politics in the way of science...
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2009, 09:44:28 AM
I recall when President Bush was repeatedly accused of putting politics in the way of science...
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study
You want to blame Obama because someone wanted to put climate change into an Endangerment memo?
That type of thing is only permissible on fringe message boards.
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2009, 09:44:28 AM
I recall when President Bush was repeatedly accused of putting politics in the way of science...
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study
You want to blame Obama because someone wanted to put climate change into an Endangerment memo?
That type of thing is only permissible on fringe message boards.
Well, often the activities of a President's Administration are ascribed to the President himself, regardless of how applicable it is. I'm just sayin'.
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2009, 10:03:30 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2009, 09:44:28 AM
I recall when President Bush was repeatedly accused of putting politics in the way of science...
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study
You want to blame Obama because someone wanted to put climate change into an Endangerment memo?
That type of thing is only permissible on fringe message boards.
Well, often the activities of a President's Administration are ascribed to the President himself, regardless of how applicable it is. I'm just sayin'.
The emails read like one guy trying to jam his views into anything coming out of the department, regardless of how relevant.
Quote from: ChuckD on June 25, 2009, 06:39:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCSLR4gsgmA
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906250024
QuoteObama wants you to— he— the best way to put it, and it's working: he's trying to kill spirit.
All this "hope and change"... he's trying to kill it.
You know how many frustrated Americans there are, out there, at what's happening?
This Sanford thing— I'm gonna tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind with Mark Sanford... this was the first thought: what he did defies logic. This is more than being 180º out of phase because of "lust" or "love."
...
This is almost like, 'I don't give a damn. The country's going to hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here.'
He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle. He said, 'What the hell? I mean, I'm—the federal government's taking over... What the hell. I want to enjoy life.'
...
The point is: there are a lot of people whose spirit is just... they're fed up, saying, 'The hell with it. I don't even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it.'
...
My first thought was: he said, 'The hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country, we can't do anything to stop it, I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina, my wife's left me. The hell with it! I'm gonna enjoy life, what little time I've got left.'
Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life— they're saying, 'screw it!'
They're saying, 'screw it,' and they're gonna— before the governm— before Obama takes away their money, before Obama takes away their house, or the economy takes away their house, there are people who are simply saying, 'Hell with this!' They've tuned out.
'To hell with it, I'm just gonna try to enjoy this as much as I can.'
...
I frankly think that this is what's wrong with the economy today: I frankly think a whole lot of people have just lost their spirit.
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2009, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 25, 2009, 06:39:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCSLR4gsgmA
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906250024
QuoteObama wants you to— he— the best way to put it, and it's working: he's trying to kill spirit.
All this "hope and change"... he's trying to kill it.
You know how many frustrated Americans there are, out there, at what's happening?
This Sanford thing— I'm gonna tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind with Mark Sanford... this was the first thought: what he did defies logic. This is more than being 180º out of phase because of "lust" or "love."
...
This is almost like, 'I don't give a damn. The country's going to hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here.'
He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle. He said, 'What the hell? I mean, I'm—the federal government's taking over... What the hell. I want to enjoy life.'
...
The point is: there are a lot of people whose spirit is just... they're fed up, saying, 'The hell with it. I don't even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it.'
...
My first thought was: he said, 'The hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country, we can't do anything to stop it, I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina, my wife's left me. The hell with it! I'm gonna enjoy life, what little time I've got left.'
Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life— they're saying, 'screw it!'
They're saying, 'screw it,' and they're gonna— before the governm— before Obama takes away their money, before Obama takes away their house, or the economy takes away their house, there are people who are simply saying, 'Hell with this!' They've tuned out.
'To hell with it, I'm just gonna try to enjoy this as much as I can.'
...
I frankly think that this is what's wrong with the economy today: I frankly think a whole lot of people have just lost their spirit.
His wife left him for no reason? Interesting. That happens all the time.
Quote from: Slak on June 25, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
His wife left him for no reason? Interesting. That happens all the time.
Obama must have killed
her spirit, too.
Like Martha Stewart before him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24180.html).
Maybe it's all the keema and dal he cooks. Or the Urdu poetry. Or the ice cream.
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2009, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Slak on June 25, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
His wife left him for no reason? Interesting. That happens all the time.
Obama must have killed her spirit, too.
Like Martha Stewart before him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24180.html).
Maybe it's all the keema and dal he cooks. Or the Urdu poetry. Or the ice cream.
Has Politico always been this TMZish? It seems that at some point in the last few months they made a conscious decision to publish as many vapid and worthless stories as possible to up their Drudge linkage.
Quote from: RV on June 25, 2009, 03:37:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 25, 2009, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Slak on June 25, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
His wife left him for no reason? Interesting. That happens all the time.
Obama must have killed her spirit, too.
Like Martha Stewart before him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24180.html).
Maybe it's all the keema and dal he cooks. Or the Urdu poetry. Or the ice cream.
Has Politico always been this TMZish? It seems that at some point in the last few months they made a conscious decision to publish as many vapid and worthless stories as possible to up their Drudge linkage.
They've been all but joined at the hip with Drudge since day one (http://mediamatters.org/research/200703290002).
More from the "hypocrisy" side of the ledger...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-affair/
QuoteWhile serving as a U.S. congressman, Sanford was incredibly critical of his colleagues' marital misdeeds, including the affairs of former congressman Bob Livingston and President Bill Clinton:
"The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it's got to be taken very, very seriously." [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
"We ought to ask questions...rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe." [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]
"I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone." [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
"The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything." [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, "As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we've always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman." [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]
Corruption in Detroit?
Shocking.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090626/NEWS01/90626024/1003/NEWS/Conyers+convicted+of+conspiracy
QuoteDetroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.
U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."
The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.
No sentencing date has been set.
Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.
...
The federal plea document released today cites two instances in late 2007, in the days surrounding the approval of the now-infamous Synagro Technologies sludge-hauling contract, when Conyers accepted cash bribes from a Synagro consultant.
The document does not cite the specific amount of the bribes, but previous court documents have said that Conyers, identified by the feds as Council Member A, took at least two bribes of $3,000 each, among other bribes.
...
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Conyers could face 31 to 60 months in prison, depending on how much money the judge believes was involved in the scheme. Conyers' lawyer and federal prosecutors disagree about the amount of money she received.
Undermining the integrity of Detroit's sludge-hauling contract... Is nothing sacred?
It's Detroit.
That sludge is all they've got.
Quote from: Tank on June 26, 2009, 11:19:18 AM
Corruption in Detroit?
Shocking.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090626/NEWS01/90626024/1003/NEWS/Conyers+convicted+of+conspiracy
QuoteDetroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.
U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."
The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.
No sentencing date has been set.
Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.
...
The federal plea document released today cites two instances in late 2007, in the days surrounding the approval of the now-infamous Synagro Technologies sludge-hauling contract, when Conyers accepted cash bribes from a Synagro consultant.
The document does not cite the specific amount of the bribes, but previous court documents have said that Conyers, identified by the feds as Council Member A, took at least two bribes of $3,000 each, among other bribes.
...
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Conyers could face 31 to 60 months in prison, depending on how much money the judge believes was involved in the scheme. Conyers' lawyer and federal prosecutors disagree about the amount of money she received.
Undermining the integrity of Detroit's sludge-hauling contract... Is nothing sacred?
It's Detroit.
That sludge is all they've got.
Fuck Detroit.
Detroit does corruption like this; Chicago does corruption like this.
(And by "this," I mean italicized.)
Quote from: Tank on June 26, 2009, 11:19:18 AM
Corruption in Detroit?
Shocking.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090626/NEWS01/90626024/1003/NEWS/Conyers+convicted+of+conspiracy
QuoteDetroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.
U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."
The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.
No sentencing date has been set.
Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.
...
The federal plea document released today cites two instances in late 2007, in the days surrounding the approval of the now-infamous Synagro Technologies sludge-hauling contract, when Conyers accepted cash bribes from a Synagro consultant.
The document does not cite the specific amount of the bribes, but previous court documents have said that Conyers, identified by the feds as Council Member A, took at least two bribes of $3,000 each, among other bribes.
...
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Conyers could face 31 to 60 months in prison, depending on how much money the judge believes was involved in the scheme. Conyers' lawyer and federal prosecutors disagree about the amount of money she received.
Undermining the integrity of Detroit's sludge-hauling contract... Is nothing sacred?
It's Detroit.
That sludge is all they've got.
They don't even have the Stanley Cup anymore.
Fuck Detroit.
Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb
All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 26, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb
All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.
BOEHNERTIME!
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: RV on June 24, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2009, 09:09:56 AMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html)
Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.
This is kind of a special case, considering Pitney has been actively soliciting emails directly from ordinary Iranians and was positioned better than other reporters in the room to ask a question on their behalf. Obama acknowledged as much before calling on him:
Quote"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
I suppose there's a bit of PR stage management involved in the White House's desire to field a question "from an Iranian" in the first place, but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the question was a tough and direct one (and not, apparently, itself arranged or scripted beforehand):
QuoteUnder which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?
As for the Spanish-language reporter... is that all that unusual or conscience-shocking considering the visit of the Chilean President later in the day?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nico-pitney/debating-the-iran-questio_b_222001.html
Dana Milbank: played in real life by Ed Helms.
Related: Old Media comedy FAIL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwyEbuWeso).
Quote from: Tank on June 29, 2009, 02:23:06 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 24, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: RV on June 24, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2009, 09:09:56 AMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2009/06/the_president_packs_the_press.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/media-playground-obama-ca_b_219863.html)
Arianna is a douche, but she's right. Milbank spends half his post complaining about this break in sacred press conference protocol before noting
QuoteThe Huffington Post writer's question -- "under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad?" -- was a perfectly legitimate one
I think this is a pissy White House press corps issue more than a ZOMG! HUFFPOST LIBRUL PLANT! issue.
This is kind of a special case, considering Pitney has been actively soliciting emails directly from ordinary Iranians and was positioned better than other reporters in the room to ask a question on their behalf. Obama acknowledged as much before calling on him:
Quote"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
I suppose there's a bit of PR stage management involved in the White House's desire to field a question "from an Iranian" in the first place, but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the question was a tough and direct one (and not, apparently, itself arranged or scripted beforehand):
QuoteUnder which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?
As for the Spanish-language reporter... is that all that unusual or conscience-shocking considering the visit of the Chilean President later in the day?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nico-pitney/debating-the-iran-questio_b_222001.html
Dana Milbank: played in real life by Ed Helms.
Related: Old Media comedy FAIL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwyEbuWeso).
You're such a dick.
So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision). However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.
Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.
In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race. Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.
So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance. Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation. This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.
In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 29, 2009, 02:39:38 PM
So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision). However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.
Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.
In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race. Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.
So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance. Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation. This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.
In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.
Intrepid Reader: LA GilMy job sucks, bro.
Quote from: Tank on June 29, 2009, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 29, 2009, 02:39:38 PM
So, I'm reading through the Ricci decision now, and I must confess, alot of this confuses the hell out of me (I'd like to hear a more experienced employment lawyer like Stew offer his opinions on the decision). However, at first glance, and this is an initial analysis, this decision does seem to turn disparate impact claims on their head, a significant area of Title VII cases.
Essentially, Kennedy begins with his summation of the case, which is that New Haven considered the race-based effects of the testing and rejected the test on that ground and that this was taking an adverse action because of an individual's race.
In order to reconcile this dichotomy, Kennedy asserts that a good faith fear of a disparate impact lawsuit cannot be enough to justify acting because of an individual's race. Then, analogizing the affirmative action cases within the meaning of the 14th amendment, Kennedy noted that affirmative action created the same kind of conflict in its EP decisions.
So, like the good moderate that he is, Kennedy strikes a balance. Once a hiring or promotional process has begun, an employer may not deviate from that process over concerns that the process discriminates unless there is a strong basis in evidence to believe that the practice would not survive a disparate impact lawsuit. Employers can act before there is a "provable, actual violation," but only if there is this strong basis in evidence to believe that there is a provable violation. This is a more strenous standard, and may nullify many Title VII decisions.
In the final analysis, while this does turn disparate impact cases on their head, in the end, it simply muddles the Title VII case law more so than it already is. Employment discrimination law just moved from college-level calculus to elementary particle physics.
Intrepid Reader: LA Gil
My job sucks, bro.
Slow day. End of the month and I finished all my cases early.
DPD, but reading the comments on the Huffington Post articles about the Ricci decision is delightful. I never knew that the issue of affirmative action is so internally polarizing on the Left.
This article is pure shit, in my opinion, especially the "gazebo" reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-kapor/redefining-bias-in-the-21_b_222302.html
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 26, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb
All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.
Sorry, Gil.
Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.
Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.
Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. (http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/06/27/john-boehners-sixty-minute-speech-on-the-house-floor-the-us-is-now-ruled-by-a-fascist-thugocracy/comment-page-1/) Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.
Quote from: Brownie on June 29, 2009, 06:34:40 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 26, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb
All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.
Sorry, Gil.
Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.
Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.
Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. (http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/06/27/john-boehners-sixty-minute-speech-on-the-house-floor-the-us-is-now-ruled-by-a-fascist-thugocracy/comment-page-1/) Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.
Did it give you a Boehner?
Quote from: Brownie on June 29, 2009, 06:34:40 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 26, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
Climate change regulation is hard, sayeth John Boehner of Ohio.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/boehner-zomg-climate-change-legislation-is-complicated.php?ref=fpb
All together, not too unexpected, coming from today's modern Republican.
Sorry, Gil.
Boehner is on the right side here. This bill micromanages too much, effectively puts a tax on all production and consumption. It also picks the winners and losers.
Henry Waxman dumped an additional 300 pages into this bill Friday at midnight. It passed at 7 pm that day. And the gall of Boehner to point out some of the crap in the bill.
Boehner can be bombastic at times, but he's 100 percent right. (http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/06/27/john-boehners-sixty-minute-speech-on-the-house-floor-the-us-is-now-ruled-by-a-fascist-thugocracy/comment-page-1/) Forgive some of the incendiary remarks on this site, but the 60 minute Boehner speech is the balls.
I agree with Boehner in that the bill is shit. A carbon tax would have been much more effective and straightforward.
So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.
QuoteWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery
TPD, but this VF article on Sarah Palin is amazing.
QuotePalin has disappointed many of those who once had the highest hopes for her. She has stumbled over innumerable details. But as she said to Andrew Halcro years ago, "Does any of this really matter?" Palin has shown herself to have remarkable gut instincts about raw politics, and she has seen openings where others did not. And she has the good fortune to have traction within a political party that is bereft of strong leadership, and whose rank and file often demands qualities other than knowledge, experience, and an understanding that facts are, as John Adams said, stubborn things. It is, at the moment, a party in which the loudest and most singular voices, not burdened by responsibility, wield disproportionate power. She may decide that she does not need office in order to have great influence—any more than Rush Limbaugh does.
QuoteWhat does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life's injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?
QuotePalin is unlike any other national figure in modern American life—neither Anna Nicole Smith nor Margaret Chase Smith but a phenomenon all her own. The clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan—the surprise pregnancies, the two-bit blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and common-law kin caught selling drugs or poaching game—give her family a singular status in the rogues' gallery of political relatives. By comparison, Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, and Roger Clinton seem like avatars of circumspection. Palin's life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908?currentPage=1
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.
QuoteWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery
If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow. Let's go kill some virgins! Amirightfellas?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.
QuoteWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery
Those are all
good things though.
Quote from: powen01 on June 30, 2009, 12:57:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.
QuoteWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery
If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow. Let's go kill some virgins! Amirightfellas?
I call killing the ones in DeRosa jerseys.
Quote from: powen01 on June 30, 2009, 12:57:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
So, Oklahoma's got our problems nailed down.
QuoteWHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;
http://washingtonindependent.com/49173/oklahoma-republicans-ready-to-blame-the-recession-on-debauchery
If only we were less promiscuous, the sun God would smile on us and make our crops grow. Let's go kill some virgins! Amirightfellas?
Something like that...
QuoteNOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord," and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/kcl6oz.jpg)
Say... before you kill all those virgins...
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:50:45 PM
TPD, but this VF article on Sarah Palin is amazing.
QuoteWhat does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life's injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?
I'm unimpressed. I'm wouldn't say I'm a Palin apologist, but facts are stubborn things as John Adams said, and the excerpt you gave me revealed three facts:
1) The author HATES Palin. Fine.
2) Sarah Palin once said "Does any of this really matter" to Andrew Halcro about something.
3) John Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things."
But here's the real question, posed by National Review's Jim Geraghty, who has yet to find an answer: Where has Sarah Palin expressed pride in not knowing something?
Finally, she went from Mayor to Governor. Obama went from state senator to US Senator. She has a record as Governor, and whether we agree with her tactics as Governor, she has been very popular in her home state.
I will try and read the article sometime this week, but I am told that it is about 9,000 words. Just don't have the time right now to wade through it. But if those excerpts are any indication of the substance of the article, I'm very disappointed in VF. I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:50:45 PM
TPD, but this VF article on Sarah Palin is amazing.
QuoteWhat does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life's injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?
I'm unimpressed. I'm wouldn't say I'm a Palin apologist, but facts are stubborn things as John Adams said, and the excerpt you gave me revealed three facts:
1) The author HATES Palin. Fine.
2) Sarah Palin once said "Does any of this really matter" to Andrew Halcro about something.
3) John Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things."
But here's the real question, posed by National Review's Jim Geraghty, who has yet to find an answer: Where has Sarah Palin expressed pride in not knowing something?
Finally, she went from Mayor to Governor. Obama went from state senator to US Senator. She has a record as Governor, and whether we agree with her tactics as Governor, she has been very popular in her home state.
I will try and read the article sometime this week, but I am told that it is about 9,000 words. Just don't have the time right now to wade through it. But if those excerpts are any indication of the substance of the article, I'm very disappointed in VF. I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
Prove it.
Quote from: powen01 on June 30, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
Prove it.
Well, it's not Teej's writing, but IvyChat is plenty of evidence that it's possible.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2009, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 30, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
Prove it.
Well, it's not Teej's writing, but IvyChat is plenty of evidence that it's possible.
IvyChat is the same 90 words 100 times. That doesn't count.
So the LIBRULS are piling on Palin like Conservatives did on Hillary. BFD.
She started running for President a week before the election. Hey, it's a free country.
After saying Barry Hussein "palled around with TEARISTS!", then playing the victim each time she gets any negative ink/air is proving she's a lightweight on the National stage.
The simple fact is, she's the barometer/white flag on how beatable the GOP thinks Barry Hussein is...
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2009, 09:44:28 AM
I recall when President Bush was repeatedly accused of putting politics in the way of science...
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study
I'm a little late here, but (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/):
QuoteFirst off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.
QuoteOne can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.
But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc.
QuoteThey don't even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can't have any effect either.
QuoteSo in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 30, 2009, 12:50:45 PM
TPD, but this VF article on Sarah Palin is amazing.
QuoteWhat does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life's injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?
I'm unimpressed. I'm wouldn't say I'm a Palin apologist, but facts are stubborn things as John Adams said, and the excerpt you gave me revealed three facts:
1) The author HATES Palin. Fine.
2) Sarah Palin once said "Does any of this really matter" to Andrew Halcro about something.
3) John Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things."
But here's the real question, posed by National Review's Jim Geraghty, who has yet to find an answer: Where has Sarah Palin expressed pride in not knowing something?
Finally, she went from Mayor to Governor. Obama went from state senator to US Senator. She has a record as Governor, and whether we agree with her tactics as Governor, she has been very popular in her home state.
I will try and read the article sometime this week, but I am told that it is about 9,000 words. Just don't have the time right now to wade through it. But if those excerpts are any indication of the substance of the article, I'm very disappointed in VF. I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
DPD, but TJ and the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/06/gossip_vs_smears.cfm) are right. As someone who disagrees with Palin on anything and everything, even I think the article is more about the author's agenda than intrepid reporting.
QuoteAnd this, to me, is an anonymous smear with a hint of misogyny:
All the while, Palin was coping not only with the crazed life of any national candidate on the road but also with the young children traveling with her. Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression?
The open question here is whether Mr Purdum or any of those concerned aides (but not concerned enough to speak up at the time, naturally) have ever actually met a woman experiencing postpartum depression. Later in the piece Mr Purdum mentions that he came across multiple people in Alaska who mentioned "without prompting" that they had hauled out the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" and realised that Mrs Palin suffers narcissistic personality disorder. Armchair diagnoses from unnamed Alaskans. With all the well-documented nonsense that has come from and encloaked the governor and her associates, this needs to be included?
TPD. This scathing hit job on Goldman Sachs will fill Oleg's socialist heart with indignant proletariat rage, and will hopefully result in a 9,000 page defense of unfettered capitalism from morph and/or TJ.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html)
Rebuttal from Goldman. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/26/goldman-sachs-responds-to-taibbi/)
Taibbi's rebuttal to the rebuttal. (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/30/on-giving-goldman-a-chance/)
Quote from: RV on July 01, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
TPD. This scathing hit job on Goldman Sachs will fill Oleg's socialist heart with indignant proletariat rage, and will hopefully result in a 9,000 page defense of unfettered capitalism from morph and/or TJ.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html)
Rebuttal from Goldman. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/26/goldman-sachs-responds-to-taibbi/)
Taibbi's rebuttal to the rebuttal. (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/30/on-giving-goldman-a-chance/)
The section on commodity trading is laughable in its ignorance.
Light weight, simple minded, inexperienced, agenda based reporting.
It's appropriate that the Jonas Brothers are on the cover of this issue.
Health care lobbyists: more ethical than the Washington Post. (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3B5502AA-18FE-70B2-A8FD90B34E41BF57)
QuoteFor $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper's own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff."
Keep up the good work, Very Serious and Important mainstream media.
Quote from: flannj on July 01, 2009, 10:45:02 PM
Quote from: RV on July 01, 2009, 01:18:30 PM
TPD. This scathing hit job on Goldman Sachs will fill Oleg's socialist heart with indignant proletariat rage, and will hopefully result in a 9,000 page defense of unfettered capitalism from morph and/or TJ.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html)
Rebuttal from Goldman. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/26/goldman-sachs-responds-to-taibbi/)
Taibbi's rebuttal to the rebuttal. (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/06/30/on-giving-goldman-a-chance/)
The section on commodity trading is laughable in its ignorance.
Light weight, simple minded, inexperienced, agenda based reporting.
It's appropriate that the Jonas Brothers are on the cover of this issue.
9000 words not necessary - flannj summed it up nicely.
The Wasilla Whack Job quits.
The only tink I can think is that this has got to be a move on her and Todd's part to capitalize on their income potential. She's worth a lot of money right now on the speakers' circuit.
Can't see her running for anything ever again and actually winning.
In searching for a transcript of her resignation speech, I inadvertently stumbled upon my new favorite international politician...
Conservative Australian MP Joe Hockey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hockey).
Maybe he should run for Governor of Alaska.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 03, 2009, 03:21:58 PM
The Wasilla Whack Job quits.
The only tink I can think is that this has got to be a move on her and Todd's part to capitalize on their income potential. She's worth a lot of money right now on the speakers' circuit.
Can't see her running for anything ever again and actually winning.
They're going to get jobs at IPA.
Quote from: Brownie on June 30, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
But if those excerpts are any indication of the substance of the article, I'm very disappointed in VF. I can write 9,000 words on how I don't like somebody, too.
I'm only halfway through it, but I'm already very disappointed by the use of small caps for "IHOP" and the undefended assertion that "Lyndon Johnson could only have come from Texas."
[Edit.--"But is now a critic of the governor's"? What is this, Marie Claire?]
[Edit 2.--"[Ross] had sown controversy over the years by referring to gays and lesbians as 'degenerates' (he later sought to downplay the remark, saying his aversion to homosexuals was no different from his aversion to lima beans)...." Score (http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghajek/shadows.jpg).]
[Edit 3.--"Palin was to have been an honored guest, but canceled
owing to spring flooding in Alaska." It's
more insidious than Marie Claire.]
What an absolute joke (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html). "Restoring the rule of law" my ass.
QuoteThe Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.
QuoteRep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), who has scheduled a Wednesday hearing on military commissions before the House Judiciary subcommittee he heads, questioned the administration's plan to allot prisoners to federal courts, military commissions or indefinite detention.
"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial," Mr. Nadler said.
This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2009/07/sweet_lisa_madigan_wont_run_fo.html)
It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...
Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!
Quote from: Brownie on July 08, 2009, 11:04:56 AM
This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2009/07/sweet_lisa_madigan_wont_run_fo.html)
It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...
Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!
This just opens the door for CT's dream team of Ditka governoring and Oberweis senatoring.
I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.
Quote from: Brownie on July 08, 2009, 11:27:24 AM
I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.
Greatest.
Filibuster.
Ever.
Quote from: Fork on July 08, 2009, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 08, 2009, 11:27:24 AM
I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.
Greatest.
Filibuster.
Ever.
You really think Ditka would care enough about parliamentary procedure to put that kind of effort in?
I'm more curious whether the CSPAN mics would be sensitive enough to pick up his snoring.
Quote from: Tank on July 08, 2009, 12:43:36 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 08, 2009, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 08, 2009, 11:27:24 AM
I'd much rather see Ditka in the Senate. Much more entertaining, especially during committee hearings.
Greatest.
Filibuster.
Ever.
You really think Ditka would care enough about parliamentary procedure to put that kind of effort in?
I'm more curious whether the CSPAN mics would be sensitive enough to pick up his snoring.
What makes you think they'd tell him he's filibustering?
The GOP would just get him the floor and come back in a week.
Quote from: RV on July 08, 2009, 11:14:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 08, 2009, 11:04:56 AM
This sucks, although she'll probably remain AG which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2009/07/sweet_lisa_madigan_wont_run_fo.html)
It means we'll be stuck with Giannoulias as Senator and the Mighty Quinn as Gov...
Unless, of course we get some hot GOP revival action, in which case I guess this doesn't suck!
This just opens the door for CT's dream team of Ditka governoring and Oberweis senatoring.
With Buffone and OB as Ditka's campaign advisors, Da Coach is sure to reach the White House.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
Quote from: morpheus on July 09, 2009, 01:09:48 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
So the Gubment needs to force its citizenry into fiscal responsibility? When both parties are spending money they don't have, they can't piss and moan over their constituents doing the same thing.
Quote from: morpheus on July 09, 2009, 01:09:48 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
This makes me feel better about my renter status. Why can't the gubment subsidize me?
Quote from: Fork on July 09, 2009, 01:22:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 09, 2009, 01:09:48 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
So the Gubment needs to force its citizenry into fiscal responsibility? When both parties are spending money they don't have, they can't piss and moan over their constituents doing the same thing.
No arguments here Fork...just sayin', the irresponsibility of the people who borrowed too much and then defaulted on their loans should not go as unnoticed as it has thus far.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 09, 2009, 01:24:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 09, 2009, 01:09:48 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
This makes me feel better about my renter status. Why can't the gubment subsidize me?
Not that I'm complaining about my mortgage interest deduction (I got mine), but THIS: (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/killing-or-maiming-a-sacred-cow-home-mortgage-deductions/)
QuoteIf the goal of the deduction is just to increase homeownership, then it would make far more sense just to give a flat tax credit to people who buy homes. If the credit was independent of home value, then this would eliminate the incentive to buy bigger homes. If the credit was independent of borrowing, then this would decrease the incentive to over-borrow.
I have no datafaggotry to back this up, but doesn't the uncapped mortgage interest deduction - an INCENTIVE to tether yourself to a house - make even less sense when people are (I'm assuming) changing jobs and moving from city to city more than they did 30 or 40 years ago?
Quote from: RV on July 09, 2009, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 09, 2009, 01:24:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 09, 2009, 01:09:48 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/7-7-09-housing-crisis-report.pdf
QuoteU.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member
The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms.
QuoteWashington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers' creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Unfortunately, very few elected officials would be comfortable echoing Yale University economist and housing expert Robert Shiller, who writes: "[T]he subprime housing dilemma in the United States points up the problems with over-promoting homeownership. Homeownership, for all its advantages, is not the ideal housing arrangement for all people in all circumstances." However, failing to learn the mistakes of our overleveraged binge on mortgage debt will almost certainly doom the country to repeating the same mistakes again and again.
This makes me feel better about my renter status. Why can't the gubment subsidize me?
Not that I'm complaining about my mortgage interest deduction (I got mine), but THIS: (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/killing-or-maiming-a-sacred-cow-home-mortgage-deductions/)
QuoteIf the goal of the deduction is just to increase homeownership, then it would make far more sense just to give a flat tax credit to people who buy homes. If the credit was independent of home value, then this would eliminate the incentive to buy bigger homes. If the credit was independent of borrowing, then this would decrease the incentive to over-borrow.
I have no datafaggotry to back this up, but doesn't the uncapped mortgage interest deduction - an INCENTIVE to tether yourself to a house - make even less sense when people are (I'm assuming) changing jobs and moving from city to city more than they did 30 or 40 years ago?
The other side is that it's an incentive for people to continue to upgrade their homes as they get older, raise families and make more money.
As I've said before, the problem is that people simply don't understand what they're buying, home or mortgage. Someone can look at the monthly payment and not realize how the payment is calculated or how ARMs and such work.
Part of the problem is that the same innovation that produced very good products (ARMs, IOs, etc) was the used as a money grab to qualify unqualified borrowers.
The way we calculated debt-to-income ratios was to use the monthly payment. Well, if the monthly payment was IO or an ARM, the fact that the payment would eventually go up was never taken into account. What made this possible was that our underwriting guidelines were very much set by the banks that bought our loans, not by Freddie/Fannie. In other words, if Meryl Lynch wanted loans that were set at a certain interest rate (say 9%) they would allow borrowers with lower credit scores (say 600) and they would allow for 80/20 or 100 LTV financing. The biggest concern wasn't making
good loans, it was making loans that could be sold as securities. After the initial loosening of the guidelines by Freddie/Fannie, the rest was set by the buyers of the loans.
Frankly, this securitization of mortgages happened way before Freddie/Fannie loosened their guidelines in the 90s (read Liar's Poker). That was really the start of this mess.
Morph (and his ilk) would like to blame the liberal policies of Freddie/Fannie. And, they're not blameless. But to lay the full blame at their feet is playing politics.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/burris/1659702,roland-burris-senate-reelection-2010-070909.article
QuoteSneed has learned U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has decided NOT to seek election to the seat he fought the government to keep.
Sen. Burris is planning to announce his decision Friday by issuing a statement to the press. But he's reportedly not planning to field any questions from the press.
The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week...and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000
A source tells Sneed that Burris, who was appointed to Barack Obama's senate seat by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has been very concerned about his legacy.
"After 20 years in government service, Burris didn't want the last four months in office to be that legacy," said a source./quote]
Quote from: Tank on July 09, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/burris/1659702,roland-burris-senate-reelection-2010-070909.article
QuoteSneed has learned U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has decided NOT to seek election to the seat he fought the government to keep.
Sen. Burris is planning to announce his decision Friday by issuing a statement to the press. But he's reportedly not planning to field any questions from the press.
The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week...and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000
A source tells Sneed that Burris, who was appointed to Barack Obama's senate seat by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has been very concerned about his legacy.
"After 20 years in government service, Burris didn't want the last four months in office to be that legacy," said a source.
Fuck him.
I used to like Burris but he deserves every ounce of tarnish that is stuck on his so-called legacy.
Quote from: MAD on July 09, 2009, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 09, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/burris/1659702,roland-burris-senate-reelection-2010-070909.article
QuoteSneed has learned U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has decided NOT to seek election to the seat he fought the government to keep.
Sen. Burris is planning to announce his decision Friday by issuing a statement to the press. But he's reportedly not planning to field any questions from the press.
The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week...and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000
A source tells Sneed that Burris, who was appointed to Barack Obama's senate seat by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has been very concerned about his legacy.
"After 20 years in government service, Burris didn't want the last four months in office to be that legacy," said a source.
Fuck him.
I used to like Burris but he deserves every ounce of tarnish that is stuck on his so-called legacy.
Fuck him and his legacy.
That four months was enough for someone to put chisel to headstone.
Here's some lovely sentiments about the Obama girls (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2288776/posts)
Quote from: ChuckD on July 10, 2009, 01:31:55 AM
Here's some lovely sentiments about the Obama girls (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2288776/posts)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/08/article-1198393-05A4CFB5000005DC-686_468x676.jpg)
Those are some scary-looking lunch hooks.
The Obamas after that awesome pic was released of Mr. Obama checking out that teenage girl's badonkadonk.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3706359691_53c5c6c6e4_b.jpg)
Intrepid Reader: TDubbs
Don't even get me started.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Good. He's my congressman and I like him where he is.
Quote from: Indolent Reader on July 10, 2009, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Good. He's my congressman and I like him where he is.
Doing nothing?
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on July 10, 2009, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Good. He's my congressman and I like him where he is.
Doing nothing?
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
Just to be clear, Burris isn't retiring immediately, is he? He's planning on staying in the Senate until his term is up, right? Not pullin' a Palin?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 10, 2009, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on July 10, 2009, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Good. He's my congressman and I like him where he is.
Doing nothing?
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
Just to be clear, Burris isn't retiring immediately, is he? He's planning on staying in the Senate until his term is up, right? Not pullin' a Palin?
Right...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002953.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteCHICAGO. July 10 -- Sen. Roland W. Burris (D-Ill.), announced Friday that he will not run for election to a full term next year, surrendering a seat he was awarded by indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).
Standing behind a podium emblazoned with the U.S. Senate seal, Burris said he was choosing to step down in January 2011 because "the business of the people of Illinois should always come first."
Burris, 71, who was given virtually no chance of winning the seat once held by President Obama, is a politically isolated figure who had raised less than $1,000 in campaign funds during the first three months of the year. He told supporters today that he had to choose between raising money and "raising issues for my state."
When Burris said, "Make no mistake, I love serving in the United States Senate," supporters in the invited audience at a South Side hotel called out, "We love you, too!"
The audience greeted him, before he began speaking, with a standing ovation and chants of "Run, Roland run."
Burris, who has offered a series of contradictory accounts of his contacts with Blagojevich and the former governor's associates, made no mention of an ongoing Senate ethics investigation. He greeted supporters after the brief event and took no questions.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on July 10, 2009, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kirk-opts-out-of-senate-race.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.
Kirk's decision, a blow to Senate Republicans' chances in Illinois, came in the wake of Burris' formal retirement this afternoon.
It also followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill.
Kirk's move makes McKenna the almost certain Republican nominee against either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy next fall.
Good. He's my congressman and I like him where he is.
Doing nothing?
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
Not so fast?
http://www.rollcall.com/news/36689-1.html
QuoteRep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is still considering running for Senate, despite a report Friday afternoon that said he was taking himself out of the race in order to avoid a primary with state Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna.
Kirk told Roll Call over the phone Friday that he was still discussing the race with McKenna going into the weekend and that a published Washington Post report that he was dropping out of the race was incorrect.
Kirk and McKenna met with the Illinois delegation this week to gauge support for their campaigns. At the time, it was unclear who the delegation would back — in part because of Kirk's vote for the controversial cap-and-trade bill that passed the House recently.
While Kirk said he is still considering the race, a GOP source said Kirk was in fact making calls Friday morning telling people that he had decided not to run. With the state of Kirk's candidacy in flux Friday afternoon, it appears increasingly clear that Kirk will only run if McKenna will agree not to. Whether national party leaders, who see the moderate Kirk as their best general election candidate, can persuade the state party chairman to stand down remains to be seen.
Kirk told Roll Call that he and McKenna would continue to discuss the race over the weekend.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
He's a corrupt pol who'll never get busted?
He's a closet queen?
His best buddy in politics is going to the pokey?
He's in charge of the audit committee of a company who's owner is stealing everything that isn't nailed down?
He's pledged the time of his law firm's biggest earner to defend his obviously guilty buddy pro bono?
I need clarification here.
Quote from: CT III on July 10, 2009, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
He's a corrupt pol who'll never get busted?
He's a closet queen?
His best buddy in politics is going to the pokey?
He's in charge of the audit committee of a company who's owner is stealing everything that isn't nailed down?
He's pledged the time of his law firm's biggest earner to defend his obviously guilty buddy pro bono?
I need clarification here.
Well, he just got divorced from a Jeri Ryan type in the looks department.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 10, 2009, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
He's a corrupt pol who'll never get busted?
He's a closet queen?
His best buddy in politics is going to the pokey?
He's in charge of the audit committee of a company who's owner is stealing everything that isn't nailed down?
He's pledged the time of his law firm's biggest earner to defend his obviously guilty buddy pro bono?
I need clarification here.
Well, he just got divorced from a Jeri Ryan type in the looks department.
Jim Thompson tried to take Jeri Ryan to Parisian sex clubs?
I don't get this at all.
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2009, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 10, 2009, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 10, 2009, 05:46:56 PM
The rumor on Kirk is that he's got a Jim Thomson-type problem.
He's a corrupt pol who'll never get busted?
He's a closet queen?
His best buddy in politics is going to the pokey?
He's in charge of the audit committee of a company who's owner is stealing everything that isn't nailed down?
He's pledged the time of his law firm's biggest earner to defend his obviously guilty buddy pro bono?
I need clarification here.
Well, he just got divorced from a Jeri Ryan type in the looks department.
Jim Thompson tried to take Jeri Ryan to Parisian sex clubs?
I don't get this at all.
He wishes Albert Pujols was dead?
I wanted to see what was up with Obama releasing 5 of Irans Qud's commanders from our custody before commenting. It seems Obama is violating a long standing tradition of never negotiating with terrorists. He is out there trading murderers of American soldiers for hostages held by Iran.
First the tale of Laith Qazali...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODFkYTU2MjBmMTE5MDUzZTEzZWMyMTE5ZWZjNWI4Mjg=
Then the release of Qud's commanders:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY0MjkwOWVkYTNlYzE2ZjM1N2E5M2M0MTdiYTI3MzM=
Ummm yeah this is just all kinds of levels of bad.
Quote from: MikeC on July 11, 2009, 03:38:12 PM
I wanted to see what was up with Obama releasing 5 of Irans Qud's commanders from our custody before commenting. It seems Obama is violating a long standing tradition of never negotiating with terrorists. He is out there trading murderers of American soldiers for hostages held by Iran.
First the tale of Laith Qazali...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODFkYTU2MjBmMTE5MDUzZTEzZWMyMTE5ZWZjNWI4Mjg=
Then the release of Qud's commanders:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY0MjkwOWVkYTNlYzE2ZjM1N2E5M2M0MTdiYTI3MzM=
Ummm yeah this is just all kinds of levels of bad.
Andrew McCarthy? What would that fey pansy from "St. Elmo's Fire" know about international politics anyway? Pshaw.
Quote from: MikeC on July 11, 2009, 03:38:12 PM
I wanted to see what was up with the National Review had to say about Obama releasing 5 of Irans Qud's commanders from our custody before commenting parroting their position.
Awesome:
QuoteFinally, when it comes to Iran, it has become increasingly apparent that President Obama wants the mullahs to win. What you need to know is that Barack Obama is a wolf in "pragmatist" clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the "neutral" doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world.
...this neo-Communist well from which Obama drew holds that the world order is a maze of injustice, racism, and repression. Its unified theory for navigating the maze is: "United States = culprit." Its default position is that tyrants are preferable as long as they are anti-American, and that while terrorist methods may be regrettable, their root cause is always American provocation — that is, the terrorists have a point.
Truly a reasoned argument from a totally sane POV.
FWIW...
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8044453
Quote"We've turned them over at the request of the Iraqi government," said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, citing U.S. obligations to do so under a troop agreement reached late in the Bush administration. Kelly expressed concern that the individuals, which he said were "associated with" Iran's elite Quds Force, could endanger U.S. troops in Iraq.
Despite what U.S. officials say were "high level" protests through the U.S. embassy and military in Baghdad, Iraq turned them over to Iran, which then released them.
"We have of course made our concerns known to the Iraqi government," Kelly said.
U.S. officials said the Iranians' release was not part of any deal or prisoner exchange. Kelly denied speculation that the move was part of the Obama administration's outreach to the Iranian government or a quid pro quo for Iran's recent release of American journalist Roxana Saberi.
The five were arrested in a raid in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil in 2007 and had been held at the Camp Cropper detention facility near the Baghdad Airport. The U.S. says it has evidence the Iranians were tied to Iran's elite Quds Force and were working to train militants and smuggle arms, including particularly deadly armor piercing bombs known as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), to anti-U.S. elements in the country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iranians-freed10-2009jul10,0,6013374.story
QuoteThe U.S. military Thursday freed five Iranians who had been held since 2007 on suspicion of aiding Shiite Muslim militants, handing them over to the Iraqi government before their planned departure for Iran.
In a move likely to ease friction between Tehran and Washington at least on the issue of Iraq, the five were received by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki at his office in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone before being handed over to the Iranian Embassy in the evening. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had met with the Iranians and described them as "happy and safe."
He said no deal had been struck for their release, which he said came about as a result of the security agreement between the United States and Iraq signed in December. Under the deal, which saw American forces withdraw from Iraqi cities last week, the U.S. is to hand over all detainees to the Iraqi government by the end of the year.
"There wasn't any deal," Zebari said. "This has been there for some time that this would happen. It was part of the agreement for the Americans, part of withdrawing and handing over security responsibilities."
In a brief statement, the U.S. military also said the five had been freed under the terms of the accord.
Still, it was unclear why the Iranians were being freed now. The U.S. has been releasing detainees steadily since the accord took effect in January, and it has until year's end to free the remaining 10,000 or so.
Dare to hope?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300
Quote...
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."
...
Holder began to review those policies in April. As he pored over reports and listened to briefings, he became increasingly troubled. There were startling indications that some interrogators had gone far beyond what had been authorized in the legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, which were themselves controversial. He told one intimate that what he saw "turned my stomach."
It was soon clear to Holder that he might have to launch an investigation to determine whether crimes were committed under the Bush administration and prosecutions warranted. The obstacles were obvious. For a new administration to reach back and investigate its predecessor is rare, if not unprecedented. After having been deeply involved in the decision to authorize Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Holder well knew how politicized things could get. He worried about the impact on the CIA, whose operatives would be at the center of any probe. And he could clearly read the signals coming out of the White House. President Obama had already deflected the left wing of his party and human-rights organizations by saying, "We should be looking forward and not backwards" when it came to Bush-era abuses.
Still, Holder couldn't shake what he had learned in reports about the treatment of prisoners at the CIA's "black sites." If the public knew the details, he and his aides figured, there would be a groundswell of support for an independent probe. He raised with his staff the possibility of appointing a prosecutor. According to three sources familiar with the process, they discussed several potential choices and the criteria for such a sensitive investigation. Holder was looking for someone with "gravitas and grit," according to one of these sources, all of whom declined to be named. At one point, an aide joked that Holder might need to clone Patrick Fitzgerald, the hard-charging, independent-minded U.S. attorney who had prosecuted Scooter Libby in the Plamegate affair. In the end, Holder asked for a list of 10 candidates, five from within the Justice Department and five from outside.
...
...After the prospect of torture investigations seemed to lose momentum in April, the attorney general and his aides turned to other pressing issues. They were preoccupied with Gitmo, developing a hugely complex new set of detention and prosecution policies, and putting out the daily fires that go along with running a 110,000-person department. The regular meetings Holder's team had been having on the torture question died down. Some aides began to wonder whether the idea of appointing a prosecutor was off the table.
But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general's thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.
Quote from: Tank on July 11, 2009, 06:38:48 PM
Awesome:
QuoteFinally, when it comes to Iran, it has become increasingly apparent that President Obama wants the mullahs to win. What you need to know is that Barack Obama is a wolf in "pragmatist" clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the "neutral" doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world.
Now, from a Manichean viewpoint, if American imperialism were the primary evil, wouldn't it be necessary to
maintain it as the primary evil to offset some countervailing "primary good"?
Quote from: Tank on July 11, 2009, 07:12:54 PM
Dare to hope?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300
Quote...Stuff about the possibility of some goddamn accountability for that torture bullshit.
Fuck. Yes. It's about time. How can there be a deterrent for subsequent administrations to pull this shit(including this one) without a special prosecutor? Nothing has been confirmed yet though, and there's conflicting reports on what's gonna hai:
I like what Scott Horton (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-12/torture-prosecution-turnaround/p/) thinks is gonna hai (carte blanche for the special prosecutor).
QuoteFor now, however, it appears that Holder's current decision focuses only on the development of new interrogation techniques and their use at the direction of the Bush administration. Under these terms, the prosecutor would be tasked to look at the role played by Justice Department figures and other government lawyers at various stages of the process; but criminal investigations usually target specific crimes, not individuals, and this would be no exception.
I don't like what the WaPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102787.html?nav=rss_email/components) thinks is gonna hai. Abu Ghraib all over again (punishment for those who carried out the policies, but not who formulated them).
QuoteThe actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.
Quote from: MikeC on July 11, 2009, 03:38:12 PM
It seems Obama is violating a long standing tradition of never negotiating with terrorists.
I need a little help with the definition of "long standing", since the Reagan administration negotiated with the Iranians who held Americans hostage, then sold them weapons. Not to mention their position that Al Queida and the Taliban were the Afghan equivalent of the American Founding Fathers when they gave them money and weapons...not to mention the sale of chemical weapons to future "next Hitler", Saddam Hussein.
How long does something have to stand before it becomes "long standing"?
This won't go over well with TEC
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_axes_pentagon_plan_to_build
QuoteWell, the stereo system was a necessity.
QuoteWas the atomic bomb or karate developed in 5 years?
QuotePresident Obama is putting lives at risk. The only explanation I can think of is that he's terrified of dragons.
But I always thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Giannoulias, Governor Giannoulias, something.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=32169
Texas and Historical Revisionism...partners in crime (as reported by those left-wing radicals at the WSJ).
QuoteThe Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state's social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.
QuoteThree reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.
QuoteThe three reviewers appointed by the moderate and liberal board members are all professors of history or education at Texas universities, including Mr. de la Teja, a former state historian. The reviewers appointed by conservatives include two who run conservative Christian organizations: David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a group that promotes America's Christian heritage; and Rev. Marshall, who preaches that Watergate, the Vietnam War and Hurricane Katrina were God's judgments on the nation's sexual immorality. The third is Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
QuoteCurriculum changes recommended by reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education:
Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston. In first grade, students are expected to study the contributions of Americans who have influenced the course of history. Rev. Peter Marshall, a reviewer, calls Thurgood Marshall -- who as a lawyer argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became the first black justice on the U.S. Supreme Court -- a weak example.
Delete Anne Hutchinson from a list of colonial leaders. Students learn about colonial history in the fifth grade, and three reviewers suggested that the standards not include Anne Hutchinson, a 17th century figure, among a list of significant leaders. Ms. Hutchinson was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for teaching religious views at odds with the officially sanctioned faith.
Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process. Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote.
Emphasize study of original documents. The three reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the board all say students should study more original documents, rather than relying on a textbook author to interpret them. The current standards rely too much on supplementary material such as poetry, folktales and art, they say, and too little on original documents and historical narratives.
Include more study of religious revival movements. Evangelist Billy Graham should be included on a list of transformational leaders of the 20th century and students in fifth and eight grades should study the colonial-era religious revival known as the Great Awakening as a force "in shaping a national identity," suggests reviewer Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
Replace references to America's "democratic" values with "republican" values. Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out "republican" for "democratic" in teaching materials. As he explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."
Wow. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935615.html
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 14, 2009, 05:24:53 PM
Texas and Historical Revisionism...partners in crime (as reported by those left-wing radicals at the WSJ).
QuoteThe Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state's social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.
QuoteThree reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.
QuoteThe three reviewers appointed by the moderate and liberal board members are all professors of history or education at Texas universities, including Mr. de la Teja, a former state historian. The reviewers appointed by conservatives include two who run conservative Christian organizations: David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a group that promotes America's Christian heritage; and Rev. Marshall, who preaches that Watergate, the Vietnam War and Hurricane Katrina were God's judgments on the nation's sexual immorality. The third is Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
QuoteCurriculum changes recommended by reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education:
Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston. In first grade, students are expected to study the contributions of Americans who have influenced the course of history. Rev. Peter Marshall, a reviewer, calls Thurgood Marshall -- who as a lawyer argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became the first black justice on the U.S. Supreme Court -- a weak example.
Delete Anne Hutchinson from a list of colonial leaders. Students learn about colonial history in the fifth grade, and three reviewers suggested that the standards not include Anne Hutchinson, a 17th century figure, among a list of significant leaders. Ms. Hutchinson was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for teaching religious views at odds with the officially sanctioned faith.
Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process. Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote.
Emphasize study of original documents. The three reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the board all say students should study more original documents, rather than relying on a textbook author to interpret them. The current standards rely too much on supplementary material such as poetry, folktales and art, they say, and too little on original documents and historical narratives.
Include more study of religious revival movements. Evangelist Billy Graham should be included on a list of transformational leaders of the 20th century and students in fifth and eight grades should study the colonial-era religious revival known as the Great Awakening as a force "in shaping a national identity," suggests reviewer Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
Replace references to America's "democratic" values with "republican" values. Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out "republican" for "democratic" in teaching materials. As he explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."
Wow. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935615.html
Maybe they'll secede.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2009, 06:59:44 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 14, 2009, 05:24:53 PM
Texas and Historical Revisionism...partners in crime (as reported by those left-wing radicals at the WSJ).
QuoteThe Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state's social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.
QuoteThree reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.
QuoteThe three reviewers appointed by the moderate and liberal board members are all professors of history or education at Texas universities, including Mr. de la Teja, a former state historian. The reviewers appointed by conservatives include two who run conservative Christian organizations: David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a group that promotes America's Christian heritage; and Rev. Marshall, who preaches that Watergate, the Vietnam War and Hurricane Katrina were God's judgments on the nation's sexual immorality. The third is Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
QuoteCurriculum changes recommended by reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education:
Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston. In first grade, students are expected to study the contributions of Americans who have influenced the course of history. Rev. Peter Marshall, a reviewer, calls Thurgood Marshall -- who as a lawyer argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became the first black justice on the U.S. Supreme Court -- a weak example.
Delete Anne Hutchinson from a list of colonial leaders. Students learn about colonial history in the fifth grade, and three reviewers suggested that the standards not include Anne Hutchinson, a 17th century figure, among a list of significant leaders. Ms. Hutchinson was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for teaching religious views at odds with the officially sanctioned faith.
Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process. Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote.
Emphasize study of original documents. The three reviewers appointed by social conservatives on the board all say students should study more original documents, rather than relying on a textbook author to interpret them. The current standards rely too much on supplementary material such as poetry, folktales and art, they say, and too little on original documents and historical narratives.
Include more study of religious revival movements. Evangelist Billy Graham should be included on a list of transformational leaders of the 20th century and students in fifth and eight grades should study the colonial-era religious revival known as the Great Awakening as a force "in shaping a national identity," suggests reviewer Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.
Replace references to America's "democratic" values with "republican" values. Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out "republican" for "democratic" in teaching materials. As he explains: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."
Wow. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935615.html
Maybe they'll secede.
That'd be great, but they can't afford. This asshole state will be crashing in America's basement indefinitely.
Changes are afoot for the NLRB...more work for moi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 17, 2009, 11:36:46 AM
Changes are afoot for the NLRB...more work for moi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print)
There's still something about seeing the phrase "Senator Al Franken" that, election issues aside, is farcical.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on July 17, 2009, 11:36:46 AM
Changes are afoot for the NLRB...more work for moi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hpw=&pagewanted=print)
The Democrats can take organized labor for granted because there is no practical alternaitve to the Democrats. Every so often I hear grumbling about starting a "Labor Party". That isn't going to happen. Organized labor can't even afford to sit out an election because the Republicans don't have the qualms about taking advantage of legislative majorities that the Democrats have.
Lovie Smith and Jake Utler* are going to be at a Barry Hussein/DNC fundraiser on Thursday night...does this mean this thread now has synergy with the Bears Offseason thread?
*and at least 1 Desipiot
Nate Silver issues a challenge...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skeptics.html
QuoteSelective memory is a powerful thing. I'm not particularly certain when pointing out the fact that it might be cool or rainy in your hometown one afternoon became subject for worthwhile blog material, but you have started to see this all the time on certain conservative blogs, probably led by the example of Matt Drudge.
Therefore, because I'd like to see more accountability on all sides of this debate and because I'm tired of people who don't understand statistics and because I'd like to make some money, I issue the following challenge.
You are eligible for this challenge if:
1. You live in the United States and provide me with your home address and telephone number (I will provide you with mine) and,
2. You are a regular (at least once weekly) contributor to a political, economics or science blog with an Alexa traffic global ranking of 50,000 or lower.
The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I'd assume you'd do the same with me.
The rules of the challenge are as follows:
1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we'll tally up the winning and losing days and the loser writes the winner a check for the balance.
3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you'd have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party.
Any takers? You can reach me by clicking the 'Contact' button at the top of the page.
EDIT: No takers yet. Eligibility will remain open through Monday (the 20th). Limit three contestants within any one 100-mile geographic radius.
Quote from: Tank on July 19, 2009, 11:08:26 AM
Nate Silver issues a challenge...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skeptics.html
QuoteSelective memory is a powerful thing. I'm not particularly certain when pointing out the fact that it might be cool or rainy in your hometown one afternoon became subject for worthwhile blog material, but you have started to see this all the time on certain conservative blogs, probably led by the example of Matt Drudge.
Therefore, because I'd like to see more accountability on all sides of this debate and because I'm tired of people who don't understand statistics and because I'd like to make some money, I issue the following challenge.
You are eligible for this challenge if:
1. You live in the United States and provide me with your home address and telephone number (I will provide you with mine) and,
2. You are a regular (at least once weekly) contributor to a political, economics or science blog with an Alexa traffic global ranking of 50,000 or lower.
The reason for the latter requirement is because I want to be able to shame/humiliate you if you back out of the challenge or refuse to pay, as I'd assume you'd do the same with me.
The rules of the challenge are as follows:
1. For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
2. The challenge proceeds in monthly intervals, with the first month being August. At the end of each month, we'll tally up the winning and losing days and the loser writes the winner a check for the balance.
3. The challenge automatically rolls over to the next month until/unless: (i) one party informs the other by the 20th of the previous month that he would like to discontinue the challenge (that is, if you want to discontinue the challenge for September, you'd have to tell me this by August 20th), or (ii) the losing party has failed to pay the winning party in a timely fashion, in which case the challenge may be canceled at the sole discretion of the winning party.
Any takers? You can reach me by clicking the 'Contact' button at the top of the page.
EDIT: No takers yet. Eligibility will remain open through Monday (the 20th). Limit three contestants within any one 100-mile geographic radius.
I think that they call it "global warming", not "my hometown warming".
The end of Todd? (http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1672594,illinois-politics-race-danny-davis-071809.article)
Quote"I'm in," declared West Side Congressman Danny Davis by phone from Washington on Friday morning.
Davis had worked late the night before on President Obama's health-care bill, which passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee just before midnight. But as much as Davis loves policy work, as important as his seat on the Ways and Means committee is to Illinois, after six terms he's coming home.
"I'm in" means he's leaving Congress to run for president of the Cook County Board in 2010, a position now occupied by the embattled Todd Stroger, who says he's running too.
And in other news, this "Family"/C Street business is creepy as hell (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/index.html).
QuoteWe now know that the Family was aware of Sen. Ensign's affair long before Doug Hampton's wounded pride forced it into the public. What's more, if Hampton is to be believed, their concern with the payoffs made by Ensign and his parents to his mistress's family was that they were too small; operating in a medical and spiritual capacity, Sen. Coburn counseled $1.2 million, according to Hampton. Coburn is no hypocrite -- he's a true believer in the faith of the Family, the idea that the chosen need to look out for one another. Christian right leader -- and Watergate felon -- Chuck Colson, converted through the efforts of the Family, has boasted of it as a "veritable underground of Christ's men all through government."
QuoteMen under the Family's religio-political counsel include, in addition to Ensign, Coburn and Pickering, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there's Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too.
Danny Davis' finest moment?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html
Where is all the good Obama news of him saving the United States and the world? You would think with him fixing everything you guys would be chugging on his dick 24/7 about how awesome he is over Bush.
My guess is with the Stimulus turning out to be a real turd, cap and trade talk, another turd trying to be forced down your throats in Health Care Reform, The IG scandals, the government ownership of car companies (sales down 22%, like no one saw that coming), massive tax increases looming, and Obama's bold faced lies about how he was going to run a more open and transparent government compared to Bush, there just isn't a whole lot of good news coming out from Obama world.
I will be watching to see if Obama has the stones to say "We Rescued the Economy" tonight. Lets see the stimulus was supposed to create 3 million jobs and cap unemployement from rising above 8%. Its above 9.5% and the economy has lost 3 million jobs.
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight and try to convince the American people about another bill you have no idea whats in again, i am sure things will turn out just as good. Just lather on its all Bush's fault, throw in a catchy change/hope slogan, lie to peoples faces and they will come back and vote for you again.
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care is those Blue Dog Democrats who actually look to be standing firmly in the way of this. The first side to show a real spine against Obama is a small block of Democrats, good for them.
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
Where is all the good Obama news of him saving the United States and the world? You would think with him fixing everything you guys would be chugging on his dick 24/7 about how awesome he is over Bush.
My guess is with the Stimulus turning out to be a real turd, cap and trade talk, another turd trying to be forced down your throats in Health Care Reform, The IG scandals, the government ownership of car companies (sales down 22%, like no one saw that coming), massive tax increases looming, and Obama's bold faced lies about how he was going to run a more open and transparent government compared to Bush, there just isn't a whole lot of good news coming out from Obama world.
I will be watching to see if Obama has the stones to say "We Rescued the Economy" tonight. Lets see the stimulus was supposed to create 3 million jobs and cap unemployement from rising above 8%. Its above 9.5% and the economy has lost 3 million jobs.
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight and try to convince the American people about another bill you have no idea whats in again, i am sure things will turn out just as good. Just lather on its all Bush's fault, throw in a catchy change/hope slogan, lie to peoples faces and they will come back and vote for you again.
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care is those Blue Dog Democrats who actually look to be standing firmly in the way of this. The first side to show a real spine against Obama is a small block of Democrats, good for them.
So when did you finally decide you had enough and move out of the country?
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
Where is all the good Obama news of him saving the United States and the world? You would think with him fixing everything you guys would be chugging on his dick 24/7 about how awesome he is over Bush.
My guess is with the Stimulus turning out to be a real turd, cap and trade talk, another turd trying to be forced down your throats in Health Care Reform, The IG scandals, the government ownership of car companies (sales down 22%, like no one saw that coming), massive tax increases looming, and Obama's bold faced lies about how he was going to run a more open and transparent government compared to Bush, there just isn't a whole lot of good news coming out from Obama world.
I will be watching to see if Obama has the stones to say "We Rescued the Economy" tonight. Lets see the stimulus was supposed to create 3 million jobs and cap unemployement from rising above 8%. Its above 9.5% and the economy has lost 3 million jobs.
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight and try to convince the American people about another bill you have no idea whats in again, i am sure things will turn out just as good. Just lather on its all Bush's fault, throw in a catchy change/hope slogan, lie to peoples faces and they will come back and vote for you again.
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care is those Blue Dog Democrats who actually look to be standing firmly in the way of this. The first side to show a real spine against Obama is a small block of Democrats, good for them.
We need to have a sitdown soon and figure out royalty payments on the song lyrics your writing for CamoCargoConspiracy.
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
Where is all the good Obama news of him saving the United States and the world? You would think with him fixing everything you guys would be chugging on his dick 24/7 about how awesome he is over Bush.
My guess is with the Stimulus turning out to be a real turd, cap and trade talk, another turd trying to be forced down your throats in Health Care Reform, The IG scandals, the government ownership of car companies (sales down 22%, like no one saw that coming), massive tax increases looming, and Obama's bold faced lies about how he was going to run a more open and transparent government compared to Bush, there just isn't a whole lot of good news coming out from Obama world.
I will be watching to see if Obama has the stones to say "We Rescued the Economy" tonight. Lets see the stimulus was supposed to create 3 million jobs and cap unemployement from rising above 8%. Its above 9.5% and the economy has lost 3 million jobs.
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight and try to convince the American people about another bill you have no idea whats in again, i am sure things will turn out just as good. Just lather on its all Bush's fault, throw in a catchy change/hope slogan, lie to peoples faces and they will come back and vote for you again.
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care is those Blue Dog Democrats who actually look to be standing firmly in the way of this. The first side to show a real spine against Obama is a small block of Democrats, good for them.
Wait...who's doing the fear-mongering about health care?
Quote from: Oleg on July 22, 2009, 04:14:26 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
Where is all the good Obama news of him saving the United States and the world? You would think with him fixing everything you guys would be chugging on his dick 24/7 about how awesome he is over Bush.
My guess is with the Stimulus turning out to be a real turd, cap and trade talk, another turd trying to be forced down your throats in Health Care Reform, The IG scandals, the government ownership of car companies (sales down 22%, like no one saw that coming), massive tax increases looming, and Obama's bold faced lies about how he was going to run a more open and transparent government compared to Bush, there just isn't a whole lot of good news coming out from Obama world.
I will be watching to see if Obama has the stones to say "We Rescued the Economy" tonight. Lets see the stimulus was supposed to create 3 million jobs and cap unemployement from rising above 8%. Its above 9.5% and the economy has lost 3 million jobs.
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight and try to convince the American people about another bill you have no idea whats in again, i am sure things will turn out just as good. Just lather on its all Bush's fault, throw in a catchy change/hope slogan, lie to peoples faces and they will come back and vote for you again.
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care is those Blue Dog Democrats who actually look to be standing firmly in the way of this. The first side to show a real spine against Obama is a small block of Democrats, good for them.
Wait...who's doing the fear-mongering about health care?
I liked the part where MikeC said that change is a catchy slogan then says the plan to change health care is a turd. That was well done.
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
But hey lets fear monger about health care tonight...
I don't think most Americans need anyone to tell them how much our current health insurance system sucks.
Statistics that help quantify this
are sometimes helpful, though (if a bit "faggy").
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
The only thing stopping this country from going down the failed route of free health care...
You're referring to the Free Health Care Act of 2009 as proposed by Congressman Ivan McCommie (Homocrat, State of Frenchylvania), right?
Talking to Mike C. about politics is like talking to Chuck about Soriano.
Quote from: MAD on July 22, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Talking to Mike C. about politics is like talking to Chuck about Soriano.
Intrepid Reader: GordoSo you think Soriano and Obama are one and the same, do you? RACIST!
Quote from: PiniellaTailOnTheDonkey on July 22, 2009, 05:25:15 PM
Quote from: MAD on July 22, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Talking to Mike C. about politics is like talking to Chuck about Soriano.
Intrepid Reader: Gordo
So you think Soriano and Obama are one and the same, do you? RACIST!
Soriano has much better teeth.
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
Quote from: Brownie on July 22, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
Reductio ad absurdem is fun.
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts)
(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)
Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.
Quote from: Tank on July 22, 2009, 10:45:17 PM
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts)
(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)
Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.
Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?
It's just crazy enough to work!
Quote from: Fork on July 23, 2009, 07:16:31 AM
Quote from: Tank on July 22, 2009, 10:45:17 PM
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts)
(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)
Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.
Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?
It's just crazy enough to work!
We have to protect our phony baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We need to something about this immediately. Immediately. Immediately! Harumph! Harumph!
Quote from: HST Redux on July 23, 2009, 07:20:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 23, 2009, 07:16:31 AM
Quote from: Tank on July 22, 2009, 10:45:17 PM
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295624/posts)
(* * R O U G H * * D R A F T * *)
Maybe the final draft will install someone other than Hillary Clinton as "interim provisional Chief Executive." But I guess that's up to we the people.
Eliminate the US Government, replace it with one of the exact same size and scope, then eliminate its funding?
It's just crazy enough to work!
We have to protect our phony baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We need to something about this immediately. Immediately. Immediately! Harumph! Harumph!
Harumph!
Quote from: Brownie on July 22, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand. But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.
Quote from: Brownie on July 22, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
Nobody said the Canadian system is perfect, but pound-for-pound Cannucks prefer theirs to America's by a large majority.
The good news in this situation is that, while it must be tremendously stressful, the Stinsons won't have to pay for the care their child is receiving in Buffalo. Imagine if they'd been in the States when she went through her premature birth ... would it just be thousands of dollars that they'd owe the hospitals, or tens of thousands?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2009, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 22, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand. But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.
Our friend from Addisonst wanted me to know that the lack of universal health care in the States doesn't matter ... America is still the hot spot for all immigrants everywhere, you don't see anybody going to Cuba, and Canadians sure should be grateful for the American missile defense system.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2009, 07:56:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 22, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 22, 2009, 09:44:13 PM
So ... just wondering, why do some people seem to think that America is the only country in the world where Universal Health Care wouldn't work?
I don't know. Maybe it's because that the largest metropolitan area in Canada can't muster a single NICU bed, but were able to find a hospital with one at the ready in Buffalo, which is hardly a picture of American prosperity. (http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home)
So, the Canadian system was inefficient by not having enough supply to meet demand. But the US system was also inefficient by having more supply than demand.
And, indeed, the US outcomes aren't particularly better (http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghajek/1036.pdf). The problem with looking at "efficiency" of the "system," though, is that it can't adjust in real time (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/may0809overload.html).
In case you missed last night's press conference:
http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html (http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html)
Quote from: RV on July 23, 2009, 09:02:23 AM
In case you missed last night's press conference:
http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html (http://moonshinepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/president-obama-press-conference-july.html)
Ho. Lee. Shit...that is motherfuckin'
GOLD
Quote from: Wheezer on July 23, 2009, 08:19:14 AM
And, indeed, the US outcomes aren't particularly better (http://home.uchicago.edu/~ghajek/1036.pdf). The problem with looking at "efficiency" of the "system," though, is that it can't adjust in real time (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/may0809overload.html).
For those who don't care to (or bother to) click through, from the first link...
The study compares prenatal and neonatal care and outcomes between the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.
QuoteMortality Outcomes
No country has consistently better mortality outcomes (Tables 5 and 6). As reported elsewhere,2 crude infant and neonatal mortality rates rank the United States behind the other 3 countries (US infant mortality rate [IMR] is 7.1 deaths per 1000 live births, compared with 4.3–5.5; US neonatal mortality rate [NMR] is 4.7 compared with 3.0 –3.8).24,26,39 – 41 Stratifying these rates into birth weight specific categories significantly narrows these observed differences.
As shown in Table 5, all 4 countries have statistically similar birth weight-specific IMR for newborns <500 g.26,39 – 41 For infants above 500 g, statistically significant differences were observed, but no country had consistently better outcomes. The exception was for infants weighing above 2500 g, where the United States has statistically higher mortality (2.6 per 1000 live births) compared with all 3 countries (1.3–2.3).
NMR measures outcomes during the period where neonatal intensive care is most influential. Like the IMR data, (Table 6) no country can claim better survival.24,26,39,40 With the United States as the reference, (relative risk [RR]: 1), Australia has significantly better outcomes for infants born <1000 g, (RR: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75– 0.94). In contrast, the Canadian infants seem to have a relative disadvantage for infants born between 1000 and 2499 g, (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 –1.45) and those infants born in England and Wales above 2500 g likewise have higher mortality (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.07–1.24). Although the non-US countries administer neonatal care with fewer available physicians and neonatal hospital beds, their infants do not suffer greater mortality.
Comment
This report examines both reproductive care and mortality across 4 developed countries and finds that the United States commits greater resources to neonatal intensive care, although its infants do not have proportionately better survival. The other 3 countries' health care systems, in contrast, place more emphasis on preconception and prenatal care. These findings suggest that additional expansion of neonatal intensive capacity would not result in proportionate benefit in mortality. Our data support this view for the following reasons: First, birth weight, a reflection of socioeconomic context and the quality of medical care before birth, is an important predictor of mortality that is not influenced by postnatal medical interventions including neonatal intensive care.6,42,43 Second, even for low birth weight infants, it does not seem that higher US neonatal care capacity is associated with improved survival.44 Finally, there are unmet needs in other areas of preconception and prenatal care that may affect birth weight and, in turn, neonatal mortality.43,45
...
One unexpected finding of our study is that the US infant mortality rate for infants greater than 2500 g is significantly higher than those of the other 3 countries. If the United States were able to reduce mortality in this group to the rate in Canada, (2.6 –2.3 per 1000 live births) this would prevent almost 3000 deaths. Neonatal mortality rates (<28 days) were similar, indicating that the higher mortality risk for the normal weight infants occurs after the first month of life. Only 23% of postneonatal mortality is attributable to perinatal causes,73 and perinatal events are less important in these normal birth weight newborns. More frequent causes of mortality (eg, sudden infant death, injuries, and infections) are not directly influenced by neonatal intensive care, but may instead reflect social disadvantage or access to medical care.74 These findings merit additional investigation.
Cont'd...
QuoteCONCLUSION
This report finds that Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom provide more consistent access to preconception and prenatal care than the United States, and although the United States has more neonatal intensive care capacity, birth weight-specific mortalities are no better. These findings question the marginal benefit of allocating additional resources to neonatal intensive care. Because decreasing neonatal intensive care resources may have unintended consequences, a possible alternative for the United States is to maintain level resources in neonatal intensive care while improving funding for preconception and prenatal care.10,47,75 Unintended pregnancies in particular remain an important determinant of infant outcomes that merit policy interventions.76 Furthermore, many authors endorse the promotion of prenatal care as a means to reduce low birth weight and improve infant mortality,4,42,45,77– 80 although research is needed to identify which prenatal interventions are most effective.81
The recognition that improved infant outcomes requires consistent care from preconception through early childhood should stimulate policies directed toward a more equitable distribution of resources across the domains of reproductive care. The 1976 document, Toward Improving the Outcome of Pregnancy (or TIOP I), provided a conceptual framework for the present hospital-based regionalized system of care and may have facilitated much of the earlier improvements in perinatal outcomes.46 The report of a second committee on perinatal health (or TIOP II) in 1993, made additional policy proposals that focused beyond hospital based care into preconception and perinatal care, public education, data management, accountability and financing.47 These recommendations have not been effectively implemented in the United States. As the current study shows, the outcomes of the total US birth cohort lag behind similarly developed countries, despite the best-funded system of neonatal intensive care in the world.
Not only did I only read the bold sections, but I only read every other word. It made no sense.
Quote from: Oleg on July 23, 2009, 12:14:30 PM
Not only did I only read the bold sections, but I only read every other word. It made no sense.
No offense, Oleg, but this list is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
Quote from: BH on July 23, 2009, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 23, 2009, 12:14:30 PM
Not only did I only read the bold sections, but I only read every other word. It made no sense.
No offense, Oleg, but this list is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
But, I didn't make a list...
Quote from: Oleg on July 23, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
Quote from: BH on July 23, 2009, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 23, 2009, 12:14:30 PM
Not only did I only read the bold sections, but I only read every other word. It made no sense.
No offense, Oleg, but this list is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
But, I didn't make a list...
That's how dumb your list was.
Debunking tomorrow's white-hot MikeC copy-and-paste outrage today...
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2009/07/zombie-lies.html
QuoteThe one I have seem pop up most recently is the odd lie that the House Tri-Com bill (HR 3200) will "outlaw individual private coverage."
Huh? I thought that's what the National Insurance Exchange was for?! Where did that come from?
I remembered that I had seen some crazy rant from Rep Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon) (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/bachmann-misreads-health-care/) along these lines:
QuoteIt's over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it's going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you're not going to have in five years. What you're going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all.
And some commenters on Kevin's blog linked to this unsigned opinion piece from Investors.com (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329):
QuoteIt didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
How odd that they both cite "page 16" in their rants, both of which were published on the same day. It's almost as if this were somehow coordinated... Nah. I must be getting paranoid.
The provision they are referring to, by the way, is this (edited for clarity/brevity, full text at the link):
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
[ snipped here for even further brevity ]
So what does this mean in the real world?
1. Individual health insurance policies already in effect may continue but may not be altered.
2. Employer-sponsored plans have five years to get in compliance with the new regulations.
3. New individual health insurance policies will only be available through the National Insurance Exchange (NIE).
Remember, the NIE is where the private insurers will be competing against one another as well as against a possible public plan, if it survives. It is not synonymous with a "government plan," though I hope that consumers will have the choice of a government-sponsored insurance policy. The new regulations referred to are simply those I've outlined many times before -- community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum benefits floor.
The Investors.com piece is by far more blatantly dishonest. For example, they stated, "those who leave a company to work for themselves [will not] be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." But this is flatly false, since individual plans will be freely available through the NIE. They also write, "a public option [...] will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it," which disregards the fact that both the House and Senate bills make it clear that the public plan will be funded through premiums, not from general revenues. If there is a price advantage to the public plan, it will be due to lower reimbursement to providers, not from taxpayer subsidies. And the citation of "The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a [public] program," ignoring that this estimate was not based on the plan as it currently exists, and the CBO estimated that only about 10 million people (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/house-bill-comes-in-at-1-trillion-undermines-gop-talking-points/) would choose the House's "strong" public option. And as a sort of a coda, the author repeats the simply false claim, "What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law." It's simply not true. Private plans will be available, and competitive, through the NIE. You can't get more dishonest than that.
DPD...
The RAND Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, has published a study investigating the economic effects of inflationary healthcare costs...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122434573/abstract
http://www.randcompare.org/publications/summary/health_care_cost_growth_and_the_economic_performance_of_us_industries
QuoteHow do increasing health care costs affect the U.S. economy? A RAND study addressed this question by estimating how health care cost growth that exceeds growth in GDP ("excess" cost growth) affected three important economic outcomes: employment, output (measured as revenues), and value added to GDP. The analysis included data from 38 industries over the 19-year period 1987-2005.
...
The study found that excess growth in health care costs has adverse effects on employment, output and value added to GDP in the U.S., and that these effects are greater for industries where high percentages of workers have employer sponsored insurance. For example, the study estimated that a 10% increase in excess health care costs would reduce employment by about 0.24 percent in an industry such as motor vehicles, where about 80% of workers have ESI, compared with about 0.13% percent drop in the retail trade, where about one-third of workers have ESI. Economy-wide across all the 38 industries, a 10% increase in excess health care costs growth would result in about 120,800 fewer jobs, $28 billion in lost revenues, and about $14 billion in lost value added.
http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/07/study_links_ris.html
QuoteThe rate of growth in U.S. health care costs has outpaced the growth rate in the gross domestic product (GDP) for many years. In 1940, the share of GDP accounted for by health care spending was just 4.5%. By 1990, it had reached 12.2%, and 16% in 2005, when health care spending totaled nearly $2 trillion, or $6,697 per person, far more than any other nation. This year health care spending is on track to equal 18% of GDP.
RAND researchers underscore that their findings do not necessarily mean that rapid growth in health care costs results in large job losses in the overall economy, since losses in industries that cover most of their workers are at least partially offset by gains in those industries that don't insure. Of course, the workers themselves may not find those jobs equivalent.
More boring health care stuff...this (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158537.php) is a very good thing, right?
QuoteA state-appointed panel of experts has endorsed the proposed 'global payment system,' which would make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to end the practice of paying healthcare providers for individual procedures. The proposed system instead attaches a fixed price to the routine healthcare costs incurred by a patient for a given time period, such as a year.
QuoteProponents say it will eliminate unnecessary medical procedures that the current system encourages by paying doctors for each test or treatment they administer. Requiring doctors to treat patients under a set-fee system would give them a financial incentive to not perform unneeded treatments or tests, the panel said.
Wait wasn't that a copy and paste? Ohh right its only bad if i do it.
Then the next comeback in that sequence is "Tank doesn't have an original thought"
Its like your hypocrites or something.....
Their hypocrites what?
Quote from: MAD on July 24, 2009, 11:20:32 AM
Their hypocrites what?
You are the lowest form of something...
What this guy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html) said.
QuoteThe conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.
QuoteThis deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
QuoteWhat we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.
Quote from: RV on July 27, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What this guy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html) said.
QuoteThe conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.
QuoteThis deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
QuoteWhat we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.
[/s]
GIULIANI TIME!!!
Quote from: RV on July 27, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What this guy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html) said.
QuoteThe conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.
QuoteThis deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
QuoteWhat we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.
Yes, what he said.
Using the troops to blast the media that keeps you on the front page?
You betcha (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090727/pl_politico/25451).
Quote from: Brownie on July 27, 2009, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: RV on July 27, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What this guy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html) said.
QuoteThe conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.
QuoteThis deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
QuoteWhat we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.
Yes, what he said.
RV wanted to spark a CFiHP-MikeC rumble, but instead he just found agreement with TJ Brown.
Provocation FAIL.
Also: what Radley Balko said.
QuoteBy any account of what happened—Gates', Crowleys', or some version in between—Gates should never have been arrested. "Contempt of cop," as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The "disorderly conduct" charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest.
He won't be, of course. And that's ultimately the scandal that will endure long after the political furor dies down. The power to forcibly detain a citizen is an extraordinary one. It's taken far too lightly, and is too often abused. And that abuse certainly occurs against black people, but not only against black people. American cops seem to have increasingly little tolerance for people who talk back, even merely to inquire about their rights.
I'm not gonna say race has nothing to do with it (read black conservative John McWhorter on the Gates arrest (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwhorter/archive/2009/07/22/gates-is-right-and-we-re-not-post-racial-until-he-isn-t.aspx): "The relationship between black men and police forces is, in fact, the main thing keeping America from becoming "post-racial" in any sense"), but this issue is a lot broader than even that.
Quote from: Tank on July 27, 2009, 02:38:52 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 27, 2009, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: RV on July 27, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What this guy (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135039.html) said.
QuoteThe conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn't about race, it's about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.
QuoteThis deference to police at the expense of the policed is misplaced. Put a government worker behind a desk and give him the power to regulate, and conservatives will wax at length about public choice theory, bureaucratic pettiness, and the trappings of power. And rightly so. But put a government worker behind a badge, strap a gun to his waist, and give him the power to detain, use force, and kill, and those lessons somehow no longer apply.
QuoteWhat we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn't change any of that.
Yes, what he said.
RV wanted to spark a CFiHP-MikeC rumble, but instead he just found agreement with TJ Brown.
Provocation FAIL.
Also: what Radley Balko said.
QuoteBy any account of what happened—Gates', Crowleys', or some version in between—Gates should never have been arrested. "Contempt of cop," as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The "disorderly conduct" charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest.
He won't be, of course. And that's ultimately the scandal that will endure long after the political furor dies down. The power to forcibly detain a citizen is an extraordinary one. It's taken far too lightly, and is too often abused. And that abuse certainly occurs against black people, but not only against black people. American cops seem to have increasingly little tolerance for people who talk back, even merely to inquire about their rights.
I'm not gonna say race has nothing to do with it (read black conservative John McWhorter on the Gates arrest (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/mcwhorter/archive/2009/07/22/gates-is-right-and-we-re-not-post-racial-until-he-isn-t.aspx): "The relationship between black men and police forces is, in fact, the main thing keeping America from becoming "post-racial" in any sense"), but this issue is a lot broader than even that.
The Balko quote is in my Facebook profile now--it's basically a much more articulate statement of how I've been arguing the Gates' arrest.
Also, I'm *shocked* that the 911 call and the caller's attorney has exposed Crowley as a liar in his police report...The Cambridge police should fire his punk ass and hire her--she had the mystery figured out at (to paraphrase) 'they could live there and just have had a tough time with the front door.'
The Balko article was fascinating - it makes me want to quit my day job as soon as I get the loans paid down to a manageable level and join the "record police action" project. Fuck Gitmo or drift net surveilance, the stuff reported in this article should be the shit that has Americans who are concerned about their rights up in arms.
Bill O'Reilly, Statfag
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052
QuoteHere are the letters.
Peter Gillies, Victoria, Canada: "Has anyone noted that life expectancy in Canada under our health system is higher than the USA?"
Well, that's to be expected, Peter, because we have ten times as many people as you do. That translates to ten times as many accidents, crimes, down the line.
We now know morph's real name: Jim G. Ferguson IV (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C90D0CB8-18FE-70B2-A89A12F0A669A994).
Quote
Rep. Pete Sessions — the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House — says on his website that earmarks have become "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people."
Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.
QuoteJim G. Ferguson IV — the younger half of the father-son team behind Jim G. Ferguson & Associates — told POLITICO that he and his father are trying to build an airship with a "high fineness ratio" that can be used in both military and civilian applications.
QuoteYet Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise.
A search of publicly available records shows no history of the Fergusons ever being involved with the airship industry other than their attendance at a February 2005 Pentagon conference on the subject.
"That is one fine Zeppelin you got there, Jim."
Sgt. Crowley is this year's "Joe the Plumber".
Am I reading this wrong or is Bill Brady a birther?
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/07/which-gop-gubernatorial-candidates-are-birthers.html (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/07/which-gop-gubernatorial-candidates-are-birthers.html)
Dan Proft gets extra credit for cutting sarcasm with just the right touch of dickishness:
Quote--I'll defer to Kirk Dillard on this matter as I'm sure he was fully briefed prior to cutting his endorsement commercial for Barack Obama.
Quote from: Fork on July 30, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
Dan Proft gets extra credit for cutting sarcasm with just the right touch of dickishness:
Quote--I'll defer to Kirk Dillard on this matter as I'm sure he was fully briefed prior to cutting his endorsement commercial for Barack Obama.
That's a ridiculous answer to a ridiculous question. I love it.
Quote from: Brownie on July 30, 2009, 12:46:11 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 30, 2009, 12:22:22 PM
Dan Proft gets extra credit for cutting sarcasm with just the right touch of dickishness:
Quote--I'll defer to Kirk Dillard on this matter as I'm sure he was fully briefed prior to cutting his endorsement commercial for Barack Obama.
That's a ridiculous answer to a ridiculous question. I love it.
I'm voting for Proft for Governor if only because he makes extensive reference to "Marge Vs. the Monorail" in one of the articles on his website.
God dammit. Fork was right? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/media/01feud.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes)
QuoteFor years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O'Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann's bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.
At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.
Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
QuoteBut like any title fight, the final round could not end without an attempted knockout. On June 1, the day after the abortion provider George Tiller was killed in Kansas, Mr. Olbermann took to the air to cite Mr. O'Reilly's numerous references to "Tiller, the baby killer" and to announce that he would retire his caricature of Mr. O'Reilly.
"The goal here is to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air," he said.
The next day, Mr. O'Reilly made the extraordinary claim that "federal authorities have developed information about General Electric doing business with Iran, deadly business" and published Mr. Immelt's e-mail address and mailing address, repeating it slowly for emphasis.
Then the attacks mostly stopped.
DPD. Paddy Fitz update (http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/07/30/pat-fitzgerald-named-interim-chairman-of-ag-advisory-committee/):
QuotePatrick Fitzgerald, the top prosecutor in Illinois' Northern District, has been named interim chairman of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC).
In his new role, Fitzgerald will be the lead voice for the U.S. attorney community. It's the latest high-profile assignment for America's prosecutor, who has been busy overseeing the prosecution of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), bringing down mortgage fraudsters, and fighting with journalists.
QuoteFitzgerald's assignment is significant. It means the U.S. attorney community now has a chief ambassador with some staying power. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recommended Fitzgerald for another term, an overture that was well-received by Attorney General Eric Holder.
America has it's first Anarcholiberallatinoathiestcommunosocialisticracialistfascist Supreme Court justice.
68-31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/sotomayor-confirmation-vo_n_253298.html
And, from MediaMatters:
QuoteThree companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 06, 2009, 04:44:50 PM
America has it's first Anarcholiberallatinoathiestcommunosocialisticracialistfascist Supreme Court justice.
68-31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/sotomayor-confirmation-vo_n_253298.html
And, from MediaMatters: QuoteThree companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
the FREE MARKET at work!
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 06, 2009, 04:44:50 PM
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
Is this some sort of revelation? Obama's deep-seated hatred for white people is the reason I voted for him. It speaks to me.
Quote from: Fork on August 06, 2009, 07:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 06, 2009, 04:44:50 PM
America has it's first Anarcholiberallatinoathiestcommunosocialisticracialistfascist Supreme Court justice.
68-31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/sotomayor-confirmation-vo_n_253298.html
And, from MediaMatters: QuoteThree companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
the FREE MARKET at work!
Actually, that is. As it is when Rupert Murdoch tells O'Reilly to cool it with his rhetoric because its hurting his bottom line. But when Immelt asks Olbermann to limit the amount of breaths he wastes lambasting his competitors on TV, it's CENSORSHIP!
Quote from: CBStew on July 30, 2009, 10:36:05 AM
Sgt. Crowley is this year's "Joe the Plumber".
Didn't Vic Mackey shoot that guy (http://theshield.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_crimes_by_Vic_Mackey) in the face?
Quote from: Brownie on August 07, 2009, 08:46:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 06, 2009, 07:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 06, 2009, 04:44:50 PM
America has it's first Anarcholiberallatinoathiestcommunosocialisticracialistfascist Supreme Court justice.
68-31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/sotomayor-confirmation-vo_n_253298.html
And, from MediaMatters: QuoteThree companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
the FREE MARKET at work!
Actually, that is. As it is when Rupert Murdoch tells O'Reilly to cool it with his rhetoric because its hurting his bottom line. But when Immelt asks Olbermann to limit the amount of breaths he wastes lambasting his competitors on TV, it's CENSORSHIP!
I'm sure Morph can smell this STRAWMAN all the way from Winnetka or Wilmette or wherever he is.
Are you upset because O'Reilly gives in to those pressures and Olbermann doesn't? These are supposed to be news shows. Are you saying that journalism should give in free market pressures?
http://washingtonindependent.com/54104/punkin-the-birthers-priceless
QuoteIt's looking more and more like the forged "Kenyan birth certificate" released by Orly Taitz on Sunday was a prank by a supporter of President Obama. Politijab points to an anonymous blogger at FearlessBlogging, who has uploaded four photos of the original forgery and a mocking declaration:
Quote
- Fine cotton business paper: $11
- Inkjet printer: $35
- 1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10
- 2 Shilling coin: $1
- Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3
- Punkin' the Birthers: Priceless
Quote from: Oleg on August 07, 2009, 09:16:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 07, 2009, 08:46:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 06, 2009, 07:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 06, 2009, 04:44:50 PM
America has it's first Anarcholiberallatinoathiestcommunosocialisticracialistfascist Supreme Court justice.
68-31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/sotomayor-confirmation-vo_n_253298.html
And, from MediaMatters: QuoteThree companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Procter & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.
The decision by the three companies comes as over 45,000 ColorofChange.org members call on advertisers to pull their ads from Glenn Beck after the controversial news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" on "Fox & Friends" last week.
the FREE MARKET at work!
Actually, that is. As it is when Rupert Murdoch tells O'Reilly to cool it with his rhetoric because its hurting his bottom line. But when Immelt asks Olbermann to limit the amount of breaths he wastes lambasting his competitors on TV, it's CENSORSHIP!
I'm sure Morph can smell this STRAWMAN all the way from Winnetka or Wilmette or wherever he is.
Are you upset because O'Reilly gives in to those pressures and Olbermann doesn't? These are supposed to be news shows. Are you saying that journalism should give in free market pressures?
No, they are opinion shows. And I have no use for O'Reilly. He's a populist, as is Olbermann. I thought people were bitching that Olbermann indeed gave in to the pressure by Immelt and his superiors and stopped tearing into O'Reilly.
Regardless, I don't lose too much sleep over cable television "news" personalities. They're all carnival barkers. Show me one that's not and is still on the air?
I have really no idea what to make of these town hall protests that are going on around the country. I can see several points. First off, I really fucking hate most protesters, be they on the right or the left. However, I have to reconcile this fact with my opinion that civil discourse is one of the best traits of our democracy.
Nevertheless, the way that the right is orchestrating these things, and the attendant people they have brought out, is truly scary. While I am sure some people are at these things to express what are probably true concerns about the health insurance reform legislation in Congress, others are clearly reacting to more base emotions, be it the "otherness" of Obama, the loss of the White House, and demographic changes in the country at large (probably some latent religious fear, as well).
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
I have really no idea what to make of these town hall protests that are going on around the country. I can see several points. First off, I really fucking hate most protesters, be they on the right or the left. However, I have to reconcile this fact with my opinion that civil discourse is one of the best traits of our democracy.
Nevertheless, the way that the right is orchestrating these things, and the attendant people they have brought out, is truly scary. While I am sure some people are at these things to express what are probably true concerns about the health insurance reform legislation in Congress, others are clearly reacting to more base emotions, be it the "otherness" of Obama, the loss of the White House, and demographic changes in the country at large (probably some latent religious fear, as well).
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
"latent religious fear"? This is about vaccinations?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are
you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
How many attorneys is he?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
I have really no idea what to make of these town hall protests that are going on around the country. I can see several points. First off, I really fucking hate most protesters, be they on the right or the left. However, I have to reconcile this fact with my opinion that civil discourse is one of the best traits of our democracy.
Nevertheless, the way that the right is orchestrating these things, and the attendant people they have brought out, is truly scary. While I am sure some people are at these things to express what are probably true concerns about the health insurance reform legislation in Congress, others are clearly reacting to more base emotions, be it the "otherness" of Obama, the loss of the White House, and demographic changes in the country at large (probably some latent religious fear, as well).
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/grassroots-protester-actually-gop-official.php?ref=fpa
QuoteHere's a fun example of astroturfing in its purest form: A woman attending a town hall event for Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI), and--while loudly raising objections to the Democrats' health care reform proposal--insisting she's just a regular concerned citizen. Except, she's actually a GOP official.
Heather Blish was vice-chairman of the Kewaunee County GOP until 2008. She actually worked for Kagen's opponent, and, according to her own resume, is affiliated with the Republican National Committee.
Astroturf is fun.
Quote from: Oleg on August 07, 2009, 12:53:08 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
How many attorneys is he?
2, since he is a super lawyer.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
I have really no idea what to make of these town hall protests that are going on around the country. I can see several points. First off, I really fucking hate most protesters, be they on the right or the left. However, I have to reconcile this fact with my opinion that civil discourse is one of the best traits of our democracy.
Nevertheless, the way that the right is orchestrating these things, and the attendant people they have brought out, is truly scary. While I am sure some people are at these things to express what are probably true concerns about the health insurance reform legislation in Congress, others are clearly reacting to more base emotions, be it the "otherness" of Obama, the loss of the White House, and demographic changes in the country at large (probably some latent religious fear, as well).
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Quote
There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they "oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
I use unleaded 87 octane in my Cadillac
Cadillac?
Wow, Stew. I think you're the first Democrat I've ever known to own a Caddy.
Quote from: MAD on August 07, 2009, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
I use unleaded 87 octane in my Cadillac
Cadillac?
Wow, Stew. I think you're the first Democrat I've ever known to own a Caddy.
Meet John Miltner. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19920514&id=vawLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RlUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3252,3257179)
Quote from: MAD on August 07, 2009, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
I use unleaded 87 octane in my Cadillac
Cadillac?
Wow, Stew. I think you're the first Democrat I've ever known to own a Caddy.
Racist.
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 07, 2009, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: MAD on August 07, 2009, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
I use unleaded 87 octane in my Cadillac
Cadillac?
Wow, Stew. I think you're the first Democrat I've ever known to own a Caddy.
Racist.
He touched a lot of people.
Quote from: MAD on August 07, 2009, 02:56:35 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 07, 2009, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: MAD on August 07, 2009, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 07, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 12:05:55 PM
So, in short, let's see how this plays out...
See! Everything in life can be boiled down to a BC'ism...
Yeah, for a lark, I grazed a woman's ass on the bus to work today. I truly felt BCified.
I thought that you were in Los Angeles. You want us to believe that you found a bus to ride? The doors on the buses in LA don't even open.
Commuter Express number 534, Westwood. Takes me from Downtown LA to the Westside in usually 30 minutes. Nice ride. And with the government footing the bill to the tune of a 100 dollar voucher a month for public transportation, it makes sense.
What are you doing for the environment, Mr. Senior-Labor-Attorney-California-Bar-Magazine-Writer-Attorney-Man?
I use unleaded 87 octane in my Cadillac
Cadillac?
Wow, Stew. I think you're the first Democrat I've ever known to own a Caddy.
Racist.
He touched a lot of people.
I still haven't forgiven Henry Ford.
So, Sarah Palin has gone off the deep end. How can people seriously believe this ... let's call it what it is ... bullshit?
QuoteThe America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Fear the Obama Death Panels!!! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/palin-obamas-death-panel-could-kill-my-down-syndrome-baby.php?ref=fpa)
QuoteThe America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
We get it. Your baby has Down Syndrome.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 07:22:39 PM
So, Sarah Palin has gone off the deep end. How can people seriously believe this ... let's call it what it is ... bullshit horseshit?
QuoteThe America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Calgon'd.
I don't know if anyone else saw it, but sometime this afternoon (I want to say around 1:45) there was someone on CNBC saying they were really worried about a "double dip" for the economy in 2010-11. Any Desipio economists around here?
BTW Sarah Palin is useless for the Republican Party now except for the ability to raise money in the red states. As a Republican, I have been waiting and waiting for her to step out of this morass and finally I have just given up. The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since. Sorry Sarah, no Presidential soup for you.
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
I don't know if anyone else saw it, but sometime this afternoon (I want to say around 1:45) there was someone on CNBC saying they were really worried about a "double dip" for the economy in 2010-11. Any Desipio economists around here?
It's going to be a veritable
Götterdämmerung (http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=109420747886&h=vO5cW&u=PdyNn&ref=nf). And you
can't eat Krugerrands, now can you?
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She
is a dumbass.
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa
isn't a country?
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
The media Desipio was responsible for starting the "
She's a dumbass BC is unsuccessful with women" storyline out of nowhere, however
she has played right into it ever since.
Roughly equivalent'd
It was I who was responsible for starting the "Murton sucks at baseball" storyline out of nowhere, however he has played right into it ever since.
This is fun.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
So does this mean you're a dumbass as well?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 07, 2009, 07:22:39 PM
So, Sarah Palin has gone off the deep end. How can people seriously believe this ... let's call it what it is ... bullshit?
QuoteThe America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Fear the Obama Death Panels!!! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/palin-obamas-death-panel-could-kill-my-down-syndrome-baby.php?ref=fpa)
Was this before or after berating the LIBRUL MEDIA for exploiting her family?
As a Democrat, I love me some Sarah Palin...damn, she makes it easy.
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
I've been raising my hand for the last 2 hours, is somebody going to count or what?
Quote from: CT III on August 08, 2009, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
I've been raising my hand for the last 2 hours, is somebody going to count or what?
He didn't say "Simon Says" so you're OUT!
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
And since you are relatively new around here, I'd like to ask what your position on President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping and data mining operations is?
Go back to Redstate.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
And since you are relatively new around here, I'd like to ask what your position on President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping and data mining operations is?
Go back to Redstate.
That baby has Downs Syndrome you IDITO.
Quote from: CT III on August 08, 2009, 11:24:53 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
And since you are relatively new around here, I'd like to ask what your position on President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping and data mining operations is?
Go back to Redstate.
That baby has Downs Syndrome you IDITO.
Whatever, I'mdrukn.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 08, 2009, 11:24:53 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on August 08, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 08, 2009, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: BC on August 07, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
The media was responsible for starting the "She's a dumbass" storyline out of nowhere, however she has played right into it ever since.
She didn't play into anything BC. She is a dumbass.
You mean to tell me Africa isn't a country?
No more than they are 57 states in the Union and a language called Austrian. For more of Dear Leader's brilliance, check out:
http://jimblazsik.com/2009/04/29/obamarama-lets-enjoy-baracks-gaffes-mistakes-blunders-and-the-other-stupid-stuff-in-his-first-100-days/
BTW - quick show of hands. So how many of you have ratted out any neighbors, co-workers, family members, etc. who oppose government run health care to the White House? C'mon we know you have, don't be afraid to admit it!
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
And since you are relatively new around here, I'd like to ask what your position on President Bush's warrant-less wiretapping and data mining operations is?
Go back to Redstate.
That baby has Downs Syndrome you IDITO.
Whatever, I'mdrukn.
Fuck Richard Nixon. No doubt he's rotting in hell where he belongs.
I'm hiding under my bed. Don't tell the DEATH PANEL where to find me.
Quote from: CBStew on August 09, 2009, 12:01:50 AM
I'm hiding under my bed. Don't tell the DEATH PANEL where to find me.
No need to hide yet--the Nazi Death Panel has a lot of work to do...giant ovens don't build themselves, you know.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
She never said that. The "can see Russia from my house" was an SNL/Tina Fey phrase.
That said, Palin did claim foreigh policy experience because Putin "head was at" flying over Alaska when he flew to the US.
This is a woman who wanted to be an ESPN anchor and possibly named her kid Bristol, in anticipation. That is, if you can figure out through her various stories of what the name source really is.
The woman is an ad for "Dumbshit America." That voting people, not pundits who see her as a figurehead to control, real voting people think she can be President really makes you question their intellectual faculties.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 08, 2009, 10:40:10 PM
You convinced me. A man who graduated from Harvard Law and Columbia University, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and who duped a country into voting for an illegal alien non-citizen in a conspiracy dating back to the very day of his birth is clearly less intelligent than the woman who believes that death panels are out for her baby, who reads "all the newspapers" yet cannot name a single one, can see Russia from her house, quit her job to avoid a lame duck period that hadn't even begun yet, and went to five different colleges and universities.
She never said that. The "can see Russia from my house" was an SNL/Tina Fey phrase.
That said, Palin did claim foreigh policy experience because Putin "head was at" flying over Alaska when he flew to the US.
This is a woman who wanted to be an ESPN anchor and possibly named her kid Bristol, in anticipation. That is, if you can figure out through her various stories of what the name source really is.
The woman is an ad for "Dumbshit America." That voting people, not pundits who see her as a figurehead to control, real voting people think she can be President really makes you question their intellectual faculties.
You can actually see Russia from land in Alaska (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk)
I think when she talked about "Putin rearing his head," she meant figuratively. The Alaska Air National Guard has scrambled to escort some of "Putin's planes," not necessarily the planes he was flying in.
http://www.176wg.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123091720
QuoteThe 176th Air Control Squadron maintained North American air sovereignty by detecting, monitoring and escorting 22 Russian bombers from within its area of operations. The Wing continued to provide community support, maintaining the 51-year Operation Santa Claus tradition of delivering Christmas gifts to remote Alaska villages.
As for the health care issue, her rhetoric might be incendiary, but I think it comes from this feature on Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=1)
QuoteSavings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Ezekial Emanuel has the ear of the president, I suppose, but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Fixed.
As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Fixed.
As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.
Fair enough. Next, David Frum:
http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight
QuoteWhat would it mean to "win" the healthcare fight?
For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president's proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.
The problem is that if we do that... we'll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we'll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We'll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome.
Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama's reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we'll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.
If we win, we'll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America's ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Fixed.
As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.
Just curious, TJ. How would you like to see the health care system fixed?
Quote from: Eli on August 10, 2009, 09:33:14 AM
Just curious, TJ. How would you like to see the health care system fixed?
I'm not expecting that TJ has the answer. But there is a point that needs to be made.
The elephant in the room remains Medicare. We have, effectively, single payer in this country if you are over age 65. If it's good for 65+, why not everyone else?
To paraphrase a punch line, we know what you want, we're just haggling over age.
Irony abounds...
QuoteGLADNEY THE UNINSURED ACTIVIST.... Over the last few days, a conservative activist in St. Louis named Kenneth Gladney seems to have become something of a cause celebre in far-right circles. Depending on which version of events you choose to believe, Gladney either initiated or was involved in a scuffle at a town-hall event late last week.
QuoteAt least one prominent conservative blogger said Gladney was "brutally attacked" by SEIU members outside the event. After watching the video, there's ample reason for skepticism. Gladney was, in fact, pulled to the ground during the fracas, but he seemed to bounce back up quickly, and is seen walking around soon after without any obvious injuries. His attorney has argued that Gladney was beaten during the fight, but there's nothing in the clip to support that.
Gladney later went to the hospital, claiming to have sustained injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face."
Yesterday, about 200 conservative activists held a protest outside the SEIU office in St. Louis. Gladney was there -- bandaged and in a wheelchair -- as a featured guest. Some of the activists held signs that read, "Don't Tread on Kenny." Reader R.D. alerted me to this tidbit in the local news account of the protest:
Money quote, however:
QuoteGladney did not address Saturday's crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. "A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too." Brown read. "This should never happen in this country."
Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give him health insurance.
Moreover, these people are using their weekends off - presumably - to protest a
union hall.
This country is stupid. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
Quote from: Eli on August 10, 2009, 09:33:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Fixed.
As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.
Just curious, TJ. How would you like to see the health care system fixed?
I'd like to see the tax law changed so that your employer isn't buying your health insurance. The employer no longer has a tax incentive to buy health insurance, but you have the incentive to buy it for yourself. You could shop around and find a plan that works for you (or roll the dice and go without, if you're crazy).
Finally, how about a voucher for $x for every person in a household with income under a certain threshold? Let them participate in the marketplace too.
As for Medicare, the best thing about it is its cost to the end user. It's an expensive program and I don't know how we'll fund it in oh, 15-20 years. Sure, it's popular. Free stuff generally is. Until you no longer have it to give away.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
The country's fucked once 51% of the population realizes that it can help itself to 49% of the people's cash.
Maybe we should ask Bill Kristol, especially after his appearance on The Daily Show n which he said the American Military received the finest healthcare in the world, then had to admit the finest healthcare in the world was provided by the US Government.
Intrepid Reader: Whitey Herzog
Fucking Astroturf, ruining baseball!
(http://www.redstate.com/absentee/files/2009/08/reform-for-hire1.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2009, 12:51:34 PM
Maybe we should ask Bill Kristol, especially after his appearance on The Daily Show n which he said the American Military received the finest healthcare in the world, then had to admit the finest healthcare in the world was provided by the US Government.
I've heard VA hospitals are not exactly bastions of great health care. Wouldn't surprise me if Bill Kristol's full of shit.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.
The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.
Quote from: Brownie on August 10, 2009, 01:59:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.
The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.
And that's a bad thing (loaded language aside)?
Also, this made me laugh.
QuoteThe British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.
THE HORROR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_insurance)
Quote from: Brownie on August 10, 2009, 01:59:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.
The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.
And the well-to-do here would also have the opportunity purchase their own private insurance, unless you truly believe the BOGEYMAN about Obama stealing our choices in the middle of the night.
Quote from: Brownie on August 10, 2009, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 10, 2009, 09:33:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?
Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims. How that is different than what we have is beyond me.
I'm not in favor of single payer. But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing. Strikes me as change for the sake of change.
Fixed.
As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.
Just curious, TJ. How would you like to see the health care system fixed?
I'd like to see the tax law changed so that your employer isn't buying your health insurance. The employer no longer has a tax incentive to buy health insurance, but you have the incentive to buy it for yourself. You could shop around and find a plan that works for you (or roll the dice and go without, if you're crazy).
Finally, how about a voucher for $x for every person in a household with income under a certain threshold? Let them participate in the marketplace too.
As for Medicare, the best thing about it is its cost to the end user. It's an expensive program and I don't know how we'll fund it in oh, 15-20 years. Sure, it's popular. Free stuff generally is. Until you no longer have it to give away.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
The country's fucked once 51% of the population realizes that it can help itself to 49% of the people's cash.
I would then request that my employer pay me more to counteract the increased health care costs, and I don't think I'd be alone... Also, I would think this could possibly increase companies' expenses (transferring health care costs to wages expense, plus the added payroll taxes expense).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying I don't see how it helps, but there are a lot of things in this world I don't see clearly
I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.
Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?
I'm not advocating a T-1 project or an Obama Death Panel, I just want to know from a logical point of view whether it makes sense.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.
No one hurts Gil's stripper friends and gets away with it!
Quote from: IrishYeti on August 10, 2009, 02:03:47 PM
I would then request that my employer pay me more to counteract the increased health care costs, and I don't think I'd be alone... Also, I would think this could possibly increase companies' expenses (transferring health care costs to wages expense, plus the added payroll taxes expense).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying I don't see how it helps, but there are a lot of things in this world I don't see clearly
Of course you would. And I'm sure any legislation aimed at moving health care decisions back into the domain of the private citizen (and not the employer) would involve mandating the employer increase employees' pay equal to the cost of the insurance. And yes, a corresponding drop in payroll taxes would also have to occur.
Right now, Congress is trying to figure out how to pay for this. Expect a payroll tax increase (or a "penalty" which will be 8% of payroll on top of the current tax).
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 02:01:52 PM
And that's a bad thing (loaded language aside)?
Also, this made me laugh.
QuoteThe British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.
THE HORROR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_insurance)
- Yes, it's a bad thing, especially if 89% of the people are on the public system, which is woefully inadequate next to the private system. Something like 11% of K-12 students are in private schools, the majority of them faith-based. About 20% of private schools are non-sectarian (and they, on average, cost more than twice what the religious schools do). So, of the 2-point-some-odd percent that go to elite private schools, or the 11 percent that go to private schools, we can assume there's nothing wrong with American public schools, right?
- C'mon, ChuckD. Life insurance is a totally different instrument than simply "placing a price tag on human life." It protects one's family and loved ones in the case of an untimely death. While it's not unheard of that someone will murder/commit suicide because one is worth more dead than alive, that's generally, you know, illegal. It's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic. Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.
Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker. This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry. No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.
Unless you see health care as a right.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic. Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.
Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker. This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry. No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.
Unless you see health care as a right.
I think it fits into the inalienable ones.
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2009, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic. Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.
Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker. This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry. No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.
Unless you see health care as a right.
I think it fits into the inalienable ones.
No, the inalienable rights are the ones you have as a person and are granted to you simply because you are a person and not dependent on someone else doing the dirty work. I only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness simply means the right to be, to do and to own.
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2009, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic. Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.
Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker. This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry. No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.
Unless you see health care as a right.
I think it fits into the inalienable ones.
Life (with medical care included), Liberty (under the protection of Homeland Security) and Happiness (so long as it's OK under the Old and New Testament),
That Thomas Jefferson was a genius!
Quote from: BH on August 10, 2009, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 11:52:08 AM
A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.
While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term. Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death. Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.
I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.
No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.
No one hurts Gil's stripper friends and gets away with it!
I feel like Oleg today, with my liberal firebranding. That, and I wore sandals to the office, so I do feel shorter.
Quote from: Brownie on August 10, 2009, 02:57:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2009, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.
If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic. Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.
Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker. This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry. No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.
Unless you see health care as a right.
I think it fits into the inalienable ones.
No, the inalienable rights are the ones you have as a person and are granted to you simply because you are a person and not dependent on someone else doing the dirty work. I only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness simply means the right to be, to do and to own.
I would agree with that, but the idea of "rights" is ever evolving, especially in this country. Overtime, we have expanded and redefined what we had hitherto thought of as a right. Slavery and its abolition is perhaps the most notable, but far from the only expansion of the idea of "rights." Perhaps we are at the point where the citizens of this country view healthcare as a right. I'm sure seniors, veterans, and the poor do, as the government does cover them; but do the rest of us? I think the emphasis should be on the precarious ground that most of us are on when it comes to health care, namely if you lose your job, you lose your healthcare. When viewed through that prism, I think many people in this country would view health care as a right.
I would amend Brownie's comment
QuoteI only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.
to
QuoteI only have the right to health care in that employers, wanting to escape the World War II wage and price controls, offered health care to their unionized employees as an alternative to outright wage increases and that this development spread throughout the economy in general, or that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.
Quote from: Brownie on August 10, 2009, 02:44:52 PM
- Yes, it's a bad thing, especially if 89% of the people are on the public system, which is woefully inadequate next to the private system.
Evidence?
Quote
Something like 11% of K-12 students are in private schools, the majority of them faith-based. About 20% of private schools are non-sectarian (and they, on average, cost more than twice what the religious schools do). So, of the 2-point-some-odd percent that go to elite private schools, or the 11 percent that go to private schools, we can assume there's nothing wrong with American public schools, right?
I don't really see your point here. It's simply economics. If a family is well-off and they consider the marginal value of a private education (secular or non-) to be >= the price of tuition, they're free to make that decision. The public education system, at least as I understand it, is intended as a baseline/safety net. If you want a better education, you're free to pursue that--as is the case with private health insurance in the UK.
Quote
- C'mon, ChuckD. Life insurance is a totally different instrument than simply "placing a price tag on human life." It protects one's family and loved ones in the case of an untimely death. While it's not unheard of that someone will murder/commit suicide because one is worth more dead than alive, that's generally, you know, illegal.
My issue was with the loaded language which seeks to demonize a practice (valuing the productive potential of a given life) that is extremely common. In any event, I don't really see what you're arguing here. Health insurance protects your family and loved ones in the case of an untimely illness. And life insurance claims can be denied due to trivial mistakes on an application.
QuoteIt's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.
Are you for this? Against it? I can't figure out what you're arguing. I will say that I do agree with one point: health care is not a right. But, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue, the health insurance market has failed.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 03:29:56 PM
Perhaps we are at the point where the citizens of this country view healthcare as a right. I'm sure seniors, veterans, and the poor do, as the government does cover them; but do the rest of us?
[/quote]
Veterans don't view it as a right. They view it as "earned benefit for service provided."
The poor surely don't as they go to emergency rooms.
Seniors are another story. One of the disasters that was the Bush Administration was the prescription drug benefit that was put in place to help them win Florida. They've come to believe it's a right because our representatives have told them that it's a right because said reps need their votes!
QuoteIt's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.
But simple economics suggest more will be denied if the claims-payer is for-profit instead of not-for-profit.
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:19:38 PM
You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:19:38 PM
You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?
Is that a rhetorical question?
It's a legal concept. I should have been clearer. First year law school fun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:29:34 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:19:38 PM
You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?
Is that a rhetorical question?
It's a legal concept. I should have been clearer. First year law school fun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))
Ah, I thought you were talking about "municipal incorporation." I just skimmed the article, but "incorporation" in the sense you're referring seems to be a devolutionary mechanism. If the state/local is tasked (as I was suggesting above) with providing for "health, safety, and general welfare," wouldn't elevating health care to a constitutional right require a change in law that's completely infeasible? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 05:38:03 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:29:34 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 05:17:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 10, 2009, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 10, 2009, 04:30:15 PM
Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state. Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?
Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?
The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking about health care.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 05:19:38 PM
You haven't heard of incorporation, have you?
Is that a rhetorical question?
It's a legal concept. I should have been clearer. First year law school fun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))
Ah, I thought you were talking about "municipal incorporation." I just skimmed the article, but "incorporation" in the sense you're referring seems to be a devolutionary mechanism. If the state/local is tasked (as I was suggesting above) with providing for "health, safety, and general welfare," wouldn't elevating health care to a constitutional right require a change in law that's completely infeasible? Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
Ehh, not really. The necessary and proper clause, taken with the commerce clause, gives the Congress alot of power.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:31:15 PM
I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.
Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?
It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35. This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with. Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?
Quote from: Wheezer on August 10, 2009, 07:16:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:31:15 PM
I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.
Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?
It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35. This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with. Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?
Probably not--but it's a race to the bottom sort of thing. If all institutions spend a ton on the seat-warmers, the irrationality is obvious. But there's no incentive to defect, since young people will go where they'll get taken care of when they're, at best, a name on a door that teaches a course or three.
Of course, if nobody spends more on the seat-warmers, there's an obvious and huge incentive to be the first to defect, since you'll be able to get the best minds with the promise to pay them when they're not worth that much.
This illustration can be flipped back to demonstrate the need for state intervention in all sorts of markets where there are rational incentives for individual action, that when done by a large group of individually rational people is on the whole terribly irrational. Only the coercive power of the state can overcome the market when its incentives waste everyone's money.
Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc. It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on August 11, 2009, 12:13:11 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 10, 2009, 07:16:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 10, 2009, 02:31:15 PM
I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.
Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?
It's an old saw that mathematicians have until age 25 to complete their best work, physicists until age 30, and chemists until age 35. This gets formulated and "measured" in different ways, but the upshot is that in the hard sciences, most people have turned into seat-warmers by their mid 40s, if they weren't to start with. Is it wise for a research institution to spend more on these people than on those, younger types who, as a group, will "probably" be more productive?
Probably not--but it's a race to the bottom sort of thing. If all institutions spend a ton on the seat-warmers, the irrationality is obvious. But there's no incentive to defect, since young people will go where they'll get taken care of when they're, at best, a name on a door that teaches a course or three.
Of course, if nobody spends more on the seat-warmers, there's an obvious and huge incentive to be the first to defect, since you'll be able to get the best minds with the promise to pay them when they're not worth that much.
This illustration can be flipped back to demonstrate the need for state intervention in all sorts of markets where there are rational incentives for individual action, that when done by a large group of individually rational people is on the whole terribly irrational. Only the coercive power of the state can overcome the market when its incentives waste everyone's money.
Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc. It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.
I think it's been liberally estimated in most parts that tort reform would reign in approximately 2% of the total costs of health care. I'll rustle up some sources for this, but I am pretty sure that the percentage is very small.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 01:02:10 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on August 11, 2009, 12:13:11 AM
Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc. It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.
I think it's been liberally estimated in most parts that tort reform would reign in approximately 2% of the total costs of health care. I'll rustle up some sources for this, but I am pretty sure that the percentage is very small.
I was actually trying to make the point that "probability of contributing much to society" is a hopelessly age-neutral metric. Tax the production of babies!
One of the bills Congress will consider is screwed! Chuck Norris, great American hero, is against it! (http://*i%20haven't%20researched%20this%20thread%20well%20enough%20to%20back%20this%20claim%20100%,%20but%20I'm%20guessing%20it's%20true.)
That said, even I find his argument less than convincing, and actually can see a good argument for "parenting classes," even run by the government.
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
As for the health care issue, her rhetoric might be incendiary, but I think it comes from this feature on Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=1)
QuoteSavings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Ezekial Emanuel has the ear of the president, I suppose, but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.
A little late here, but I needed to note how shocked I am that an article written by Betsy McCaughy is filled with distortions and scare tactics. She's been such a reliable (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php), even-handed (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/lets_stop_this_before_it_goes_any_further.php) source for health care reporting in the past.
Here's Zeke (http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions), then.
I wonder if MikeC could explain why the right wing needs to use scare tactics when smearing the plan if it's such a bad idea based only on its merits.
Or does he actually believe in the death camps, the grandma death act, and every thing else?
Quote from: Brownie on August 11, 2009, 10:30:04 AM
Here's Zeke (http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions), then.
So what part of Zeke's paper do you have a problem with? I think we've had the rationing discussion before. If you believe that health care is a privilege rather than a right, aren't you saying that it should be allocated to those who can afford it? Isn't Zeke just arguing for a different type of allocation system than the current one?
As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) than just "incendiary" language.
Quote from: Brownie on August 11, 2009, 10:24:23 AM
One of the bills Congress will consider is screwed! Chuck Norris, great American hero, is against it! (http://*i%20haven't%20researched%20this%20thread%20well%20enough%20to%20back%20this%20claim%20100%,%20but%20I'm%20guessing%20it's%20true.)
That said, even I find his argument less than convincing, and actually can see a good argument for "parenting classes," even run by the government.
What a discovery. When you press "quote" that becomes legible. Not comprehensible. But legible.
Quote from: RV on August 11, 2009, 11:14:04 AM
As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) than just "incendiary" language.
So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2009, 12:20:33 PM
Quote from: RV on August 11, 2009, 11:14:04 AM
As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) than just "incendiary" language.
So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up?
The other thing that's bugging me as of late is that people are citing the anti-war protests as clear evidence that it's ok for conservatives to tea-party their way through the health care debate.
First of all, I could be wrong but didn't those same conservatives tell us we shouldn't be
allowed to protest the war? But ignoring that, I don't remember protestors coming up with lies and blatant falsehoods in order to persuade the rest of America to share their stance against the war. Why do these nutjobs feel the need to do that now?
Quote from: Canadouche on August 11, 2009, 12:37:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2009, 12:20:33 PM
Quote from: RV on August 11, 2009, 11:14:04 AM
As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) than just "incendiary" language.
So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up?
The other thing that's bugging me as of late is that people are citing the anti-war protests as clear evidence that it's ok for conservatives to tea-party their way through the health care debate.
First of all, I could be wrong but didn't those same conservatives tell us we shouldn't be allowed to protest the war? But ignoring that, I don't remember protestors coming up with lies and blatant falsehoods in order to persuade the rest of America to share their stance against the war. Why do these nutjobs feel the need to do that now?
I don't think the argument is that the health-care protestors are peddling lies or falsehoods - I'm sure countless protestors from both sides of the spectrum are guilty of exaggerating/lying/etc.
The problem is that these protestors are being
specifically guided to disrupt town-hall meetings with chants and outbursts, in order to muck up the usual question-answer process. They're not there to engage in discourse with their legislators; they are there to prevent other citizens from doing so. That's where my anger (and from what I've read in the communistosphere, others' anger) is directed.
Quote from: CBStew on August 11, 2009, 12:18:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 11, 2009, 10:24:23 AM
One of the bills Congress will consider is screwed! Chuck Norris, great American hero, is against it! (http://*i%20haven't%20researched%20this%20thread%20well%20enough%20to%20back%20this%20claim%20100%,%20but%20I'm%20guessing%20it's%20true.)
That said, even I find his argument less than convincing, and actually can see a good argument for "parenting classes," even run by the government.
What a discovery. When you press "quote" that becomes legible. Not comprehensible. But legible.
It would have been comprehensible if I linked to the story like I was supposed to. (http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare)
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2009, 03:04:01 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 01:02:10 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on August 11, 2009, 12:13:11 AM
Health care is no different--that coercive power needs to come down on so many fronts: tort reform, limits on the amount of money that can be spent out of the collective pool on any one person, etc. It's the only way we can reign in health care costs that have become insane and out of control.
I think it's been liberally estimated in most parts that tort reform would reign in approximately 2% of the total costs of health care. I'll rustle up some sources for this, but I am pretty sure that the percentage is very small.
I was actually trying to make the point that "probability of contributing much to society" is a hopelessly age-neutral metric. Tax the production of babies!
I think that there should be an open market for babies/pregnancy, regulated and taxed. Sign me up.
Of course, as a liberal who actually believes in acting on the rhetoric of "abortion should be safe, legal and rare," I think that giving a woman a financial incentive to carry a baby for nine months and to go through childbirth is the best way to support that belief.
I don't think the state has any duty to provide health care for its citizens. Just like the state has no duty to feed you, put clothes on your back or give you a house to live in.
The other problem is cost, between 1 trillion and 2 trillion dollars for the first 10 years. In the house bill i believe it will still leaves 36 million people uninsured, but 16 million more people get covered which is a good thing right? Not exactly, with that kind of dough being thrown around the government could just pay for private citizens health insurance to private insurance companies and cover roughly double to triple the amount of people depending on monthly payments. Just like food stamps or any kind of government assistance the more you make the more you pay, the less you make the more the government pays.
Trust is another problem. Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill. Now he is running around saying he has never said he was for a single payer system. In fact he said that today in his little town hall. This despite, audio and video of him being for a single payer system. He isn't coming out and saying "Yeah i was for it but i changed my mind." He is just out right lieing and deny he ever said it in the belief you his sucker follows will believe another line of bullshit from him.
People are quoting sections from the house bill with specific page numbers in these town halls and Senators (who don't read bills) are mad about those questions being asked. Pimping a bill you have never read, and then getting upset that your constituents are reading it and asking you questions you can't answer is pretty pathetic. Yelling at them to go home, branding them as Un-American, or angry mobs is equally pathetic, especially when the only violence that occured is when Obama SEIU union supporters beat up a man and 6 of them were arrested.
QuoteFirst of all, I could be wrong but didn't those same conservatives tell us we shouldn't be allowed to protest the war? But ignoring that, I don't remember protestors coming up with lies and blatant falsehoods in order to persuade the rest of America to share their stance against the war. Why do these nutjobs feel the need to do that now?
So Democrats who voted to go to war but as soon as things didn't go perfectly jump ship and claim Bush lied to them wasn't a blatant falsehood to persuade the rest of America? Or how about John Murtha who still hasn't apologized to the Haditha Marines ((all exonerated) for accusing them of going on a rampage because they were stressed out with war etc. Or How about John Kerry and Obama saying all we do is air raid villages and kill women and children? Surely those comments were never meant to sway public opinion. And each and every single one was a falsehood. These are comments from Senators, i haven't even touched on the numerous falsehoods put out by all the Liberal support groups and Soros funded attack ads. The most famous 2 are "Bush planned 9/11" and one that is totally away from the Anti-War area, "Bush hates black people" after Katrina. I am guessing the Bush hates black people wasn't peddled by the main stream media to keep black voters voting Democrat huh? It fits nicely into Republicans are racists. Meanwhile 2 blocks from a screaming Mayor of New Orleans sat hundreds of school buses under water that could have been used to evacuate people and instead he attacks Bush and asks where are the Buses? Uhhhh i don't know, 2 blocks from you under water maybe?
So please don't act like you liberals always told the truth and did nothing to sway voters. That is an insult to everyones intelligence. Hell it makes you sounds like Obama saying he has never said he was for a single payer system.
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PMHe is just out right lieing and deny he ever said it in the belief you his sucker follows will believe another line of bullshit from him.
This is my favorite failure pile in the sadness bowl that is a MikeC political post.
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
I don't think the state has any duty to provide health care for its citizens. Just like the state has no duty to feed you, put clothes on your back or give you a house to live in.
It has a duty to ensure an efficient market in the event of a failure. You know what? Fuck it. I'm not reading the rest of your post because you're probably already gone. Then, you wouldn't come back for a week even then, you wouldn't bother reading my response so I'd just be wasting my time. Thanks for the line breaks, though.
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
That's Paul Fucking Krugman to you.
I can't leave this out. I loved when Democrats supported the surge and voted for the new General in Iraq, Patreus to take command. And then virtually overnight before surge troops had even began arriving, and well into the phase where clear results of progress were coming out, Democrats on the left continued to label it a failure, that we need to pull out, that the war is lost.
Fuck you in your belief that liberals didn't spread falsehoods to sway public opinion. Your own fucking Senators tried to undermine the war effort with flat out lies to the American public and openly rooted for them to fail before the mission even was under way. When it finally could not be ignored and that all their hopes and dreams of a failed Iraq at Bushs feet would not be realized, a great many Democrats switched back into "yeah we supported the surge, in fact it was our idea!"
Troops don't need wishy washy support only when things go good and you abandon them when things are not so good. Republican Senators for the most part never swayed in that belief, they actually had the spine to keep working the problem to find the solution. Giving up wasn't a solution, it never was in the minds of the Reps.
On that one event alone is the massive disconnect between liberals and conservatives. Your representatives openly slandered a sitting US General, his troops, and their mission, their is no forgiveness for that.
Quote from: ChuckD on August 11, 2009, 04:12:29 PM
It has a duty to ensure an efficient market in the event of a failure. You know what? Fuck it. I'm not reading the rest of your post because you're probably already gone. Then, you wouldn't come back for a week even then, you wouldn't bother reading my response so I'd just be wasting my time. Thanks for the line breaks, though.
Oh, I don't know if the state has a "duty" to ensure an efficient market. We certainly have, as citizens, asked the state to do so. I'm not sure the state "must" provide things like consumer protection, GAAP, the SEC, etc.
I'm very glad they do as it helps create an environment of more perfect information. But I'm not certain it's a duty.
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
Oh sure. Quote The Jew York Times and that liberal pantywaist Paul Krugman, will you?
Nobel what?
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:18:03 PM
Fuck you in your belief
Where's my belief? Is it near my ass?
And I don't how Mike gets any sleep at night, what with him being inundated with all of these bogeymen that he's constantly lashing out against.
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
That's an opinion article. That ain't fact, dude. Just some dude and words on a computer screen
Um, Mike. Off of the meds, again?
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:18:03 PM
On that one event alone is the massive disconnect between liberals and conservatives. Your representatives openly slandered a sitting US General, his troops, and their mission, their is no forgiveness for that.
Is their forgiveness for anyone giving the "birthers" credence in there slandering of the Commander-In-Chief?
I simply do not know where to begin with this. Firstly, I can't quote it all, because in addition to it being monumentally stupid, this MikeC post exceeds the nominal posting length. Excellent work.
Secondly, I just don't understand MikeC's insouciance towards those without health insurance. A lot of Americans, not just illegals, need some form of health insurance, and with it, the attendant preventative maintenance that stops big problems (mild weight gain) from becoming bigger problems (obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease), and, consequently, becoming stealth taxes on your current health insurance plan. [twisting the astroturfer's words] It's like you don't even care about what the people (who, according to polls, want a public option) want. Do you even read the polls? How can you say health care for me, but not for thee? [/twisting the astroturfer's words]
Whatever happened to showing concern for our neighbors, our fellow citizens? Why is this such a hard concept? Why can't the richest nation in the world have some sort of safety net for its poorer citizens? This isn't a conservative or liberal debate; this is simply about human decency. If your house was on fire, MikeC, I wouldn't debate the net cost-benefit of giving you my water hose, the potential moral hazards of letting citizens fight fires, or the invisible hand of the economy setting your home ablaze; I would simply give you the fucking hose.
In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify. We won't even consider the fact that you may need health care and be unable to pay for it. My question is this: how would you live with the fear that you might get hurt? And moreover, would it offend your free market sensibilities to go to an Emergency Room and drain the resources from those who do pay for their health insurance, because the law states that they must stabilize your condition? Would that dose of socialism/atheism/communism/taxolib homocratism offend you? Would it scare you enough to make you leave the ER before you've been stabilized?
Is this all ad hominem? Of course it is. But you know what, I'm sick and tired of listening to people who 1) couldn't identify a fact from the hole in their ass; 2) decry anything that a black Democratic President does simply because he is black and a Democrat and the President; 3) couldn't give a damn about providing alternative solutions to the real problems this country faces; 4) support ignorant and racist tirades from their comrades on talk radio and Fox News; 5) wouldn't know the precepts of grammar or spelling if they literally took a shit on your face; 6) or who carry guns to events where the President of the United States is speaking (which I'm sure you would have been up in arms [get it] over if President Bush were still the President).
So, continue to subscribe to your antiquated theories of life; the rest of the country that isn't becoming an endangered electoral species has big boy work to do.
Hugs and Kisses...
Quote from: CBStew on August 11, 2009, 04:36:33 PM
Um, Mike. Off of the meds, again?
When was he
on the meds?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 05:52:16 PM
I simply do not know where to begin with this. Firstly, I can't quote it all, because in addition to it being monumentally stupid, this MikeC post exceeds the nominal posting length. Excellent work.
Secondly, I just don't understand MikeC's insouciance towards those without health insurance. A lot of Americans, not just illegals, need some form of health insurance, and with it, the attendant preventative maintenance that stops big problems (mild weight gain) from becoming bigger problems (obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease), and, consequently, becoming stealth taxes on your current health insurance plan. [twisting the astroturfer's words] It's like you don't even care about what the people (who, according to polls, want a public option) want. Do you even read the polls? How can you say health care for me, but not for thee? [/twisting the astroturfer's words]
Whatever happened to showing concern for our neighbors, our fellow citizens? Why is this such a hard concept? Why can't the richest nation in the world have some sort of safety net for its poorer citizens? This isn't a conservative or liberal debate; this is simply about human decency. If your house was on fire, MikeC, I wouldn't debate the net cost-benefit of giving you my water hose, the potential moral hazards of letting citizens fight fires, or the invisible hand of the economy setting your home ablaze; I would simply give you the fucking hose.
In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify. We won't even consider the fact that you may need health care and be unable to pay for it. My question is this: how would you live with the fear that you might get hurt? And moreover, would it offend your free market sensibilities to go to an Emergency Room and drain the resources from those who do pay for their health insurance, because the law states that they must stabilize your condition? Would that dose of socialism/atheism/communism/taxolib homocratism offend you? Would it scare you enough to make you leave the ER before you've been stabilized?
Is this all ad hominem? Of course it is. But you know what, I'm sick and tired of listening to people who 1) couldn't identify a fact from the hole in their ass; 2) decry anything that a black Democratic President does simply because he is black and a Democrat and the President; 3) couldn't give a damn about providing alternative solutions to the real problems this country faces; 4) support ignorant and racist tirades from their comrades on talk radio and Fox News; 5) wouldn't know the precepts of grammar or spelling if they literally took a shit on your face; 6) or who carry guns to events where the President of the United States is speaking (which I'm sure you would have been up in arms [get it] over if President Bush were still the President).
So, continue to subscribe to your antiquated theories of life; the rest of the country that isn't becoming an endangered electoral species has big boy work to do.
Hugs and Kisses...
Fuckin' A right THIS and you can print it.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 05:52:16 PM
I simply do not know where to begin with this. Firstly, I can't quote it all, because in addition to it being monumentally stupid, this MikeC post exceeds the nominal posting length. Excellent work.
Secondly, I just don't understand MikeC's insouciance towards those without health insurance. A lot of Americans, not just illegals, need some form of health insurance, and with it, the attendant preventative maintenance that stops big problems (mild weight gain) from becoming bigger problems (obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease), and, consequently, becoming stealth taxes on your current health insurance plan. [twisting the astroturfer's words] It's like you don't even care about what the people (who, according to polls, want a public option) want. Do you even read the polls? How can you say health care for me, but not for thee? [/twisting the astroturfer's words]
Whatever happened to showing concern for our neighbors, our fellow citizens? Why is this such a hard concept? Why can't the richest nation in the world have some sort of safety net for its poorer citizens? This isn't a conservative or liberal debate; this is simply about human decency. If your house was on fire, MikeC, I wouldn't debate the net cost-benefit of giving you my water hose, the potential moral hazards of letting citizens fight fires, or the invisible hand of the economy setting your home ablaze; I would simply give you the fucking hose.
In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify. We won't even consider the fact that you may need health care and be unable to pay for it. My question is this: how would you live with the fear that you might get hurt? And moreover, would it offend your free market sensibilities to go to an Emergency Room and drain the resources from those who do pay for their health insurance, because the law states that they must stabilize your condition? Would that dose of socialism/atheism/communism/taxolib homocratism offend you? Would it scare you enough to make you leave the ER before you've been stabilized?
Is this all ad hominem? Of course it is. But you know what, I'm sick and tired of listening to people who 1) couldn't identify a fact from the hole in their ass; 2) decry anything that a black Democratic President does simply because he is black and a Democrat and the President; 3) couldn't give a damn about providing alternative solutions to the real problems this country faces; 4) support ignorant and racist tirades from their comrades on talk radio and Fox News; 5) wouldn't know the precepts of grammar or spelling if they literally took a shit on your face; 6) or who carry guns to events where the President of the United States is speaking (which I'm sure you would have been up in arms [get it] over if President Bush were still the President).
So, continue to subscribe to your antiquated theories of life; the rest of the country that isn't becoming an endangered electoral species has big boy work to do.
Hugs and Kisses...
[shirtless Internet man-hug]
[no closing tag because I don't want to stop]
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 05:52:16 PM
I simply do not know where to begin with this. Firstly, I can't quote it all, because in addition to it being monumentally stupid, this MikeC post exceeds the nominal posting length. Excellent work.
Secondly, I just don't understand MikeC's insouciance towards those without health insurance. A lot of Americans, not just illegals, need some form of health insurance, and with it, the attendant preventative maintenance that stops big problems (mild weight gain) from becoming bigger problems (obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease), and, consequently, becoming stealth taxes on your current health insurance plan. [twisting the astroturfer's words] It's like you don't even care about what the people (who, according to polls, want a public option) want. Do you even read the polls? How can you say health care for me, but not for thee? [/twisting the astroturfer's words]
Whatever happened to showing concern for our neighbors, our fellow citizens? Why is this such a hard concept? Why can't the richest nation in the world have some sort of safety net for its poorer citizens? This isn't a conservative or liberal debate; this is simply about human decency. If your house was on fire, MikeC, I wouldn't debate the net cost-benefit of giving you my water hose, the potential moral hazards of letting citizens fight fires, or the invisible hand of the economy setting your home ablaze; I would simply give you the fucking hose.
In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify. We won't even consider the fact that you may need health care and be unable to pay for it. My question is this: how would you live with the fear that you might get hurt? And moreover, would it offend your free market sensibilities to go to an Emergency Room and drain the resources from those who do pay for their health insurance, because the law states that they must stabilize your condition? Would that dose of socialism/atheism/communism/taxolib homocratism offend you? Would it scare you enough to make you leave the ER before you've been stabilized?
Is this all ad hominem? Of course it is. But you know what, I'm sick and tired of listening to people who 1) couldn't identify a fact from the hole in their ass; 2) decry anything that a black Democratic President does simply because he is black and a Democrat and the President; 3) couldn't give a damn about providing alternative solutions to the real problems this country faces; 4) support ignorant and racist tirades from their comrades on talk radio and Fox News; 5) wouldn't know the precepts of grammar or spelling if they literally took a shit on your face; 6) or who carry guns to events where the President of the United States is speaking (which I'm sure you would have been up in arms [get it] over if President Bush were still the President).
So, continue to subscribe to your antiquated theories of life; the rest of the country that isn't becoming an endangered electoral species has big boy work to do.
Hugs and Kisses...
[shirtless Internet man-hug]
[no closing tag because I don't want to stop]
Indeed. Those last two paragraphs were the best thing I've read all week.
However, I have to tell you up front that I'm saving my shirtless man-hugs for marriage.
Quote from: Reuschels_Jowls on August 12, 2009, 12:40:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 11, 2009, 05:52:16 PM
I simply do not know where to begin with this. Firstly, I can't quote it all, because in addition to it being monumentally stupid, this MikeC post exceeds the nominal posting length. Excellent work.
Secondly, I just don't understand MikeC's insouciance towards those without health insurance. A lot of Americans, not just illegals, need some form of health insurance, and with it, the attendant preventative maintenance that stops big problems (mild weight gain) from becoming bigger problems (obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, heart disease), and, consequently, becoming stealth taxes on your current health insurance plan. [twisting the astroturfer's words] It's like you don't even care about what the people (who, according to polls, want a public option) want. Do you even read the polls? How can you say health care for me, but not for thee? [/twisting the astroturfer's words]
Whatever happened to showing concern for our neighbors, our fellow citizens? Why is this such a hard concept? Why can't the richest nation in the world have some sort of safety net for its poorer citizens? This isn't a conservative or liberal debate; this is simply about human decency. If your house was on fire, MikeC, I wouldn't debate the net cost-benefit of giving you my water hose, the potential moral hazards of letting citizens fight fires, or the invisible hand of the economy setting your home ablaze; I would simply give you the fucking hose.
In any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify. We won't even consider the fact that you may need health care and be unable to pay for it. My question is this: how would you live with the fear that you might get hurt? And moreover, would it offend your free market sensibilities to go to an Emergency Room and drain the resources from those who do pay for their health insurance, because the law states that they must stabilize your condition? Would that dose of socialism/atheism/communism/taxolib homocratism offend you? Would it scare you enough to make you leave the ER before you've been stabilized?
Is this all ad hominem? Of course it is. But you know what, I'm sick and tired of listening to people who 1) couldn't identify a fact from the hole in their ass; 2) decry anything that a black Democratic President does simply because he is black and a Democrat and the President; 3) couldn't give a damn about providing alternative solutions to the real problems this country faces; 4) support ignorant and racist tirades from their comrades on talk radio and Fox News; 5) wouldn't know the precepts of grammar or spelling if they literally took a shit on your face; 6) or who carry guns to events where the President of the United States is speaking (which I'm sure you would have been up in arms [get it] over if President Bush were still the President).
So, continue to subscribe to your antiquated theories of life; the rest of the country that isn't becoming an endangered electoral species has big boy work to do.
Hugs and Kisses...
[shirtless Internet man-hug]
[no closing tag because I don't want to stop]
Indeed. Those last two paragraphs were the best thing I've read all week.
However, I have to tell you up front that I'm saving my shirtless man-hugs for marriage.
You know, I don't mean to play into the stereotype of the overindulged and lazy federal employee, but I did in fact write that in between affidavits yesterday.
However, I put in an official leave slip for the fifteen minutes, so all you taxpayers
didn't pay for the construction of that tirade.
In any event, thank you.
My concern with health care reform is the consequences that could occur related to the cost of this package. There are estimates out there saying this thing would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over the first decade. Of course, the government has a penchant for not estimating anything correctly. Cash For Clunkers was supposed to use $1 billion in 4 months, however that amount was used up in about 5 weeks. It took what was essentially emergency legislation to get $2 billion more into that program and keep it going.
Even if the cost of health care reform stays under $2 trillion, the cost could easily push an exploding deficit over the edge. At the very least, China would hold an even sharper sword over the U.S. financially. The dollar would be in peril of becoming severely devalued as well.
-----
A point on the town hall stuff... I do think some of the anger has to do with the President being black, and some of it with him being a liberal... But I think there are many people out there that grew up in a culture that preached "If you can't afford it, don't get it"... In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression or were the kids of those that had gone through the Depression... My grandparents on my mother's side both went through the Depression and were very wary of taking on any debt, very wary of paying for something when they didn't have the money in the bank, very wary of taking on loans, etc.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
A point on the town hall stuff... I do think some of the anger has to do with the President being black, and some of it with him being a liberal... But I think there are many people out there that grew up in a culture that preached "If you can't afford it, don't get it"... In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression or were the kids of those that had gone through the Depression... My grandparents on my mother's side both went through the Depression and were very wary of taking on any debt, very wary of paying for something when they didn't have the money in the bank, very wary of taking on loans, etc.
This might seem plausible if it weren't for the fact that most (if not all) of the people disrupting the town halls deify Ronald Reagan, who ran the country on a credit card for 8 years.
But at least there's a place for a dissenting voice. Beats the hell out of the town halls with pre-vetted attendees that we used to have.
Quote from: Fork on August 12, 2009, 07:16:25 AM
This might seem plausible if it weren't for the fact that most (if not all) of the people disrupting the town halls deify Ronald Reagan, who ran the country on a credit card for 8 years.
See, this argument always confuses me. Yes, the deficit did explode during Reagan's time as President. However, he tried to balance his increases in defense spending by proposing cuts in several domestic programs. The Democrats controlled at least one house of Congress throughout his entire term and balked at almost every single proposed domestic spending cut.
Even as a conservative, I still will admit Reagan's flaws. The biggest one was that he was good at winning elections but below average (If not outright poor when it came to domestic matters) at effectively pushing policy.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 12, 2009, 07:16:25 AM
This might seem plausible if it weren't for the fact that most (if not all) of the people disrupting the town halls deify Ronald Reagan, who ran the country on a credit card for 8 years.
See, this argument always confuses me. Yes, the deficit did explode during Reagan's time as President. However, he tried to balance his increases in defense spending by proposing cuts in several domestic programs. The Democrats controlled at least one house of Congress throughout his entire term and balked at almost every single proposed domestic spending cut.
Even as a conservative, I still will admit Reagan's flaws. The biggest one was that he was good at winning elections but below average (If not outright poor when it came to domestic matters) at effectively pushing policy.
No, he used the Laffer curve, with the flawed logic of tax cuts paying for increased spending. The spending cuts he got through as part of his "New Federalism" weren't really cuts at all, just shifting financial burden from the Federal government to the states.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 07:56:05 AM
Yes, the deficit did explode during Reagan's time as President. However, he tried to balance his increases in defense spending by proposing cuts in several domestic programs.
Yes. IRS collectors.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression
Most of those people are like 90 years old or dead. I don't think they're the ones coming out and disrupting the town halls.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2009, 08:07:55 AM
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 07:56:05 AM
Yes, the deficit did explode during Reagan's time as President. However, he tried to balance his increases in defense spending by proposing cuts in several domestic programs.
Yes. IRS collectors.
and air traffic controllers.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
My concern with health care reform is the consequences that could occur related to the cost of this package. There are estimates out there saying this thing would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over the first decade.
If only there were a place you could find such information...
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?cat=5 (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?cat=5)
If you're concerned about the deficit, it's the window
beyond ten years you should be worried about. The eventual bill will be deficit neutral (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/06/17/CBOPointstheWay/) (for CBO scoring purposes, which, for better or worse, is how all bills are evaluated) over the initial 10 year window, using a combination lower Medicare reimbursements, and either a surtax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403709.html), a tax on insurance companies (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/21/kerry_wants_insurer_tax_to_pay_for_care/), or a cap on the employer tax exclusion (http://www.urban.org/publications/411894.html) for health care.
If you want to debate whether the bill will add to the deficit
after the 10 year window, that's fine. There are legitimate arguments on either side - cost savings and efficiencies could reduce the deficit, or the burden of coverage subsidies could add to the deficit. But estimating costs/revenues even within the 10 year window is difficult enough - go beyond that and even CBO will acknowledge it's a bit of a crapshoot.
Quote from: IrishYeti on August 11, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
That's an opinion article. That ain't fact, dude. Just some dude and words on a computer screen
More opinions (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a7iQTrYFwTtY) from ghey economists who obviously don't have access to MikeC's advanced economic metrics and calculations:
QuoteRecovery from the worst recession since the 1930s has begun as President Barack Obama's fiscal stimulus -- derided as insufficient and budget-busting months ago -- takes effect, a survey of economists indicated.
The economy will expand 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median of 53 forecasts in the monthly Bloomberg News survey. Analysts lifted their estimate for the third quarter by 1.2 percentage points compared with July, the biggest such boost in surveys dating from May 2003.
"We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working," said Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board in New York.
Quote from: RV on August 12, 2009, 09:49:39 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on August 11, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2009, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 11, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Obama has pretty much lost any trust he has with the failed Stimulus bill.
Failed? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1)
That's an opinion article. That ain't fact, dude. Just some dude and words on a computer screen
More opinions (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a7iQTrYFwTtY) from ghey economists who obviously don't have access to MikeC's advanced economic metrics and calculations:
QuoteRecovery from the worst recession since the 1930s has begun as President Barack Obama's fiscal stimulus -- derided as insufficient and budget-busting months ago -- takes effect, a survey of economists indicated.
The economy will expand 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median of 53 forecasts in the monthly Bloomberg News survey. Analysts lifted their estimate for the third quarter by 1.2 percentage points compared with July, the biggest such boost in surveys dating from May 2003.
"We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working," said Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board in New York.
LIBRUL BANKERS!!!
QuoteIn any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify.
To be perfectly honest that happened to me earlier this year. Prior to last January for the last year plus every couple months i would have a bad case of stomach cramps. Bad enough that i had to go to the emergency room a few times for them to stop me from throwing up and stop the pain. It was really unbearable pain. Both times they ran tests found nothing just treated me for the naseua and pain and sent me home. After the 2nd time they sent me in for an Ultra Sound, again nothing wrong.
Finally after a year or so dealing with this it happened again on a trip to Denver. Went to the emergency room there and this time finally someone listened, sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix. One of the simpliest diagnosis and procedures in medicine.
Mixed into this was a visit to a primary care physcian at the new local community health center. One of those centers that would probably be the centerpiece of Obamacare. My visit with the Doc lasted 30 seconds and she came up with the bright idea it was Acid Reflux (i had no symptoms of it) and gave me sample pills to treat it. She also recommended cutting out Alcohol and spicy foods. I wasn't too impressed with the hurry up get me out so i can move onto the next patient.
To go along with that my girlfriends kids had some kind of rash and we went to the same place. She has all the nice government health plans for low income people and doesn't pay a dime. Again 30 seconds its just a normal rash going around put this cream on it, it should be fine. It wasn't fine the rash wasn't going away. 2nd visit same thing different cream, again no reaction. I did a little research on the internet and narrowed it down to a form of Staph infection. I have no medical knowledge so i could have been way off. 3rd time i asked could we do a culture on it and maybe see what the fuck we are dealing with? They did that and it came back Staph infection and prescribed some heavy anti-biotics to finally get rid of it. Again not impressed with the hurry up get you out move onto the next person.
Anyways $10,000 wasted at Emergency rooms in Iowa, to not figure out what was going on, and $26,000 dollars in Denver for surgery on my Appendix with zero health insurance and not working at the time. And I still don't want so called free health care and believe the state has zero responsibility to provide it for you. They can regulate it but running health care? No fucking way should the federal government be involved.
The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.
Another area is getting new drugs past the FDA, putting a new drug on the market is insanley expensive and time consuming. For once i advocate a system like Europe or Canada that is less regulated and allows people access to newer drugs more quickly. Also costs for these drugs seem to be far lower than in the USA.
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AMThe problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.
Malpractice costs account for about 1/50th of
all health care spending (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0).
QuoteEvidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.
Tort Reform
as has been pointed out in this very thread by Gil Gunderson is estimated to result in (at best) a 2% drop in prices. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=995270
QuoteThis study evaluates the impact of tort reform on health insurance coverage using the Current Population Survey's March Demographic Files.
Proponents of tort reform argue that reform will reduce medical malpractice insurance costs, damage awards, and costs associated with defensive medicine. If proponents are correct, these cost reductions should lower the price of healthcare and increase health insurance coverage.
On the other hand, if the prior tort law was functioning well, reform may increase medical costs by reducing doctors' care-taking or increasing the number of unnecessary procedures. In this case, tort reform could actually decrease insurance coverage by raising the price of health care.
We evaluate the effect of eight common tort reforms on private health insurance coverage between 1981 and 2004. In triple-difference specifications, we find that reform generally increased health insurance coverage for the most price-sensitive groups (the young, the self-employed, and the single). We also find that those uninsured around the time of reform were more likely to obtain private insurance after reform. Given the multicollinearity of many reforms, it is difficult to gauge the impact of individual reforms. However, the evidence suggests that limitations on punitive and non-economic damages do not affect private insurance coverage, while caps on total damages, collateral source reform, and reforms to liability and payment structure are associated with increased private insurance coverage for price-sensitive groups. Accordingly, we conclude that some tort reforms are effective in reducing healthcare costs. The magnitude of the effects on price sensitive groups suggests that some tort reforms can reduce health care costs by as much as two percent.
Consider that the US pays "53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html)"
You're talking about a slight marginal drop in costs within a system that's completely fucked.
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix.
CT's a smart guy. Not surprised he figured it out.
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression
Most of those people are like 90 years old or dead. I don't think they're the ones coming out and disrupting the town halls.
Speaking as someone who was born during FDR's first term and who has vivid memories of the depression I believe that the Town Hall disruptions have nothing to do with economics. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that the demonstrators are being manipulated by medical insurance companies and the Republican Party.
The demonstrators are a frightened mob of ELITISTS who feel something is slipping away from them and who realize that they can not only get away with acting out but that they can also find mutual support from other threatened white folks. I call them elitists because they have their own sense of entitlement due to their skin color and what they were lead to believe they had coming to them as members of the middle class.
Quote from: CBStew on August 12, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression
Most of those people are like 90 years old or dead. I don't think they're the ones coming out and disrupting the town halls.
Speaking as someone who was born during FDR's first term and who has vivid memories of the depression I believe that the Town Hall disruptions have nothing to do with economics. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that the demonstrators are being manipulated by medical insurance companies and the Republican Party.
The demonstrators are a frightened mob of ELITISTS who feel something is slipping away from them and who realize that they can not only get away with acting out but that they can also find mutual support from other threatened white folks. I call them elitists because they have their own sense of entitlement due to their skin color and what they were lead to believe they had coming to them as members of the middle class.
Sorry, Stew, all Elitists are liberal and come from the Northeast.
It's a proven fact.
Quote from: PenFoe on August 12, 2009, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 12, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression
Most of those people are like 90 years old or dead. I don't think they're the ones coming out and disrupting the town halls.
Speaking as someone who was born during FDR's first term and who has vivid memories of the depression I believe that the Town Hall disruptions have nothing to do with economics. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that the demonstrators are being manipulated by medical insurance companies and the Republican Party.
The demonstrators are a frightened mob of ELITISTS who feel something is slipping away from them and who realize that they can not only get away with acting out but that they can also find mutual support from other threatened white folks. I call them elitists because they have their own sense of entitlement due to their skin color and what they were lead to believe they had coming to them as members of the middle class.
Sorry, Stew, all Elitists are liberal and come from the Northeast.
It's a proven fact.
Did Stew chop the "read" off the end of the thread title on purpose?
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2009, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix.
CT's a smart guy. Not surprised he figured it out.
You can judge a man's intelligence by the company he keeps.
Quote from: Oleg on August 12, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on August 12, 2009, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 12, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2009, 08:09:35 AM
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 03:51:45 AM
In other words, most of the people who went through the Great Depression
Most of those people are like 90 years old or dead. I don't think they're the ones coming out and disrupting the town halls.
Speaking as someone who was born during FDR's first term and who has vivid memories of the depression I believe that the Town Hall disruptions have nothing to do with economics. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows that the demonstrators are being manipulated by medical insurance companies and the Republican Party.
The demonstrators are a frightened mob of ELITISTS who feel something is slipping away from them and who realize that they can not only get away with acting out but that they can also find mutual support from other threatened white folks. I call them elitists because they have their own sense of entitlement due to their skin color and what they were lead to believe they had coming to them as members of the middle class.
Sorry, Stew, all Elitists are liberal and come from the Northeast.
It's a proven fact.
Did Stew chop the "read" off the end of the thread title on purpose?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg187677#msg187677
Appears that Eli started the trend
Edit: Appears it's been doing that even before him.. Intriguing.
Again, the Dems in Congress and the Obama Administration have as big a beef about Astroturf as the Houston Astros, Whitey Herzog and Mike Martz. Both parties use Astroturf, and there's not much either side can do about it.
All that said, when town hall meetings are getting filled up, it's either a lot of dollars or it's a lot of fired up people. I could name -- easily -- 100 people off the top of my head who oppose the "public option." I'm almost 100 percent certain none of these people have attended town hall meetings. Yes, it's a small and anecdotal sample, but there isn't overwhelming support (or even necessarily majority support) for it.
I did enjoy that the President gave an example of private competing with public: the Post Office vs. Fed Ex and UPS. I'm sure he wants to rethink that.
Finally, here's an Op-Ed by John Mackey, which ran in today's Wall St. Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)
I know most of you will disagree with it and hate it, but he argues far better than I'd be able to.
Quote from: Brownie on August 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
I did enjoy that the President gave an example of private competing with public: the Post Office vs. Fed Ex and UPS. I'm sure he wants to rethink that.
He's going to preserve disoorder.
MikeC, I appreciate the fact that you shared that story with us. I'm not being sarcastic at all; it was actually quite insightful. But, I do not see how you can make mention of all of those various and sundry difficulties that you mentioned and then come back with tort reform as the answer. It's like using rubber bands to take out an aircraft carrier. Oh sure, you may hit a flight deck officer in the eye or something, and maybe, if his footing was off, he'll go overboard, resulting in the backup flight deck officer having to come up and take his place, but what are you going to do with rubber bands? Take out two or three guys, at most? Come on, don't be silly.
But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare. I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative. Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens. Sure, other advanced countries have gotten on board with it, and while they are certainly still working out the kinks in their systems, they are at least attempting something, rather than allowing their own citizens to die from problems that in all likelihood were treatable.
We can argue about waste in government, like the Congress' ordering of jets for itself, or about the efficacy of certain programs, like CARS. But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service. And guess what, taxes are going to have to pay for those things, and yes, probably go up (the past twenty five years or so of rampant deficit spending has assured that regardless), but taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and if mine need to go up so that someone like yourself can get the quality that you deserved, I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.
No.
Following that logic, there's nothing that the government shouldn't provide. How about food service? Transportation would all be public in your government assigned car. Why not jobs?
There is a theory, to which I subscribe, that the purpose of a government in a capitalistic system is to provide markets that the free market does not efficiently provide. That means, things that cannot be done efficiently for a profit. Among those would be roads, police, military, and fire protection. One could further argue schools, but at a little more of a stretch.
Can you make the argument for health care? I'm not sure. But the current system sure seems inefficient to me. Does that health care doesn't work "for profit"? Not necessarily. But I am willing to consider a not-for-profit alternative.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2009, 05:07:05 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service.
No.
Following that logic, there's nothing that the government shouldn't provide. How about food service? Transportation would all be public in your government assigned car. Why not jobs?
Do you mean like free lunches for poor children? Or food stamps?
Do you mean like the govn't subsidized igocars or rideshare programs (VIP on Pace?)?
Or, do you mean that there's no private military like Blackwater? Or no private law enforcement like security companies (Securitas)?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
MikeC, I appreciate the fact that you shared that story with us. I'm not being sarcastic at all; it was actually quite insightful. But, I do not see how you can make mention of all of those various and sundry difficulties that you mentioned and then come back with tort reform as the answer. It's like using rubber bands to take out an aircraft carrier. Oh sure, you may hit a flight deck officer in the eye or something, and maybe, if his footing was off, he'll go overboard, resulting in the backup flight deck officer having to come up and take his place, but what are you going to do with rubber bands? Take out two or three guys, at most? Come on, don't be silly.
But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare. I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative. Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens. Sure, other advanced countries have gotten on board with it, and while they are certainly still working out the kinks in their systems, they are at least attempting something, rather than allowing their own citizens to die from problems that in all likelihood were treatable.
We can argue about waste in government, like the Congress' ordering of jets for itself, or about the efficacy of certain programs, like CARS. But we shouldn't get away from that base level of services that the government provides, and health care, just like the military or law enforcement, is one such service. And guess what, taxes are going to have to pay for those things, and yes, probably go up (the past twenty five years or so of rampant deficit spending has assured that regardless), but taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and if mine need to go up so that someone like yourself can get the quality that you deserved, I have no problem with that.
Shooting rubber bands at the troops?
It all makes sense now, troophater.
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
Finally after a year or so dealing with this it happened again on a trip to Denver. Went to the emergency room there and this time finally someone listened, sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix. One of the simpliest diagnosis and procedures in medicine.
Mixed into this was a visit to a primary care physcian at the new local community health center. One of those centers that would probably be the centerpiece of Obamacare. My visit with the Doc lasted 30 seconds and she came up with the bright idea it was Acid Reflux (i had no symptoms of it) and gave me sample pills to treat it. She also recommended cutting out Alcohol and spicy foods. I wasn't too impressed with the hurry up get me out so i can move onto the next patient.
To go along with that my girlfriends kids had some kind of rash and we went to the same place. She has all the nice government health plans for low income people and doesn't pay a dime. Again 30 seconds its just a normal rash going around put this cream on it, it should be fine. It wasn't fine the rash wasn't going away. 2nd visit same thing different cream, again no reaction. I did a little research on the internet and narrowed it down to a form of Staph infection. I have no medical knowledge so i could have been way off. 3rd time i asked could we do a culture on it and maybe see what the fuck we are dealing with? They did that and it came back Staph infection and prescribed some heavy anti-biotics to finally get rid of it. Again not impressed with the hurry up get you out move onto the next person.
Anyways $10,000 wasted at Emergency rooms in Iowa, to not figure out what was going on, and $26,000 dollars in Denver for surgery on my Appendix with zero health insurance and not working at the time.
The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.
Good for you. You describe three episodes of medical malpractice, one of which could easily have been fatal, yet you don't want to sue. That is your right. Apparently the missed diagnoses which you described did not cause any physical injury to you or your girlfriend, but they could easily have had serious consequences. Labeling people who have been physically harmed and sue doctors as "sue happy" is just wrong. By the way, we lawyers (who sue doctors) also pay massive malpractice premiums to protect the public from us.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare. I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative. Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.
Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does, however the beauty of the Constitution is that it allows our representatives to discuss and debate policy proposals, vote on those proposals, and then after those decisions are made the voters decide to either keep their representatives or throw them out of office.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 09:52:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
But in all sincerity, I just don't think anything will convince you otherwise on healthcare. I don't think you can appreciate the moral imperative. Whether it comes from an innate resistance to public assistance or something else, nothing will convince you that it is in this country's best interest to provide health care for its citizens.
Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does, however the beauty of the Constitution is that it allows our representatives to discuss and debate policy proposals, vote on those proposals, and then after those decisions are made the voters decide to either keep their representatives or throw them out of office.
It's covered in the "general welfare" part of the Preamble.
Quote from: BC on August 12, 2009, 09:52:35 PM
Whether or not it is in this country's "best interest" for everyone to have proper health care isn't a question. The issue is whether or not the Constitution provides the power for the federal government to be able to provide the kind of health care coverage that is being discussed. I personally don't think it does
How Yellonesque. Between the "necessary and proper" clause and the commerce clause, your belief is equal to that of a Flat Earther.
To argue whether or not the Congress has the power to do this is simply wrong. To argue whether they should is wholly germane.
Quote from: RV on August 11, 2009, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 11, 2009, 10:30:04 AM
Here's Zeke (http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions), then.
So what part of Zeke's paper do you have a problem with? I think we've had the rationing discussion before. If you believe that health care is a privilege rather than a right, aren't you saying that it should be allocated to those who can afford it? Isn't Zeke just arguing for a different type of allocation system than the current one?
As to Kurt's point, I'd agree that Palin's "death panel" rant leans more toward factually incorrect fearmongering (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) than just "incendiary" language.
Here's Zeke's response to that bullplop McCaughey article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html)
Quote"I couldn't believe this was happening to me," says Emanuel, who in addition to spending his career opposing euthanasia and working to increase the quality of care for dying patients is the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context."
QuoteFor decades, Emanuel has studied the ethics of medical care, especially in situations where a scarcity of resources requires hard decisions to be made. His work sometimes deals with the hardest possible decisions, like how to choose who gets a single kidney if there are three patients in need, or the reasons that doctors order tests with little medical value. Emanuel's reputation ranks him among the top members of his field. He is published often in the best journals; he has been given multiple awards for work to improve end-of-life care.
And today's installment of nonsensical fear mongering from the LEGITIMATE NEWS REPORTING arm of Fox News:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/keeping_a_list_checking_it_twi.cfm (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/keeping_a_list_checking_it_twi.cfm)
Video here. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stash/archive/2009/08/12/fox-news-has-left-me-completely-speechless.aspx)
Quote from: MikeC on August 12, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
QuoteIn any event, I can only ask what would happen if you, MikeC, were unemployed, and without health insurance. We won't even consider your eligibility for Medicaid, for which you probably wouldn't qualify.
To be perfectly honest that happened to me earlier this year. Prior to last January for the last year plus every couple months i would have a bad case of stomach cramps. Bad enough that i had to go to the emergency room a few times for them to stop me from throwing up and stop the pain. It was really unbearable pain. Both times they ran tests found nothing just treated me for the naseua and pain and sent me home. After the 2nd time they sent me in for an Ultra Sound, again nothing wrong.
Finally after a year or so dealing with this it happened again on a trip to Denver. Went to the emergency room there and this time finally someone listened, sent me in for a CT scan and figured out what was wrong. It was my appendix. One of the simpliest diagnosis and procedures in medicine.
Mixed into this was a visit to a primary care physcian at the new local community health center. One of those centers that would probably be the centerpiece of Obamacare. My visit with the Doc lasted 30 seconds and she came up with the bright idea it was Acid Reflux (i had no symptoms of it) and gave me sample pills to treat it. She also recommended cutting out Alcohol and spicy foods. I wasn't too impressed with the hurry up get me out so i can move onto the next patient.
To go along with that my girlfriends kids had some kind of rash and we went to the same place. She has all the nice government health plans for low income people and doesn't pay a dime. Again 30 seconds its just a normal rash going around put this cream on it, it should be fine. It wasn't fine the rash wasn't going away. 2nd visit same thing different cream, again no reaction. I did a little research on the internet and narrowed it down to a form of Staph infection. I have no medical knowledge so i could have been way off. 3rd time i asked could we do a culture on it and maybe see what the fuck we are dealing with? They did that and it came back Staph infection and prescribed some heavy anti-biotics to finally get rid of it. Again not impressed with the hurry up get you out move onto the next person.
Anyways $10,000 wasted at Emergency rooms in Iowa, to not figure out what was going on, and $26,000 dollars in Denver for surgery on my Appendix with zero health insurance and not working at the time. And I still don't want so called free health care and believe the state has zero responsibility to provide it for you. They can regulate it but running health care? No fucking way should the federal government be involved.
The problem really isn't insurance companies its our sue happy society. Doctors have to pay massive malpractice insurance which gets passed onto the public. If we could figure out how to protect the doctors and stop alot of these frivolous lawsuits costs would come down without the government getting involved.
Another area is getting new drugs past the FDA, putting a new drug on the market is insanley expensive and time consuming. For once i advocate a system like Europe or Canada that is less regulated and allows people access to newer drugs more quickly. Also costs for these drugs seem to be far lower than in the USA.
CT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.
Quote from: morpheus on August 13, 2009, 03:38:10 PMCT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.
I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.
Quote from: Jon on August 13, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 13, 2009, 03:38:10 PMCT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.
I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.
Neither. Wonder when the 10 photoshops are coming.
Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.
"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.
However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.
The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.
"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To
Quote from: CBStew on August 13, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.
"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.
However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.
The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.
"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To
Thanks Stew, always good to keep abreast of European affairs.
Quote from: thehawk on August 13, 2009, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 13, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.
"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.
However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.
The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.
"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To
Thanks Stew, always good to keep abreast of European affairs.
It's good to know that the Germans have boobs running for office too.
Quote from: Jon on August 13, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 13, 2009, 03:38:10 PMCT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.
I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.
CT scan results are almost always inconclusive.
Quote from: CBStew on August 13, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
Maybe German politics are even sillier than ours.
"Debate is raging in Germany over whether a campaign poster using a now infamous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel in a deep-cut evening gown is cleverly ironic or downright tacky.
However you see it, the poster is adding some spice to what is shaping up to be an otherwise dull campaign leading up to Sept. 27 German parliamentary elections.
The poster shows a picture of Christian Democrat candidate Vera Lengsfeld, 57, in a low-cut evening gown alongside a well-known 2008 photo of Merkel, the party leader, taken at her appearance at the gala opening of Oslo's opera house.
"We have more to offer," reads the slogan under the revealing photos of the two women's chests — a twist on the Christian Democrats official slogan, "We have the power."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/13/international/i100637D19.DTL#ixzz0O6k9y2To
Merkel's boner?
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2009, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: Jon on August 13, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 13, 2009, 03:38:10 PMCT Scans never show anything anyway - they're rather nondescript.
I'm not sure whether to groan or applaud.
CT scan results are almost always inconclusive.
"I don't know what to make of this. Your CT scan reads: present."
Serious (and most likely stupid) question for all you conservacrats: are income disparities like this (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2009&base_name=inequality_in_the_united_state#116268) a bad thing for a country/economy in the long term? As a wretched commie pig, I understand there are haves and have-nots in every society, but the bleeding heart connected to my gut tells me income concentrated this highly in a small group is not a good thing. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by a well-supported argument that is heavy on science and light on shiny fascist jackboot kicks to my derriere.
(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/inequaldeco.JPG)
Quote from: RV on August 14, 2009, 03:19:52 PM
Serious (and most likely stupid) question for all you conservacrats: are income disparities like this (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2009&base_name=inequality_in_the_united_state#116268) a bad thing for a country/economy in the long term? As a wretched commie pig, I understand there are haves and have-nots in every society, but the bleeding heart connected to my gut tells me income concentrated this highly in a small group is not a good thing. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by a well-supported argument that is heavy on science and light on shiny fascist jackboot kicks to my derriere.
(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/inequaldeco.JPG)
I didn't realize how bad the Nixon-Ford-Carter years were for us plutocrats. We are finally making up for those bad years.
Quote from: RV on August 14, 2009, 03:19:52 PM
Serious (and most likely stupid) question for all you conservacrats: are income disparities like this (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2009&base_name=inequality_in_the_united_state#116268) a bad thing for a country/economy in the long term? As a wretched commie pig, I understand there are haves and have-nots in every society, but the bleeding heart connected to my gut tells me income concentrated this highly in a small group is not a good thing. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by a well-supported argument that is heavy on science and light on shiny fascist jackboot kicks to my derriere.
(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/inequaldeco.JPG)
All I see is a lot of hard-working, loyal American, ExxonMobil employees pulling themselves up by their bootstraps in 2003.
Rick Perlstein, whose "Nixonland" is discussed (briefly) over in paperbacks (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6928.0), shakes the crazy tree...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495_pf.html
QuoteSo the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.
...
Liberals are right to be vigilant about manufactured outrage, and particularly about how the mainstream media can too easily become that outrage's entry into the political debate. For the tactic represented by those fake Nixon letters was a long-term success. Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim. If 1963 were 2009, the woman who assaulted Adlai Stevenson would be getting time on cable news to explain herself. That, not the paranoia itself, makes our present moment uniquely disturbing.
It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.
The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."
Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.
I b lookng at u ChkGrsly
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
Either that, or everyone starts packing and the tensions on both sides continue to ratchet up until the Hegelian dynamic finally explodes in an inevitable Aufhebung of motorcycle marauders (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6612.msg168889#msg168889).
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 07:35:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Nah, the blame would fall squarely on the guy who would take a pop at Obama.
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 07:35:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Nah, the blame would fall squarely on the guy who would take a pop at Obama.
Nobody is happy with things that cut-and-dried anymore. There will be finger-pointing going on, on both sides.
Just as there is with everything else.
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 07:35:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Nah, the blame would fall squarely on the guy who would take a pop at Obama.
Do you think that would be the case when one of these guys flinches or the shoulder strap on their AR-15 slips and a sniper takes them out?
Quote from: thehawk on August 18, 2009, 10:42:01 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 07:35:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Nah, the blame would fall squarely on the guy who would take a pop at Obama.
Do you think that would be the case when one of these guys flinches or the shoulder strap on their AR-15 slips and a sniper takes them out?
Absolutely.
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
Quote from: thehawk on August 18, 2009, 10:42:01 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 07:35:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/twelve-carry-guns----including-assault-rifle----outside-obama-event.php
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
No one was arrested outside the VFW National Convention in Phoenix, according to the Associated Press, where hundreds of people demonstrated both for and against health care reform. There are no reports that the 12 were part of an organized group.
The man spotted carrying the assault rifle and a pistol, who gave his name only as "Chris", was asked why he was armed. "Because I can do it," he said. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms." You can watch the video from ArizonaCentral.com (go to about 1:30). He's being interviewed by a man who's also wearing a handgun.
Two police officers kept close by. Carrying guns, including the AR-15 assault rifle, is legal under Arizona law.
"If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time," said Detective J. Oliver.
If this trend continues, eventually, someone's gonna cross a line.
Somewhere, an otherwise law-abiding citizen, carrying a gun at a Presidential event ("because I can"), will get too close for Secret Service comfort and be temporarily relieved of their firearm and/or freedom.
Further proof, of course, that Obama wants to take our guns.
The contradictions heightened.
I'm guessing someone will take a pop at Obama.
The challenge will be for guys like Limbaugh and Beck to blame the Libruls instead of their own rhetoric aimed at the low-hanging fruit.
Nah, the blame would fall squarely on the guy who would take a pop at Obama.
Do you think that would be the case when one of these guys flinches or the shoulder strap on their AR-15 slips and a sniper takes them out?
Absolutely.
Wish you were right Teej, but the words "Ruby Ridge" keep ringing in the back of my head.
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
A contradiction in terms, in AP style.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 18, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
A contradiction in tertionms, in AP style.
Not so much a contradiction in terms as a redundancy.
EDIT: I should learn to read, you are correct Wheezer.
Forget I posted anything here.
Quote from: flannj on August 18, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 18, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
A contradiction in tertionms, in AP style.
Not so much a contradiction in terms as a redundancy.
No, the point is one of function over form--an "assault weapon" has to have select-fire.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 18, 2009, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 18, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 18, 2009, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 12:23:07 AM
QuoteAbout 12 people were carrying guns, including at least one semi-automatic assault rifle, outside a building where President Obama was speaking today.
A contradiction in terms, in AP style.
Not so much a contradiction in terms as a redundancy.
No, the point is one of function over form--an "assault weapon" has to have select-fire.
No, select-fire is the is the ability to fire in semi-automatic mode as well as some form of fully-automatic mode.
"Assault rifles" have this capability "assault weapons" do not.
But I agree with your original post (I'm just glad I posted my retraction before your reply).
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it ForkNasty. As you guys were...
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it means you're only posting 3-5 days a month, then yes.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on August 18, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it means you're only posting 3-5 days a month, then yes.
My regular posting keeps everyone else's cycles in sync.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on August 18, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it means you're only posting 3-5 days a month, then yes.
That's only 631 posts a month, though. How would he survive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18plan.html
QuoteThe idea of a health cooperative has been pushed by Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. It has drawn support from centrist Democrats and has intrigued some Republicans.
The government would offer start-up money, perhaps $6 billion, in loans and grants to help doctors, hospitals, businesses and other groups form nonprofit cooperative networks to provide health care and coverage.
The co-ops could be formed at the national, state or local level. Proponents say that a health co-op might need 25,000 members to be financially viable, and at least 500,000 members to negotiate effectively with health care providers.
Health care cooperatives could inject competition in some insurance markets around the country, economists and health policy experts said. But they would need time to buy sophisticated information technology and to negotiate contracts with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.
Mr. Conrad's own state demonstrates the uncertainties surrounding cooperatives. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota dominates the state's private insurance market, collecting nearly 90 percent of premiums. As a nonprofit owned by its members, the company would hope to qualify as a co-op under federal legislation, said Paul von Ebers, its incoming president and chief executive.
So, Kent Conrad's plan to solve the health care crisis and foster competition could wind up shelling out government cash to the likes of regional near-monopoly behemoths (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears) like BCBS?
Brilliant.
And it's okay, because it's totally not socialism.
A decent read on the topic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/06/14/hacker.aspx
Quote from: TDubbs on August 18, 2009, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on August 18, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it means you're only posting 3-5 days a month, then yes.
That's only 631 posts a month, though. How would he survive?
Same way I do now, feeding off the menstrual blood of little tools who have been forced into a life of celibacy by their own inadequacies.
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 07:48:18 AM
Quote from: TDubbs on August 18, 2009, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on August 18, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on August 18, 2009, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 18, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on August 18, 2009, 10:56:42 AM
TJ's in a Conservative Fantasy World if he thinks that the scenario Hawk lays out would not result in a storm of vitriol from the right decrying Obama's "jack-booted thugs".
Along with sarcastic remarks about "Hope", "Change" and "Transparency".
These fucktards with the guns have to understand, this is a country where we have the opportunity for regime change every 4 years. The fact that we can change leaders without anyone dying is what makes us better than other countries.
You didn't like November's election? Work harder in 2012.
It's not my fault that the McCain 2000 was the Beatles and the McCain 2008 was Wings.
I've read two Fork posts today, and I agree with both of them.
So the more on-the-rag I am, the better I seem to guys like you?
If it means you're only posting 3-5 days a month, then yes.
That's only 631 posts a month, though. How would he survive?
Same way I do now, feeding off the menstrual blood of little tools who have been forced into a life of celibacy by their own inadequacies.
Fork eats menstrual blood?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php
QuoteErnest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.
The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.
In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.
Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational."
"They don't have criminal records," another press account quoted Hancock, who knew all twelve militia members, as saying. "They just like their guns. And in Arizona, gosh darn it, that's normal."
He designed the graphic. But did he pilot the zeppelin?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 19, 2009, 08:34:05 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php
QuoteErnest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.
The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.
In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.
Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational."
"They don't have criminal records," another press account quoted Hancock, who knew all twelve militia members, as saying. "They just like their guns. And in Arizona, gosh darn it, that's normal."
He designed the graphic. But did he pilot the zeppelin?
I confuse you with IAN sometimes... How's that make you feel?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 18, 2009, 09:17:24 PMSo, Kent Conrad's plan to solve the health care crisis and foster competition could wind up shelling out government cash to the likes of regional near-monopoly behemoths (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears) like BCBS?
Brilliant.
And it's okay, because it's totally not socialism.
A decent read on the topic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/06/14/hacker.aspx
You're missing the strategy aspect of this, Tank. This is just a brilliant tactical move by the Senate Democrats! Even if it's a terrible (http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2009/08/co-ops-are-single-dumbest-idea-i-have.html), pointless (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/18/ltm.03.html) idea policy-wise:
QuoteOK, let's start with the notion that a co-op can do a better job of negotiating prices and protocols. But wait, on day one how many members does the co-op have? Well it has no members on day one. So, the co-op's provider relations guy goes to the doctor and hospital administrator and demands better prices and protocols. My guess is the provider's response would go something like this, "So you are here because your stated objective is to screw my reimbursement down more than it is, you have no members now, and if I give you the rates to take members away from the existing health plans you are going to make life even more difficult for me than those existing health plans have?" My guess is that when the provider stops laughing...
QuoteCONRAD: Well, the important thing is they'd provide more competition. In about half the states, John, there is no meaningful competition in health insurance. There's one dominant carrier. And so, the first thing they could do is provide more competition. But beyond that, I think it's very important not to over-promise here. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the big levers in terms of affecting cost lie elsewhere.
The big levers are reforming the delivery system in this country to move to the kinds of integrated systems like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic that work so well in holding down costs and delivering high quality care, and other reforms, the insurance market reforms, and changing the tax subsidy to health care.
The experts tell us those are the big drivers in terms of altering costs.
ROBERTS: And would co-ops address that?
CONRAD: No. The things that co-ops address are really twofold. One, providing additional competition.
ROBERTS: Right.
CONRAD: And number two, being an entity that is not government- run, government-controlled, but is a not for profit competitor.
ROBERTS: So nothing in driving down the cost of service, then?
CONRAD: No. If you believe competition helps drive down costs, then they would certainly contribute to holding down costs.
this harebrained scheme will be just the olive branch the pant-shitting "centrists" in the Senate need to garner some GOP votes and make it all bipartisan and stuff.
Wait (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/18/leading-house-republican-wary-of-health-care-co-op/), nevermind (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Kyl_Concessions_wont_win_over_GOP.html?showall).
QuoteGeorgia Republican Tom Price, the chairman of the House Republican Study Committee and a medical doctor, came out against current proposals of a nonprofit health care cooperative to compete with private insurers, calling it "simply another name for a public option."
QuoteOn the nonprofit insurance cooperatives that Sen. Kent Conrad and other centrist Democrats are proposing as an alternative to a public plan, Kyl said it was a "Trojan horse."
"It's a step towards government-run health care in this country," Kyl said.
"Centrist" Democrats in the Senate: an awesome combination of inept and corrupt (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html).
QuoteLobbying contributions appear to have the largest marginal impact on middle-of-the-road Democrats. Liberal Democrats are likely to hold firm to the public option unless they receive a lot of remuneration from health care PACs. Conservative Democrats may not support the public option in the first place for ideological reasons, although money can certainly push them more firmly against it. But the impact on mainline Democrats appears to be quite large: if a mainline Democrat has received $60,000 from insurance PACs over the past six years, his likelihood of supporting the public option is cut roughly in half from 80 percent to 40 percent.
The fact that insurance companies are lobbying so hard to defeat this is reason enough to like it.
What I'd really like to know is how much guys like Kristol and Krauthammer are getting.
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
The fact that insurance companies are lobbying so hard to defeat this is reason enough to like it.
What I'd really like to know is how much guys like Kristol and Krauthammer are getting.
My guess is they're collecting their usual salary from the Weekly Standard, the Washington Post, and Fox News.
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
What I'd really like to know is how much guys like Kristol and Krauthammer are getting.
They're just getting their usual shots of wrongohol totally gratis.
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 08:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 08:43:07 AM
The fact that insurance companies are lobbying so hard to defeat this is reason enough to like it.
What I'd really like to know is how much guys like Kristol and Krauthammer are getting.
My guess is they're collecting their usual salary from the Weekly Standard, the Washington Post, and Fox News.
I'm pretty sure the insurance companies are throwing a few fishnagels their way as well.
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
Quote from: IrishYeti on August 19, 2009, 08:35:16 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 19, 2009, 08:34:05 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php
QuoteErnest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.
The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.
In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.
Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational."
"They don't have criminal records," another press account quoted Hancock, who knew all twelve militia members, as saying. "They just like their guns. And in Arizona, gosh darn it, that's normal."
He designed the graphic. But did he pilot the zeppelin?
I confuse you with IAN sometimes... How's that make you feel?
I don't root for the Cardinals.
Does that clear things up?
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
Having a conversation with you is like having an argument with a dinning room table.
That has catch phrase potential.
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
What do you think Barney is, the Hitler police?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 19, 2009, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
What do you think Barney is, the Hitler police?
Sorry TJ, I find your movie pitch of
Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Photoshop Detective to be totally unrealistic.
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 19, 2009, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
What do you think Barney is, the Hitler police?
Sorry TJ, I find your movie pitch of Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Photoshop Detective to be totally unrealistic.
Where is that film on the IMDB rank? Clearly too high.
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
Sorry TJ, I find your movie pitch of Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Photoshop Detective to be totally unrealistic.
What about
Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Puncher?
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
Comparing a black Liberal to a Fascist who believed in White supremacy is a bit of a stretch.
Comparing Conservatives to Fascists and Liberals to Communists are at least keeping everything on the same side of center.
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 09:57:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
Comparing a black Liberal to a Fascist who believed in White supremacy is a bit of a stretch.
Comparing Conservatives to Fascists and Liberals to Communists are at least keeping everything on the same side of center.
Fork, you ignorant slut (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841).
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 10:01:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 09:57:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
Comparing a black Liberal to a Fascist who believed in White supremacy is a bit of a stretch.
Comparing Conservatives to Fascists and Liberals to Communists are at least keeping everything on the same side of center.
Fork, you ignorant slut (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841).
I call bullshit. There no Liberal on the planet who can make trains run on time.
Quote from: Brownie on August 19, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
I love me some Big Gay Barney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8)
I can't defend an Obama-Hitler comparison, but I appreciate Frank confronting everyone who did the same the previous eight years. (http://images.google.com/images?q=bushitler&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi)
Thanks for showing us those images, I had never seen them before. I have never compared Bush to Hitler, but had I thought of it I would have compared him to a dining room table.
This sounds correct to me:
http://agenda.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxNGQzNTUyODI0Y2M1OGU5MWJlMzZkZmY1OGM5YmM=
(D)o private insurers have the right incentives?
...
Like the United States, Switzerland used to have a lot of for-profit health insurance firms. After the reform, insurers were obligated to offer health insurance plans on a non-profit basis. They can offer other insurance policies on a for-profit basis, and offering supplemental coverage has been a big source of growth for them. The vast majority of universal health systems built around private insurers have a similar non-profit requirement. The United States is definitely the outlier here.
...
The case for co-ops is simple: we don't have enough non-profit insurers. Let's encourage the creation of more of them. This might be wrong. But the potential upside is considerable and the potential downside is negligible. Bitter opposition to the idea suggests that the right is needlessly hostile to reform.
I'd be interested to know how much supplemental coverage would cost an individual citizen and how necessary it would be.
If the government plan we'll be forced into covers less than a current employer health plan and you're forced to spend several thousands of dollars on supplemental coverage then it's not an improvement over what we have now.
Quote from: Ghost of Dave Rosello on August 19, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
I'd be interested to know how much supplemental coverage would cost an individual citizen and how necessary it would be.
If the government plan we'll be forced into covers less than a current employer health plan and you're forced to spend several thousands of dollars on supplemental coverage then it's not an improvement over what we have now.
Are you talking about a hypothetical single-payer plan? Because none of the current proposed legislation forces anyone onto a government plan (http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2225618), which we all know that would be truly, truly awful (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx).
Quote"We're dramatically increasing funding for veterans health care," the president told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.
This includes hundreds of millions of dollars to serve veterans in rural areas, as well as the unique needs of our growing number of women veterans. We're restoring access to V.A. health care for a half-million veterans who lost their eligibility in recent years—our Priority 8 veterans.
QuoteYou want to know what really burns my butt? The health care these veterans will receive has been certified by the New England Journal of Medicine, the Rand Corp., and the National Committee for Quality Assurance to exceed in quality the care available to paying customers in more authentically American private-sector fee-for-service hospitals. The VA hospital system's mere existence is an affront to everything true patriots hold dear. That it manages to offer an emphatically successful model for socialized medicine in the United States insults the very principles on which our republic was founded.
QuoteIn their report, Davis and coauthors find that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%).
Quote from: Eli on August 19, 2009, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
Sorry TJ, I find your movie pitch of Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Photoshop Detective to be totally unrealistic.
What about Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Puncher?
Go on...I'm intrigued (http://hitlergettingpunched.blogspot.com).
Quote from: Jon on August 19, 2009, 01:48:04 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 19, 2009, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 09:36:08 AM
Sorry TJ, I find your movie pitch of Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Photoshop Detective to be totally unrealistic.
What about Barney Frank, Gay Internet Hitler Puncher?
Go on...I'm intrigued (http://hitlergettingpunched.blogspot.com).
I thought you might be.
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Dave Rosello on August 19, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
I'd be interested to know how much supplemental coverage would cost an individual citizen and how necessary it would be.
If the government plan we'll be forced into covers less than a current employer health plan and you're forced to spend several thousands of dollars on supplemental coverage then it's not an improvement over what we have now.
Are you talking about a hypothetical single-payer plan? Because none of the current proposed legislation forces anyone onto a government plan (http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2225618), which we all know that would be truly, truly awful (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx).
Quote"We're dramatically increasing funding for veterans health care," the president told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.
This includes hundreds of millions of dollars to serve veterans in rural areas, as well as the unique needs of our growing number of women veterans. We're restoring access to V.A. health care for a half-million veterans who lost their eligibility in recent years—our Priority 8 veterans.
QuoteYou want to know what really burns my butt? The health care these veterans will receive has been certified by the New England Journal of Medicine, the Rand Corp., and the National Committee for Quality Assurance to exceed in quality the care available to paying customers in more authentically American private-sector fee-for-service hospitals. The VA hospital system's mere existence is an affront to everything true patriots hold dear. That it manages to offer an emphatically successful model for socialized medicine in the United States insults the very principles on which our republic was founded.
QuoteIn their report, Davis and coauthors find that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%).
Kristol's interview with Jon Stewart a couple weeks ago, where he said the Gubment was incapable of providing health care, then acknowledged the health care provided to our armed services is the best anyone could have, before being reminded it's run by said Gubment, is steak.
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 02:29:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Dave Rosello on August 19, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
I'd be interested to know how much supplemental coverage would cost an individual citizen and how necessary it would be.
If the government plan we'll be forced into covers less than a current employer health plan and you're forced to spend several thousands of dollars on supplemental coverage then it's not an improvement over what we have now.
Are you talking about a hypothetical single-payer plan? Because none of the current proposed legislation forces anyone onto a government plan (http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2225618), which we all know that would be truly, truly awful (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx).
Quote"We're dramatically increasing funding for veterans health care," the president told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.
This includes hundreds of millions of dollars to serve veterans in rural areas, as well as the unique needs of our growing number of women veterans. We're restoring access to V.A. health care for a half-million veterans who lost their eligibility in recent years—our Priority 8 veterans.
QuoteYou want to know what really burns my butt? The health care these veterans will receive has been certified by the New England Journal of Medicine, the Rand Corp., and the National Committee for Quality Assurance to exceed in quality the care available to paying customers in more authentically American private-sector fee-for-service hospitals. The VA hospital system's mere existence is an affront to everything true patriots hold dear. That it manages to offer an emphatically successful model for socialized medicine in the United States insults the very principles on which our republic was founded.
QuoteIn their report, Davis and coauthors find that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%).
Kristol's interview with Jon Stewart a couple weeks ago, where he said the Gubment was incapable of providing health care, then acknowledged the health care provided to our armed services is the best anyone could have, before being reminded it's run by said Gubment, is steak.
That was one of the longest appositives I've ever read.
But healthcare to the Armed Forces/Veterans isnt the best anyone could have. They are underfunded, understaffed and rocked by scandal in recent years.
If you remember the best hospital in the entire Armed Forces is pretty much a piece of crap...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
QuoteBehind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
QuoteDisengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment
And it wasn't just a GWB problem because of Iraq, this has been going on for decades during many administrations. And its just not isolated at Walter Reed, military hospitals from coast to coast are in similar dire shape.
The Philidelphia VA Scandal....
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7939
QuoteNRC spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng said the agency was responsible for the lax care only to the degree that it misplaced its trust in the VA. When the brachytherapy program was created in 2002, she explained, the NRC allowed the VA to create the National Health Physics Program, which was supposed to monitor treatment and report any problems to the NRC. In effect, the VA was its own watchdog.
The article explains this is common in the VA system, that they watch themselves.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/7090
QuoteLast week at a hearing before a House VA committee, the VA was roundly criticized for not increasing safeguards and improving procedures at VA health facilities after it was found that shoddy procedures were potentially linked to the spread of hepatitis and HIV. Despite a nationwide scare, media attention, and suspected links to HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, less than half of all VA facilities were operating under appropriate procedures based on surprise investigations spurred by the scandal, which broke months earlier, noted the AP. According to the VA, six veterans have tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS; 34 have tested positive for hepatitis C, and 13 have tested positive for hepatitis B, said the AP previously.
The VA system and the Indian Tribal health care systems are pretty much the lowest of the low for health care in the United States and they are both free and fully funded by the government.
Which of you fucks said "Beetlejuice"?
A couple things, Mike.
First of all: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_smackdown_that_wasnt.html)
QuoteWalter Reed is an army hospital, not a veteran's hospital. The two systems have nothing to do with one another. That's why the problems at Walter Reed led to the resignation of the Secretary of the Army and not the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Second, there are anecdotal instances of bad care in any system. It's a lot more useful to look at the system
as a whole. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html)QuoteYet here's a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better."
Here's another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.
It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.
QuoteVeterans groups tenaciously defend the VHA and applaud its turnaround. "The quality of care is outstanding," says Peter Gayton, deputy director for veterans affairs and rehabilitation at the American Legion. In the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I don't know anything about the Indian Tribal Health system, but on the whole, I don't see how the private healthcare market is markedly better or more efficient than the VA system.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 19, 2009, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 19, 2009, 02:29:57 PM
Kristol's interview with Jon Stewart a couple weeks ago, where he said the Gubment was incapable of providing health care, then acknowledged the health care provided to our armed services is the best anyone could have, before being reminded it's run by said Gubment, is steak.
That was one of the longest appositives I've ever read.
Quote from: Malcolm Lowry
It is a light blue moonless summer evening, but late, perhaps ten o'clock, with Venus burning hard in daylight, so we are certainly somewhere far north, and standing on this balcony, when from beyond along the coast comes the gathering thunder of a long many-engineered freight train, thunder because though we are separated by this wide strip of water from it, the train is rolling eastward and the changing wind veers for a moment from an easterly quarter, and we face east, like Swedenborg's angels, under a sky clear save where far to the northeast over distant mountains whose purple has faded lies a mass of almost pure white clouds, suddenly, as by a light in an alabaster lamp, illumined from within by gold lightening, yet you can hear no thunder, only the roar of the great train with its engines and its wide shunting echoes as it advances from the hills into the mountains: and then all at once a fishing boat with tall gear comes running round the point like a white giraffe, very swift and stately, leaving directly behind it a long silver scalloped rim of wake, not visibly moving inshore, but now stealing ponderously beachward toward us, this scrolled silver rim of wash striking the shore first in the distance, then spreading all along the curve of the beach, while the floats, for these are timber driving floats, are swayed together, everything jostled and beautifully ruffled and stirred and tormented in this rolling sleeked silver, then little by little calm again, and you see the reflection of the remote white thunderclouds in the water, and now the lightening within the white clouds in deep water, as the fishing boat itself with a golden scroll of travelling light in its silver wake beside it reflected from the cabin vanishes round the headland, silence, and then again, within the white white distant alabaster thunderclouds beyond the mountains, the thunderless gold lightening in the blue evening, unearthly.
So, let me get this straight, the government provides direct health care to Injuns and Veterans, insurance to children, poor people, the elderly, and federal employees, but NOTHING to everyone else?
That is one of the simplest measures of how fucked up health care is in the United States.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 19, 2009, 04:26:56 PM
So, let me get this straight, the government provides direct health care to Injuns and Veterans, insurance to children, poor people, the elderly, and federal employees, but NOTHING to everyone else?
That is one of the simplest measures of how fucked up health care is in the United States.
Let's go downtown and protest.
While we're there, we can all get gubment jobs.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 19, 2009, 04:26:56 PM
So, let me get this straight, the government provides direct health care to Injuns and Veterans, insurance to children, poor people, the elderly, and federal employees, but NOTHING to everyone else?
That is one of the simplest measures of how fucked up health care is in the United States.
Well hell, everybody's covered then. Problem solved!
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2009, 04:06:43 PM
A couple things, Mike.
First of all: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_smackdown_that_wasnt.html)
QuoteWalter Reed is an army hospital, not a veteran's hospital. The two systems have nothing to do with one another. That's why the problems at Walter Reed led to the resignation of the Secretary of the Army and not the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Second, there are anecdotal instances of bad care in any system. It's a lot more useful to look at the system as a whole. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html)
QuoteYet here's a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better."
Here's another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.
It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year's winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.
QuoteVeterans groups tenaciously defend the VHA and applaud its turnaround. "The quality of care is outstanding," says Peter Gayton, deputy director for veterans affairs and rehabilitation at the American Legion. In the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I don't know anything about the Indian Tribal Health system, but on the whole, I don't see how the private healthcare market is markedly better or more efficient than the VA system.
Well the VA has been involved in a scandal about falsify data to make themselves look better than they really are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/with-a-new-va-scandal-we-_b_48818.html
QuoteIndependent reports also give the VA high marks. Studies by the Joint Commission and these authors have a great deal of credence, given the impartiality and impeccable reputation of their authors. It should be remembered, however, that this kind of research depends on the accuracy of data submitted by the participating organizations themselves. Since there are now suggestions that the VA falsified other data, a research committee should also re-evaluate the accuracy of the raw data used to draw these conclusions.
Where does the truth rest? The only real accountability in the VA system is the VA itself.
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 12:02:45 AMWhere does the truth rest? The only real accountability in the VA system is the VA itself.
How would that explain this?
QuoteIn the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Quote from: R-V on August 20, 2009, 06:46:55 AM
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 12:02:45 AMWhere does the truth rest? The only real accountability in the VA system is the VA itself.
How would that explain this?
QuoteIn the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Sure, but what happens when the Gubment takes those programs over?
Shocking. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/19/tom-ridge-on-national-security-after-911.html)
QuoteRidge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
I'm not discounting the 'sell books with provocative stuff' angle here, but if the last part is true, wow. And Ridge is a shmuck for keeping that to himself until now.
Quote from: R-V on August 20, 2009, 09:16:26 AM
Shocking. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/19/tom-ridge-on-national-security-after-911.html)
QuoteRidge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
I'm not discounting the 'sell books with provocative stuff' angle here, but if the last part is true, wow. And Ridge is a shmuck for keeping that to himself until now.
Not worth it enough to actually do it. So much for character vs. power.
Quote from: R-V on August 20, 2009, 09:16:26 AM
Shocking. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/19/tom-ridge-on-national-security-after-911.html)
QuoteRidge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
I'm not discounting the 'sell books with provocative stuff' angle here, but if the last part is true, wow. And Ridge is a shmuck for keeping that to himself until now.
He held ambiguous pressers at least twice in 2004, once the day after Kerry announced Edwards was his running mate, and once the day after Kerry's acceptance speech.
He then denied these were politically motivated.
Fuck him with a Mongol's spiked club.
Quote from: R-V on August 20, 2009, 09:16:26 AM
Shocking. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/08/19/tom-ridge-on-national-security-after-911.html)
QuoteRidge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
I'm not discounting the 'sell books with provocative stuff' angle here, but if the last part is true, wow. And Ridge is a shmuck for keeping that to himself until now.
I've always been a little bit fuzzy on the definition of "irony." Ridge's new book includes a provocative claim that criticizes the Bush administration's use of the terror alert for political gains. Said book is to be released on September 1st giving Ridge a solid week and a half to grab some free airtime as a guest on cable news show stories about the upcoming anniversary of September 11th. All the while, ostensibly, he would be promoting his newly-released memoir.
Manipulating the public's fear of future terrorist attacks for political gain? Unacceptable.
Capitalizing on his former position as the Director of Homeland Security to discuss a past terrorist attack for personal gain? Acceptable.
I don't know if that's irony, but either way: Fuck Tom Ridge.
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time reimbursing autodealers for the CARS program?
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_albuquerque_dealers_stiffed_as_clunkers_pile_up_200908200033
QuoteDealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers' group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.
Alot of dealerships may even go out of business because of this. And Health Care is going to be run by the Government? They can't even manage a simple 1 or 2 billion dollar program. And word is the program is out of money again.
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:11:50 AM
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_albuquerque_dealers_stiffed_as_clunkers_pile_up_200908200033
Really bad reporting. Case in point:
QuoteDealerships put up the cash for the rebates after being told by the Obama administration they would be paid back within 10 days of the sale.
So, how many days are payments taking to be made? Article is silent.
Then...
Quote"You simply can't ask businesses to front $200,000, $300,000 for any period of time," Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., told KRQE News 13.
Wow. So, my job of providing lines of credit for companies who have sold inventory but are pending collection of accounts receivable doesn't exist? Unless by "any period of time" he means "up to 90 days from invoice date."
A dumb article that is meaningless.
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:11:50 AM
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time reimbursing autodealers for the CARS program?
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_albuquerque_dealers_stiffed_as_clunkers_pile_up_200908200033
QuoteDealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers' group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.
Alot of dealerships may even go out of business because of this. And Health Care is going to be run by the Government? They can't even manage a simple 1 or 2 billion dollar program. And word is the program is out of money again.
So now that one of your talking points has been shot down, you just move on to the next one instead of attempting to respond?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/pho.doctor.shortage/index.html
QuoteToday, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the highest in the country. But less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system.
The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a Quotenew patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days
, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally.
When patients are forced to wait weeks to obtain medical care, they inevitably find their way into the emergency department for treatment that ordinarily can be handled in a doctor's office. Indeed, since health reform was passed, according to state data provided to the Boston Globe, Massachusetts emergency rooms have reported a 7 percent increase in volume, which markedly inflates costs when you consider that emergency room treatment can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same ailment.
Alwyn Cassil, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, told HealthDay News that expanding coverage without improving access to care is a "recipe for failure," as well as unsustainable, "because it will just bankrupt us."
QuoteMassachusetts is finding out just how difficult it is to fiscally maintain universal coverage. In part due to soaring health costs, the state Legislature has proposed reducing health benefits for 30,000 legal immigrants and cutting funding to inner-city hospitals like Boston Medical Center, which, according to the Boston Globe, may "force it to slash programs and jeopardize care for thousands of poverty-stricken families."
Thats the future of free health care for the entire country. Read about what is going on with the doctors in that state. Not exactly an improvement from our current situation, unless you like our nation bankrupt by the costs, and having to reduce services to just keep it running. Oh wait were already 1.8 trillion in the hole this year under Obama, were already fucked, whats another 1 or 2 trillion. I guess when the nation is already bankrupt its a good time to spend even more money.
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time responding to Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys alleging that Barak Obama A.K.A. Barry Soetoro is illegal POTUS?
Well, a storm is gathering.
Tomorrow, in fact...
http://riseupforamerica.com/
QuoteGet ready for the gathering storm.
Starting Friday, the 21st of Aug. we will begin contacting U.S. Marshall's and the FBI concerning the lack of response to the Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys.
In addition, we will begin to contact your State's bureau of Investigation, Sheriff's and where applicable, Constables to demand arrest of those Senators and Representatives in your State who are now guilty of
MISPRISION OF TREASON!
Those of you who sent the Criminal Complaints to your US Atty's need to now follow that up with these demands.
Everyone else can work with your State officials and demand the same concerning your US Senators and Representatives in the US Congress.
FDR is teh sux0r, too.
Quote from: R-V on August 20, 2009, 11:29:52 AM
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:11:50 AM
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time reimbursing autodealers for the CARS program?
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_albuquerque_dealers_stiffed_as_clunkers_pile_up_200908200033
QuoteDealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers' group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.
Alot of dealerships may even go out of business because of this. And Health Care is going to be run by the Government? They can't even manage a simple 1 or 2 billion dollar program. And word is the program is out of money again.
So now that one of your talking points has been shot down, you just move on to the next one instead of attempting to respond?
Right on
que.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:33:06 AM
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time responding to Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys alleging that Barak Obama A.K.A. Barry Soetoro is illegal POTUS?
Well, a storm is gathering.
Tomorrow, in fact...
http://riseupforamerica.com/
QuoteGet ready for the gathering storm.
Starting Friday, the 21st of Aug. we will begin contacting U.S. Marshall's and the FBI concerning the lack of response to the Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys.
In addition, we will begin to contact your State's bureau of Investigation, Sheriff's and where applicable, Constables to demand arrest of those Senators and Representatives in your State who are now guilty of
MISPRISION OF TREASON!
Those of you who sent the Criminal Complaints to your US Atty's need to now follow that up with these demands.
Everyone else can work with your State officials and demand the same concerning your US Senators and Representatives in the US Congress.
FDR is teh sux0r, too.
I can't wait for NBC to produce a forged birth certificate proving Obama wasn't born in the US and then use the "Fake but Accurate" line of thinking. Any day now our fair and balanced right wing hinged media will do this.
We'll be waiting for a while, RV.
For Comar, FAIL=IGNORE.
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:46:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:33:06 AM
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time responding to Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys alleging that Barak Obama A.K.A. Barry Soetoro is illegal POTUS?
Well, a storm is gathering.
Tomorrow, in fact...
http://riseupforamerica.com/
QuoteGet ready for the gathering storm.
Starting Friday, the 21st of Aug. we will begin contacting U.S. Marshall's and the FBI concerning the lack of response to the Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys.
In addition, we will begin to contact your State's bureau of Investigation, Sheriff's and where applicable, Constables to demand arrest of those Senators and Representatives in your State who are now guilty of
MISPRISION OF TREASON!
Those of you who sent the Criminal Complaints to your US Atty's need to now follow that up with these demands.
Everyone else can work with your State officials and demand the same concerning your US Senators and Representatives in the US Congress.
FDR is teh sux0r, too.
I can't wait for NBC to produce a forged birth certificate proving Obama wasn't born in the US and then use the "Fake but Accurate" line of thinking. Any day now our fair and balanced right wing hinged media will do this.
I think you mean CBS.
My Lord. You can't even get
your own ideological shibboleths right.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:50:07 AM
I think you mean CBS.
My Lord. You can't even get your own ideological shibboleths right.
No, he means NBC. See, NBC is owned by GE which owns ultra-left MSNBC. Further, GE has come under some serious Faux News (We Opine, You Supine) bashing of late, ostensibly for their backing of MSNBC and the NBC two days in the Obama White House puff piece.
Rather is gone. NBC is now the target.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/la-et-cable15-2009aug15,0,2179965.story
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 20, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:50:07 AM
I think you mean CBS.
My Lord. You can't even get your own ideological shibboleths right.
No, he means NBC. See, NBC is owned by GE which owns ultra-left MSNBC. Further, GE has come under some serious Faux News (We Opine, You Supine) bashing of late, ostensibly for their backing of MSNBC and the NBC two days in the Obama White House puff piece.
Rather is gone. NBC is now the target.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/la-et-cable15-2009aug15,0,2179965.story
Disagree. Any "forged document" jokes should be directed at CBS in order to work properly.
At any rate, the joke is DRLP http://blog.robballen.com/2009/07/28/p3639-breaking-news-shocking-proof-that-obama-was-not.post (http://blog.robballen.com/2009/07/28/p3639-breaking-news-shocking-proof-that-obama-was-not.post)
My talking points are always proved wrong on the simple whim because you guys say so. Its a game that has been played on this site for years. The funny thing is you guys aren't the deciders on what is true or not true. Some of you are still in the fantasy world that the media isn't biased and hell that its right wing dominated. if you can't wrap your head around that simple fact you will invent your own reality when it suits you.
Even when MSNBC pulls shit like this....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/
Or the numerous other examples i have show you guys. Each and every single one is dismissed as being nothing.
I know people that have used the VA system, my own dad used it. Slow, lousy, and incompetent help is the general consensus. Waiting for the government to approve procedures took too damn long when they could go to a private physician and get it done in days.
But by all means lets put a system in place like it and when it doesn't turn out to be the rosy perfect picture the Democrats painted it to be, we will already be fucked and cant get rid of it. It may be a shittier system than our present one but damn it the Democrats got health care for all, well except those millions that aren't covered by the present bill and all those poor people that will be cut from programs because the government cant pay for it. Why exactly would we be spending a trillion or two for that again?
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
I know people that have used the VA system, my own dad used it. Slow, lousy, and incompetent help is the general consensus. Waiting for the government to approve procedures took too damn long when they could go to a private physician and get it done in days.
You're an ignorant slut, MikeC.
QuoteIn the latest independent survey, 81 percent of VHA hospital patients express satisfaction with the care they receive, compared to 77 percent of Medicare and Medicaid patients.
"Tell your statistics to shut up." - Charlie Brown
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:50:07 AM
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:46:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:33:06 AM
Have some of you noticed that the Government is taking its sweet ass time responding to Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys alleging that Barak Obama A.K.A. Barry Soetoro is illegal POTUS?
Well, a storm is gathering.
Tomorrow, in fact...
http://riseupforamerica.com/
QuoteGet ready for the gathering storm.
Starting Friday, the 21st of Aug. we will begin contacting U.S. Marshall's and the FBI concerning the lack of response to the Criminal Complaints sent to U.S. Attorneys.
In addition, we will begin to contact your State's bureau of Investigation, Sheriff's and where applicable, Constables to demand arrest of those Senators and Representatives in your State who are now guilty of
MISPRISION OF TREASON!
Those of you who sent the Criminal Complaints to your US Atty's need to now follow that up with these demands.
Everyone else can work with your State officials and demand the same concerning your US Senators and Representatives in the US Congress.
FDR is teh sux0r, too.
I can't wait for NBC to produce a forged birth certificate proving Obama wasn't born in the US and then use the "Fake but Accurate" line of thinking. Any day now our fair and balanced right wing hinged media will do this.
I think you mean CBS.
My Lord. You can't even get your own ideological shibboleths right.
I am well aware it was Dan Rather and CBS. I just went with NBC because they are pretty good lately at manufacturing news to fit a narrative. And since the media is so heavily dominated by the right, a network with these skills will be producing a fake Obama birth certificate any minute now and running it on prime time news. They already got no problem calling white people racists for carrying guns to protests and then showing a video of a guy carrying an assualt rifle. Ummm but they didnt show his face, he was black and a Obama supporter. But shhhhhhhh white people are angry at a black guy as President, can't be his policies and how he lied to get their votes.
It's the narrative that the protests are angry mobs of racist right wingers. Carrying on in the fine tradition of CBS with "Fake But Accurate" reporting.
How about some real reporting on a black conservative getting beaten by SEIU union thugs? No? Doesnt fit the narrative, liberals couldn't possibly fling racial slurs and beat up a person just because they don't agree with him. NAACP and ACLU agree also, no one gives a fuck when a conservative is beaten.
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 11:32:14 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/pho.doctor.shortage/index.html
QuoteToday, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the highest in the country. But less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system.
The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a Quotenew patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days
, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally.
When patients are forced to wait weeks to obtain medical care, they inevitably find their way into the emergency department for treatment that ordinarily can be handled in a doctor's office. Indeed, since health reform was passed, according to state data provided to the Boston Globe, Massachusetts emergency rooms have reported a 7 percent increase in volume, which markedly inflates costs when you consider that emergency room treatment can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same ailment.
Alwyn Cassil, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, told HealthDay News that expanding coverage without improving access to care is a "recipe for failure," as well as unsustainable, "because it will just bankrupt us."
QuoteMassachusetts is finding out just how difficult it is to fiscally maintain universal coverage. In part due to soaring health costs, the state Legislature has proposed reducing health benefits for 30,000 legal immigrants and cutting funding to inner-city hospitals like Boston Medical Center, which, according to the Boston Globe, may "force it to slash programs and jeopardize care for thousands of poverty-stricken families."
Thats the future of free health care for the entire country. Read about what is going on with the doctors in that state. Not exactly an improvement from our current situation, unless you like our nation bankrupt by the costs, and having to reduce services to just keep it running. Oh wait were already 1.8 trillion in the hole this year under Obama, were already fucked, whats another 1 or 2 trillion. I guess when the nation is already bankrupt its a good time to spend even more money.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/24067.html
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
But by all means lets put a system in place like it and when it doesn't turn out to be the rosy perfect picture the Democrats painted it to be, we will already be fucked and cant get rid of it. It may be a shittier system than our present one but damn it the Democrats got health care for all, well except those millions that aren't covered by the present bill and all those poor people that will be cut from programs because the government cant pay for it. Why exactly would we be spending a trillion or two for that again?
1) Point me to where anyone is proposing to
replace our current system with one run wholly by the government, such that "we" will be "fucked" and unable to "get rid of it" or otherwise opt out (by, say, opting to buy private insurance instead).
2) Explain what you mean when your dark vision of the future suggests the poor "will be cut from programs because the government cant pay for it." For starters... What programs? Medicaid? Which poor people? Those who already can't afford insurance under our current system?
3) Regarding the "millions that aren't covered by the present bill"... Which "present bill"? And what does it mean to say they "aren't covered"? Will they, too, be "fucked" when any one of the various hypothetical public options being considered turn out to be horribly popular trainwrecks like the VA?
Feel free to respond at your own leisure.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html)
Quote from: MikeC on August 20, 2009, 12:13:14 PM
They already got no problem calling white people racists for carrying guns to protests and then showing a video of a guy carrying an assualt rifle. Ummm but they didnt show his face, he was black and a Obama supporter.
Ummm he was black and a Ron Paul supporter, you simp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA
Editted for HOLY SHIT... Check out the label over the Ron Paulite camera guy around 1:58
Has anyone read MikeC's book? It's called I'm a Fucking Troll and No One Can Stop Me.
Quote from: Slak on August 20, 2009, 12:40:38 PM
Has anyone read MikeC's book? It's called I'm a Fucking Troll and No One Can Stop Me.
Chapter 1: Say Shit To Start Shit
Chapter 2: How CT made his MikeC character so real.
Chapter 3: Statfaggotry is Not Just for Sports: Rely on anecdotal evidence that supports conclusions you already reached long ago.
"How about some real reporting on a black conservative getting beaten by SEIU union thugs? No? Doesnt fit the narrative, liberals couldn't possibly fling racial slurs and beat up a person just because they don't agree with him. NAACP and ACLU agree also, no one gives a fuck when a conservative is beaten"
Hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Dining Room Table, but SEIU is dominated by minorities and females. Thugs are in the minority. Can you even say or write the word "union" without adding the word "thug"?
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 20, 2009, 12:00:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 20, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 20, 2009, 11:50:07 AM
I think you mean CBS.
My Lord. You can't even get your own ideological shibboleths right.
No, he means NBC. See, NBC is owned by GE which owns ultra-left MSNBC. Further, GE has come under some serious Faux News (We Opine, You Supine) bashing of late, ostensibly for their backing of MSNBC and the NBC two days in the Obama White House puff piece.
Rather is gone. NBC is now the target.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/la-et-cable15-2009aug15,0,2179965.story
Disagree. Any "forged document" jokes should be directed at CBS in order to work properly.
Oh. You want the joke to make sense? See, Comar was simply manufacturing a post-joke to fit a narrative.
We'll see how the "Cash for Clunkers" program plays out, but a co-worker who has well-known financial issues and has been driving assorted clunkers to work since she started here four years ago (she's had tow-trucks AND Repo men take her various vehicles out of our parking lot) rolled in to work yesterday in a brand new car. She was bragging what a good deal she got. We now have a pool on how long she'll have it.
Quote from: Dave B on August 20, 2009, 02:48:26 PM
We'll see how the "Cash for Clunkers" program plays out, but a co-worker who has well-known financial issues and has been driving assorted clunkers to work since she started here four years ago (she's had tow-trucks AND Repo men take her various vehicles out of our parking lot) rolled in to work yesterday in a brand new car. She was bragging what a good deal she got. We now have a pool on how long she'll have it.
What does this have to with cash-for-clunkers? She found some lender willing to lend her money. Good for her?
So, to recap...
- The PDB "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within US" proved the GOP lied about not having any warnings about 9/11.
- Letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora proved they lied about wanting him "Dead or Alive".
- The Rockefeller Report proved they lied about manipulating intelligence regarding Iraq.
- Ridge's admissions prove they lied about terror threats.
- The Rove memos are proving they lied about firing US attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats.
But they swear to God they're telling us the
TRUTH on health care!
Quote from: Fork on August 21, 2009, 07:44:51 AM
So, to recap...
- The PDB "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within US" proved the GOP lied about not having any warnings about 9/11.
- Letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora proved they lied about wanting him "Dead or Alive".
- The Rockefeller Report proved they lied about manipulating intelligence regarding Iraq.
- Ridge's admissions prove they lied about terror threats.
- The Rove memos are proving they lied about firing US attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats.
But they swear to God they're telling us the TRUTH on health care!
No, but it shows that Government can't be trusted. Well, at least when it's being run by the GOP types.
Can you imagine if a GOP-led government traded arms for hostages?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 21, 2009, 07:58:20 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 21, 2009, 07:44:51 AM
So, to recap...
- The PDB "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within US" proved the GOP lied about not having any warnings about 9/11.
- Letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora proved they lied about wanting him "Dead or Alive".
- The Rockefeller Report proved they lied about manipulating intelligence regarding Iraq.
- Ridge's admissions prove they lied about terror threats.
- The Rove memos are proving they lied about firing US attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats.
But they swear to God they're telling us the TRUTH on health care!
No, but it shows that Government can't be trusted. Well, at least when it's being run by the GOP types.
Can you imagine if a GOP-led government traded arms for hostages?
the Party of Reagan would NEVER negotiate with terrorists!
Quote from: Oleg on August 20, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dave B on August 20, 2009, 02:48:26 PM
We'll see how the "Cash for Clunkers" program plays out, but a co-worker who has well-known financial issues and has been driving assorted clunkers to work since she started here four years ago (she's had tow-trucks AND Repo men take her various vehicles out of our parking lot) rolled in to work yesterday in a brand new car. She was bragging what a good deal she got. We now have a pool on how long she'll have it.
What does this have to with cash-for-clunkers? She found some lender willing to lend her money. Good for her?
And how are all those people who "found some lender willing to lend (them) money" for a house they couldn't afford or didn't have good credit doing now that they're facing foreclosure?
Wasn't sure where to put this... but it's clear to me that certain denizens of this here site will be moving south.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0
Quote from: morpheus on August 21, 2009, 10:26:53 AM
Wasn't sure where to put this... but it's clear to me that certain denizens of this here site will be moving south.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0
Oleg, I smell a road trip!
It smells like Otto's jacket.
Quote from: Jon on August 21, 2009, 10:31:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 21, 2009, 10:26:53 AM
Wasn't sure where to put this... but it's clear to me that certain denizens of this here site will be moving south.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0
Oleg, I smell a road trip!
It smells like Otto's jacket.kneecap
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/3203768975_0ced418f68.jpg?v=0)
QuoteFor other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.
Fifteen lousy mics? That's a subclinical dose, and analytically preposterous for a police department to measure.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 21, 2009, 11:46:47 AM
QuoteFor other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.
Fifteen lousy mics? That's a subclinical dose, and analytically preposterous for a police department to measure.
You've got my vote, sir. Whatever election you stand in.
Quote from: Dave B on August 21, 2009, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 20, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Dave B on August 20, 2009, 02:48:26 PM
We'll see how the "Cash for Clunkers" program plays out, but a co-worker who has well-known financial issues and has been driving assorted clunkers to work since she started here four years ago (she's had tow-trucks AND Repo men take her various vehicles out of our parking lot) rolled in to work yesterday in a brand new car. She was bragging what a good deal she got. We now have a pool on how long she'll have it.
What does this have to with cash-for-clunkers? She found some lender willing to lend her money. Good for her?
And how are all those people who "found some lender willing to lend (them) money" for a house they couldn't afford or didn't have good credit doing now that they're facing foreclosure?
I'd imagine pretty badly. But, I still don't see what that has to do with cash-for-clunkers, either.
THAT.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm)
Quote from: R-V on August 21, 2009, 12:43:09 PM
THAT.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm)
THAT links to THIS...
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0809/steele_on_death_panels_0b7b44e0-273f-4407-8fb8-686c895a6016.html
QuoteMichael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the false "death panel" rumor about President Obama's health care plan is a "grassroots" notion that he does not know if he believes.
Steele said he does not regret that Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich raised "death panel" issue.
"Some characterize it as unfortunate. Others characterize it as a reflection of what they think and what they feel," Steele said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "That comes from some place and is something that's out there in the grassroots of America, not just Republicans."
Asked if he thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill – a suggestion that has been proven untrue and that the White House has spent a week trying to knock down – Steele said he does not know.
"It may or may not be. I don't know. We don't know what the bill is," Steele said. "But there's clearly an attempt by at least the House members to put in place a structure that causes concern for the American people in respect to end of life decisions. I think that's a legitimate point. You don't have to call it death panels if you don't want to. You can call it a panel. I call it rationing."
Your party leadership, GOPers.
What a fucking slimeball.
(He is right on one count, though: It's not
just Republicans; it's LaRouchies, too (http://washingtonindependent.com/55581/the-larouche-cult-and-the-health-care-protests).)
Are they gonna hurt us, Walter?
No, Donny. These men are cowards. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917525-1,00.html)
QuoteThe GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists
...
Given the heinous dust that's been raised, it seems likely that end-of-life counseling will be dropped from the health-reform legislation. But that's a small point, compared with the larger issue that has clouded this summer: How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?
...
It is a very different story among Republicans. To be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing. There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama's plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government. There are conservatives — Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Mike Pence, among many others — who make their arguments based on facts. But they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal. The philosophically supple party that existed as recently as George H.W. Bush's presidency has been obliterated. The party's putative intellectuals — people like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol — are prosaic tacticians who make precious few substantive arguments but oppose health-care reform mostly because passage would help Barack Obama's political prospects. In 1993, when the Clintons tried health-care reform, the Republican John Chafee offered a creative (in fact, superior) alternative — which Kristol quashed with his famous "Don't Help Clinton" fax to the troops. There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand.
A striking example of the prevailing cravenness was Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has authored end-of-life counseling provisions and told the Washington Post that comparing such counseling to euthanasia was nuts — but then quickly retreated when he realized that he had sided with the reality-based community against his Rush Limbaugh-led party. Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner for President according to most polls, actually created a universal-health-care plan in Massachusetts that looks very much like the proposed Obamacare, but he spends much of his time trying to fudge the similarities and was AWOL on the "death panels." Why are these men so reluctant to be rational in public?
An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear." True enough. There was McCarthyism in the 1950s, the John Birch Society in the 1960s. But there was a difference in those times: the crazies were a faction — often a powerful faction — of the Republican Party, but they didn't run it. The neofascist Father Coughlin had a huge radio audience in the 1930s, but he didn't have the power to control and silence the elected leaders of the party that Limbaugh — who, if not the party's leader, is certainly the most powerful Republican extant — does now...
And then there's Newt. (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/newt-gingrich-changes-whats-left-of-his-mind-on-end-of-life-care/)
Liars and cowards.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 21, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
Quote
An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear."
Dog tags might be more secure (http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/ssnstudy/), as a practical outcome. Anyway, how is this "nihilist," exactly?
Quote from: Wheezer on August 21, 2009, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 21, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
Quote
An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear."
Dog tags might be more secure (http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/ssnstudy/), as a practical outcome. Anyway, how is this "nihilist," exactly?
I think calling the GOP "nihilist" is being a bit excessive. By "a bit" of course I mean calling a lit match a forest fire.
The point is correct, the GOP leadership has completely lost focus, just as the Democrats had. Having the basic philosophy of "if he's fer it, we're agin' it" won't work against a guy who pretty much has his shit together.
At some point, they need to stop trotting out Kristol, Krauthammer and Morris, get some guys with brains in there, and put together some sort of legislative agenda that offers some solid alternatives.
Either that, or look at the next 30 years of Democratic majorities in Congress, and lots of Democrats in the White House.
Here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) is the next place for our pal to start cherry-picking.
Quote from: RV on July 12, 2009, 06:35:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 11, 2009, 07:12:54 PM
Dare to hope?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300
Quote...Stuff about the possibility of some goddamn accountability for that torture bullshit.
Fuck. Yes. It's about time. How can there be a deterrent for subsequent administrations to pull this shit(including this one) without a special prosecutor? Nothing has been confirmed yet though, and there's conflicting reports on what's gonna hai:
I like what Scott Horton (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-12/torture-prosecution-turnaround/p/) thinks is gonna hai (carte blanche for the special prosecutor).
QuoteFor now, however, it appears that Holder's current decision focuses only on the development of new interrogation techniques and their use at the direction of the Bush administration. Under these terms, the prosecutor would be tasked to look at the role played by Justice Department figures and other government lawyers at various stages of the process; but criminal investigations usually target specific crimes, not individuals, and this would be no exception.
I don't like what the WaPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102787.html?nav=rss_email/components) thinks is gonna hai. Abu Ghraib all over again (punishment for those who carried out the policies, but not who formulated them).
QuoteThe actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.
Bump. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743_pf.html)
QuoteAttorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.
QuoteWith Monday's looming public announcement, however, the attorney general and his national security team appear to be staking out a middle ground -- rejecting a broad inquiry that could result in possible prosecutions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush years as well as cabinet officers who developed counterterrorism policy; but giving civil liberties advocates at least part of what they wanted without supporting a full, independent truth commission to examine a host of Bush national security practices.
Boo.
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2009, 03:13:50 PM
QuoteWith Monday's looming public announcement, however, the attorney general and his national security team appear to be staking out a middle ground -- rejecting a broad inquiry that could result in possible prosecutions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush years as well as cabinet officers who developed counterterrorism policy; but giving civil liberties advocates at least part of what they wanted without supporting a full, independent truth commission to examine a host of Bush national security practices.
Boo.
Each Presidency generally lets the transgressions of previous Presidencies go, even if the party in the White House changes (see: Iran-Contra). It's the one barrier left in politics, where there hasn't been any payback.
Give it time.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2009, 03:13:50 PM
Boo.
Boo, indeed.
Boo tempered?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html
QuoteThe narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.
However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.
I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.
But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.
Cautiously: "Maybe."
Holder:
Quote...
I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.
...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.
...
Sounds like nothing's set in stone.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2009, 03:13:50 PM
Boo.
Boo, indeed.
Boo tempered?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html
QuoteThe narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.
However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.
I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.
But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.
Cautiously: "Maybe."
Holder:
Quote...
I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.
...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.
...
Sounds like nothing's set in stone.
So, let's see how this all plays out?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 24, 2009, 07:05:46 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2009, 03:13:50 PM
Boo.
Boo, indeed.
Boo tempered?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html
QuoteThe narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.
However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.
I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.
But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.
Cautiously: "Maybe."
Holder:
Quote...
I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.
...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.
...
Sounds like nothing's set in stone.
So, let's see how this all plays out?
That's the one.
Cautiously.
Birther madness...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Franks_Ridiculous_O_wont_produce_longform_certificate.html (via (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/08/rise-of-birther-with-explanation.html))
QuoteI am sitting on a very large cash donation that I wanted to make to the childrens ward of the hospital that Obama was born. I mean it is historically significant the first Black President and first from Hawaii, I want to make that donation in the name of the doctor that birthed Obama. That simple tidbit of information available on the long form version of his BC is the only thing standing in the way of the poor sick children getting some much needed upgrades to their hospital ward. Emails to the White House have not been responded to. No one will provide this information. It couldn't be that Obama wants to deny the sick children.... no that definately isn't it so why can't I get this information from the most transparent administration in our history?
http://krgilbert.net/children.wav
That out of the way, we all know Obama suspended his Presidential campaign last fall to form a one-man ad hoc Hawaiian death panel for sake of preventing his white grandma from spilling the beans. Still, there may be a wrinkle to this story that you haven't yet heard...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/farah-obamas-grandmother-was-really-his-mother
QuoteWell, Madelyn Dunham is a very interesting person. As you know, Barack ... the ... and I want to be careful when he identify people as "mother," "father," "grandmother," and so forth because honestly I don't think we know with any certainty whatsoever who those players are in Barack Obama's life. And perhaps he doesn't either. I suspect he does, but it's possible he doesn't know. And it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Madelyn Dunham was his mother and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that.
Not only that, but Maya Soetoro is his sister
and his daughter. (Bombshell!)
And finally, of course, the Freepers have picked up the evidence trail where Larry Sinclair (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=5517.msg118157#msg118157) left off, finding a magic, hollow-tipped bullet...
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
So straight-talking and mavericky...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/mccain-defends-palin-on-obamacare-claims.html
QuoteSTEPHANOPOULOS: The president also says that the debate has been infected by falsehoods. And probably the most notorious one is the one made by your former running mate, Sarah Palin, who said that his bill would encourage death panels that would encourage euthanasia. He called that an extraordinary lie and he is right about that, isn't he?
MCCAIN: Well, I think that what we are talking about here is do – are we going to have groups that actually advise people as these decisions are made later in life and ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not in the bill.
MCCAIN: But – it's been taken out, but the way that it was written made it a little bit ambiguous. And another thing ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think that's correct, Senator. The bill, all it said was that, if a patient wanted to have a Medicare consultation about end-of-life issues, they could have it at their request and the doctor would get reimbursed for it, no panel ...
MCCAIN: There was a provision in the bill that talks about a board that would decide the most effective measures to provide health care for people, OK? Now, we had amendments, we republican have said that in no way would that affect the decisions that the patients would make and their families. That was rejected by the Democrats and the health committee.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's not a death panel.
MCCAIN: So what does – what does that lead to? Doesn't that lead to a possibility, at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions made such are made in other countries?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, every single independent group that looked at it said it just wasn't true.
MCCAIN: Well, then why did the Democrats turn down our amendments that clarified that none of the decisions that would be made by this board would in any way affect depriving of needed treatments for patients? I don't know why they did that then.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think Sarah Palin was right?
MCCAIN: Look, I don't think they were called death panels, don't get me wrong. I don't think – but on the best treatment procedures part of the bill, it does open it up to decisions being made as far – that should be left – those choices left to the patient and the individual. That's what I think is pretty clear, which was a different section of the bill.
"I don't think they were called death panels, don't get me wrong."
Christ Almighty.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
What has any of this got to do with my shoulder surgery?
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 07:38:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
What has any of this got to do with my shoulder surgery?
Nothing.
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 07:38:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
What has any of this got to do with my shoulder surgery?
I've actually had a circumcision once or twice so I know about what it takes to rehab. Barry will probably miss two--at most, three--starts and be back on the mound in two weeks.
Quote from: ChuckD on August 25, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 07:38:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
What has any of this got to do with my shoulder surgery?
I've actually had a circumcision once or twice so I know about what it takes to rehab. Barry will probably miss two--at most, three--starts and be back on the mound in two weeks.
Never buy your Mohel services retail.
Quote from: Jon on August 25, 2009, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on August 25, 2009, 09:18:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 07:38:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 24, 2009, 10:36:20 PM
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/08/barack-obama-show-us-your-penis.html
Quotehoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.
thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO's alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request).
afraidfortherepublic:
My son was born in June of 1961 in a hospital in CA, and the nurses released us because of miscommunication in a day and a half before the circumcision was done. We had to go back to the doctor's office to have it done a week later, and the doctor was NOT HAPPY. My second son was born in the same hospital 4 years later. I don't remember them asking me about it. Routine procedure for little boys.
hoosiermama:
Wish we had someone to make a phone call to the hospitols in HI and ask if they routinely do circumcism and when that practice started.
MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital ...
MHGinTN:
No...it would have been in Kenya....not Canada.
Natural Born 54
I am having a vision of a court room scene. The judge turns to O sitting in the witness chair to his left and says "I am sorry, Mr. President, but I am going to have to ask you to stand and drop trou ....."
hoosiermama:
More than likely an exam from a court appointed DR. :~)
Humiliating either way....caught by his own private parts....er something like that.
It might be just as easy to check the mouths of posters around here for evidence of undisturbed foreskin.
(Clinton's jock is The Clenis. What are we calling Barack's totemic un-cut dongus?)
What has any of this got to do with my shoulder surgery?
I've actually had a circumcision once or twice so I know about what it takes to rehab. Barry will probably miss two--at most, three--starts and be back on the mound in two weeks.
Never buy your Mohel services retail.
Also, make sure your Mohel doesn't circumcize your finger.
I honestly thought that the following was a parody for the first few paragraphs.
But it's all too frighteningly real...
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/obamas-plan-to-desecrate-911
QuoteThe Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
That's right: "nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning."
This is really happening? Statist idolatry in the Home of the Brave?
And they're advancing this cynical agenda in typically underhanded Liberal fashion by "launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media":
Quote"The organizing term is to 'go dark.' You don't tell the press, don't tell people you think will tell the press," said the source.
A silent public relations campaign in the dark. Do these people have
no shame?
So what, exactly,
is this cynical, coldly calculated plan to "flush 9/11 down the memory hole" and desecrate the sacred memory of those who died on 9/11?
http://911dayofservice.org/Mission/
QuoteOur mission is to honor the victims of 9/11 and those who rose to service in response to the attacks by encouraging all Americans and others throughout the world to pledge to voluntarily perform at least one good deed, or another service activity on 9/11 each year. In this way we hope to create a lasting and forward-looking legacy—annually rekindling the spirit of service, tolerance, and compassion that unified America and the world in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
That's right: "radical community organizing (http://www.alternet.org/rights/136448/paranoid_right-wingers_see_obama%27s_volunteer_service_project_as_sinister_plot_to_%27re-educate%27_americans/)."
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Gemeinschaft Garten.Most galling of all: "At no time does anyone explain why this National Day of Service has to be held—of all the 365 days in a year—on Sept. 11."
Not once.
Daggum Marxist Liberal Fascists.
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!
"Silent public relations campaign" is my favorite oxymoron since Angel Pagan.
The comments are spectacular.
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 11:22:17 AM
The comments are spectacular.
And real, too. If this is what the passes itself as the Right these days, then I am happy to not be a part of it.
More on the CIA IG report: (http://harpers.org/archive/2009/08/hbc-90005599)
QuoteAlthough cases in which the guidelines provided by the Justice Department were exceeded have been discussed, it's likely the case that the still blacked-out passages cover instances where Justice gave a green light but the conduct was so gruesome that CIA wants to keep it under wraps. That means we haven't heard the last of the Helgerson report, and further disclosures are likely.
QuoteFor years the CIA has said that CIA personnel would be demoralized and the reputation of the agency would be damaged by disclosure of the contents of the report. But the report documents just the opposite. The Inspector General's review was launched by complaints coming from valued senior employees who felt that the Bush Program (as John Yoo has dubbed it) was wrong. One of them actually expresses his worry that those involved will be hauled before the World Court at some point because of [and that's redacted!]
QuoteIt's interesting that in a stream of appearances by CIA personnel on TV yesterday—Tyler Drumheller, Jack Rice, Bob Baer and others—all said that a criminal investigation was a good idea.
QuoteIt looks like the favorite talking point emerging for torture apologists (like David Ignatius) is that the CIA cases were already examined by career prosecutors who decided not to take any action. But this claim is false.
QuoteThe cases were referred by Helgerson to the Justice Department, which in turn passed them to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Paul J. McNulty. (This U.S. attorney's office was the most highly politicized in the entire U.S. attorneys system, and McNulty was ultimately promoted to the office of deputy attorney general and then resigned amidst accusations of misconduct involving the politicization of the Justice Department.) McNulty's office acted as a sort of "dead letter office" for troublesome torture allegations. The suggestion that there was an active investigation is laughable. No grand jury was impaneled or testimony taken, and contrary to Ignatius's claims no decision was taken not to prosecute. What happened instead was inaction.
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 11:22:17 AM
The comments are spectacular.
I get my choice of Nazism, Bolshevism, or NaziBolshevism.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 25, 2009, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 25, 2009, 11:22:17 AM
The comments are spectacular.
And real, too. If this is what the passes itself as the Right these days, then I am happy to not be a part of it.
They also accuse Hitlerbama (pat. pending) of changing "the meaning of 9/11" without ever saying what the meaning currently is.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 25, 2009, 10:25:03 AM
This is really happening? Statist idolatry in the Home of the Brave?
I suppose you've never noticed that the Washington Monument
looks nothing like George Washington.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 25, 2009, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 25, 2009, 10:25:03 AM
This is really happening? Statist idolatry in the Home of the Brave?
I suppose you've never noticed that the Washington Monument looks nothing like George Washington.
True.
Washington was circumcised.
Like a proud American.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 25, 2009, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 25, 2009, 10:25:03 AM
This is really happening? Statist idolatry in the Home of the Brave?
I suppose you've never noticed that the Washington Monument looks nothing like George Washington.
Especially not after he went swimming in the Potomac
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article)
QuoteChicago's corruption-fighting Inspector General David Hoffman has resigned to enter the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, removing a giant thorn from Mayor Daley's side.
Quote from: R-V on August 26, 2009, 12:02:01 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article)
QuoteChicago's corruption-fighting Inspector General David Hoffman has resigned to enter the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, removing a giant thorn from Mayor Daley's side.
Damnit.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 26, 2009, 12:04:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 26, 2009, 12:02:01 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1735441,inspector-general-hoffman-quits-senate-082609.article)
QuoteChicago's corruption-fighting Inspector General David Hoffman has resigned to enter the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, removing a giant thorn from Mayor Daley's side.
Damnit.
Six of one, half dozen of another.
Kirk stands a good chance of losing. If he loses to Alexi, you have a Greek Sonny Corleone in the US Senate.
Hoffman in the senate is far preferable to Alexi.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 26, 2009, 12:29:15 PM
Hoffman in the senate is far preferable to Alexi.
Who would have a better contract?
Quote from: BH on August 26, 2009, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 26, 2009, 12:29:15 PM
Hoffman in the senate is far preferable to Alexi.
Who would have a better contract?
Both get a 6 year deal. Far too long.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 26, 2009, 12:29:15 PM
If he loses to Alexi, you have a Greek Sonny Corleone in the US Senate.
Have any of your comparisons of fictional characters to real people ever made sense?
Quote from: R-V on August 26, 2009, 12:45:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 26, 2009, 12:29:15 PM
If he loses to Alexi, you have a Greek Sonny Corleone in the US Senate.
Have any of your comparisons of fictional characters to real people ever made sense?
Who's the Dr. Sidney Freedman of the Illinois Senate Race?
Wait, wait, wait... Now Obama wants to mandate circumcision?
So says Rush in this message to the famous Mr. Z...
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908250038
I'm so confused. Foreskin for me but not for thee?
(I also like how Rush calls O'Reilly a "moderate," which I can only take to be a sort of internecine slur.)
TPD...
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619437/20090825/jay_z.jhtml
QuoteIn a segment on his show titled "Reality Check," O'Reilly played the song, highlighting the lyrics in question, before quickly dismissing the barb and moving on.
"A regular Otis Redding, isn't he," O'Reilly responded, sighing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8riWC0ZJ8
The song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IlpS9cNy7I
QuoteThis ain't black versus white, my nigga, we off that
Please tell Bill O'Reilly to fall back
Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls
It's 2010 not 1864
Ah, yeah we come so far
So I drive around town, hard top and its off
Ah, and my tribeca loft with my high brow art
And my hot yellow broad
Ah, and my dark skin sis and my best white mate
Say what's up to Chris
Ah, hows that for a mix?
Got a black President
Got green presidents
Blueprints in my white iPod
Black diamonds in my Jesus piece, my God
Ah, we aint tripping off that
Its a Benetton ad, nigga been up off that
"Mandating circumcision?" Oh well. No biggie.
Quote from: CBStew on August 26, 2009, 08:15:52 PM
"Mandating circumcision?" Oh well. No biggie.
Maybe before, but not after.
Leave it to the Onion to point out the utter ridiculousness of the "debate" over whether or not we should use torture.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed)
Also, the chairman of the GOP wants you to know that:
- We need to protect Medicare (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/steele-health-npr/), but government-run health insurance is bad.
- We can't make cuts to Medicare, but we need to make it more efficient.
- We need regulation, but not by the government.
- Nuance is bad.
Quote from: R-V on August 28, 2009, 08:50:13 AM
Leave it to the Onion to point out the utter ridiculousness of the "debate" over whether or not we should use torture.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed)
Also, the chairman of the GOP wants you to know that:
- We need to protect Medicare (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/steele-health-npr/), but government-run health insurance is bad.
- We can't make cuts to Medicare, but we need to make it more efficient.
- We need regulation, but not by the government.
- Nuance is bad.
While the GOP claims to be stridently anti-Affirmative Action, there's no way this guy would be holding this job if he weren't Negroid.
Quote from: Fork on August 28, 2009, 09:53:24 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 28, 2009, 08:50:13 AM
Leave it to the Onion to point out the utter ridiculousness of the "debate" over whether or not we should use torture.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed)
Also, the chairman of the GOP wants you to know that:
- We need to protect Medicare (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/steele-health-npr/), but government-run health insurance is bad.
- We can't make cuts to Medicare, but we need to make it more efficient.
- We need regulation, but not by the government.
- Nuance is bad.
While the GOP claims to be stridently anti-Affirmative Action, there's no way this guy would be holding this job if he weren't Negroid.
I don't get this Forklift strikethrough at all.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on August 28, 2009, 11:53:20 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 28, 2009, 09:53:24 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 28, 2009, 08:50:13 AM
Leave it to the Onion to point out the utter ridiculousness of the "debate" over whether or not we should use torture.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=videoembed)
Also, the chairman of the GOP wants you to know that:
- We need to protect Medicare (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/27/steele-health-npr/), but government-run health insurance is bad.
- We can't make cuts to Medicare, but we need to make it more efficient.
- We need regulation, but not by the government.
- Nuance is bad.
While the GOP claims to be stridently anti-Affirmative Action, there's no way this guy would be holding this job if he weren't Negroid.
I don't get this Forklift strikethrough at all.
I batched it, but basically, there's some validity in Stein's insane rant about nihilism and the GOP. Rather than assemble an agenda and offer it as an alternative, they just counterpunch now. Palin was the counterpunch to Hillary, Steele is the counterpunch to Obama.
Without some sort of new ideas, all they'll do is ratchet up the hatespeak, and they won't actually accomplish anything.
Hell, they can't even find anyone to stand up and say there's no such thing as death panels.
A good case for a modern-day version of the Church Committee.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/hayes/print (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/hayes/print)
QuoteAnd so: the CIA contracted a Mafia boss to murder Fidel Castro, sent biotoxins to the Republic of Congo with orders to poison Patrice Lumumba and tested LSD on unsuspecting citizens (one of whom jumped out of a window to his death). It fomented coups and bloodshed against democratically elected governments, while the National Security Agency, in coordination with the major telegram companies, read every single telegram coming in or going out of the country for three decades. The FBI infiltrated peaceful antiwar groups, breaking up marriages of activists with forged evidence of infidelity, while surveilling civil rights leaders with an assortment of bugs and break-ins. It even attempted to blackmail Martin Luther King Jr. into committing suicide, shipping him tapes of him midcoitus with a mistress and a note that said, "There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation."
We know all this (and much more) thanks to the work of the Church Committee.
QuotePublic debates over intelligence are qualitatively different from other policy discussions. In a debate over whether, say, the economic stimulus has been effective, there is a presumption that all participants are working from a common set of data--GDP growth, unemployment, government spending, etc.--but with different interpretations and emphases. Such is not the case when the issue is the effectiveness of intelligence programs or the scope of covert activities. Those debates are conducted on fundamentally unequal footing. Critics may charge that torture is counterproductive and produces bad intelligence, but defenders of the secret government can wave away such concerns by saying, more or less, You don't know what we know.
What the Church Committee did was to eliminate this inequality by wrenching an entire segment of the state into the light of day. It created a universally accepted set of facts, a canonical public record that turned the secret conversations of the powerful and initiated into the material for a broad debate. It brought the world of intelligence into the public sphere, the place where self-governance ought to take place.
Too funny...
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/01/e-mail-of-the-day/
Wow, I don't know if this (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/) is true or not. There's no proof to say it didn't happen. I fear it may have happened.
Quote from: Slak on September 02, 2009, 10:57:58 AM
Wow, I don't know if this (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/) is true or not. There's no proof to say it didn't happen. I fear it may have happened.
Until Glenn Beck comes out and denies this, I'm afraid we'll have to assume it's true.
Deny this, Glenn Beck.
(http://politicalirony.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/beck_rape.jpg)
Quote from: Eli on September 02, 2009, 11:24:15 AM
Deny this, Glenn Beck.
(http://politicalirony.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/beck_rape.jpg)
Jeez, he looks guilty. So many people think he is, so the story must have legs.
Where is he supposed to have obtained the propofol novacaine?
THESE. (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202433420756&Official_torture&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1)
QuoteThe judicial branch (which, under Marbury v. Madison, has the ultimate duty to determine "what the law is") has determined that waterboarding is torture (see U.S. v. Lee, decided in 1984 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit). The Bush administration has admitted to waterboarding captives. The corpus delicti of that crime exists. For there to be investigation now is unexceptional.
The only exceptional thing is the parties involved: the former vice president of the United States, his counsel David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyer John Yoo and their private contractors Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, psychologists who designed the torture program.
QuoteLooking only at the evidence that has become public so far, is there a viable theory of criminal liability arising out of this corpus delicti, the torture of America's captives?
QuoteThere is substantial evidence of legal malpractice by lawyer Yoo. His opinions were even withdrawn under the Bush administration, and they are the subject of an unprecedented internal investigation by the Department of Justice.
QuoteThere is substantial evidence of a back channel between Addington and Yoo.
QuoteThere is substantial public evidence of exceptional access provided to the private contractors.
QuoteThere is substantial evidence that the waterboarding went outside what was approved by the OLC opinions. The opinions themselves disclosed this fact.
QuoteNone of this evidence creates a complete case, yet. But it suggests theories of criminal liability that are not foreclosed by the evidence so far.
QuoteWhen the evidence is all in, it may prove that all the conduct surrounding American's descent into torture was proper, protected by good-faith legal defenses. But it's too early to responsibly reach that conclusion. Investigation is what allows such a conclusion to be reached.
You should stick to Lincoln-Douglas style.
Quote from: Wheezer on September 02, 2009, 01:09:33 PM
You should stick to Lincoln-Douglas style.
You should stick to being an anti-dentite.
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
If Lynn Swann can't win in PA, Schilling sure as shit ain't winning in MA.
Now if only we can see a Cheney/Palin 2012 ticket...
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
If Lynn Swann can't win in PA, Schilling sure as shit ain't winning in MA.
Now if only we can see a Cheney/Palin 2012 ticket...
Hell, just use the signs from 2008...
(http://i31.tinypic.com/15guj6c.jpg)
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
I'm guessing "no" on that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386952311239532.html)
Hmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts,_2004
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
I'm guessing "no" on that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386952311239532.html)
Bah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi)
Quote
Lombardi's popularity was so great that Richard Nixon supposedly considered him as a running mate for the 1968 election, only to be reminded by an advisor that Lombardi was a Kennedy Democrat who had campaigned on behalf of Wisconsin a U.S. Senator although Lombardi's wife, father and brother were Republicans.[1]
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
I'm guessing "no" on that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386952311239532.html)
Huh?
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 03:43:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
I'm guessing "no" on that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386952311239532.html)
Bah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi)
Quote
Lombardi's popularity was so great that Richard Nixon supposedly considered him as a running mate for the 1968 election, only to be reminded by an advisor that Lombardi was a Kennedy Democrat who had campaigned on behalf of Wisconsin a U.S. Senator although Lombardi's wife, father and brother were Republicans.[1]
According to what I read in the excellent Lombardi biography "When Pride Still Mattered (http://www.amazon.com/WHEN-PRIDE-STILL-MATTERED-Lombardi/dp/0684844184)", if Lombardi's brother was a Republican, that'd have made him Log Cabin.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 03, 2009, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 03, 2009, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 03, 2009, 01:33:17 PM
Because the Senate needs more douchebaggery (http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/03/schilling-stirs-bay-state-with-senate-talk/).
In case you were wondering if Rupert Murdoch's ownership would change the Journal at all, check the photo caption.
Yes, the state that had two of the most libral members of the Senate (according to whatever reports keep track of such nonsense) for a combined 70 years liked W a lot.
I'm gonna assume that the caption is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Because that's what it reads like to me.
I'm guessing "no" on that. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386952311239532.html)
Huh?
Basic News Corp. stuff - make the story fit the narrative. If there were a story here, it would be, "Football coaches give very little money to candidates".
Instead, to make it fit the narrative, Football coach=masculine=respected=in charge=Republican.
The Journal has always been Conservative, as any publication catering to the financial community should be, since Wall St. is hardly a bastion of Liberalism.
But holy shit, have Murdoch's people turned it to garbage.
Speaking of which, when will outlets like News Corp, Clear Channel and Disney finally acknowledge that they are now the Mainstream Media?
I said...VINCE LOMARDI'S BROTHER WAS A HOMO!
No wonder Gil has Obama's beefcurtain hanging out of his mouth, his health care plan is pretty similar to the one proposed (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/stuart-altman.aspx) by Gil's dead boyfriend.
QuoteNixon's plan included an employer mandate, assistance for those who were unable to afford insurance and a number of provisions that are similar to those being advanced today by Obama and congressional Democrats. The employer-based plan included a ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses and eliminated exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. The "Assisted Health Insurance" program would have subsidized coverage based on incomes, replacing Medicaid. Those plans, along with Medicare, would have provided the same protections and benefits to everyone.
Quote from: R-V on September 04, 2009, 08:54:31 AM
No wonder Gil has Obama's beefcurtain hanging out of his mouth, his health care plan is pretty similar to the one proposed (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/stuart-altman.aspx) by Gil's dead boyfriend.
QuoteNixon's plan included an employer mandate, assistance for those who were unable to afford insurance and a number of provisions that are similar to those being advanced today by Obama and congressional Democrats. The employer-based plan included a ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses and eliminated exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. The "Assisted Health Insurance" program would have subsidized coverage based on incomes, replacing Medicaid. Those plans, along with Medicare, would have provided the same protections and benefits to everyone.
So you're saying Obama = Nixon?
Quote from: ChuckD on September 04, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 04, 2009, 08:54:31 AM
No wonder Gil has Obama's beefcurtain hanging out of his mouth, his health care plan is pretty similar to the one proposed (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/stuart-altman.aspx) by Gil's dead boyfriend.
QuoteNixon's plan included an employer mandate, assistance for those who were unable to afford insurance and a number of provisions that are similar to those being advanced today by Obama and congressional Democrats. The employer-based plan included a ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses and eliminated exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. The "Assisted Health Insurance" program would have subsidized coverage based on incomes, replacing Medicaid. Those plans, along with Medicare, would have provided the same protections and benefits to everyone.
So you're saying Obama = Nixon?
(http://i32.tinypic.com/5kk2o9.png)
How's the Socialism, Morbo?
Quote from: ChuckD on September 04, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 04, 2009, 08:54:31 AM
No wonder Gil has Obama's beefcurtain hanging out of his mouth, his health care plan is pretty similar to the one proposed (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/stuart-altman.aspx) by Gil's dead boyfriend.
QuoteNixon's plan included an employer mandate, assistance for those who were unable to afford insurance and a number of provisions that are similar to those being advanced today by Obama and congressional Democrats. The employer-based plan included a ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses and eliminated exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. The "Assisted Health Insurance" program would have subsidized coverage based on incomes, replacing Medicaid. Those plans, along with Medicare, would have provided the same protections and benefits to everyone.
So you're saying Obama = Nixon?
Not exactly. Obama doesn't have an arm cannon.
(http://thesquirrelsnest.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/vote-robot-nixon.gif)
Yet.
Once again, Thrill and I are on similar pages of the same book.
Robot Nixon could probably win the Republican nomination in 2012.
I'd vote for him.
Quote from: Oleg on September 04, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on September 04, 2009, 10:33:54 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 04, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
I'd vote for him.
What if he ran against Kodos?
Well, that's ridiculous. Kodos was born in Kenya.
So that would be the second Kenyan overlord that we'd have running the country?
Quote from: Kermit, B. on September 04, 2009, 10:33:54 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 04, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
I'd vote for him.
What if he ran against Kodos?
Then I would vote for Puny Human #2. Because I think his 3-cent titanium tax
does go too far enough.
Clinton's health care plan was pretty much an exact copy of the '72 Nixon plan.
There is a reason why this man was probably the best Republican president since TR - save his personal shortcomings.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 04, 2009, 12:09:19 PM
Clinton's health care plan was pretty much an exact copy of the '72 Nixon plan.
There is a reason why this man was probably the best Republican president since TR - save his personal shortcomings.
TR would be run out of the modern Republican party. As would Lincoln.
I can't believe Minnesotans actually elected this clown...
http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=6421
(I guess they can't all be Roland Burris, but still... Way to go, douchebags.)
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 07, 2009, 11:04:58 PM
I can't believe Minnesotans actually elected this clown...
http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=6421
(I guess they can't all be Roland Burris, but still... Way to go, douchebags.)
It's not often when I say I am impressed by a politician, but damn, that was impressive.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 08, 2009, 01:50:19 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 07, 2009, 11:04:58 PM
I can't believe Minnesotans actually elected this clown...
http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=6421
(I guess they can't all be Roland Burris, but still... Way to go, douchebags.)
It's not often when I say I am impressed by a politician, but damn, that was impressive.
Well, it wasn't Nixonian, but still... [actually, that was the most coherent 10 minutes on health care I heard in this entire debate].
Future US Senator Alexi Giannoulias? http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=32332
The family of state Treasurer and U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias pulled $70 million out of its Broadway Bank in 2007 and 2008, just as Broadway's high-octane growth strategy collided with the housing meltdown that has now put the lender's future in question.
Surging loan defaults are hammering Broadway, which grew rapidly to more than $1 billion in assets in the past five years and consistently ranked at the top of Crain's list of the most profitable local banks. By one measure, Broadway now is the second-weakest bank of its size in the Chicago area.
Without a substantial injection of new equity capital, Broadway could be fighting for survival and facing regulatory action during the heat of Mr. Giannoulias' Senate race next year. On his Web site, the Democrat touts his experience as a former banker at Broadway.
Broadway Bank paid more in shareholder dividends the past two years than any privately held local bank in its size range.
Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2317&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a85c8a39d-b423-4fe7-b306-c595114e26a4&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com)
QuoteLast year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.
However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.
He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."
"We'll be substantially down," he said.
"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.
"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."
QuoteIn fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."
You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.
The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."
"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."
As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.
But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.
The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.
Quote from: Brownie on September 08, 2009, 10:22:38 AM
Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2317&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a85c8a39d-b423-4fe7-b306-c595114e26a4&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com)
QuoteLast year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.
However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.
He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."
"We'll be substantially down," he said.
"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.
"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."
QuoteIn fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."
You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.
The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."
"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."
As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.
But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.
The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 08, 2009, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 08, 2009, 10:22:38 AM
Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2317&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a85c8a39d-b423-4fe7-b306-c595114e26a4&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com)
QuoteLast year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.
However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.
He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."
"We'll be substantially down," he said.
"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.
"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."
QuoteIn fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."
You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.
The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."
"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."
As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.
But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.
The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.
I remember the Evans Scholars house at UI. It was tremendously expensive and housed some tremendously un-scholarly people. This is all about getting a digg in at Barney Frank, which I'm cool with.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 08, 2009, 12:08:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 08, 2009, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 08, 2009, 10:22:38 AM
Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2317&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a85c8a39d-b423-4fe7-b306-c595114e26a4&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com)
QuoteLast year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.
However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.
He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."
"We'll be substantially down," he said.
"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.
"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."
QuoteIn fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."
You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.
The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."
"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."
As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.
But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.
The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.
I remember the Evans Scholars house at UI. It was tremendously expensive and housed some tremendously un-scholarly people. This is all about getting a digg in at Barney Frank, which I'm cool with.
That. If I remember correctly, they actually had a huge new house going up about 4 or 5 years ago. On my list of people to feel sorry for at the moment, the Spaulding Smailses of the world are pretty far down there. Maybe they can auction off a couple of the gold bidets from that swanky new pad to make up for the lost scholarships.
I also don't think it's too ridiculous to assume that cost cutting measures put into effect by pretty much every company in this economy - including a decrease corporate sponsorships - might be a teeny tiny contributing factor (while obviously nowhere near as devastating as THE BARNEY FRANK EFFECT) to the WGA's problems.
The Evans Scholars recipients are hardly the Spaulding Smailses of the world. They are the Danny Noonans of the world.
Quote from: Brownie on September 08, 2009, 12:23:03 PM
The Evans Scholars recipients are hardly the Spaulding Smailses of the world. They are the Danny Noonans of the world.
So, instead of corporate welfare they need sugar daddies?
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2009, 12:20:16 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 08, 2009, 12:08:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 08, 2009, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 08, 2009, 10:22:38 AM
Ed Sherman says Barney Frank is stopping poor caddies from going to college. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2317&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af5555513-c950-4657-a93a-80db16fdf4adPost%3a85c8a39d-b423-4fe7-b306-c595114e26a4&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com)
QuoteLast year, the BMW was in St. Louis while Cog Hill was being renovated. Thanks to big crowds from a town that was anxious to see pro golf, the WGA earned $3.3 million for the Evans Scholars, a program that awards scholarship money to caddies.
However, Mr. Kaczkowski is comparing this year's tournament to 2007 in terms of revenue. In 2007, the WGA netted $2.4 million for the Evans Scholars.
He projects this year's tournament will "hopefully net $2 million."
"We'll be substantially down," he said.
"The Frank Effect" has been telling, Mr. Kaczkowski said.
"Early on, we had companies say, 'Hey, we just don't have the money,' " Mr. Kaczkowksi said. "Then it went to, 'We can't risk being associated with the tournament' after Frank's statements."
QuoteIn fact, several companies that remain on as sponsors won't be displaying their names. If you were observant, you actually saw it at the recent Solheim Cup at Rich Harvest Farms. There were signs that said "Villa No. 2." That was code for, "We don't want to advertise to Rep. Frank that we're out here."
You will see the same thing at Cog Hill.
The Wednesday Pro-Am, another huge moneymaker, also has been impacted. The WGA went from having a waiting list for slots (which go for $8,000) to actively selling the event. Again, it largely was due to the "Frank Effect."
"No. 1, they didn't want to be seen on the golf course," Mr. Kaczkowski said. "No. 2, they can't find customers who want to be seen on the course."
As a result of Mr. Frank's statements and the economy, the tournament had to make adjustments to try to offset the lost sponsorship revenue. A large marketing campaign had helped pre-tournament ticket sales jump 10% compared with 2007. If the weather cooperates, Mr. Kaczkowski said, the tournament should draw more than 150,000 people for the week, surpassing 2007.
But ticket sales only go so far. The loss of sponsorship money is a huge hole to fill.
The bottom line is that the Evans Scholars will have less cash to offer scholarships this year. Perhaps as many as 50 deserving students/caddies won't receive the opportunity to go to college.
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.
I remember the Evans Scholars house at UI. It was tremendously expensive and housed some tremendously un-scholarly people. This is all about getting a digg in at Barney Frank, which I'm cool with.
That. If I remember correctly, they actually had a huge new house going up about 4 or 5 years ago. On my list of people to feel sorry for at the moment, the Spaulding Smailses of the world are pretty far down there. Maybe they can auction off a couple of the gold bidets from that swanky new pad to make up for the lost scholarships.
I also don't think it's too ridiculous to assume that cost cutting measures put into effect by pretty much every company in this economy - including a decrease corporate sponsorships - might be a teeny tiny contributing factor (while obviously nowhere near as devastating as THE BARNEY FRANK EFFECT) to the WGA's problems.
This part three. Those Evans Scholars lived in a brand new, awesome house and had raging parties every weekend. I guess, if anything, it sucks that a few caddies won't get to take part in those shenanigans.
Encouraging analysis of cap-and-trade, via the favored rag of capitalist swine. (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/08/waxman-markey-benefits-far-outweigh-costs-new-study-finds/)
QuoteTurns out, even though the U.S. government does not have a hard and fast figure, it has a rough idea—around $19 a ton. (There is a huge array of estimates for the "social cost of carbon"; those so inclined will have fun on pages 21-30 here.)
So, given that the Waxman-Markey bill would curb emissions over the next 40 years, it's a pretty simple job to tally up the potential benefits: about $1.5 trillion on the middle-of-the-road estimate. The benefits could be as low as $382 billion or as high as $5.2 trillion, depending on how you fiddle with the numbers.
Since Waxman-Markey is meant to cost about $660 billion, that means the bill provides $2.27 in benefits for every dollar spent, the brief concludes.
DPD. Would be interested to hear what you lawyerqueermos have to say about this (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/the_first_amendment_is_about_to_be_redefined.php) after the decision comes down.
QuoteOral arguments at the United States Supreme Court today could mark the end of more than 30 years of struggle for a tranche of conservative and libertarian intellectuals -- and for corporations that have had to find inglorious and meandering ways to influence the political system. Also at stake is how the our interprets the First Amendment. The stakes are that big.
QuoteIn practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections. If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.
Quote from: R-V on September 09, 2009, 10:21:16 AM
DPD. Would be interested to hear what you lawyerqueermos have to say about this (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/the_first_amendment_is_about_to_be_redefined.php) after the decision comes down.
QuoteOral arguments at the United States Supreme Court today could mark the end of more than 30 years of struggle for a tranche of conservative and libertarian intellectuals -- and for corporations that have had to find inglorious and meandering ways to influence the political system. Also at stake is how the our interprets the First Amendment. The stakes are that big.
QuoteIn practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections. If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.
People, especially lawyers, exaggerate, so even though the stakes are high for this case and it is kind of unusual to essentially rehear a decided case from about seven years ago, I wouldn't expect much to change.
A little bit of McCain-Feingold may come down, but the essence and spirit of it and the Tillman Act will be maintained. As usual, Kennedy is the one to watch. The liberal four are solid, as is the conservative bloc, but Kennedy may be wishy-washy. He didn't go as far as Roberts or Alito in
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, but he did join the majority. I doubt he'll be the deciding vote to overturn BCRA, but it depends or the arguments, as he is pretty apt to go along with a fairly nuanced argument.
Again, let's see how this all plays out.
QuoteIn practice, the Court isn't likely to tear down the entire Buckley wall, but almost every observer expects the court to expand the ways that how corporations and individuals can influence elections. If moneyed interests are inherently corrupting, this is bad news. If they're not -- and they're just exercising their legitimate speech rights -- this is thrilling. Here is where the authors of BCRA are at a disadvantage: the campaign finance laws have gotten so cumbersome that even proponents of regulation in general are anxious about the law's constitutionality and feasibility.
[/quote]
Fucking activist courts.
Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this (http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf), but for posterity's sake:
QuoteH.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Quote from: R-V on September 10, 2009, 04:26:47 PM
Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this (http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf), but for posterity's sake:
QuoteH.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wilsontees.jpg)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 10, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 10, 2009, 04:26:47 PM
Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this (http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf), but for posterity's sake:
QuoteH.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wilsontees.jpg)
I saw a homeless guy with shit on his white tee just now; I confused it with this shirt.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 10, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 10, 2009, 04:26:47 PM
Didn't want to soil the twatface thread with this (http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf), but for posterity's sake:
QuoteH.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!
(http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/wilsontees.jpg)
He touched a lot of people.
This is hilarious. (http://www.rescuemarriage.org)
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:04:33 PM
This is hilarious. (http://www.rescuemarriage.org)
QuoteWhen my child read that Ronald Reagan had gotten a divorce in his history textbook, he cried for a week. Shame on you, public school system! It's a parent's responsibility to teach their child about reality — not the state's.
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:04:33 PM
This is hilarious. (http://www.rescuemarriage.org)
http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php
QuoteInterview with John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act
...
RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.
John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.
RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.
John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.
RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?
John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.
...
RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?
John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.
...
RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?
John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.
QuoteSean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.
This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:22:40 PM
QuoteSean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.
This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.
DAMN YOU INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE! I'M TRYING MY HARDEST TO MAKE YOU FAIL BY DIVORCING MULTIPLE TIMES BUT IT'S JUST NOT WORKING! YOU'RE TOO INVINCIBLE!!!
Wait--is this real?
Exactly. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg190777#msg190777)
Quote from: MAD on September 11, 2009, 10:10:36 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:22:40 PM
QuoteSean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.
This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.
DAMN YOU INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE! I'M TRYING MY HARDEST TO MAKE YOU FAIL BY DIVORCING MULTIPLE BUT IT'S JUST NOT WORKING! YOU'RE TOO INVINCIBLE!!!
Wait--is this real?
I often find that it pays to read what you're referring to before asking if it's "fer real"...
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 10, 2009, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:04:33 PM
This is hilarious. (http://www.rescuemarriage.org)
http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php
QuoteInterview with John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act
...
RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.
John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.
RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.
John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.
RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?
John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.
...
RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?
John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.
...
RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?
John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 11, 2009, 10:17:03 AM
Quote from: MAD on September 11, 2009, 10:10:36 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:22:40 PM
QuoteSean Penn, noted limousine liberal, hedonist and secular progressive, is getting divorced from Robin Wright Penn, his wife of 13 years. Penn — who was recently rewarded with an Oscar for his dual attack against both heterosexual values and the dairy industry — has long been the darling of the radical left.
This will be the third time that he or his wife have filed for divorce, as their previous attempts to destroy the institution have thus far failed.
DAMN YOU INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE! I'M TRYING MY HARDEST TO MAKE YOU FAIL BY DIVORCING MULTIPLE BUT IT'S JUST NOT WORKING! YOU'RE TOO INVINCIBLE!!!
Wait--is this real?
I often find that it pays to read what you're referring to before asking if it's "fer real"...
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 10, 2009, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 10, 2009, 09:04:33 PM
This is hilarious. (http://www.rescuemarriage.org)
http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php
QuoteInterview with John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act
...
RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.
John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.
RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.
John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.
RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?
John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.
...
RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?
John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.
...
RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?
John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.
Sorry, professor. I just scan this thread. I did find the line about the 8 year old peculiar, but the line about Penn trying his damndest to ruin marriage really does sound, sadly enough, like the type of stuff that some of the bottom-feeders of this movement spew.
So ACORN in Baltimore gets busted for giving advice on how to run an illegal underage prostitution ring.
ACORN fires back that Fox News is racist for smearing them (but fires the 2 employees) and says it was an isolated incident. Opppps video comes out from the Washington DC office, same thing. Workers have been fired.
Damn, i bet that caught ACORN off guard. I got an idea, stop training your employees in how to run prostitution rings for children.
Quote from: MikeC on September 11, 2009, 06:36:19 PM
So ACORN in Baltimore gets busted for giving advice on how to run an illegal underage prostitution ring.
ACORN fires back that Fox News is racist for smearing them (but fires the 2 employees) and says it was an isolated incident. Opppps video comes out from the Washington DC office, same thing. Workers have been fired.
Damn, i bet that caught ACORN off guard. I got an idea, stop training your employees in how to run prostitution rings for children.
Aside from the issue that you mentioned and the issues associated with voter registration, what is your [and conservatism's] major beef with ACORN? Do you simply do not want an organization assisting the underprivileged or what?
Has anyone else tried to visit Joe Wilson's web site?
Quote from: MikeC on September 11, 2009, 06:36:19 PM
So ACORN in Baltimore gets busted for giving advice on how to run an illegal underage prostitution ring.
ACORN fires back that Fox News is racist for smearing them (but fires the 2 employees) and says it was an isolated incident. Opppps video comes out from the Washington DC office, same thing. Workers have been fired.
Damn, i bet that caught ACORN off guard. I got an idea, stop training your employees in how to run prostitution rings for children.
So, are they stealing votes or not?
And was David Vitter a client?
Oops. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/11/gingrich-porn/)
QuoteThis week, Allison Vivas of Pink Visual received a fax from Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF) group, informing her that she's been chosen for a 2009 Entrepreneur of the Year award by his Business Defense and Advisory Council.
QuotePink Visual is a porn DVD superstore — not the type of company you'd expect Gingrich would want stimulating the economy. ThinkProgress contacted Gingrich aide Joe Gaylord, who sent the faxed letter to Vivas, but we didn't receive a response. An ASWF representative reportedly called Pink Visual this morning saying it had "inadvertently" sent the fax to Vivas and was retracting the honor.
QuoteAside from the issue that you mentioned and the issues associated with voter registration, what is your [and conservatism's] major beef with ACORN? Do you simply do not want an organization assisting the underprivileged or what?
Thats kinda like saying besides Sorianos poor hitting, poor defense, and large contract what is your major beef with him? You kinda got to talk about ACORNS criminal past when discussing them.
ACORN has a history of illegal activity and they receive tax payer money. They are also due 4 billion more thanks to Obama. My major beef now is how can those ACORN workers actively discuss child prostitution and show no concern? Its obvious these people have done it before, and are trained to do it. They show zero regard for the health and welfare of the so called "underprivileged." I don't know how any human being can be so callous and uncaring for the lives of children as we have seen from ACORN. And to further more give advice on how to keep them as prostitutes and turning tricks.
This is about the worst thing you can discuss with ACORN in trying to secure housing, and they are going out of their way to help. If they are willing to go along with this kind of illegal activity, imagine what else they are capable of.
Video #3 dropped today. NYC ACORN office, thats now 3 seperate locations. Wonder how many more videos James O'Keefe has?
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-new-york-ny/
Quote from: MikeC on September 14, 2009, 09:29:38 AM
They show zero regard for the health and welfare of the so called "underprivileged."
Quote from: Eli on September 14, 2009, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: MikeC on September 14, 2009, 09:29:38 AM
They show zero regard for the health and welfare of the so called "underprivileged."
I see what you did there.
Gratuitous provocation of the resident Randfaggots:
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0 (http://www.tnr.com/print/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0)
QuoteThe association of wealth with virtue necessarily requires the free marketer to play down the role of class. Arthur Brooks, in his book Gross National Happiness, concedes that "the gap between the richest and poorest members of society is far wider than in many other developed countries. But there is also far more opportunity . . . there is in fact an amazing amount of economic mobility in America." In reality, as a study earlier this year by the Brookings Institution and Pew Charitable Trusts reported, the United States ranks near the bottom of advanced countries in its economic mobility. The study found that family background exerts a stronger influence on a person's income than even his education level. And its most striking finding revealed that you are more likely to make your way into the highest-earning one-fifth of the population if you were born into the top fifth and did not attain a college degree than if you were born into the bottom fifth and did. In other words, if you regard a college degree as a rough proxy for intelligence or hard work, then you are economically better off to be born rich, dumb, and lazy than poor, smart, and industrious.
Why are you all ignoring the child prostitution charges MikeC brought forth? The evidence is obvious. It's right there on the ground. In front of your faggy, hippy birkenstocks.
ACORN is clearly the biggest issue facing the American republic right now. Fuck the OLIGARHY!!!
Quote from: BH on September 14, 2009, 04:54:15 PM
Why are you all ignoring the child prostitution charges MikeC brought forth? The evidence is obvious. It's right there on the ground. In front of your faggy, hippy birkenstocks.
There is no defense. On behalf of Acorn I plead guilty. Acorn doesn't care about child prostitution. Besides, the major clients of child prostitutes are Republican congressmen. What now?
Quote from: CBStew on September 14, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Quote from: BH on September 14, 2009, 04:54:15 PM
Why are you all ignoring the child prostitution charges MikeC brought forth? The evidence is obvious. It's right there on the ground. In front of your faggy, hippy birkenstocks.
There is no defense. On behalf of Acorn I plead guilty. Acorn doesn't care about child prostitution. Besides, the major clients of child prostitutes are Republican congressmen. What now?
As long as there is no government funded socialized child prostitution, it's all good.
This is a brief aside, but I am unsure about how many of y'all have ever heard the tape of LBJ ordering pants. The tape was circulating around the office today and I figured y'all would appreciate it.*
*Twang added for realism.
http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clips/1964_0809_lbj_haggar/
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 14, 2009, 07:32:28 PM
This is a brief aside, but I am unsure about how many of y'all have ever heard the tape of LBJ ordering pants. The tape was circulating around the office today and I figured y'all would appreciate it.*
*Twang added for realism.
http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clips/1964_0809_lbj_haggar/
Thank you for not pimping out kids.
Looks like Sen. Franken was pretty busy at the State Fair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-FYyuvrRk&feature=player_embedded#t=61
More ACORN videos today, looks like they are heading out west to San Bernardino.
EDIT: Well that was quick, Video #4 just dropped......
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/
Quote from: MikeC on September 15, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
More ACORN videos today, looks like they are heading out west to San Bernardino.
EDIT: Well that was quick, Video #4 just dropped......
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/
Seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASS1qFAIQ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASS1qFAIQ8)
Quote from: Fork on September 15, 2009, 06:26:10 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 15, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
More ACORN videos today, looks like they are heading out west to San Bernardino.
EDIT: Well that was quick, Video #4 just dropped......
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/
Seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASS1qFAIQ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASS1qFAIQ8)
I like the idea of Fox gathering all the nuts in one place.
Yesterday I received an email from a friend in Palos Verdes Estates protesting the fact that the US Postal Service is putting out a stamp which commemorates 2 Muslim holidays. She added that "They don't even believe in Christ, yet they are getting their own Christmas stamp". I didn't even know where to begin my response to that email.
Quote from: CBStew on September 15, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
Yesterday I received an email from a friend in Palos Verdes Estates protesting the fact that the US Postal Service is putting out a stamp which commemorates 2 Muslim holidays. She added that "They don't even believe in Christ, yet they are getting their own Christmas stamp". I didn't even know where to begin my response to that email.
How about with "I would like to end our friendship effective immediately."
Quote from: PenFoe on September 15, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 15, 2009, 06:44:39 PM
Yesterday I received an email from a friend in Palos Verdes Estates protesting the fact that the US Postal Service is putting out a stamp which commemorates 2 Muslim holidays. She added that "They don't even believe in Christ, yet they are getting their own Christmas stamp". I didn't even know where to begin my response to that email.
How about with "I would like to end our friendship effective immediately."
I don't have a problem with them celebrating their Godless holidays, but can't they do it some other time than CHRISTmas?!?
For those of you inclined toward hearing news about the Employee Free Choice Act, the most substantive renovation to the National Labor Relations Act since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, here is some news....
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/specter_unveils_prospective_de.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58797-specter-deal-pounded-out-on-card-check
Quote from: CBStew on September 15, 2009, 06:36:11 PM
I like the idea of Fox gathering all the nuts in one place.
Someone needs to explain the logic of people who are proudly from "the home of the brave" being scared shitless by News Corporation, the largest media outlet in the world, which constantly rails against the "mainstream media".
Heckuvajob, Maxie...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019962.php
QuoteAfter months of negotiations, debate, and partisan wrangling, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will unveil his health care reform framework today. Baucus, who delayed the entire legislative process for months, simply so he could work with Republicans on a bipartisan solution, has managed to garner a grand total of zero GOP votes (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/15/gang-of-six-republicans-say-no-to-baucus-bill-for-now/) for his proposal.
QuoteCNN has learned that -- barring some unforeseen change -- Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus will unveil a health care proposal Wednesday without the support of the three Republican senators -- Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe -- he's been negotiating with for months.
...Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Chairman unveils his bill, all indications are he will be doing it without the support of Republicans he has spent hundreds of hours negotiating with.
Gang of Six members reportedly chatted again last night, but agreed to nothing.
So, in the span of a half-day, Baucus' reform package was rejected (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019956.php) by one of the Finance Committee's leading Democrats (Jay Rockefeller) and all of the Finance Committee's Republicans. An inauspicious start, to be sure.
All eyes have been on Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R), the Senate's most moderate Republican and the only GOP lawmaker on the Hill who seems sincere about wanting a reform bill. She no doubt disappointed Baucus when she concluded that his bill just isn't good enough.
But let's not lose sight of why Snowe balked at the Baucus framework. For one thing, she's concerned about the financing mechanism, which she believes would hit Maine hard. But just as importantly, Snowe also believes (as I do) that Baucus' plan offers weak and inadequate subsidies (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58929-democrats-to-go-it-alone). "The affordability question is crucial," Snowe said. "It's a central component, because at the end of the day people have high expectations they will have access to affordable health insurance."
In other words, one of the leading Republican negotiators on health care reform believes Baucus' plan is too conservative.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 16, 2009, 08:43:04 AM
Heckuvajob, Maxie...
CNN has learned that -- barring some unforeseen change -- Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus will unveil a health care proposal Wednesday without the support of the three Republican senators -- Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe -- he's been negotiating with for months.
...Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Chairman unveils his bill, all indications are he will be doing it without the support of Republicans he has spent hundreds of hours negotiating with.
[/quote]
Interesting thing about Grassley - his rollback of the Estate Tax to zero takes effect next year. Since Congress won't repeal the expiration of the rollback, the following year the Estate Tax goes back to pre-Bush levels, where inheritances of over $1 million are taxed.
Because of this one year reprieve in 2010 on what Conservatives like to call the "Death Tax", Grassley has actually incentivised death more than any "death panel" that will be part of health care reform. How many DNRs will be enacted on wealthy elderly people in December 2010?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 16, 2009, 08:43:04 AM
Heckuvajob, Maxie...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019962.php
QuoteAfter months of negotiations, debate, and partisan wrangling, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will unveil his health care reform framework today. Baucus, who delayed the entire legislative process for months, simply so he could work with Republicans on a bipartisan solution, has managed to garner a grand total of zero GOP votes (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/15/gang-of-six-republicans-say-no-to-baucus-bill-for-now/) for his proposal.
QuoteCNN has learned that -- barring some unforeseen change -- Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus will unveil a health care proposal Wednesday without the support of the three Republican senators -- Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe -- he's been negotiating with for months.
...Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Chairman unveils his bill, all indications are he will be doing it without the support of Republicans he has spent hundreds of hours negotiating with.
Gang of Six members reportedly chatted again last night, but agreed to nothing.
So, in the span of a half-day, Baucus' reform package was rejected (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019956.php) by one of the Finance Committee's leading Democrats (Jay Rockefeller) and all of the Finance Committee's Republicans. An inauspicious start, to be sure.
All eyes have been on Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R), the Senate's most moderate Republican and the only GOP lawmaker on the Hill who seems sincere about wanting a reform bill. She no doubt disappointed Baucus when she concluded that his bill just isn't good enough.
But let's not lose sight of why Snowe balked at the Baucus framework. For one thing, she's concerned about the financing mechanism, which she believes would hit Maine hard. But just as importantly, Snowe also believes (as I do) that Baucus' plan offers weak and inadequate subsidies (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58929-democrats-to-go-it-alone). "The affordability question is crucial," Snowe said. "It's a central component, because at the end of the day people have high expectations they will have access to affordable health insurance."
In other words, one of the leading Republican negotiators on health care reform believes Baucus' plan is too conservative.
Fuck Max Baucus with Mike Fontenot's dad's cosmetically altered schwantz. There are two possibilities here:
1. Baucus is just a complete dumbshit who negotiated away the best parts of his own health care plan (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/03/a-decent-health-care-reform-plan-from-max-baucus/) in exchange for...zero GOP votes.
QuoteTell me how this sounds for a health care reform plan.
* A national health care exchange
* Buy-in to Medicare at age 55
* No discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions
* No waiting period for Medicare for disabled
* CHIP covers up to 250% of poverty level
* Credits for small businesses and individuals to make health care affordable
Oh, and don't forget this bit:
* A public option
Now, it may surprise you to learn this. But the architect of this program is none other than Max Baucus--the guy who has been pushing against a public option since the insurers were allowed to drive this debate.
2. It's more than mere happenstance that a framework authored by a guy who received a shit ton of cash from insurance companies (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html), with the help of a former insurance company VP (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/), contains an individual mandate, insufficient subsidies, and no public plan - resulting in "an absolute gift to the industry." (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Former_Cigna_exec_Baucus_plan_absolute_gift_to_industry.html)
Quote from: R-V on September 16, 2009, 09:14:17 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 16, 2009, 08:43:04 AM
Heckuvajob, Maxie...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019962.php
QuoteAfter months of negotiations, debate, and partisan wrangling, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will unveil his health care reform framework today. Baucus, who delayed the entire legislative process for months, simply so he could work with Republicans on a bipartisan solution, has managed to garner a grand total of zero GOP votes (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/15/gang-of-six-republicans-say-no-to-baucus-bill-for-now/) for his proposal.
QuoteCNN has learned that -- barring some unforeseen change -- Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus will unveil a health care proposal Wednesday without the support of the three Republican senators -- Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe -- he's been negotiating with for months.
...Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Chairman unveils his bill, all indications are he will be doing it without the support of Republicans he has spent hundreds of hours negotiating with.
Gang of Six members reportedly chatted again last night, but agreed to nothing.
So, in the span of a half-day, Baucus' reform package was rejected (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019956.php) by one of the Finance Committee's leading Democrats (Jay Rockefeller) and all of the Finance Committee's Republicans. An inauspicious start, to be sure.
All eyes have been on Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R), the Senate's most moderate Republican and the only GOP lawmaker on the Hill who seems sincere about wanting a reform bill. She no doubt disappointed Baucus when she concluded that his bill just isn't good enough.
But let's not lose sight of why Snowe balked at the Baucus framework. For one thing, she's concerned about the financing mechanism, which she believes would hit Maine hard. But just as importantly, Snowe also believes (as I do) that Baucus' plan offers weak and inadequate subsidies (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58929-democrats-to-go-it-alone). "The affordability question is crucial," Snowe said. "It's a central component, because at the end of the day people have high expectations they will have access to affordable health insurance."
In other words, one of the leading Republican negotiators on health care reform believes Baucus' plan is too conservative.
Fuck Max Baucus with Mike Fontenot's dad's cosmetically altered schwantz. There are two possibilities here:
1. Baucus is just a complete dumbshit who negotiated away the best parts of his own health care plan (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/03/a-decent-health-care-reform-plan-from-max-baucus/) in exchange for...zero GOP votes.
QuoteTell me how this sounds for a health care reform plan.
* A national health care exchange
* Buy-in to Medicare at age 55
* No discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions
* No waiting period for Medicare for disabled
* CHIP covers up to 250% of poverty level
* Credits for small businesses and individuals to make health care affordable
Oh, and don't forget this bit:
* A public option
Now, it may surprise you to learn this. But the architect of this program is none other than Max Baucus--the guy who has been pushing against a public option since the insurers were allowed to drive this debate.
2. It's more than mere happenstance that a framework authored by a guy who received a shit ton of cash from insurance companies (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html), with the help of a former insurance company VP (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/), contains an individual mandate, insufficient subsidies, and no public plan - resulting in "an absolute gift to the industry." (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Former_Cigna_exec_Baucus_plan_absolute_gift_to_industry.html)
A little from column A, a little from column B.
Quote from: MikeC on September 15, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
More ACORN videos today, looks like they are heading out west to San Bernardino.
EDIT: Well that was quick, Video #4 just dropped......
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/
Another new video...these ACORN wackos are unbelievable!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160003 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160003)
US Rep. Mark Kirk now blames *me* (and TJ, too) for his vote on cap-and-trade. I thought he was supposed to represent his district with his conscious, not vote what polled well. This is a republic, no?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a63e941fd-24d6-4897-be67-fecc8b3bf313&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 16, 2009, 01:38:06 PM
US Rep. Mark Kirk now blames *me* (and TJ, too) for his vote on cap-and-trade. I thought he was supposed to represent his district with his conscious, not vote what polled well. This is a republic, no?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a63e941fd-24d6-4897-be67-fecc8b3bf313&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com
Well, they're supposed to represent the district while conscious (Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and others have had trouble with that), and with their conscience, but Kirk was voting with his polling data?
I don't know how I'm to blame. I called his office, sent his office a letter and during a very friendly face-to-face with him in June, I told him I didn't like the bill.
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 16, 2009, 01:38:06 PM
US Rep. Mark Kirk now blames *me* (and TJ, too) for his vote on cap-and-trade. I thought he was supposed to represent his district with his conscious, not vote what polled well. This is a republic, no?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a63e941fd-24d6-4897-be67-fecc8b3bf313&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com
Well, they're supposed to represent the district while conscious (Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and others have had trouble with that), and with their conscience, but Kirk was voting with his polling data?
I don't know how I'm to blame. I called his office, sent his office a letter and during a very friendly face-to-face with him in June, I told him I didn't like the bill.
A muffin basket would have clinched it.
Quote from: Brownie on September 16, 2009, 01:58:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 16, 2009, 01:38:06 PM
US Rep. Mark Kirk now blames *me* (and TJ, too) for his vote on cap-and-trade. I thought he was supposed to represent his district with his conscious, not vote what polled well. This is a republic, no?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?page_id=2308&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a63e941fd-24d6-4897-be67-fecc8b3bf313&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com
Well, they're supposed to represent the district while conscious (Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and others have had trouble with that), and with their conscience, but Kirk was voting with his polling data?
I don't know how I'm to blame. I called his office, sent his office a letter and during a very friendly face-to-face with him in June, I told him I didn't like the bill.
So, he doesn't listen to you. Will he ever?
This is the problem with Kirk. He's not a politician, he's a bureaucrat. He was the Chief of Staff to Rep. Porter and won the seat when Porter retired. He's not ready for prime time.
And we're going to get stuck with Alexi the Crook instead.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 16, 2009, 02:19:17 PM
This is the problem with Kirk. He's not a politician, he's a bureaucrat.
Close.
He's not a legislator, he's a politician.
Quote from: R-V on September 16, 2009, 11:46:46 AM
Quote from: MikeC on September 15, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
More ACORN videos today, looks like they are heading out west to San Bernardino.
EDIT: Well that was quick, Video #4 just dropped......
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/acorn-prostitution-scandal-california-here-we-come/
Another new video...these ACORN wackos are unbelievable!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160003 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160003)
OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto isn't saying, he's just saying...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416833436798004.html
QuoteThe Wall Street Journal urges the U.S. Justice Department to undertake a criminal investigation of Acorn. This column echoes that call, although we wonder if the Obama administration is compromised here. The president, who as a candidate touted his background as a "community organizer," has extensive ties to Acorn...
...
Obama worked for Acorn and Acorn worked for Obama. That doesn't mean the president is implicated in any wrongdoing, but it suggests at least that the worse things get for Acorn, the more embarrassing it is for him. If the Justice Department fails to prosecute, it invariably would raise suspicions of political favoritism. This column does not care for special prosecutors, but the case for appointing one would seem to be stronger here than usual.
Intrepid Reader: ForkMURDOCH!
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 16, 2009, 09:47:15 PM
QuoteObama worked for Acorn and Acorn worked for Obama.
Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is Finkle!
Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of my favorite political bloggers that I never remember to read, responding to the race baiting of Limbaugh and Malkin's ilk (in particular, in the wake of that St. Louis school bus beating)...
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/flip_and_pop_my_collar_like_the_fonz.php
Quote...Rightly or wrongly, a lot of us grew tired of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, mostly because they presented easy foils for Limbaugh-land. Moreover, again rightly or wrongly, they were used to define all of us.
It's intensely grating to live say, in Atlanta, and have some dude in Harlem crowned as your unelected leader. It's even more grating if said dude's agenda seems, in large measure, come down to standing in front of cameras and tweaking his opponents. It's no mistake that O'Reilly and Sharpton would break bread together at Sylvia's--they feed each other.
But Barack Obama, bourgeois in every way that bourgeois is right and just, will not dance. He tells kids to study--and they seethe. He accepts an apology for an immature act of rudeness--and they go hysterical. He takes his wife out for a date--and their veins bulge. His humanity, his ordinary blackness, is killing them. Dig the audio of his response to Kanye West--the way he says, "He's a jackass." He sounds like one of my brothers. And that's the point, because that's what he is. Barack Obama refuses to be their nigger. And it's driving them crazy.
It's about time.
I think I'm starting to hate white people in general almost as much as I hate Cubs fans in particular...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3913627212_7130997b38.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/3912840785_caa9d053a1.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3912801501_a051f22901.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3913626290_6f58821f6e.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/3913625906_d96050e06b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/3912801983_75156cee9d.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/
(The GOP Zubaz are for TEC.)
I'm now totally on board with death panels.
These mad dogs will not be muzzled. Shame on Pelosi for encouraging them toward violence.
Quote from: CT III on September 19, 2009, 02:20:25 PM
I'm now totally on board with death panels.
I keep looking for death panel openings on Monster. Would I be better off on a Government site?
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 07:57:36 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 19, 2009, 02:20:25 PM
I'm now totally on board with death panels.
I keep looking for death panel openings on Monster. Would I be better off on a Government site?
I'd be down for that. Maybe we can start our own death panel. What's more American than using the entreprenuerial spirit to make a cheap buck on human misery?
Quote from: Jon on September 21, 2009, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 07:57:36 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 19, 2009, 02:20:25 PM
I'm now totally on board with death panels.
I keep looking for death panel openings on Monster. Would I be better off on a Government site?
I'd be down for that. Maybe we can start our own death panel. What's more American than using the entreprenuerial spirit to make a cheap buck on human misery?
eDeath!
Wow, this country is headed down an ugly road. Good times ahead.
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 21, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Wow, this country is headed down an ugly road. Good times ahead.
I'm banking on the inevitable civil war. But yeah, we've got a shitload of problems.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 10:51:34 AM
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 21, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Wow, this country is headed down an ugly road. Good times ahead.
I'm banking on the inevitable civil war. But yeah, we've got a shitload of problems.
We have problems because people protest, some of whom carry ridiculous signs? Is this sort of like a Milton Bradley "environment of negativity?"
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
We have problems because people protest, some of whom carry ridiculous signs?
Yes. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 10:51:34 AM
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 21, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Wow, this country is headed down an ugly road. Good times ahead.
I'm banking on the inevitable civil war. But yeah, we've got a shitload of problems.
We have problems because people protest, some of whom carry ridiculous signs? Is this sort of like a Milton Bradley "environment of negativity?"
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
Dissent, coupled with visceral and visible racial hatred [and a healthy dollop of armed crazies] is not patriotic. This is fucking healthcare. Where were all of these protesters when we debated whether to send our men and women to die in a useless war in a country that really didn't threaten us at all?
I can see getting worked up over that. Healthcare, not so much.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
Yep, that's pretty much where we're headed. Can't fucking wait.
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 21, 2009, 11:46:50 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
Yep, that's pretty much where we're headed. Can't fucking wait.
I look forward to hearing Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity say they called it, when in reality, all three men have probably done more to encourage any potential violence than any other person in the country at the moment.
This is the 90s all over again. Worse, considering the President is black.
Good thing I don't work in the Federal Building in LA.
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
I'm against protesting, but I have no way of showing it.
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 21, 2009, 12:15:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
I'm against protesting, but I have no way of showing it.
Mitch Hedberg, RIP.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
Again, they protested because of a war. However, on health care, what I fail to see is the comprehension from these protesters that there is a problem with health care in this country. If someone can at least agree to that fundamental precept, then we are okay and can have a debate. However, by the looks of it, these people are too busy holding up signs announcing our health care system as the BEST IN THE WORLD!!! USA 4 EVA!!! PALIN 2012!!! When, in reality, it's 37th. We have insurers dropping coverage for whatever reasons they see fit in pursuit of an extra international airport for their CEO [Yale
could use an international airport, Mr. Burns]. We have about 45,000 Americans dying per year because of poor health coverage.
But, heaven forbid, I'm gonna protest because the gubmint shouldnt be takin over the health care in this here country!! This plan would disproportionately help the South, but NOOOOO can't have any of that.
Finally, you need to listen to more of Limbaugh and Beck, because if you don't see how they are inciting people, then you aren't listening at all. May I introduce Brownie to Jim David Adkisson? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 12:31:23 PM
But, heaven forbid, I'm gonna protest because the gubmint shouldnt be takin over the health care in this here country!! This plan would disproportionately help the South, but NOOOOO can't have any of that.
We live in a country where everyone accepts the laws that mandate everyone have insurance for their cars and mortgaged homes, but regulation and public availability of health insurance is SOCIALISM!
Health care, shmealth care. Tom Coburn's chief of staff (http://washingtonindependent.com/60172/sen-tom-coburns-r-okla-chief-of-staff-all-pornography-is-homosexual-pornography) has his finger on the pulse of the throbbing, veiny issues that really matter:
Quote"Pornography is a blight," Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. "It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven't been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it's been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it."
Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. "One of the things he said to me," said Schwartz, "that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark... he said 'All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."
There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. "Now, think about that," said Schwartz. "And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants! You know, that's a good comment, it's a good point, and it's a good thing to teach young people."
Quote from: R-V on September 21, 2009, 12:40:23 PM
Health care, shmealth care. Tom Coburn's chief of staff (http://washingtonindependent.com/60172/sen-tom-coburns-r-okla-chief-of-staff-all-pornography-is-homosexual-pornography) has his finger on the pulse of the throbbing, veiny issues that really matter:
Quote"Pornography is a blight," Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. "It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven't been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it's been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it."
Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. "One of the things he said to me," said Schwartz, "that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark... he said 'All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."
There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. "Now, think about that," said Schwartz. "And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants! You know, that's a good comment, it's a good point, and it's a good thing to teach young people."
I bought a Playboy for the first time ever this past weekend. Good stuff. Am I gay?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 21, 2009, 12:40:23 PM
Health care, shmealth care. Tom Coburn's chief of staff (http://washingtonindependent.com/60172/sen-tom-coburns-r-okla-chief-of-staff-all-pornography-is-homosexual-pornography) has his finger on the pulse of the throbbing, veiny issues that really matter:
Quote"Pornography is a blight," Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. "It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven't been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it's been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it."
Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. "One of the things he said to me," said Schwartz, "that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark... he said 'All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."
There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. "Now, think about that," said Schwartz. "And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants! You know, that's a good comment, it's a good point, and it's a good thing to teach young people."
I bought a Playboy for the first time ever this past weekend. Good stuff. Am I gay?
Something to look out while you wait for them to deliver your lunch at the strip club?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 12:31:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
Again, they protested because of a war. However, on health care, what I fail to see is the comprehension from these protesters that there is a problem with health care in this country. If someone can at least agree to that fundamental precept, then we are okay and can have a debate. However, by the looks of it, these people are too busy holding up signs announcing our health care system as the BEST IN THE WORLD!!! USA 4 EVA!!! PALIN 2012!!! When, in reality, it's 37th. We have insurers dropping coverage for whatever reasons they see fit in pursuit of an extra international airport for their CEO [Yale could use an international airport, Mr. Burns]. We have about 45,000 Americans dying per year because of poor health coverage.
But, heaven forbid, I'm gonna protest because the gubmint shouldnt be takin over the health care in this here country!! This plan would disproportionately help the South, but NOOOOO can't have any of that.
Finally, you need to listen to more of Limbaugh and Beck, because if you don't see how they are inciting people, then you aren't listening at all. May I introduce Brownie to Jim David Adkisson? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)
I'm NOT listening to them much, if it all. But again, is inciting violence saying something that somehow convinces a handful of crazies out of their audiences of millions to commit an act of violence? Did the left incite violence out of the Ted Kaczynskis of the world? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
As for the fact that you don't see the complaints from the right, Gil, it means maybe you should delve a little further into at least understanding it a little better.
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
I was just talking about that yesterday with some people. It feels awful to say it aloud, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And if it happens, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world will talk about how, while they disagreed with Obama, they never (never!) advocated anything like this. Glenn Beck might even be able to muster up a few tears on-air as he talks about it. Then they'll act somber for a week or so before going right back to stirring their followers into another angry frenzy over the continued liberal-induced decline of America.
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 01:07:02 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
I was just talking about that yesterday with some people. It feels awful to say it aloud, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And if it happens, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world will talk about how, while they disagreed with Obama, they never (never!) advocated anything like this. Glenn Beck might even be able to muster up a few tears on-air as he talks about it. Then they'll act somber for a week or so before going right back to stirring their followers into another angry frenzy over the continued liberal-induced decline of America.
Joe Biden was born in Kenya. You read it here first.
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 01:07:02 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
I was just talking about that yesterday with some people. It feels awful to say it aloud, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And if it happens, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world will talk about how, while they disagreed with Obama, they never (never!) advocated anything like this. Glenn Beck might even be able to muster up a few tears on-air as he talks about it. Then they'll act somber for a week or so before going right back to stirring their followers into another angry frenzy over the continued liberal-induced decline of America.
Have they advocated anything like that?
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 01:10:32 PM
Joe Biden was born in Kenya. You read it here first.
That liar. Trying to convince all of us that he's from Scranton.
Quote"I come from Scranton, Pennsylvania, and that's as hard-scrabble a place as you're going to find. I'll show you around sometime and you'll see -- it's a hell hole. An absolute jerkwater of a town. You couldn't stand to spend a weekend there. It's just an awful, awful sad place, filled with sad, desperate people with no ambition. Nobody, I mean nobody, but me, has ever come out of that place. It's a genetic cesspool. So don't be telling me that I'm part of the Washington elite, because I come from the absolute worst place on earth."
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 01:14:31 PM
Have they advocated anything like that?
No, TJ. They've never, to my knowledge, explicitly advocated killing the president. You got me there.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 12:31:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
That's why there's a Secret Service. Don't think any protester even making an off-handed remark about violence against the President isn't getting a thorough checking-out. And rightfully so.
Have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh incited violence? I don't see it. Maybe they've fired people up, maybe beyond reason, but I don't think they've incited violence.
But the fact we have crazies who brought stupid signs, a couple of them racially tinged, a couple of them glorifying violence is not a new development. The country survived much worse. Those pictures of protesters were nice, but nothing new. When W was in power, I saw enough protest pictures that would make most of the Left cringe (at least I hope they would).
And on healthcare, sure people can get fired up over that. Why shouldn't they, especially if it affects them on a day-to-day basis?
Again, they protested because of a war. However, on health care, what I fail to see is the comprehension from these protesters that there is a problem with health care in this country. If someone can at least agree to that fundamental precept, then we are okay and can have a debate. However, by the looks of it, these people are too busy holding up signs announcing our health care system as the BEST IN THE WORLD!!! USA 4 EVA!!! PALIN 2012!!! When, in reality, it's 37th. We have insurers dropping coverage for whatever reasons they see fit in pursuit of an extra international airport for their CEO [Yale could use an international airport, Mr. Burns]. We have about 45,000 Americans dying per year because of poor health coverage.
But, heaven forbid, I'm gonna protest because the gubmint shouldnt be takin over the health care in this here country!! This plan would disproportionately help the South, but NOOOOO can't have any of that.
Finally, you need to listen to more of Limbaugh and Beck, because if you don't see how they are inciting people, then you aren't listening at all. May I introduce Brownie to Jim David Adkisson? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)
I'm NOT listening to them much, if it all. But again, is inciting violence saying something that somehow convinces a handful of crazies out of their audiences of millions to commit an act of violence? Did the left incite violence out of the Ted Kaczynskis of the world? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
As for the fact that you don't see the complaints from the right, Gil, it means maybe you should delve a little further into at least understanding it a little better.
I don't know how I would see the complaints from the rights, but I do hear them; however, a large portion of them are simply political efforts to damage the President. The reason being the right knows good and well that if the public gets their Medicare-for-all, public option, that's it. Ballgame. Obama wins his re-elect and the Dems keep Congress. And this plan will never go away.
If the right were actually interested in debating the nuances of health care reform, I'd welcome it. However, the only things I've read and heard thus far have been purely political.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 01:07:02 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 11:01:51 AM
I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism!
It absolutely is.
There's also a difference between dissent and firing up the low-hanging fruit.
Anyone who doesn't see this ending with an assassination attempt is delusional.
I was just talking about that yesterday with some people. It feels awful to say it aloud, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And if it happens, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world will talk about how, while they disagreed with Obama, they never (never!) advocated anything like this. Glenn Beck might even be able to muster up a few tears on-air as he talks about it. Then they'll act somber for a week or so before going right back to stirring their followers into another angry frenzy over the continued liberal-induced decline of America.
Have they advocated anything like that?
As much as the last president said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 01:20:12 PM
I don't know how I would see the complaints from the rights, but I do hear them; however, a large portion of them are simply political efforts to damage the President. The reason being the right knows good and well that if the public gets their Medicare-for-all, public option, that's it. Ballgame. Obama wins his re-elect and the Dems keep Congress. And this plan will never go away.
If the right were actually interested in debating the nuances of health care reform, I'd welcome it. However, the only things I've read and heard thus far have been purely political.
Replace "political" with "financial", and you're there. The insurance industry has been going all-in, both in lobbying dollars and in "bipartisan studies" to make shit-sure they don't lose their license to steal. They don't care about the public option nearly as much as they care about regulation.
And the industry's worst nightmare is for Waxman to pull CEOs in front of cameras and ask about bonuses and jets. That would go less than simmingly for them.
Quote from: Fork on September 21, 2009, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 01:20:12 PM
I don't know how I would see the complaints from the rights, but I do hear them; however, a large portion of them are simply political efforts to damage the President. The reason being the right knows good and well that if the public gets their Medicare-for-all, public option, that's it. Ballgame. Obama wins his re-elect and the Dems keep Congress. And this plan will never go away.
If the right were actually interested in debating the nuances of health care reform, I'd welcome it. However, the only things I've read and heard thus far have been purely political.
Replace "political" with "financial", and you're there. The insurance industry has been going all-in, both in lobbying dollars and in "bipartisan studies" to make shit-sure they don't lose their license to steal. They don't care about the public option nearly as much as they care about regulation.
And the industry's worst nightmare is for Waxman to pull CEOs in front of cameras and ask about bonuses and jets. That would go less than simmingly for them.
I thought the insurance companies were no onboard with Obama!
Beck has, however, made comments about about poisoning Nancy Pelosi (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060037) and people he'd like to beat to death with a shovel. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909010014)
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 01:38:05 PM
Beck has, however, made comments about about poisoning Nancy Pelosi (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060037) and people he'd like to beat to death with a shovel. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909010014)
BONER (posting for pure funsies)
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
I wasn't aware that Glenn Beck's doing satire.
Makes sense, though.
I don't get Beck, and I've never watched his show, and I really can't defend a damn thing he says. Nor do I care to. However, reasonable people, in an attempt to drive home a point, exaggerate their sentiment for shock, satire, etc.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
So flippant fringe message board comments are equivalent to professionally broadcasting your thoughts to millions of viewers?
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 02:16:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
So flippant fringe message board comments are equivalent to professionally broadcasting your thoughts to millions of viewers?
If you reach the right person who somehow interprets your comment as "Lou would have been right to kill somebody" and then commits murder against Matt Murton or some other early 2007 Cub, how couldn't it be?
mediamatters.org and newsbusters.org spend a lot of breath isolating comments by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, Eugene Robinson and others. Often out of context. Often when the person is being satirical or flippant (and the rest of the audience, or at least most of it) can reasonably be in on the joke.
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 02:16:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
So flippant fringe message board comments are equivalent to professionally broadcasting your thoughts to millions of viewers?
These were written by a bunch of nutjobs.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:44:19 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 21, 2009, 02:16:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
Hmm, while not totally outwardly expressing hope for someone's demise, look at these nutjobs:
Quote from: MAD on May 26, 2009, 10:37:09 AM
Dempster sucks ass. I hate that guy and want him to die. I hope they make the playoffs and he gets left off the roster. His 4th inning last night reminded me of Game 1 in the LDS and why I hate that chode so much. Randy Wells should be of no consequence.
Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on July 27, 2009, 09:57:28 PM
I may have to rethink my hatred for the DeRosa deal.
Aaron Miles still needs to die in a fire though.
Quote from: Bad Kermit on July 12, 2006, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: Dan on July 12, 2006, 02:55:12 PM
Kermie, you need to print out the list of all the players mentioned on this thread for the Mathematical Erection Party.
I don't know exactly how, but there's got some sort of drinking game to be played with this.
I think it needs to be a costume party where we all dress up like our most hated Cub player dying in the way we hope they die. I call Todd Hundley in a gutter aspirating his own vomit.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 12, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
This secondary needs to wash up on the Lake Michigan shore outside of Soldier Field Monday morning.
Quote from: EG on May 17, 2007, 03:17:33 PM
Who did Lou kill after the game?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on June 29, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
And probably a smaller brain than him too:
Tonight's home plate umpire. Between him and the grandpa at first, they're almost making Joe Morgan sufferable. I wish Lou would've been a lot less restrained after that douchebag tracked him down and involved himself in an argument he wasn't in, in the first place.
Fuck these unprofessional pieces of shit.
Quote from: Andy on April 06, 2007, 03:38:39 PM
Hear me now and believe me later, Jeff Joniak needs to be repeatedly kicked in his vulva.
So flippant fringe message board comments are equivalent to professionally broadcasting your thoughts to millions of viewers?
If you reach the right person who somehow interprets your comment as "Lou would have been right to kill somebody" and then commits murder against Matt Murton or some other early 2007 Cub, how couldn't it be?
mediamatters.org and newsbusters.org spend a lot of breath isolating comments by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, Eugene Robinson and others. Often out of context. Often when the person is being satirical or flippant (and the rest of the audience, or at least most of it) can reasonably be in on the joke.
Yeah, Beck was only kidding when he said the President has a hatred for white people. Context, my ass.
And Kanye West was only kidding when he said President Bush didn't care about black people. They're both jackasses. But let's not charge them with something that did not occur. That's all I'm saying.
The problem with the right these days is that they feed into the lowest common denominator.
ACORN is bad, never mind how much good they've done. Health reform is awful, no matter that grandma would rather skin her cats alive than get rid of here medicare. Obama is a socialist because he wants to offer up government run solutions for some of our biggest problems, never mind that things have been done this way for decades, with mixed success at worst.
Like Gil said, whenever any of those loons wants to have a serious discussion about health care reform, bring it on. Unfortunately, even those on the right who care to have those discussions are being drowned out to the point that Chuck Grassley thinks there will be death panels. Fuck that.
Frankly, it's also this lowest common denominator thinking that got us into a quagmire half way around the world. It's pathetic, Teej, of you or anyone of your intelligence to defend that shit. It's also what leads to birthers and Palin as a serious candidate for anything. It's what leads assholes to think that Mark DeRosa was the Cubs' MVP last year. Stop it.
I understand why Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann exist. Fuck them.
Quote from: Brownie on September 21, 2009, 04:10:46 PM
And Kanye West was only kidding when he said President Bush didn't care about black people. They're both jackasses. But let's not charge them with something that did not occur. That's all I'm saying.
Fine, fuck Kanye, too.
I agree with Oleg. In the spirit of that, I offer some comedy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/5trokerac3/teabagger-signs-vol-2-o6r/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/the-funniest-protest-sign_n_292342.html?slidenumber=4
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 04:39:56 PM
I agree with Oleg. In the spirit of that, I offer some comedy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/5trokerac3/teabagger-signs-vol-2-o6r/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/the-funniest-protest-sign_n_292342.html?slidenumber=4
That shit isn't funny, Gil. Those are American Patriots. How dare you.
Quote from: Miraculous Mark: Diviner of Mysteries on September 21, 2009, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 21, 2009, 04:39:56 PM
I agree with Oleg. In the spirit of that, I offer some comedy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/5trokerac3/teabagger-signs-vol-2-o6r/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/the-funniest-protest-sign_n_292342.html?slidenumber=4
That shit isn't funny, Gil. Those are American Patriots. How dare you.
That 4th picture from the Huffington gallery looks awfully familiar, I think I've seen it somewhere...
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg)
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2009, 04:16:43 PM
It's what leads assholes to think that Mark DeRosa was the Cubs' MVP last year. Stop it.
Careful, you might get your statfag badge revoked. (http://www.thecubreporter.com/2008/08/18/cubs-2008-mvp)
Unless you're calling the Cubs' players assholes. (http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080924&content_id=3540316&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc)
Or maybe you're calling out Yeti? (http://sports.gay.com/2008/09/mark-derosa-nl.html)
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
RUN, MIKE!
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
Quote from: ChuckD on September 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
I like that. Copypasta. I'm going to put that one under my hat.
Quote from: Miraculous Mark: Diviner of Mysteries on September 21, 2009, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
I like that. Copypasta. I'm going to put that one under my hat.
You're going to need a bigger hat. (http://www.google.com/search?q=copypasta&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox)
Chuck Dickens-- your knowledge of all things Internet inspires awe. In me.
And I totally plan on using this at some point(s) in the future:
(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4d/Cool_story_bro.png)
Quote from: ChuckD on September 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE! JOIN THE SOCIALISTS!
Getting back to the atheist (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/09/22/survey-one-quarter-of-americans-could-claim-no-religion-in-20-years.html) portion of the thread title...
QuoteIf current trends continue, a quarter of Americans are likely to claim "no religion" in 20 years, according to a survey out today by Trinity College. Americans who identify with no religious tradition currently comprise 15 percent of the country, representing the fastest growing segment of the national religious landscape.
Political analysis here (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/09/22/4-ways-the-no-religion-boom-will-alter-american-politics.html).
Quote from: morpheus on September 22, 2009, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE! JOIN THE SOCIALISTS!
A WORLD FREE OF EXPLOITATION - SOCIALISM - IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT WORTH FIGHTING FOR!
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 22, 2009, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 22, 2009, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on September 21, 2009, 10:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
Like Milton Bradley and liberalism, your fear and hatred of this only serves to make me love it, regardless of myopia.
Que Morph or TEC with some choice copypasta re: SOCIALISM.
ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE! JOIN THE SOCIALISTS!
A WORLD FREE OF EXPLOITATION - SOCIALISM - IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT WORTH FIGHTING FOR!
BAM!
Huh... So maybe Obama didn't force El Salvadoran child hookers to illegally vote for him after all?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hA9b96qgu9MG_331xFUGcYvhOcLAD9AS3CUO0
QuoteNATIONAL CITY, Calif. — Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.
Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.
Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.
The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.
Vera was fired on Thursday.
At least not in National City, CA, anyways.
Thing is, suddenly I'm not sure what to believe anymore.
I, mean... I
know that Obama is ACORN and that ACORN is Obama.
But is Obama Juan Carlos Vera, formerly of ACORN? Is Juan Carlos Vera, formerly of ACORN, Obama?
And is Obama only ACORN in Baltimore and DC, but not in Philly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-shea/despite-news-reports-acor_b_290265.html)?
Dot-connecting is hard. (This does give me a newfound respect for that old dot-connecting stalwart, BNMike.)
So, a portent of things to come, or an isolated incident, I ask you, MORTON KONDRACKE!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT92400
QuoteThe FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery, and a law enforcement official told The Associated Press the word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.
Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment.
Quote"Our job is to determine if there was foul play involved — and that's part of the investigation — and if there was foul play involved, whether that is related to his employment as a census worker," said Beyer.
Either way, I had a distinct memory of the story of the Roanoke mystery when I read this story, for some reason.
Quote from: MikeC on September 21, 2009, 10:27:58 PM
You guys might want to start reading up on the illegal and plain creepy stuff the Obama administration is in engaged in now.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/21/propaganda-health-care-and-acorn-full-context-of-nea-conference-call-reveals-disturbing-pattern/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/21/10103/
I am so gullible. For the longest time I believed that that there really was a MikeC. But I have caught on. "Fess up". Who is it? My hat is off to whomever it was who created that satire.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 23, 2009, 07:48:52 PM
So, a portent of things to come, or an isolated incident, I ask you, MORTON KONDRACKE!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT92400
QuoteThe FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery, and a law enforcement official told The Associated Press the word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.
Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment.
Quote"Our job is to determine if there was foul play involved — and that's part of the investigation — and if there was foul play involved, whether that is related to his employment as a census worker," said Beyer.
Either way, I had a distinct memory of the story of the Roanoke mystery when I read this story, for some reason.
Cro?
Workers of the world unite. Oh wait, that's communism. Sorry.
I love the public library, there that's some socialiam.
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Um... I'm not sure how anyone who's read this
thread page could be surprised by this...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg192162#msg192162
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
The hillbillies don't much like Gubment-types pokin' ner noses around where they ain't welcome.
I have a theory: maybe the Kentucky hillbillly rubes have no idea of what a Census is. Maybe they saw this guys as a threat to their meth lab. I wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on September 24, 2009, 10:25:14 AM
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
The hillbillies don't much like Gubment-types pokin' ner noses around where they ain't welcome.
I have a theory: maybe the Kentucky hillbillly rubes have no idea of what a Census is. Maybe they saw this guys as a threat to their meth lab. I wouldn't put it past them.
Or, this (http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/09/michele_bachman_19.php).
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Um... I'm not sure how anyone who's read this thread page could be surprised by this...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg192162#msg192162
You know I don't like to read, commie.
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Um... I'm not sure how anyone who's read this thread page could be surprised by this...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg192162#msg192162
You know I don't like to read, commie.
Scorekeepers, is that a FACE or a DRLP? I need clarification for my logs.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 24, 2009, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Um... I'm not sure how anyone who's read this thread page could be surprised by this...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg192162#msg192162
You know I don't like to read, commie.
Scorekeepers, is that a FACE or a DRLP? I need clarification for my logs.
So should I feel like a common TEC or a lowly Internet Chuck?
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 12:21:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 24, 2009, 11:37:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: World B Free on September 24, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jon on September 24, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
Um...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9ATASJ00
He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.
Can't say that I'm shocked by this.
Um... I'm not sure how anyone who's read this thread page could be surprised by this...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg192162#msg192162
You know I don't like to read, commie.
Scorekeepers, is that a FACE or a DRLP? I need clarification for my logs.
So should I feel like a common TEC or a lowly Internet Chuck?
You should feel like a shitty Baldwin.
Michael Ledeen (Iran-Contra alumnus, all-around war-monger and alleged Stonecutter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due) crony) on Obama, I assume in response to Obama's UN address...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmU0OWViYjEzMWY3ZTZmNDU2NTBiNmE5YjkyYWY1YjA=
QuoteIs Obama Naïve?
I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America.
A strong start!
QuoteI think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."
Interesting use of quotation marks there.
QuoteThere is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.
Peas in a pod, those guys.
Hey... Remember that time Hitler swore off German exceptionalism by saying he was "going to stop us, before we kill again"?
QuoteAmerican politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok.
Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven.
For his part, of course, Ledeen doesn't envy the fascist regimes'
power.
He just envies the fascist movement's (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/jun/30/00013/) revolutionary will to "creative destruction." (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/ledeen092001.shtml)
Don't fuck with Springfield you towel head biatches: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-springfield-courthouse.html?track=email-alert-breakingnews
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
you towel head biatches
And... Nativist Yeti is back, folks.
Let's roll those jump to conclusions mats back up for a moment.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/uncategorized/suicide-not-ruled-out-for-dead-census-worker-he-was-in-contact-with-the-ground/
Quote1) Kentucky state police have not ruled out the possibility that the death was a suicide or even that it was accidental, according to police spokesman Don Trosper.
2) His death has been ruled "asphyxia," Trosper said in an interview. "There was a rope around his neck. It was attached to a tree," Trosper continued, adding this intriguing detail: "He was in contact with the ground."
That raises the possibilty that the cause of death was not hanging. Asked if this were possible, Trosper said: "Nothing is being ruled out."
3) Trosper said the initial AP story on the death contains "flaws and errors." That means it's possible that the AP's claim, based on an anonymous source, that he had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest could be false. Asked if that were the case, Trosper declined to comment.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/dead_census_worker_was_warned_to_be_careful_in_rur.php
QuoteBill Sparkman was warned about the danger of going into rural parts of Kentucky to conduct Census interviews, a retired state trooper who knew him told TPMmuckraker.
Gilbert Acciardo, who ran an after-school program at a southeastern Kentucky high-school where Sparkman was a substitute teacher, said that when Sparkman -- a Florida native -- first started doing the Census work, "I said, you're going into rural Kentucky, isolated areas. Be careful over there -- people may not understand that you're there to gather statistics."
Sparkman was found dead recently in a remote part of the Daniel Boone National Forest.
Acciardo made clear that his warning was prompted by the area's isolated nature -- he said cell-phone reception is often lacking -- rather than being an explicit reference to anti-government sentiment, or to the danger of coming upon marijuana growing or meth labs.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 10:32:10 PM
Let's roll those jump to conclusions mats back up for a moment.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/uncategorized/suicide-not-ruled-out-for-dead-census-worker-he-was-in-contact-with-the-ground/
Quote1) Kentucky state police have not ruled out the possibility that the death was a suicide or even that it was accidental, according to police spokesman Don Trosper.
2) His death has been ruled "asphyxia," Trosper said in an interview. "There was a rope around his neck. It was attached to a tree," Trosper continued, adding this intriguing detail: "He was in contact with the ground."
That raises the possibilty that the cause of death was not hanging. Asked if this were possible, Trosper said: "Nothing is being ruled out."
3) Trosper said the initial AP story on the death contains "flaws and errors." That means it's possible that the AP's claim, based on an anonymous source, that he had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest could be false. Asked if that were the case, Trosper declined to comment.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/dead_census_worker_was_warned_to_be_careful_in_rur.php
QuoteBill Sparkman was warned about the danger of going into rural parts of Kentucky to conduct Census interviews, a retired state trooper who knew him told TPMmuckraker.
Gilbert Acciardo, who ran an after-school program at a southeastern Kentucky high-school where Sparkman was a substitute teacher, said that when Sparkman -- a Florida native -- first started doing the Census work, "I said, you're going into rural Kentucky, isolated areas. Be careful over there -- people may not understand that you're there to gather statistics."
Sparkman was found dead recently in a remote part of the Daniel Boone National Forest.
Acciardo made clear that his warning was prompted by the area's isolated nature -- he said cell-phone reception is often lacking -- rather than being an explicit reference to anti-government sentiment, or to the danger of coming upon marijuana growing or meth labs.
Yay. That's where I go rock climbing all the time. Hopefully, this will keep the crowds away.
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
Don't fuck with Springfield you towel head biatches: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-springfield-courthouse.html?track=email-alert-breakingnews
'MERICAAAAA, FUCK YEAH!
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on September 25, 2009, 07:47:43 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
Don't fuck with Springfield you towel head biatches: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-springfield-courthouse.html?track=email-alert-breakingnews
'MERICAAAAA, FUCK YEAH!
Quote
"When he said his name was Talib, I thought, uh-oh, you only have to add an 'a' and an 'n' to that and you know what you get," she said.
Good thing we nipped the Natalib in the bud.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 08:42:50 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
you towel head biatches
And... Nativist Yeti is back, folks.
Did the hayseed not catch on to the fact that the guy who tried to set off the bomb was an 'merican? (He's the one on the left, Yeti)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/09/26/alg_suspects_in_bombing.jpg)
Quote from: R-V on September 25, 2009, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 08:42:50 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
you towel head biatches
And... Nativist Yeti is back, folks.
Did the hayseed not catch on to the fact that the guy who tried to set off the bomb was an 'merican? (He's the one on the left, Yeti)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/09/26/alg_suspects_in_bombing.jpg)
It'd be funnier if he was fatter.
Wow. Real financial conservatives still exist. Well, at least one does.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/fiscal-spending-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Everyone knows that fiscal discipline must be restored eventually, or we will face truly horrifying consequences--defaulting on the debt, nonpayment of Social Security benefits, a collapsing dollar, and double-digit inflation and interest rates. Everyone also knows that this will involve a combination of higher revenues and lower spending. The idea that we can restore fiscal health only with spending cuts is childish, as I tried to explain last week.
What we face is a game of chicken. Republicans think if they wait until the last possible second to support the smallest possible tax increase necessary to make a budget deal work, they can get the largest possible spending cuts. The problem is that there is not one iota of historical evidence that this strategy will work. The budget deals of the 1980s and 1990s were all roughly 50-50: half tax increases, half spending cuts.
At some point, taxes have to be back on the table as the price that must be paid for profligate spending. Only then will the American people realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too, as Republicans have preached for the last decade. Only when the American people go back to believing that spending must be paid for will they stop demanding something for nothing and put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity.
Labor agitation, in the streets of Chicago...literally:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-hotel-protest-0925sep25,0,6192819.story
The comments are great. I can't tell if some people are genuinely anti-union, or are jealous of union workers in the midst of a recession. Who knows?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 25, 2009, 03:29:49 PM
Labor agitation, in the streets of Chicago...literally:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-hotel-protest-0925sep25,0,6192819.story
The comments are great. I can't tell if some people are genuinely anti-union, or are jealous of union workers in the midst of a recession. Who knows?
In general?
Some people are just straight-up anti-union. (http://www.redstate.com/achance/2009/09/20/defending-against-an-alinsky-campaign/)
Quote from: R-V on September 25, 2009, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 24, 2009, 08:42:50 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on September 24, 2009, 08:09:38 PM
you towel head biatches
And... Nativist Yeti is back, folks.
Did the hayseed not catch on to the fact that the guy who tried to set off the bomb was an 'merican? (He's the one on the left, Yeti)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/09/26/alg_suspects_in_bombing.jpg)
Any TURRERIS is a towelhead to me, you pinko
Roll that mat back out...
(http://i34.tinypic.com/10wruwy.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/25/us/AP-US-Census-Worker-Hanged.html
QuoteBIG CREEK, Ky. (AP) -- A part-time census worker found hanging in a rural Kentucky cemetery was naked, gagged and had his hands and feet bound with duct tape, said an Ohio man who discovered the body two weeks ago.
The word ''fed'' was written in felt-tip pen on 51-year-old Bill Sparkman's chest, but authorities have released very few other details in the case, such as whether they think it was an accident, suicide or homicide.
Jerry Weaver of Fairfield, Ohio, told The Associated Press on Friday that he was certain from the gruesome scene that someone killed Sparkman.
''He was murdered,'' Weaver said. ''There's no doubt.''
...
''The only thing he had on was a pair of socks,'' Weaver said. ''And they had duct-taped his hands, his wrists. He had duct tape over his eyes, and they gagged him with a red rag or something.''
Two people briefed on the investigation said various details of Weaver's account matched the details of the crime scene, though both people said they were not informed who found the body. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.
''And they even had duct tape around his neck,'' Weaver said. ''And they had like his identification tag on his neck. They had it duct-taped to the side of his neck, on the right side, almost on his right shoulder.''
...
Both of the people briefed on the investigation confirmed Sparkman's Census Bureau ID was found taped to his head and shoulder area...
I think we all know what this points to...
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/was-census-worker-bill-sparkman-a-child-predator.html
QuoteWas Census Worker Bill Sparkman A Child Predator?
Update: Before any more people start going bonkers that I'm accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I've done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn't rule anything in or out without some firm answers...
I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I've seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don't. I'm simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.
Someone may as well say it given some peculiar details. The strangest quote I've seen in all the reporting around apparently murdered Census worker Bill Sparkman is this one from his Mother located in Florida.
Quote"I have my own ideas, but I can't say them out loud. Not at this point," she said. "Right now, what I'm doing, I'm just waiting on the FBI to come to some conclusion."
She didn't say she had been advised not to speculate. Being in Florida she has nothing to fear from Kentucky locals, so why the secrecy? Add that to the somewhat mysterious way this case is being revealed by authorities and whatever is behind it, I wouldn't be surprised if there's another surprise in store here.
The condition of the body and his being naked also seems curious. Why strip someone down to their socks only to kill them? Finally Sparkman's bio and work history suggests at the least he was not just your average guy. No teaching degree, no full-time means of employment and no wife or kids so far as I am aware. But he certainly did gravitate towards children. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't a revenge killing disguised to look like something else. If he did have issues in this regard and messed with the wrong kid, it isn't as if something like that can be ruled out until we know more.
QuoteSparkman's mother, Henrie Sparkman of Inverness, Fla., told The Associated Press her son was an Eagle scout who moved to the area to be a local director for the Boy Scouts of America. She said he later became a substitute teacher in Laurel County and supplemented that income as a Census worker.
...
Adding, from the comments...
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/was-census-worker-bill-sparkman-a-child-predator.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5a294c7970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5a294c7970b
Quote from: Joey MaloneyThere's an awful lot of information on the Internet suggesting that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl back in the 1990s. I'm not suggesting that Dan Riehl was involved in this horrible crime but I can't understand why he hasn't denied it. It certainly raises suspicions.
Who could have seen this coming (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/28/secret-service-probes-facebook-poll-asked-obama-assassination/)?
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
QuoteThere is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The
Bidness Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)"?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
QuoteThere is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The Bidness Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)"?
Oh, sure. Fuckers waited til I got out of the Army before they decided to do this.
I always miss out on all the fun. *kicks dirt*
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 29, 2009, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 05:36:43 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
QuoteThere is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The Bidness Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)"?
Oh, sure. Fuckers waited til I got out of the Army before they decided to do this.
I always miss out on all the fun. *kicks dirt*
Here's my question. Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 29, 2009, 07:08:00 PM
Here's my question. Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?
That's the same question I have.
I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.
Ever listen to Michael Savage?
That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.
Facepalm.
Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 29, 2009, 07:50:43 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 29, 2009, 07:08:00 PM
Here's my question. Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?
That's the same question I have.
I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.
Ever listen to Michael Savage?
That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.
Facepalm.
For me, it's definitely the half-negroid sandjew part I don't like.
Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy, or whatever.
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.
(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.
(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)
But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?
Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.
McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).
2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.
Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.
George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.
(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)
But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?
Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.
McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).
2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.
Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.
George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704471504574441340882304978.html)
As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM
But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704471504574441340882304978.html)
I'm not sure that the labels you site are the problem. It's possible the label "incumbent" is more the problem. Given the economy right now and what's going on with budget deficits due to tax receipts falling, people are going to vote for change more often than not.
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 29, 2009, 07:08:00 PM
Here's my question. Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?
Apparently this John L. Perry character is a former Democratic veteran of the Johnson and Carter administrations and, before that, press secretary to Democratic Florida governor LeRoy Collins.
He describes himself (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/stCop.htm) as an "unreconstructed Adlai Stevenson liberal" and laments "the 8-year-long Bill Clinton nightmare."
I'm getting a solid whiff of Solid South Democrat off of him.
As for the wider insanity, if I were to venture a guess, I'd say a little from column A, a little from column B.
The full-throated crazy seems to have gone much more widespread much faster than during the Clinton years.
In part, I'd suspect this has more than a little to do with Obama being so conspicuously "other." At the same time, you can't really discount the gaping GOP leadership vacuum that has managed to cede its agenda to the Glenn Becks of the insane right.
Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 29, 2009, 07:50:43 PM
That's the same question I have.
I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.
Ever listen to Michael Savage?
That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.
Facepalm.
I shudder to imagine the conversations I might have had with my dad were he still around to see Our Black President.
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 30, 2009, 08:55:17 AM
Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy, or whatever.
Hey... If you can think of any alternative, non-violent solution (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_4_2) to the problem of a President who threatens our national survival by trampling the Constitution beside a "civilized" military putsch, I'm all ears.
Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.
That's the spirit! That'll learn that Michael Savage asshole but good.
Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.
Are you trying to tell us you want to run for governor (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/26/MNQ419TB37.DTL)?
Also, I (shudder) agree with Chuck on the McDonnell/Christie leads, and I'd add that angry old white people (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/89/89qupdate.phtml) are angry (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx) and like to vote in mid-term elections. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/angry-white-seniors-and-2010.html)
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 30, 2009, 10:32:13 AM
Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.
That's the spirit! That'll learn that Michael Savage asshole but good.
I figure why vote when I can sit back and watch the Amorickah I love so passionately become unrecognizable over the next 4 years? Didn't you hear? They'll be marching down Ashland, stopping at each house to make sure we're praying to our Obama statues each and every night.
Quote from: R-V on September 30, 2009, 10:38:54 AM
Also, I (shudder) agree with Chuck on the McDonnell/Christie leads, and I'd add that angry old white people (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/89/89qupdate.phtml) are angry (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx) and like to vote in mid-term elections. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/angry-white-seniors-and-2010.html)
This.
Chuck is (shudder squared) right, Fork is wrong.
This is a "throw the bums out" election.
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 30, 2009, 08:55:17 AM
Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy OLIGARHY, or whatever.
Beck'd.
Seriously though, let's ignore the 2002 midterms for a moment and remember this historical fact: the party in control of Congress in midterm elections generally loses seats. It's a simple fact. Alot of Obama voters are not going to be coming out in 2010; they're waiting for 2012. Yes, there is a general anti-incumbent mood, but 2010 is going to simply be who can rile up the base the most. Unfortunately, it will be the GOP.
But they will not win the House or the Senate. The numbers, as Fork alluded to, do not work. Plus, if the Dems can deliver on healthcare and the economy begins to show signs of life, it'll be a real dogfight.
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.
(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)
But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?
Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.
McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).
2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.
Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.
George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704471504574441340882304978.html)
As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.
Corzine was screwed in NJ from the second Hank Paulson funnelled billions of tax dollars through Goldman Sachs.
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM
I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.
All in 8 months.
Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.
(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)
But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?
Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM
Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.
McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).
2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.
Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.
George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704471504574441340882304978.html)
As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.
I contend that the Assault Weapons Ban was the biggest
single driver of the results in 1994. The bill also wasn't passed until September but it had been debated for months before.
It seems unlikely that Obama would touch this hot button again before a midterm election.
Also, what Chuck said.
So whats Obama going to do about Iran? He has been playing nice wanting to talk to them knowing they had a secret nuclear facility on a military base inside a mountain.
We pissed off the Polish and Chezks over missle defense only to see Iran launch a missile with a 1200 mile range so we can get the Russians on board with sanctions. The Russians will never agree to sanctions on Iran and will continue to use that angle to get whatever they want out of Obama. They already got missile defense shut down just because they said they "might" be open to sanctions if the political process fails.
Obama gave a "firm" deadline at the G8 summit, for the Iranians to negotiate about their nuclear programs. That date was September 10th and the Iranians blew off Obama. Obama is giving a "firm" deadline of December now.
Gee what happens when Iran blows that off too? Do we send an angry E-mail saying we mean it this time?
Were going to talk, the Iranians are going to act like they want to talk, nothing is going to get done but a nuclear bomb being built. Russians aren't going to help and neither are the Chinese.
Quote from: MikeC on September 30, 2009, 04:05:56 PM
So whats Obama going to do about Iran?
You're a week late with your cut-and-paste diatribe. Get with the times. Let's hear your pro coup angle.
Diplomacy has never—not once—accomplished a thing other than to cede Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
Quote from: MikeC on September 30, 2009, 04:05:56 PM
So whats Obama going to do about Iran? He has been playing nice wanting to talk to them knowing they had a secret nuclear facility on a military base inside a mountain.
We pissed off the Polish and Chezks over missle defense only to see Iran launch a missile with a 1200 mile range so we can get the Russians on board with sanctions. The Russians will never agree to sanctions on Iran and will continue to use that angle to get whatever they want out of Obama. They already got missile defense shut down just because they said they "might" be open to sanctions if the political process fails.
Obama gave a "firm" deadline at the G8 summit, for the Iranians to negotiate about their nuclear programs. That date was September 10th and the Iranians blew off Obama. Obama is giving a "firm" deadline of December now.
Gee what happens when Iran blows that off too? Do we send an angry E-mail saying we mean it this time?
Were going to talk, the Iranians are going to act like they want to talk, nothing is going to get done but a nuclear bomb being built. Russians aren't going to help and neither are the Chinese.
Shut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
DPD
I'm pretty sure this (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/30/ellen-ratner-empire-state-building-business-decision/) has absolutely nothing to do with my pal Rupert's sizable financial interests in China.
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2009, 08:44:28 AM
DPD
I'm pretty sure this (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/30/ellen-ratner-empire-state-building-business-decision/) has absolutely nothing to do with my pal Rupert's sizable dinancial interests in China.
I dinancialed on some Chinese the other day. That sweet and sour chicken is delicious.
Quote from: Marjory Keek on October 01, 2009, 09:33:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2009, 08:44:28 AM
DPD
I'm pretty sure this (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/30/ellen-ratner-empire-state-building-business-decision/) has absolutely nothing to do with my pal Rupert's sizable dinancial interests in China.
I dinancialed on some Chinese the other day. That sweet and sour chicken is delicious.
What do you want from me? I'm not a college grad.
Quote from: Marjory Keek on October 01, 2009, 09:33:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2009, 08:44:28 AM
DPD
I'm pretty sure this (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/30/ellen-ratner-empire-state-building-business-decision/) has absolutely nothing to do with my pal Rupert's sizable dinancial interests in China.
I dinancialed on some Chinese the other day. That sweet and sour chicken is delicious.
Left over from the Ming Dinanci?
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
I think you've become officially unhinged. Say hi to the men in the white coats, you batshit retard.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
This should end well
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
They're always so damn cute when they first get their keyboard muscles.
Careful. You guys are walking right into it.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time.
I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say here.
We walk into exposing the hypocrisy of our standards each and every time he uses our tactics of positing?
Anyone have any clue?
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
Don't do it, Fork. You'd be much better served by flying in to OMA, renting a car, and driving the 90 miles north. If you choose a direct flight in to SUX, anticipate paying a hefty premium for the convenience.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
Don't do it, Fork. You'd be much better served by flying in to OMA, renting a car, and driving the 90 miles north. If you choose a direct flight in to SUX, anticipate paying a hefty premium for the convenience.
Everyone knows that flight hasn't been invented in Iowa yet.
Quote from: World B Free on October 02, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
Don't do it, Fork. You'd be much better served by flying in to OMA, renting a car, and driving the 90 miles north. If you choose a direct flight in to SUX, anticipate paying a hefty premium for the convenience.
Everyone knows that flight hasn't been invented in Iowa yet.
Maybe, but they've got the crashing part down pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_232
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Music_Died
And the burn.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303823,00.html
QuoteSIOUX CITY, Iowa — City leaders have scrapped plans to do away with the Sioux Gateway Airport's unflattering three-letter identifier — SUX — and instead have made it the centerpiece of the airport's new marketing campaign.
The code, used by pilots and airports worldwide and printed on tickets and luggage tags, will be used on T-shirts and caps sporting the airport's new slogan, "FLY SUX." It also forms the address of the airport's redesigned Web site — www.flysux.com.
Sioux City officials petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to change the code in 1988 and 2002. At one point, the FAA offered the city five alternatives — GWU, GYO, GYT, SGV and GAY — but airport trustees turned them down.
Obama cost us the Olympics.
Great.
You got to love it when an arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up, Seriously" and ends with "So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought."
Such a convincing arguement. Are you still going to make me shut up Fork? Please explain to Desipio how your going to accomplish this. I am going to go with the, your a fucking pussy who wont do a damn thing. I am sure you will come back with, "Your a waste of my time." Which is just pussy talk for "I can't do anything."
What did that post hope to accomplish? That i would be scared and run away? That i would finally see the light and be a Democrat Obama worshipper and live in fairy tale land? Ahhh yes because any good arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up." I just want you to make me since this is clearly what you want since you typed it first.
You wanted a message board fight and I am playing along. Its fun to get phoney outrage and ignore the issue at hand. If ACORN was the political arm of Republicans there would be 50 pages of comments but since its Democrat none of you want to talk about it. I bring up one of the first foriegn policy issues of Obama and still you don't want to comment on it. If you have nothing to say about the issue then don't say anything. Reagan has nothing to do with Iran now, and neither does Pakistan. Obama wants to talk to Iran and get them to stop, which is a pipe dream. The only course of action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons is airstrikes and that might not even accomplish the objective. All you have to do to understand the Irans is listen to their own negotiator Hassan Rowhani....
QuoteThe man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations
.
This was in 2006. We had been aware of a secret new facility located inside a mountain on a military base that Iran reluctantly admitted it had during the G20. Our intelligence services believe there may be other secret facilities. I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will. And we have discussed on this site whether Iran would actually nuke Israel or any other nation before. My belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel. So we should do everything in our power to stop them before we get to that point. Tough decisions are ahead for Obama, he can't just vote present and do nothing. Well he can, he is dithering on Afghanistan where his generals are asking for 40,000 more troops ASAP.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
You got to love it when an arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up, Seriously" and ends with "So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought."
Such a convincing arguement. Are you still going to make me shut up Fork? Please explain to Desipio how your going to accomplish this. I am going to go with the, your a fucking pussy who wont do a damn thing. I am sure you will come back with, "Your a waste of my time." Which is just pussy talk for "I can't do anything."
What did that post hope to accomplish? That i would be scared and run away? That i would finally see the light and be a Democrat Obama worshipper and live in fairy tale land? Ahhh yes because any good arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up." I just want you to make me since this is clearly what you want since you typed it first.
You wanted a message board fight and I am playing along. Its fun to get phoney outrage and ignore the issue at hand. If ACORN was the political arm of Republicans there would be 50 pages of comments but since its Democrat none of you want to talk about it. I bring up one of the first foriegn policy issues of Obama and still you don't want to comment on it. If you have nothing to say about the issue then don't say anything. Reagan has nothing to do with Iran now, and neither does Pakistan. Obama wants to talk to Iran and get them to stop, which is a pipe dream. The only course of action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons is airstrikes and that might not even accomplish the objective. All you have to do to understand the Irans is listen to their own negotiator Hassan Rowhani....
QuoteThe man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations
.
This was in 2006. We had been aware of a secret new facility located inside a mountain on a military base that Iran reluctantly admitted it had during the G20. Our intelligence services believe there may be other secret facilities. I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will. And we have discussed on this site whether Iran would actually nuke Israel or any other nation before. My belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel. So we should do everything in our power to stop them before we get to that point. Tough decisions are ahead for Obama, he can't just vote present and do nothing. Well he can, he is dithering on Afghanistan where his generals are asking for 40,000 more troops ASAP.
I love how you can't have a political debate without rubbing those right-wing G-spots of ACORN and SEIU.
Get off those fucking hobbyhorses and maybe we can talk.
Until then, go fellate Irving Kristol's rotting neoconservative corpse, you fascist douche.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 10:49:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
You got to love it when an arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up, Seriously" and ends with "So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought."
Such a convincing arguement. Are you still going to make me shut up Fork? Please explain to Desipio how your going to accomplish this. I am going to go with the, your a fucking pussy who wont do a damn thing. I am sure you will come back with, "Your a waste of my time." Which is just pussy talk for "I can't do anything."
What did that post hope to accomplish? That i would be scared and run away? That i would finally see the light and be a Democrat Obama worshipper and live in fairy tale land? Ahhh yes because any good arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up." I just want you to make me since this is clearly what you want since you typed it first.
You wanted a message board fight and I am playing along. Its fun to get phoney outrage and ignore the issue at hand. If ACORN was the political arm of Republicans there would be 50 pages of comments but since its Democrat none of you want to talk about it. I bring up one of the first foriegn policy issues of Obama and still you don't want to comment on it. If you have nothing to say about the issue then don't say anything. Reagan has nothing to do with Iran now, and neither does Pakistan. Obama wants to talk to Iran and get them to stop, which is a pipe dream. The only course of action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons is airstrikes and that might not even accomplish the objective. All you have to do to understand the Irans is listen to their own negotiator Hassan Rowhani....
QuoteThe man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations
.
This was in 2006. We had been aware of a secret new facility located inside a mountain on a military base that Iran reluctantly admitted it had during the G20. Our intelligence services believe there may be other secret facilities. I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will. And we have discussed on this site whether Iran would actually nuke Israel or any other nation before. My belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel. So we should do everything in our power to stop them before we get to that point. Tough decisions are ahead for Obama, he can't just vote present and do nothing. Well he can, he is dithering on Afghanistan where his generals are asking for 40,000 more troops ASAP.
I love how you can't have a political debate without rubbing those right-wing G-spots of ACORN and SEIU.
Get off those fucking hobbyhorses and maybe we can talk.
Until then, go fellate Irving Kristol's rotting neoconservative corpse, you fascist douche.
I liked it better before you changed it from "cunt".
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will.
I bet you'd have the
balls to pull that trigger. You're a man.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
This may surprise you, but your personal "belief" about the strategic intentions of a nation of 75 million with an incredibly complex polity over 6,000 miles away is worth pretty much jack shit.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
My belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel. So we should do everything in our power to stop them before we get to that point.
It's funny because Israel almost certainly has undeclared nuclear weapons as well.
Quote from: MAD on October 02, 2009, 10:57:27 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 10:49:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
You got to love it when an arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up, Seriously" and ends with "So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought."
Such a convincing arguement. Are you still going to make me shut up Fork? Please explain to Desipio how your going to accomplish this. I am going to go with the, your a fucking pussy who wont do a damn thing. I am sure you will come back with, "Your a waste of my time." Which is just pussy talk for "I can't do anything."
What did that post hope to accomplish? That i would be scared and run away? That i would finally see the light and be a Democrat Obama worshipper and live in fairy tale land? Ahhh yes because any good arguement starts with "Shut the fuck up." I just want you to make me since this is clearly what you want since you typed it first.
You wanted a message board fight and I am playing along. Its fun to get phoney outrage and ignore the issue at hand. If ACORN was the political arm of Republicans there would be 50 pages of comments but since its Democrat none of you want to talk about it. I bring up one of the first foriegn policy issues of Obama and still you don't want to comment on it. If you have nothing to say about the issue then don't say anything. Reagan has nothing to do with Iran now, and neither does Pakistan. Obama wants to talk to Iran and get them to stop, which is a pipe dream. The only course of action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons is airstrikes and that might not even accomplish the objective. All you have to do to understand the Irans is listen to their own negotiator Hassan Rowhani....
QuoteThe man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations
.
This was in 2006. We had been aware of a secret new facility located inside a mountain on a military base that Iran reluctantly admitted it had during the G20. Our intelligence services believe there may be other secret facilities. I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will. And we have discussed on this site whether Iran would actually nuke Israel or any other nation before. My belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel. So we should do everything in our power to stop them before we get to that point. Tough decisions are ahead for Obama, he can't just vote present and do nothing. Well he can, he is dithering on Afghanistan where his generals are asking for 40,000 more troops ASAP.
I love how you can't have a political debate without rubbing those right-wing G-spots of ACORN and SEIU.
Get off those fucking hobbyhorses and maybe we can talk.
Until then, go fellate Irving Kristol's rotting neoconservative corpse, you fascist douche.
I liked it better before you changed it from "cunt".
I didn't want it to be
too harsh. But again, he brings it on himself.
well Gil ACORN is a pretty big deal. Skirting tax law, embezzling money, voter fraud, child prostitution are not big deals?
This is the part where I will just paint with a huge brush even though it may not encompass all liberals but makes liberals look bad.
Look at the child prostitution angle and how ACORN employees raised almost zero concern about that. How does one get that mind set? The Roman Polanski stuff going on now, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and liberal press and Hollywood people rush to his defense. Kevin Jennings the White House "safe schools Czar" violated Massachusetts state law when a 15 year old student admitted to sexual acts with an adult at a bus station and didnt report it to anyone.
One would come to believe liberals dont give a flying fuck about children. There pet ACORN has no problems about Child Prostitution. The liberal elite don't care about a a child being raped, and Obamas safe school guy doesnt think anything was wrong back then when a child was essentially raped by an adult. Does the moral compass ever flick on for these people?
I am sure you are disgusted with the behavior of these people and I am sure none of you condone anything these people have done. Thats why ACORN needs to be investigated even if nothing else was wrong, on that one issue alone. Polanksi needs to serve his prison time and not run away, and Kevin Jennings is probably another Czar about to resign.
But you throw children and everything else ACORN has been involved in together and they needed to be shutdown. The investigation by sites like Big Hollywood and Big Government are turning up evidence every day of the way ACORN was run. Who ran it, who has ties to it in the Obama administraion, where the money is going, and who is getting the money. They got investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party which is nothing more than a front for ACORN to help Democrats.
Then you got the whole angle of how ACORN was involved in the Housing bust with high risk loans to people who couldn't pay for it. There are many articles detailing how ACORN would basically blackmail banks into issueing these high risk loans or risk being involved in a criminal suit of racism against them. Most times banks would just pay ACORN hush money so they didn't have them accusing them of being racist lenders.
ACORN has their fingers in a whole lot of shit, and its all being slowly unraveled. Its really fascinating to watch it come apart. Its like watching a mob family being taking apart one piece at a time. It may not be a big deal to Democrats, because its probably fucking embarrassing a liberal organization like this go tits up, but its a big deal to people who value election law, tax law, protecting children, hell just following laws in general. ACORN aint above that, and no crimes justify the means in this case.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 11:24:33 AM
well Gil ACORN is a pretty big deal. Skirting tax law, embezzling money, voter fraud, child prostitution are not big deals?
This is the part where I will just paint with a huge brush even though it may not encompass all liberals but makes liberals look bad.
Look at the child prostitution angle and how ACORN employees raised almost zero concern about that. How does one get that mind set? The Roman Polanski stuff going on now, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and liberal press and Hollywood people rush to his defense. Kevin Jennings the White House "safe schools Czar" violated Massachusetts state law when a 15 year old student admitted to sexual acts with an adult at a bus station and didnt report it to anyone.
One would come to believe liberals dont give a flying fuck about children. There pet ACORN has no problems about Child Prostitution. The liberal elite don't care about a a child being raped, and Obamas safe school guy doesnt think anything was wrong back then when a child was essentially raped by an adult. Does the moral compass ever flick on for these people?
I am sure you are disgusted with the behavior of these people and I am sure none of you condone anything these people have done. Thats why ACORN needs to be investigated even if nothing else was wrong, on that one issue alone. Polanksi needs to serve his prison time and not run away, and Kevin Jennings is probably another Czar about to resign.
But you throw children and everything else ACORN has been involved in together and they needed to be shutdown. The investigation by sites like Big Hollywood and Big Government are turning up evidence every day of the way ACORN was run. Who ran it, who has ties to it in the Obama administraion, where the money is going, and who is getting the money. They got investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party which is nothing more than a front for ACORN to help Democrats.
Then you got the whole angle of how ACORN was involved in the Housing bust with high risk loans to people who couldn't pay for it. There are many articles detailing how ACORN would basically blackmail banks into issueing these high risk loans or risk being involved in a criminal suit of racism against them. Most times banks would just pay ACORN hush money so they didn't have them accusing them of being racist lenders.
ACORN has their fingers in a whole lot of shit, and its all being slowly unraveled. Its really fascinating to watch it come apart. Its like watching a mob family being taking apart one piece at a time. It may not be a big deal to Democrats, because its probably fucking embarrassing a liberal organization like this go tits up, but its a big deal to people who value election law, tax law, protecting children, hell just following laws in general. ACORN aint above that, and no crimes justify the means in this case.
I'm with MikeC on this one, voter fraud and child prostitution are the my two top hotbuttons in the world today.
Quote from: BH on October 02, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
I'm with MikeC on this one, voter fraud and child prostitution are the my two top hotbuttons in the world today.
Mike's been right on so much. How's Kerry Wood been doing in Arizona?
WHY WON'T OBAMA STOP RAPING ALL OUR CHILDREN?
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 11:24:33 AM
well Gil ACORN is a pretty big deal. Skirting tax law, embezzling money, voter fraud, child prostitution are not big deals?
This is the part where I will just paint with a huge brush even though it may not encompass all liberals but makes liberals look bad.
Look at the child prostitution angle and how ACORN employees raised almost zero concern about that. How does one get that mind set? The Roman Polanski stuff going on now, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and liberal press and Hollywood people rush to his defense. Kevin Jennings the White House "safe schools Czar" violated Massachusetts state law when a 15 year old student admitted to sexual acts with an adult at a bus station and didnt report it to anyone.
One would come to believe liberals dont give a flying fuck about children. There pet ACORN has no problems about Child Prostitution. The liberal elite don't care about a a child being raped, and Obamas safe school guy doesnt think anything was wrong back then when a child was essentially raped by an adult. Does the moral compass ever flick on for these people?
I am sure you are disgusted with the behavior of these people and I am sure none of you condone anything these people have done. Thats why ACORN needs to be investigated even if nothing else was wrong, on that one issue alone. Polanksi needs to serve his prison time and not run away, and Kevin Jennings is probably another Czar about to resign.
But you throw children and everything else ACORN has been involved in together and they needed to be shutdown. The investigation by sites like Big Hollywood and Big Government are turning up evidence every day of the way ACORN was run. Who ran it, who has ties to it in the Obama administraion, where the money is going, and who is getting the money. They got investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party which is nothing more than a front for ACORN to help Democrats.
Then you got the whole angle of how ACORN was involved in the Housing bust with high risk loans to people who couldn't pay for it. There are many articles detailing how ACORN would basically blackmail banks into issueing these high risk loans or risk being involved in a criminal suit of racism against them. Most times banks would just pay ACORN hush money so they didn't have them accusing them of being racist lenders.
ACORN has their fingers in a whole lot of shit, and its all being slowly unraveled. Its really fascinating to watch it come apart. Its like watching a mob family being taking apart one piece at a time. It may not be a big deal to Democrats, because its probably fucking embarrassing a liberal organization like this go tits up, but its a big deal to people who value election law, tax law, protecting children, hell just following laws in general. ACORN aint above that, and no crimes justify the means in this case.
Ok, let's clarify the facts here: a conservative website entrapped these people on camera. The "offending" ACORN employees then reported it to the police once the incident was over. That's one hell of a selection bias there. A conservative website that had already been adament in its opposition to ACORN then goes looking for the very things it believes exists and, eureka, finds it. I'm amazed.
Beyond that, BH is right: how is this a national priority right now? You are simply touting this issue as a way to defeat the President, because you know damn well that if he succeeds on health care, succeeds on Afghanistan, and succeeds on the economy, you'll be sitting in political oblivion for the next ten years. Demographics do not support the GOP and what's worse is that you know it. So you cling to these manufactured issues in an effort to momentarily stop the political exodus from your party.
Sure, it might win you a midterm here or there, but non-white folks and the kids aren't going to be signing up for the GOP Jesus camps in droves unless the party moderates itself.
Look at examples of conservative success in Europe. The Conservatives in the UK are resurging largely because they have rebranded themselves as moderate pragmatists, concerned more about the day-to-day needs of people rather than ideological battles. Ditto Sarkozy's party in France and the Social Conservatives in Germany.
Otherwise, I look forward to your party becoming a fossil. Maybe we can use it as an example when we teach our godless, socialist, Nazi, Marxist, Kenyan, TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT children what evolution is.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
QuoteShut the fuck up. Seriously.
I'm pretty sure the Reagan administration's actions with Iran pretty much means you have no ground here, and never will.
Iran isn't nearly the nuclear threat that Pakistan is, and our being asleep at the wheel on that for the past 8 years is the reason.
So go back into that little hole you slithered out of, until you get an original thought.
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Isn't this the part where we play internet tough guy and who has the biggest dick? Whats a matter you can take 8 years of back slapping on Bush but little old me mentions stuff and you suddenly get pissed off? Awwww awwww lets cry for the fucking baby of Desipio.
Did i mention i love using your guys tactics of positing to expose your hypocritical standards. Its fucking brilliant how you guys walk into it each and every time. Much like walking into an ACORN office and finding criminal activity.
Whenever i need a good laugh from a bunch of hypocrites i come here and post. The faux outrage is really touching.
Don't do it, Fork. You'd be much better served by flying in to OMA, renting a car, and driving the 90 miles north. If you choose a direct flight in to SUX, anticipate paying a hefty premium for the convenience.
Gee, that's too bad, I could probably use a good ass-kicking. Even if it is from Paul Blart.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 11:30:31 AM
WHY WON'T OBAMA STOP RAPING ALL OUR CHILDREN?
Oh shit...is Obama secretly FBI Agent Chris Saviano?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 11:30:31 AM
WHY WON'T OBAMA STOP RAPING ALL OUR CHILDREN?
Have you seen the way our children dress? They're BEGGING for it.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on October 02, 2009, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 11:30:31 AM
WHY WON'T OBAMA STOP RAPING ALL OUR CHILDREN?
Have you seen the way our children dress? They're BEGGING for it.
I'm a little wary of the way you talk about your children.
Quote from: *In a Nutsack on October 02, 2009, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on October 02, 2009, 01:31:17 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 11:30:31 AM
WHY WON'T OBAMA STOP RAPING ALL OUR CHILDREN?
Have you seen the way our children dress? They're BEGGING for it.
I'm a little wary of the way you talk about your children.
Now that IAN's gonna be a father (pending DNA tests, natch), he's starting to wonder if this internet is really such a great place after all.
Quote from: BH on October 02, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 11:24:33 AM
well Gil ACORN is a pretty big deal. Skirting tax law, embezzling money, voter fraud, child prostitution are not big deals?
This is the part where I will just paint with a huge brush even though it may not encompass all liberals but makes liberals look bad.
Look at the child prostitution angle and how ACORN employees raised almost zero concern about that. How does one get that mind set? The Roman Polanski stuff going on now, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and liberal press and Hollywood people rush to his defense. Kevin Jennings the White House "safe schools Czar" violated Massachusetts state law when a 15 year old student admitted to sexual acts with an adult at a bus station and didnt report it to anyone.
One would come to believe liberals dont give a flying fuck about children. There pet ACORN has no problems about Child Prostitution. The liberal elite don't care about a a child being raped, and Obamas safe school guy doesnt think anything was wrong back then when a child was essentially raped by an adult. Does the moral compass ever flick on for these people?
I am sure you are disgusted with the behavior of these people and I am sure none of you condone anything these people have done. Thats why ACORN needs to be investigated even if nothing else was wrong, on that one issue alone. Polanksi needs to serve his prison time and not run away, and Kevin Jennings is probably another Czar about to resign.
But you throw children and everything else ACORN has been involved in together and they needed to be shutdown. The investigation by sites like Big Hollywood and Big Government are turning up evidence every day of the way ACORN was run. Who ran it, who has ties to it in the Obama administraion, where the money is going, and who is getting the money. They got investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party which is nothing more than a front for ACORN to help Democrats.
Then you got the whole angle of how ACORN was involved in the Housing bust with high risk loans to people who couldn't pay for it. There are many articles detailing how ACORN would basically blackmail banks into issueing these high risk loans or risk being involved in a criminal suit of racism against them. Most times banks would just pay ACORN hush money so they didn't have them accusing them of being racist lenders.
ACORN has their fingers in a whole lot of shit, and its all being slowly unraveled. Its really fascinating to watch it come apart. Its like watching a mob family being taking apart one piece at a time. It may not be a big deal to Democrats, because its probably fucking embarrassing a liberal organization like this go tits up, but its a big deal to people who value election law, tax law, protecting children, hell just following laws in general. ACORN aint above that, and no crimes justify the means in this case.
I'm with MikeC on this one, voter fraud and child prostitution are the my two top hotbuttons in the world today.
Don't forget this Robot Polanksi guy. Fuck him, too.
Mike C has a point. As a child hating liberal I never hesitated to point out the George W. Bush was a stupid, scum-sucking, bottom-feeder, as was anyone who voted for him. Bush's only ambition was to emulate that smarmy Alzheimers' poster boy, Ronnie Raygun, whose only claim to fame was to be able to read a movie and/or political script that someone else wrote.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Why don't you just go George W. Bush yourself?
Quote from: CBStew on October 02, 2009, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Why don't you just go George W. Bush yourself?
For the record, this
has to be worse than calling someone a cunt, right?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 02, 2009, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Why don't you just go George W. Bush yourself?
For the record, this has to worse than calling someone a cunt, right?
The
whole worse?
Quote from: Mickey Nine: The Dream Weaver on October 02, 2009, 05:36:29 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 02, 2009, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Why don't you just go George W. Bush yourself?
For the record, this has to worse than calling someone a cunt, right?
The whole worse?
Jerk.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: Mickey Nine: The Dream Weaver on October 02, 2009, 05:36:29 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 02, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 02, 2009, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 09:57:30 AM
Awww you gonna make me? Why don't you get your lazy liberal ass on an airplane to Iowa and make me shut up just like Obama taught you. Bring some ACORN people and SEIU people along also.
Why don't you just go George W. Bush yourself?
For the record, this has to worse than calling someone a cunt, right?
The whole worse?
Jerk.
Sorry.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 10:58:09 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will.
I bet you'd have the balls to pull that trigger. You're a man.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
This may surprise you, but your personal "belief" about the strategic intentions of a nation of 75 million with an incredibly complex polity over 6,000 miles away is worth pretty much jack shit.
To the latter point, from someone whose opinions on Iran I
do give some weight...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/
QuoteBelief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?
Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 05, 2009, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 10:58:09 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will.
I bet you'd have the balls to pull that trigger. You're a man.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
This may surprise you, but your personal "belief" about the strategic intentions of a nation of 75 million with an incredibly complex polity over 6,000 miles away is worth pretty much jack shit.
To the latter point, from someone whose opinions on Iran I do give some weight...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/
QuoteBelief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?
Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
I hate to defend Mike C but if Ahmedenajhad (sp?) has been quoted correctly, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. True he hasn't said that Iran would do it, and maybe he is just encouraging Venzuela to do it.
Quote from: CBStew on October 05, 2009, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 05, 2009, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 02, 2009, 10:58:09 AM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
I think Iran has had enough chances to come clean, will Obama have the balls to pull the trigger on them? I don't think he will.
I bet you'd have the balls to pull that trigger. You're a man.
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
This may surprise you, but your personal "belief" about the strategic intentions of a nation of 75 million with an incredibly complex polity over 6,000 miles away is worth pretty much jack shit.
To the latter point, from someone whose opinions on Iran I do give some weight...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/
QuoteBelief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the U.S.
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?
Reality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
I hate to defend Mike C but if Ahmedenajhad (sp?) has been quoted correctly, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. True he hasn't said that Iran would do it, and maybe he is just encouraging Venzuela to do it.
I don't think anyone's disputing Ahmedinejad's crazy, but (a) he's not Iran's Commander in Chief which makes it exceedingly difficult for him to "wipe Israel off the map" and (b) Israel's a big boy and perfectly capable of defending itself.
Quote from: CBStew on October 05, 2009, 09:03:03 PM
I hate to defend Mike C but if Ahmedenajhad (sp?) has been quoted correctly, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. True he hasn't said that Iran would do it, and maybe he is just encouraging Venzuela to do it.
That quote is addressed directly in my quote above:
QuoteBelief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map?"
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
This very phrase led to a war of words between Cole and Christopher Hitchens.
From Cole's salvo...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
QuoteThe precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
...
The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
...
I don't have any intention of making a point by point reply to Hitchens's completely inaccurate screed. He blames me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini, when in fact I never instanced any speeches of Khomeini at all in this discussion except the snippet cited by Ahmadinejad-- I was arguing that there is no Persian idiom to wipe something off the map, and that Ahmadinejad has been misquoted.
Hitchens imagines a whole discourse of mine (which mostly never took place) that he now sets out to refute-- from English translations! But I was saying that the wire service translations were the problem in the first place. Hitchens seems to think that he can over-rule my reading of a Persian text by reference to some hurried journalist's untechnical rendering into English.
...
As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter what speeches he gives.
Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn't come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked).
Adding: Hitch's instigating piece here (http://www.slate.com/id/2140947).
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
Israel can defend itself from Iran. They are in minimal danger from Tehran. Were Tel Aviv attacked, Tehran would do an imitation of the core of the sun about 7 minutes later.
Other Arab capitals would be next if there was any reprisal.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 05, 2009, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 02, 2009, 10:45:41 AMMy belief is Iran would do everything in its power to destroy Israel.
Israel can defend itself from Iran. They are in minimal danger from Tehran. Were Tel Aviv attacked, Tehran would do an imitation of the core of the sun about 7 minutes later.
Other Arab capitals would be next if there was any reprisal.
This is why it's so crucial to portray Ahmadinejad as a certifiably insane man—a Charlie Kelly-esque Wild Card who's so unstable that he's all but immune to the threat of
mutual assured destruction—as opposed to a politician who merely believes insane things but still retains (as do most politicians) a primary interest in self-preservation.
Rattling sabers at the Great and Little Satans is good for the business of being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Actually inviting Israel or the US to rain down fire upon you (even if the ability to do so
were a part of his job description)... not so much.
Plus, as anyone with eyes can plainly see, there's only one real Charlie Kelly in the thuggish world leader game...
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7669/kimjongill.jpg)
WILD CARD!
So ronery...
QuoteOk, let's clarify the facts here: a conservative website entrapped these people on camera. The "offending" ACORN employees then reported it to the police once the incident was over. That's one hell of a selection bias there. A conservative website that had already been adament in its opposition to ACORN then goes looking for the very things it believes exists and, eureka, finds it. I'm amazed.
Entrapped these people? Oh come on now, they walked into ACORN HUD offices looking to get low income housing and said they were engaged in prostitution and child prostitution. After that ACORN then began to give advice on how to cover up their illegal activities and skirt tax law.
Secondly by your comments you havent watched a single video. These videos were not made by a conservative website, they were made by 2 college kids who then brought the videos to the attention of Andrew Breitbart who pushed the release date of his website Big Government to launch with these videos. Out of San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Washington DC and Baltimore the only office was San Diego to call the police. You simply state, The
Quote"offending" ACORN employees then reported it to the police once the incident was over.
Thats not what happened and is biased on your part, or you simply arent up to date with all the other incidents.
The second matter is ACORN being involved in the election of Democrats and Obama while using tax payer money. The problem is ACORN has over 300 different affiliations some that claim non-partisian status and some that can freely support politicians. Now seperating who gets money from where is where the current investigations with ACORN are leading to.
ACORNS own legal team expressed these concerns....
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/exclusive-acorn-legal-memo-confirms-depths-of-troubles/
A member of ACORNS board of directors was fired because she demanded that ACORN open up its books because she believed their was more going on with Wade Rathke's (founder of ACORN) brothers embezzlement of 1 million dollars. She was demanding the firing of Dale Rathke but Wade thought otherwise and kept his brother on the payroll and moved him to another department.
Now there is another investigation about not reporting the embezzlement. Wade Rathke said the matter was handled internally, and a donor payed back the million dollars that Dale stole. No harm no foul according to him. But it seems a whole lot more than a million was stolen.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/breaking-acorn-embezzlement-was-5-million/
Not a bad scam, steal 5 million, pay back only 1 million and the guy who stole the money doesnt pay back a dime and keeps his job. But the real reason why Dale still has a job and this was never reported to the proper authorities and a board of director was fired was to keep ACORNS finances from being looked over.
Look no further than the investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party that is nothing more than a front for ACORN who support nothing but Democratic candidates.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/acorn-advances-in-new-york-tied-to-absentee-ballot-fraud/#more-12406
Sex, money, cover-ups, political corruption.....i know not a big deal if your a Democrat, its just business as usual.
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 01:49:03 PM
QuoteOk, let's clarify the facts here: a conservative website entrapped these people on camera. The "offending" ACORN employees then reported it to the police once the incident was over. That's one hell of a selection bias there. A conservative website that had already been adament in its opposition to ACORN then goes looking for the very things it believes exists and, eureka, finds it. I'm amazed.
Entrapped these people? Oh come on now, they walked into ACORN HUD offices looking to get low income housing and said they were engaged in prostitution and child prostitution. After that ACORN then began to give advice on how to cover up their illegal activities and skirt tax law.
Secondly by your comments you havent watched a single video. These videos were not made by a conservative website, they were made by 2 college kids who then brought the videos to the attention of Andrew Breitbart who pushed the release date of his website Big Government to launch with these videos. Out of San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Washington DC and Baltimore the only office was San Diego to call the police. You simply state, The Quote"offending" ACORN employees then reported it to the police once the incident was over.
Thats not what happened and is biased on your part, or you simply arent up to date with all the other incidents.
The second matter is ACORN being involved in the election of Democrats and Obama while using tax payer money. The problem is ACORN has over 300 different affiliations some that claim non-partisian status and some that can freely support politicians. Now seperating who gets money from where is where the current investigations with ACORN are leading to.
ACORNS own legal team expressed these concerns....
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/exclusive-acorn-legal-memo-confirms-depths-of-troubles/
A member of ACORNS board of directors was fired because she demanded that ACORN open up its books because she believed their was more going on with Wade Rathke's (founder of ACORN) brothers embezzlement of 1 million dollars. She was demanding the firing of Dale Rathke but Wade thought otherwise and kept his brother on the payroll and moved him to another department.
Now there is another investigation about not reporting the embezzlement. Wade Rathke said the matter was handled internally, and a donor payed back the million dollars that Dale stole. No harm no foul according to him. But it seems a whole lot more than a million was stolen.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/breaking-acorn-embezzlement-was-5-million/
Not a bad scam, steal 5 million, pay back only 1 million and the guy who stole the money doesnt pay back a dime and keeps his job. But the real reason why Dale still has a job and this was never reported to the proper authorities and a board of director was fired was to keep ACORNS finances from being looked over.
Look no further than the investigations going on in New York with the Worker Families Party that is nothing more than a front for ACORN who support nothing but Democratic candidates.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/acorn-advances-in-new-york-tied-to-absentee-ballot-fraud/#more-12406
Sex, money, cover-ups, political corruption.....i know not a big deal if your a Democrat, its just business as usual.
What do you think about all of the work ACORN has done over the years to help those in need?
On the foriegn relations front what the hell is Obama doing by helping to limit the freedom of expression at the UN?
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/043ytrhc.asp
QuoteEven the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."
I guess this goes along with this....
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNmY2VlMDliMDFhZTk4ZjJmMTdhNmE4ZjkzMWIzMzg
QuoteThe Clinton State Department has decided to cut off all funding for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), which was compiling lists of protestors imprisoned in this summer's unrest, as well as those who were killed in the crackdown.
IHRDC is what human-rights advocates should be: methodical, precise, and apolitical in their work. And yet, the Obama administration has, without explanation, cut off all federal funding to the group which has consistently fulfilled its mandate.
Making the world a safer place for the evil of the world.
QuoteWhat do you think about all of the work ACORN has done over the years to help those in need?
Well name their good work.
Would threatening banks with lawsuits for not providing high risk loans to people who can't afford them be good work? ACORN HUD was a major player in the financial collapse. Sure some peolpe got homes they wouldn't normally get, but at what price? And then ACORN after the collapse attacking lending institutions for their predatory lending practices??!?! ACORN preyed on the poor by promising to put them in a house that alot of people can't afford so long as you join ACORN, pay dues, and help us elect Democrats like Obama. Then on top of that the bailout money went to help these people who should have never had these loans in the first place pay for their new home.
Its nothing more than bribery for a vote. Hell i would vote for any party that got me a sweet house i wouldn't normally be able to get and then when i can't pay for it, help me out even more. Do the people who saved, were responsible and didnt buy outside their means get any help? Fuck no they didnt. All we did was reward the people who had no business in the first place having a house.
I know thats mean, but not everyone is entitled to a home, just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
How about raising the minimum wage? When that happens employers usually cut workers, hell ACORN even lobbied to be exempt from their own minimum wage increases because they would be forced to lay off workers. Fine be all in for wage increases but don't be hypocritical about them. They only did that in Florida to get votes for Democrats. They didnt really believe it would help poor people. Just another bribe for votes thing.
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
Well name their good work.
Here's one article that details some positive things they've done.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
QuoteWhat do you think about all of the work ACORN has done over the years to help those in need?
Well name their good work.
Would threatening banks with lawsuits for not providing high risk loans to people who can't afford them be good work? ACORN HUD was a major player in the financial collapse. Sure some peolpe got homes they wouldn't normally get, but at what price? And then ACORN after the collapse attacking lending institutions for their predatory lending practices??!?! ACORN preyed on the poor by promising to put them in a house that alot of people can't afford so long as you join ACORN, pay dues, and help us elect Democrats like Obama. Then on top of that the bailout money went to help these people who should have never had these loans in the first place pay for their new home.
Its nothing more than bribery for a vote. Hell i would vote for any party that got me a sweet house i wouldn't normally be able to get and then when i can't pay for it, help me out even more. Do the people who saved, were responsible and didnt buy outside their means get any help? Fuck no they didnt. All we did was reward the people who had no business in the first place having a house.
I know thats mean, but not everyone is entitled to a home, just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
How about raising the minimum wage? When that happens employers usually cut workers, hell ACORN even lobbied to be exempt from their own minimum wage increases because they would be forced to lay off workers. Fine be all in for wage increases but don't be hypocritical about them. They only did that in Florida to get votes for Democrats. They didnt really believe it would help poor people. Just another bribe for votes thing.
So we are fighting wars in 2 countries, unemployment is near 10% and the country is at rock bottom economically, and you're still bitching about Acorn?
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
MikeC, ACORN has received a TOTAL of $53 million in federal funds (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ) since 1994.
If you're this angry over that amount of money, I can't imagine how hysterically furious you must be over the $1.2 billion (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/07/scahill-blackwater-still-getting-millions-in-federal-contracts/)that the pimps at Blackwater (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa.cfm) received the last 3 years.
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
Agree.
Let's say citizen A does not have healthcare and goes into the emergency room.
Who does MikeC and people that think people aren't entitled to health care think pays for this?
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:29:30 PM
MikeC, ACORN has received a TOTAL of $53 million in federal funds (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ) since 1994.
If you're this angry over that amount of money, I can't imagine how hysterically furious you must be over the $1.2 billion (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/07/scahill-blackwater-still-getting-millions-in-federal-contracts/)that the pimps at Blackwater (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa.cfm) received the last 3 years.
Yes. Because "Tacklebury" Comar didn't get one of those Contractor-Merc jobs.
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
DPD. Meant to link to this possibly hilarious unintended consequence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html) of the rush to DEFUND THOSE ACORN COMMIES!
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
No, their pay is given to prositutes and child rapists!
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
Its nothing more than bribery for a vote.
Ah. Your beef is tax subsidization in exchange for help at the ballot box.
Please explain to me how this is any different, other than by method of distribution, of the GOP tax cuts of 2001?
Face it: You are a whore. You want your free money. You just want it in the form of apple pie (tax cuts) rather than cherry pie (subsidies).
The difference between Dems and GOPs on fiscal policy is.... I don't know anymore.
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Only thing I'm going to touch is minimum wage. I've even heard from pinko economists that price floors that are above the equilibrium aren't always too good for the economy. Luckily, the minimum wage hikes haven't crippled the ecomomy
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:29:30 PM
MikeC, ACORN has received a TOTAL of $53 million in federal funds (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r9Nm9MnufdfjwOCnzsefnJQ) since 1994.
If you're this angry over that amount of money, I can't imagine how hysterically furious you must be over the $1.2 billion (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/07/scahill-blackwater-still-getting-millions-in-federal-contracts/)that the pimps at Blackwater (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/erik_prince_and_the_last_crusa.cfm) received the last 3 years.
It's of pivotal importance to consider this in temporal units. So, "1.2 billion minutes ago" was like 200 years before Christ.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Yet the Supreme Court has already ruled that you are not entitled to police protection. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html)
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
And at which point are you not entitled to it?
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
And at which point are you not entitled to it?
The point at which my house is no longer on fire. Or are you talking about health care?
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
It does to me. If I'm entitled to it, then I should be able to get one at any time with no cost. Hell, I want a scope machine installed in my house. And one for all my neighbors, too.
I think rights get confused with privileges often. I don't have a right to drive a car. I don't have a right to penicillin, either.
For that matter, I don't have a right to a gun. See, if my "right to bear arms" is absolute, I want my own nuclear weapon. Oh, I can't have a nuclear weapon? How about an M1 Abrams with sabot rounds? Oh, I can't have that either? So, my rights are not absolute.
Same with MRIs and full body scans.
At this point, we're haggling over price.
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:52:06 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
And at which point are you not entitled to it?
The point at which my house is no longer on fire. Or are you talking about health care?
Life.
Liberty.
Pursuit of happiness.
Medical Care.
Fire Protection.
Food.
Clean Water.
A good right fielder.
Where does the list end?
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
ACORN preyed on the poor by promising to put them in a house that alot of people can't afford so long as you join ACORN, pay dues, and help us elect Democrats like Obama.
Source, please.
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
Last test came back with good results, sir
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:52:06 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
And at which point are you not entitled to it?
The point at which my house is no longer on fire. Or are you talking about health care?
Life.
Liberty.
Pursuit of happiness.
Medical Care.
Fire Protection.
Food.
Clean Water.
A good right fielder.
Where does the list end?
Wherever a functional marketplace offers the good in question.
Edit: I should clarify. I don't think "health care" is a right; I agree, it's a privilege. I do think a "functional health care market" is a right.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 06, 2009, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:52:06 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Which is my point, no one is suggesting that doctors should work for free.
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
And at which point are you not entitled to it?
The point at which my house is no longer on fire. Or are you talking about health care?
Life.
Liberty.
Pursuit of happiness.
Medical Care.
Fire Protection.
Food.
Clean Water.
A good right fielder.
Where does the list end?
Wherever a functional marketplace offers the good in question.
Are you answering your own questions now?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
Saying that someone is just as entitled to a mammogram (in Yeti's case) or a colonoscopy (in Mike Fistula's case) as they are to having the fire in their house extinguished because Oleg fell asleep with a spliff in his mouth, doesn't seem too controversial/illogical to me.
It does to me. If I'm entitled to it, then I should be able to get one at any time with no cost. Hell, I want a scope machine installed in my house. And one for all my neighbors, too.
I think rights get confused with privileges often. I don't have a right to drive a car. I don't have a right to penicillin, either.
For that matter, I don't have a right to a gun. See, if my "right to bear arms" is absolute, I want my own nuclear weapon. Oh, I can't have a nuclear weapon? How about an M1 Abrams with sabot rounds? Oh, I can't have that either? So, my rights are not absolute.
Same with MRIs and full body scans.
At this point, we're haggling over price.
The problem here, as it always is in Washington, is that the problem is being attacked at the wrong end.
Just as all the hue and cry over abortion rarely addresses the real problem (unwanted pregnancies), the health care debate has ignored the larger problem (an entire industry - health care insurance - gone rogue) while getting caught up in the fact that people are debating whether everyone is entitled to health care...the truth is, everyone already has de facto health care via emergency rooms.
The larger problem is that there is nothing stopping any insurance provider from deciding not to cover any patient at any time for reasons real or imagined.
And if MikeC really wants to keep banging the ACORN drum, it's his right - of course all the "faith-based initiatives" that get funded by GOP politicians that are every bit as shitty as ACORN. But that's the way it goes.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 06, 2009, 02:58:38 PM
Edit: I should clarify. I don't think "health care" is a right; I agree, it's a privilege. I do think a "functional health care market" is a right.
Oh, you've got that. It functions so that 20% of the population cannot afford to participate.
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:43:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2009, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 06, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 06, 2009, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 06, 2009, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 06, 2009, 02:11:11 PM
just like everyone is not entitled to Health Care.
I know this viewpoint exists, but it still surprises me every time I hear it.
If one is entitled to a service without payment, the service providers are not entitled to payment for service.
Firefighters and police officers don't get paid?
I don't get fire and police protection for free.
Yet the Supreme Court has already ruled that you are not individually Constitutionally entitled to police protection due process protection against police failing to enforce a restraining order. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html)
Specifically'd
Adding that Constitutionally guaranteed rights do not exhaust either fundamental human rights or those rights a just and good society simply sees fit to otherwise afford its members.
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/nasa-lcross-mission-to-bo_n_311038.html)
For MikeC:
Quoteen·trap (ěn-trāp')
tr.v. en·trapped, en·trap·ping, en·traps
1. To catch in or as if in a trap.
2a. To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. See Synonyms at catch.
2b. To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
Finally: These conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles) "journalists" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe) made the videos. This is undeniable.
This is just... simply... amazing...
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
As is the director's cut...
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 06, 2009, 08:02:18 PM
This is just... simply... amazing...
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
As is the director's cut...
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
Aww, yeah!
Quote
Immigrant
"Why does he have his hand up like that? There are many good people in America, they are not all Christian. I wanted him to have a look of shock when he realized where the source of America's greatness comes from as he sees Christ holding the Constitution. We live in a country were [sic] we are free to worship as we please.
That's the shit.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 06, 2009, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 06, 2009, 08:02:18 PM
This is just... simply... amazing...
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353
As is the director's cut...
http://www.shortpacked.com/McNaughton%20Fine%20Art.htm
Aww, yeah!
Quote
Immigrant
"Why does he have his hand up like that? There are many good people in America, they are not all Christian. I wanted him to have a look of shock when he realized where the source of America's greatness comes from as he sees Christ holding the Constitution. We live in a country were [sic] we are free to worship as we please.
That's the shit.
QuoteLawyer
No, not all lawyers are like this, but there is certainly an element of the system which has made room for corruption. He could also stand for Wall Street or the Banking System. He is lovingly counting his hundred dollar bills.
QuoteMr. Hollywood
He represents your entertainment business in America. It is very apparent that there is a liberal slant with Hollywood. He looks down at the judge and pregnant woman with ridicule and amusement.
QuoteFifty Stars
Represents the fifty states of the Union. Some stars shine brighter than others.
BTW... check out the book in the hands of the "College Student"...
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Thousand-Year-Leap-Twenty-Eight/dp/0880800046
It's Glenn Beck's favorite...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/
Quote...
Anyone who has followed Beck will recognize the book's title. Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year, a push that peaked in March when he launched the 912 Project. That month, a new edition of "The 5,000 Year Leap," complete with a laudatory new foreword by none other than Glenn Beck, came out of nowhere to hit No. 1 on Amazon. It remained in the top 15 all summer, holding the No. 1 spot in the government category for months. The book tops Beck's 912 Project "required reading" list, and is routinely sold at 912 Project meetings where guest speakers often use it as their primary source material. At one 912 meet-up I attended in Florida, copies were stacked high on a table against the back wall, available for the 912 nice price of $15. "Don't bother trying to get it at the library," one 912er told me. "The wait list is 40 deep."
What has Beck been pushing on his legions? "Leap," first published in 1981, is a heavily illustrated and factually challenged attempt to explain American history through an unspoken lens of Mormon theology. As such, it is an early entry in the ongoing attempt by the religious right to rewrite history. Fundamentalists want to define the United States as a Christian nation rather than a secular republic, and recast the Founding Fathers as devout Christians guided by the Bible rather than deists inspired by French and English philosophers. "Leap" argues that the U.S. Constitution is a godly document above all else, based on natural law, and owes more to the Old and New Testaments than to the secular and radical spirit of the Enlightenment. It lists 28 fundamental beliefs -- based on the sayings and writings of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith -- that Skousen says have resulted in more God-directed progress than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined. The book reads exactly like what it was until Glenn Beck dragged it out of Mormon obscurity: a textbook full of aggressively selective quotations intended for conservative religious schools like Utah's George Wythe University, where it has been part of the core freshman curriculum for decades (and where Beck spoke at this year's annual fundraiser).
But more interesting than the contents of "The 5,000 Year Leap," and more revealing for what it says about 912ers and the Glenn Beck Nation, is the book's author. W. Cleon Skousen was not a historian so much as a player in the history of the American far right; less a scholar of the republic than a threat to it. At least, that was the judgment of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which maintained a file on Skousen for years that eventually totaled some 2,000 pages. Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap."
As Beck knows, to focus solely on "The 5,000 Year Leap" is to sell the author short. When he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen had authored more than a dozen books and pamphlets on the Red Menace, New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, and Mormon end-times prophecy. It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck's bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months, which decries a new darkness at noon and finds strange symbols carefully coded in the retired lobby art of Rockefeller Center. It also suggests that the modern base of the Republican Party is headed to a very strange place.
...
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 06, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon planet Saturn. (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5958)
Get with the program'd.
Quote from: Wheezer on October 07, 2009, 01:26:01 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 06, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon planet Saturn. (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5958)
Get with the program'd.
For the Sheeple? It was made for Cub fans. Sweet
Quote from: Wheezer on October 07, 2009, 01:26:01 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 06, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon planet Saturn. (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5958)
Get with the program'd.
http://okneoac.com/m/chs/ch26.html
QuoteSince all competent bullshitters specializing in astrological matters are agreed on the singularly gruesome and wretched nature of the planet Saturn, competence being determined, of course, by agreement with this very definition, since any just or rational judgment is bound to fail, due to the influence of the planet Saturn, it is apparent that the only solution is to blow the big fat greasy sonofabitch to smithereens.
This is the ultimate objective of the Neo-American Church: nothing less than the bombardment and annihilation of the planet Saturn. Upon the successful completion of the task, with the dispersal of the malefic energy of this gloomy orb into the cosmos (which, if too seriously affected, will be our next objective), the Millennium, or golden age of mankind, will commence without further ado, and it will be possible to dismantle not only the apparatus of the Church but all the instrumentalities of The Divine Will; to permit Peter Rabbit free access to the garden of Farmer Brown.
The entire technical resources of the planet Earth must be marshaled in the service of The Holy War; enormous rockets designed, built and placed in orbit; fusion bombs of hitherto undreamed of power prepared; a special corps of dedicated men and women recruited and trained, all Capricornians identified and watched by a secret service, and all those born with Saturn rising rounded up and interned (in opulent luxury on tropic isles, of course) for the duration.
...
(3) Taking LSD is no substitute for blowing up planets. I am morally certain that Dr. Hoffman never, in his wildest dream, envisioned anyone putting his discovery to such a chicken use as employing it as a substitute for blowing up planets. If God wanted us to have synthetics he would have invented them.
(4) There are many trivial secondary benefits inherent in the project, such as the unification of mankind and what not, and God knows what serendipitous benefits. With the advent of the psychedelic age, many heavy people and machines will be left unemployed, for example, and the project will keep them busy; provide them, indeed, with a rationale. The great symbolical benefits engendered by shooting enormous steel projectiles loaded with explosives into a big mushy egg up in the sky are so obvious as to need no explanation, especially for Catholics.
...
Aren't you a Kleptonian
apostate, though?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 06, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/nasa-lcross-mission-to-bo_n_311038.html)
162 pages in and finally the damn thing makes sense.
Quote from: Jon on October 07, 2009, 10:56:45 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 06, 2009, 05:50:45 PM
Fuck this thread, let's just bomb the Moon. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/nasa-lcross-mission-to-bo_n_311038.html)
162 pages in and finally the damn thing makes sense.
THI!
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 07, 2009, 10:23:09 AM
Aren't you a Kleptonian apostate, though?
You missed the payload (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5958)?
As to the question, no.
The Senator Al Franken nightmare continues...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors
Sure, but where was Senator Smalley when Obama was raping our children in those federally funded ACORN brothels?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 07, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
The Senator Al Franken nightmare continues...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors
Sure, but where was Senator Smalley when Obama was raping our children in those federally funded ACORN brothels?
I think we can all agree with spearNmagicHelmet.
" spearNmagicHelmet says:
republicans are pretty when it comes to rape. they did a really good job of this country.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
"
Quote from: BH on October 07, 2009, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 07, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
The Senator Al Franken nightmare continues...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors
Sure, but where was Senator Smalley when Obama was raping our children in those federally funded ACORN brothels?
I think we can all agree with spearNmagicHelmet.
" spearNmagicHelmet says:
republicans are pretty when it comes to rape. they did a really good job of this country.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
"
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?
Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?
Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.
I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 07, 2009, 04:45:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?
Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.
I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.
Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 07, 2009, 04:45:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?
Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.
I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.
Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.
Fine, serves me right for coming in here anyway.
I'll just go back to buying up condemned houses in Detroit and painting them red, white and blue.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 07, 2009, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 07, 2009, 04:45:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?
Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?
Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.
I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.
Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.
Fine, serves me right for coming in here anyway.
I'll just go back to buying up condemned houses in Detroit and painting them red, white and blue.
That joke is PLAYED OUT.
What Nate Silver said. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html)
QuoteSome of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action.
QuoteBut this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.
QuoteNow, if you could have a Jay Rockefeller-style, Medicare-for-Anyone type public option with no strings attached, would that be a superior alternative? Of course. But that amendment was rejected 8-15 by the Finance Committee and has very little chance of becoming law. Some sort of compromise is almost certainly going to be necessary. This is almost certainly the best compromise that has been floated so far.
Alan Grayson is back, and the man speaks the language of our time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ery7RZ4tZ2Y
Moneyshot comes at the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ery7RZ4tZ2Y#t=3m42s).
QuoteAmerica understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of healthcare reform and one party that's against it, and they know why. They understand that, if Barack Obama was somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation. They understand that, if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch they will try and ban bacon. But that's not what America wants.
Let's see how this (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg178392;topicseen#msg178392) plays out...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/poll-reid-faltering-in-re-election-bid/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/poll-reid-faltering-in-re-election-bid/)
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
What Nate Silver said. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html)
It's interesting that Silver would mention the behavior economics stuff--this idea has Cass Sunstein's fingerprints all over it. I wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that he's the architect of this compromise within the administration/Obama's inner-circle of advisers.
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2009, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
Good thing he doesn't want to buy a hockey team, since he'd only want right wingers - am I right?
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2009, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
Good thing he doesn't want to buy a hockey team, since he'd only want right wingers - am I right?
I like it.
Quote from: Eli on October 13, 2009, 08:58:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2009, 08:41:03 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
Good thing he doesn't want to buy a hockey team, since he'd only want right wingers - am I right?
I like it.
I think the East German judge is giving this one a 6.5.
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2009, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.
I'm not sure how he'd fit in with all those commie, progressive billionaire NFL owners.
I'm sure this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/10/perrys-saturday-night-massacre-continues.html) is all just part of Rick Perry's grand plan to secede from the union.
QuoteOrwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four -- other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2009, 09:50:34 AM
I'm sure this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/10/perrys-saturday-night-massacre-continues.html) is all just part of Rick Perry's grand plan to secede from the union.
QuoteOrwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four -- other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look downright competent as a governor.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 13, 2009, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2009, 09:50:34 AM
I'm sure this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/10/perrys-saturday-night-massacre-continues.html) is all just part of Rick Perry's grand plan to secede from the union.
QuoteOrwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four -- other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look downright competent as a governor.
Blago vs. Perry?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 13, 2009, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 13, 2009, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2009, 09:50:34 AM
I'm sure this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/10/perrys-saturday-night-massacre-continues.html) is all just part of Rick Perry's grand plan to secede from the union.
QuoteOrwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four -- other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look downright competent as a governor.
Blago vs. Perry?
You could have their hair fight to the death.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 13, 2009, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 13, 2009, 11:50:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 13, 2009, 09:50:34 AM
I'm sure this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/10/perrys-saturday-night-massacre-continues.html) is all just part of Rick Perry's grand plan to secede from the union.
QuoteOrwell once wrote, "[He] who controls the past, controls the future." Texas Governor Rick Perry has apparently taken the lesson to heart. He's now removed a fourth member of the Texas commission responsible for investigating whether Texas (and Perry) executed an innocent man. It's whitewashing at its worst.
By now, you're probably familiar with the New Yorker article showing that Cameron Todd Willingham was almost certainly wrongly executed for arson and murder. In 2005, after the execution, Texas established a commission to investigate forensic errors, and the commission started reviewing the Willingham case. In the course of its review, the commission hired a nationally recognized fire expert who ultimately wrote a "scathing report" concluding that the arson investigation was a joke.
The expert was originally set to testify about his report on Friday, October 2. On Sept. 30, however, Perry suddenly replaced three members of the panel, including the chair, against their wishes. The new chair promptly canceled the hearing. More recently, Perry replaced a fourth member (he can only appoint four -- other state officials appoint the remaining five members).
What's amazing is not so much that Perry replaced the panel members, but that he felt secure enough to be so brazenly corrupt about it. It's a sad reflection on the state of politics in Texas that a governor could commit such blatant whitewashing two days before the hearing.
Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look downright competent as a governor.
Blago vs. Perry?
Home field is going to play a big role in this one, but I'm going to give the edge to Blago on the grounds that executing innocents is worse than selling a Senate seat + shaking down companies for donations...and while the latter rightly leads to a federal indictment (which would be Perry's best comeback), the former ought to be subject to a charge of reckless manslaughter with no governmental immunity.
And before you ask me if I'm aware of the consequences of holding governors criminally liable for signing the death warrants of innocent inmates, I am, and I'd bring the charges myself if it'd put an end to state-imposed death penalties in the US.
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2009, 09:15:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2009, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.
I'm not sure how he'd fit in with all those commie, progressive billionaire NFL owners.
Maybe not so well, it turns out, in spite of it all (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/10/13/rush-limbaugh-would-fit-right-in-with-nfl-owners.html)...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/13/colts-irsay-pans-limbaugh-ownership-involvement/
QuoteIndianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said this afternoon that the divisive rhetoric of prospective Rams minority owner Rush Limbaugh makes him unappealing.
"I myself couldn't even think of voting for him," said Irsay speaking from the NFL's fall ownership meetings in Boston.
...I'm very sensitive to know there are scars out there. I think as a nation we need to stop it. Our words do damage and it's something that we don't need. We need to get to a higher level of humanity and we have.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/goodell-voices-concern-over-limbaugh/
QuoteBOSTON –- Commissioner Roger Goodell cast doubt on Rush Limbaugh's viability as an N.F.L. owner Tuesday, saying that "divisive comments are not what the N.F.L. is all about."
"I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here," Goodell said. Then he continued: "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL –- absolutely not."
...
"The comments Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly," Goodell said. "It's a polarizing comment that we don't think reflect accurately on the N.F.L. or our players. I obviously do not believe those comments are positive and they are divisive. That's a negative thing for us, obviously."
Goodell's comments are a strong indicator that Limbaugh's bid is unlikely even to be considered by owners. Three-quarters of the 32 owners must approve a sale, meaning only nine of them can scuttle a deal. Jim Irsay, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, made clear he would vote against Limbaugh.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there
QuoteYou get two crazy bald guys...
Hang on for John Oliver at the end.
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2009, 09:15:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2009, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.
I'm not sure how he'd fit in with all those commie, progressive billionaire NFL owners.
I think what we've had here is very little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a deaf Oxycontin addict do poorly. There is little hope invested in Limbaugh.
Orly Taitz is being fined 20 large (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/judgement_day_birther_taitz_fined_20000_for.php?ref=mp) for a frivolous birther lawsuit she's pursued in Georgia.
Check out this footnote from the court order...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996403/Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-28-0
QuoteOne can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the issue in our courts. Although counsel's present concern is the location of the President's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks "too young" to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.7 Or, more to the point, perhaps the Court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office. The federal courts were not established to resolve such purely political disputes or to assist in the pursuit of a political fishing expedition, particularly when that intrusion would interfere with the ability of the U.S. Army to do its job.
7The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a "round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square," asserted that the President is not human.
I wonder if Judge Land's correspondent urged him to hop on a plane to Iowa for to join in said fisticuffs.
The long-even-by-New-Yorker-standards article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?printable=true) on the TEXAS JUSTICE (aka gross miscarriage of justice in which an innocent man is executed) in question is well worth reading. Some seriously fucked up scat.
Follow-up here (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/09/david-grann-response-to-jackson.html).
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 13, 2009, 10:03:06 PM
Orly Taitz is being fined 20 large (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/judgement_day_birther_taitz_fined_20000_for.php?ref=mp) for a frivolous birther lawsuit she's pursued in Georgia.
Check out this footnote from the court order...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996403/Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-28-0
QuoteOne can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the issue in our courts. Although counsel's present concern is the location of the President's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks "too young" to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.7 Or, more to the point, perhaps the Court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office. The federal courts were not established to resolve such purely political disputes or to assist in the pursuit of a political fishing expedition, particularly when that intrusion would interfere with the ability of the U.S. Army to do its job.
7The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a "round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square," asserted that the President is not human.
I wonder if Judge Land's correspondent urged him to hop on a plane to Iowa for to join in said fisticuffs.
Well, of course he's not human. He's a Nazi Antartican Lizard. Just like all our other Presidents.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 14, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 13, 2009, 10:03:06 PM
Orly Taitz is being fined 20 large (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/judgement_day_birther_taitz_fined_20000_for.php?ref=mp) for a frivolous birther lawsuit she's pursued in Georgia.
Check out this footnote from the court order...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20996403/Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-28-0
QuoteOne can readily see the wisdom of entrusting the elected representatives of the people with the ultimate decision as to whether a President should be removed from office rather than litigating the issue in our courts. Although counsel's present concern is the location of the President's birth, it does not take much imagination to extend the theory to his birthday. Perhaps, he looks "too young" to be President, and he says he stopped counting birthdays when he reached age thirty. If he refused to admit publicly that he is older than the constitutional minimum age of thirty-five, should Ms. Taitz be allowed to file a lawsuit and have a court order him to produce his birth certificate? See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Or perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the Constitution.7 Or, more to the point, perhaps the Court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office. The federal courts were not established to resolve such purely political disputes or to assist in the pursuit of a political fishing expedition, particularly when that intrusion would interfere with the ability of the U.S. Army to do its job.
7The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a "round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square," asserted that the President is not human.
I wonder if Judge Land's correspondent urged him to hop on a plane to Iowa for to join in said fisticuffs.
Well, of course he's not human. He's a Nazi Antartican Lizard. Just like all our other Presidents.
And BY GOD,
we're keeping it that way.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 13, 2009, 07:45:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2009, 09:15:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2009, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on October 12, 2009, 08:26:36 PM
This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445
I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.
I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.
I'm not sure how he'd fit in with all those commie, progressive billionaire NFL owners.
Maybe not so well, it turns out, in spite of it all (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/10/13/rush-limbaugh-would-fit-right-in-with-nfl-owners.html)...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/13/colts-irsay-pans-limbaugh-ownership-involvement/
QuoteIndianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said this afternoon that the divisive rhetoric of prospective Rams minority owner Rush Limbaugh makes him unappealing.
"I myself couldn't even think of voting for him," said Irsay speaking from the NFL's fall ownership meetings in Boston.
...I'm very sensitive to know there are scars out there. I think as a nation we need to stop it. Our words do damage and it's something that we don't need. We need to get to a higher level of humanity and we have.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/goodell-voices-concern-over-limbaugh/
QuoteBOSTON –- Commissioner Roger Goodell cast doubt on Rush Limbaugh's viability as an N.F.L. owner Tuesday, saying that "divisive comments are not what the N.F.L. is all about."
"I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here," Goodell said. Then he continued: "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL –- absolutely not."
...
"The comments Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly," Goodell said. "It's a polarizing comment that we don't think reflect accurately on the N.F.L. or our players. I obviously do not believe those comments are positive and they are divisive. That's a negative thing for us, obviously."
Goodell's comments are a strong indicator that Limbaugh's bid is unlikely even to be considered by owners. Three-quarters of the 32 owners must approve a sale, meaning only nine of them can scuttle a deal. Jim Irsay, the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, made clear he would vote against Limbaugh.
Update: (http://www.redstate.com/tsquare/2009/10/14/tonight%E2%80%A6-we-are-all-rush-limbaugh/)
QuoteTonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a radio personality.
Tonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a NFL owner denied
Tonight, Rush is us. And we are him.
Tonight Rush became the metaphor for all of us... every man woman and child in this great nation of ours.
QuoteTonight the left proved that they will stop at nothing to end our dreams. Our dreams of success and happiness devastate their need to dominate and control you and me... and well everything and everyone.
QuoteTonight a light went out... a dream died... it died from political correctness
QuoteTonight... We Are All Rush Limbaugh
Back to Rush and the NFL for a moment...
Oh. My. Fucking. God. (http://www.redstate.com/tsquare/2009/10/14/tonight%E2%80%A6-we-are-all-rush-limbaugh/)
QuoteEarlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned.
Tonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a radio personality.
Tonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a NFL owner denied
Tonight, Rush is us. And we are him.
Tonight Rush became the metaphor for all of us... every man woman and child in this great nation of ours.
The enemy of this great nation, the enemy of you and me, Rush's enemy... those on the left, inside and outside of this nation abhor success... and when faced with it will destroy it... by any and all means possible.
We all have our dreams in life... such as they might be. Rush dreamed of being an owner in the NFL.
Tonight the left proved that they will stop at nothing to end our dreams. Our dreams of success and happiness devastate their need to dominate and control you and me... and well everything and everyone.
Chrysler bondholders
GM dealers
Bankers and stockbrokers
Small business owners
Medical Doctors
Oppressed people wanting freedom around the world
The left can not and will not allow anyone to realize their dreams
Tonight a light went out... a dream died... it died from political correctness
Tonight we are under withering fire, we on the right those in the middle,
Tonight our values are under withering fire, those thoughts ideas and dreams that made this great nation are under withering fire
Will your light of your dreams be next?
Will my dreams be next?
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
Tonight... We Are All Rush Limbaugh
Edit: GOD DAMMIT
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 11:08:51 AM
Back to Rush and the NFL for a moment...
Oh. My. Fucking. God. (http://www.redstate.com/tsquare/2009/10/14/tonight%E2%80%A6-we-are-all-rush-limbaugh/)
QuoteEarlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned.
Tonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a radio personality.
Tonight, Rush is no longer 'just' a NFL owner denied
Tonight, Rush is us. And we are him.
Tonight Rush became the metaphor for all of us... every man woman and child in this great nation of ours.
The enemy of this great nation, the enemy of you and me, Rush's enemy... those on the left, inside and outside of this nation abhor success... and when faced with it will destroy it... by any and all means possible.
We all have our dreams in life... such as they might be. Rush dreamed of being an owner in the NFL.
Tonight the left proved that they will stop at nothing to end our dreams. Our dreams of success and happiness devastate their need to dominate and control you and me... and well everything and everyone.
Chrysler bondholders
GM dealers
Bankers and stockbrokers
Small business owners
Medical Doctors
Oppressed people wanting freedom around the world
The left can not and will not allow anyone to realize their dreams
Tonight a light went out... a dream died... it died from political correctness
Tonight we are under withering fire, we on the right those in the middle,
Tonight our values are under withering fire, those thoughts ideas and dreams that made this great nation are under withering fire
Will your light of your dreams be next?
Will my dreams be next?
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
Edit: GOD DAMMIT
Looks like you just got a FACE full of Limbaugh dingleberries.
QuoteFirst they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The inclusion of this may have been my favorite part.
Quote from: CT III on October 15, 2009, 11:15:10 AM
QuoteFirst they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The inclusion of this may have been my favorite part.
Mine too.
Quote from: Jon on October 15, 2009, 11:16:36 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 15, 2009, 11:15:10 AM
QuoteFirst they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The inclusion of this may have been my favorite part.
Mine too.
It's probably my favorite too, even though I've read it 3 times and have no clue what it means.
Edit. The comments are my favorite thing about that article.
"You bailout whore, death panel loving, racist jerk. I would also like to point out that you have been accused of child molestation, and we would like to get your response to that before you post further.
What you and your pseudo-intellectual ilk ought to be concerned about is the fact that an American cannot tell the truth without the left trying to silence him, or worse.
This isn't about race, it certainly isn't about racial reconciliation (I haven't seen race relations this bad since the late 60's). It is about silencing anyone who doesn't agree with you. Not debating them- silencing them.
Who is going to stand up when they come for you, pal?"
Followed with:
"The left LIED and they LIED all over the news thereby creating a condition that the NFL could not tolerate but the bottom line is THEY LIED! They must PAY and WE are the one's who will be next if Rush and WE do not make them suffer over this abomination.
OBTW you don't have to agree with what Rush says however if you are a Conservative at all you MUST agree that the SLANDERING, LYING LEFTIST media must PAY for their LIES!
OBTW #2 how do you know what the NFL owners are? you have a link or proof of their political affilitations or did you just pull that out of your a_ _?"
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2009, 11:11:34 AM
Looks like you just got a FACE full of Limbaugh dingleberries.
Not to mention a minor quotefail.
Damn, I wonder when they are going to come for me. Any day now, I assume.
Or....my life will be the exact same.
One of those.
Shouldn't Rush just by the Astros instead? Amirite?
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 15, 2009, 11:29:24 AM
Damn, I wonder when they are going to come for me. Any day now, I assume.
Or....my life will be the exact same.
One of those.
I think you're OK, I haven't seen any Romans around lately.
George Soros is also in the group to buy the Rams.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/15/report-george-soros-part-of-checketts-group-too/
Quote from: BH on October 15, 2009, 11:58:39 AM
George Soros is also in the group to buy the Rams.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/15/report-george-soros-part-of-checketts-group-too/
Why not? Soros and Limbaugh have made a shit-ton of dough playing off each other. They're the Jon & Kate of punditry.
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 15, 2009, 11:29:24 AM
Damn, I wonder when they are going to come for me. Any day now, I assume.
Or....my life will be the exact same.
One of those.
I think you're OK, I haven't seen any Romans around lately.
There's a dude named Pontius a few rows over. I'm working with one eye open.
I rubbed hot sauce in the other one by accident.
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 15, 2009, 11:29:24 AM
Damn, I wonder when they are going to come for me. Any day now, I assume.
Or....my life will be the exact same.
One of those.
Just make sure you keep wearing those sunglasses.
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: BH on October 15, 2009, 11:58:39 AM
George Soros is also in the group to buy the Rams.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/15/report-george-soros-part-of-checketts-group-too/
Why not? Soros and Limbaugh have made a shit-ton of dough playing off each other. They're the Jon & Kate of punditry.
What the hell are you talking about?
Soros made his shit-ton of dough in currency speculation and financial services.
I don't get this Fork false equivalency at all. How is Soros the
anything of "punditry"?
(I do look forward to the heads exploding on the right over this, though.)
It does look like Rush will pursue legal action against those who published a couple of quotes attributed to him that he insists he never made -- one about slavery not being all bad and another about James Earl Ray deserving a Congressional Medal of Honor. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it.
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2009, 12:42:04 PM
It does look like Rush will pursue legal action against those who published a couple of quotes attributed to him that he insists he never made -- one about slavery not being all bad and another about James Earl Ray deserving a Congressional Medal of Honor. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it.
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2009, 12:42:04 PM
It does look like Rush will pursue legal action against those who published a couple of quotes attributed to him that he insists he never made -- one about slavery not being all bad and another about James Earl Ray deserving a Congressional Medal of Honor. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it.
If any "serious" news outlets reported fake quotes from Rush as real without fact-checking them, let them fucking have it.
Our moribund media establishment deserves everything they have coming to them.
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Reminds me of that 60 Minutes clusterfuck with Bush's National Guard "papers". Everyone knows Lil' Georgie did everything he could to minimize his risk of getting his ass shot off in 'Nam; to fabricate something like they did was not only criminally idiotic, but it only serves to justify the smug contempt that conservatives have for the mainsteam media.
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:06:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Reminds me of that 60 Minutes clusterfuck with Bush's National Guard "papers". Everyone knows Lil' Georgie did everything he could to minimize his risk of getting his ass shot off in 'Nam; to fabricate something like they did was not only criminally idiotic, but it only serves to justify the smug contempt that conservatives have for the mainsteam media.
The "mainstream media" is a misnomer, big guy.
As for the Bush "papers", that whole thing stunk of a set-up. Take a few things that everyone knew anyway, feed it to a desparate reporter struggling to maintain relevance, profit.
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:06:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Reminds me of that 60 Minutes clusterfuck with Bush's National Guard "papers". Everyone knows Lil' Georgie did everything he could to minimize his risk of getting his ass shot off in 'Nam; to fabricate something like they did was not only criminally idiotic, but it only serves to justify the smug contempt that conservatives have for the mainsteam media.
The "mainstream media" is a misnomer, big guy.
As for the Bush "papers", that whole thing stunk of a set-up. Take a few things that everyone knew anyway, feed it to a desparate reporter struggling to maintain relevance, profit.
So that makes it okay? I don't care if it was a set up or whatever. It probably was, but the point remains, in support of Thrill's point, that the media is lazy.
And how is "mainstream media" a misnomer (never mind that I typoed it "mainsteam")? It's mainstream. It reaches the widest cross-section of the country, compared to other media. Are you suggesting the major networks have really just been some sort of underground rogue news gathering operation all this time?
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:06:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Reminds me of that 60 Minutes clusterfuck with Bush's National Guard "papers". Everyone knows Lil' Georgie did everything he could to minimize his risk of getting his ass shot off in 'Nam; to fabricate something like they did was not only criminally idiotic, but it only serves to justify the smug contempt that conservatives have for the mainsteam media.
The "mainstream media" is a misnomer, big guy.
As for the Bush "papers", that whole thing stunk of a set-up. Take a few things that everyone knew anyway, feed it to a desparate reporter struggling to maintain relevance, profit.
So that makes it okay? I don't care if it was a set up or whatever. It probably was, but the point remains, in support of Thrill's point, that the media is lazy.
And how is "mainstream media" a misnomer (never mind that I typoed it "mainsteam")? It's mainstream. It reaches the widest cross-section of the country, compared to other media. Are you suggesting the major networks have really just been some sort of underground rogue news gathering operation all this time?
No, just the Conservative media claiming they're outside the mainstream is laughable...and I liked "mainsteam" better.
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 15, 2009, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 01:06:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 15, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: MAD on October 15, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
Why would anyone need to invent some of the things he says? The invective that actually does ooze out of this tub of shit ought to be sufficient evidence of his bigotry.
True.
But the fact remains that much of the media is full of lazy sods who would totally take something like the made-up James Earl Ray quote as the truth once they found it on the internet.
Reminds me of that 60 Minutes clusterfuck with Bush's National Guard "papers". Everyone knows Lil' Georgie did everything he could to minimize his risk of getting his ass shot off in 'Nam; to fabricate something like they did was not only criminally idiotic, but it only serves to justify the smug contempt that conservatives have for the mainsteam media.
The "mainstream media" is a misnomer, big guy.
As for the Bush "papers", that whole thing stunk of a set-up. Take a few things that everyone knew anyway, feed it to a desparate reporter struggling to maintain relevance, profit.
So that makes it okay? I don't care if it was a set up or whatever. It probably was, but the point remains, in support of Thrill's point, that the media is lazy.
And how is "mainstream media" a misnomer (never mind that I typoed it "mainsteam")? It's mainstream. It reaches the widest cross-section of the country, compared to other media. Are you suggesting the major networks have really just been some sort of underground rogue news gathering operation all this time?
No, just the Conservative media claiming they're outside the mainstream is laughable...and I liked "mainsteam" better.
You're splitting hairs and, in fact, taking this onto an entirely different tack. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream media is conservative or liberal, conservatives view it as liberal and, right or wrong, they've managed to successfuly characterize it as such. I happen to disagree with the characterization--as you do, as it's one of the drums you like to beat--but our stance is not helped in instances when some lazy, agenda-driven news team does something like unnceesarily fabricate quotes and falsely attribute them to people, or when they isnuffiiciently research documents which purport to fit an agenda but are, in fact, forgeries. It's instances like these that just add fuel to that retarded fire.
QuoteIt does look like Rush will pursue legal action against those who published a couple of quotes attributed to him that he insists he never made -- one about slavery not being all bad and another about James Earl Ray deserving a Congressional Medal of Honor. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it.
QuoteIf any "serious" news outlets reported fake quotes from Rush as real without fact-checking them, let them fucking have it.
Our moribund media establishment deserves everything they have coming to them.
Does CNN count as serious? Because they ran with the fake quotes like giddy little school children.....
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/CNNHoax37.jpg)
Everyone knows Limbaugh is a racist, it just fits the narrative to attribute made up quotes to him. Fake but accurate reporting from CNN.
What makes the CNN fuck up so hilarious is that they fact checked an SNL skit for accuracy on Obama's agenda and they cant even fact check their own news reporting. No wonder this liberal wet dream of a network is in dead last in the ratings....
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-finishes-fourth-in-prime-time-demo-for-fourth-straight-night/
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
What makes the CNN fuck up so hilarious is that they fact checked an SNL skit for accuracy on Obama's agenda and they cant even fact check their own news reporting. No wonder this liberal wet dream of a network is in dead last in the ratings....
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-finishes-fourth-in-prime-time-demo-for-fourth-straight-night/
What was first in the ratings?
And wouldn't the most viewed network be, by extension, mainstream?
Also via Jawa Report is a debunking of the James Earl Ray Quote from as far back as 2005.
http://www.andimright.com/?p=449
Scroll to the bottom for an MSNBC video of Rachel Maddow using that fake quote.
Another one of those networks getting clobbered by that evil Fox News. And the Obama administrations says everything on Fox News is lies. I am just glad CNN and MSNBC are fighting the power to tell America the truth even if its fake but accurate.
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Everyone knows Limbaugh is a racist, it just fits the narrative to attribute made up quotes to him.
It also fits the "Magic Negro" and "Donovan McNabb" quotes, too.
The reason it fits so well is because it fits, regardless of the truthiness of it.
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 03:39:44 PM
Also via Jawa Report is a debunking of the James Earl Ray Quote from as far back as 2005.
http://www.andimright.com/?p=449
Scroll to the bottom for an MSNBC video of Rachel Maddow using that fake quote.
Another one of those networks getting clobbered by that evil Fox News. And the Obama administrations says everything on Fox News is lies. I am just glad CNN and MSNBC are fighting the power to tell America the truth even if its fake but accurate.
You realize that Rush was trying to buy into a shitty NFL team right? I guess this is as important on the scale of issues as your other complaints.
1) St louis rams ownership
2) Voter fraud
3) hypothetical Acorn situations
4) Obama's birth certificate
... 220) Economy
....322) Wars
....450) Healthcare
.... 800) Social Security
.....901) Profit?
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
QuoteIt does look like Rush will pursue legal action against those who published a couple of quotes attributed to him that he insists he never made -- one about slavery not being all bad and another about James Earl Ray deserving a Congressional Medal of Honor. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it.
QuoteIf any "serious" news outlets reported fake quotes from Rush as real without fact-checking them, let them fucking have it.
Our moribund media establishment deserves everything they have coming to them.
Does CNN count as serious? Because they ran with the fake quotes like giddy little school children.....
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/CNNHoax37.jpg)
Yes, CNN counts as "serious."
So, just as I said in the post you quote, fuck them.
BOOM, I'm roasted.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2009, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Everyone knows Limbaugh is a racist, it just fits the narrative to attribute made up quotes to him.
It also fits the "Magic Negro" and "Donovan McNabb" quotes, too.
The reason it fits so well is because it fits, regardless of the truthiness of it.
Come on, Chuck. Fabricated quotes like these (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049) are just part of the liberal wet dream conspiracy to defame a great 'Merican.
QuoteLimbaugh responded to a Reuters report about a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated from today's government" by asserting, "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
QuoteLook it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it.
QuoteAfterschool program -- don't we already have afterschool programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball -- I mean, we've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court.
QuoteOn April 14, Limbaugh suggested the "correct" way to look at a situation in which Obama sent the military to retrieve American hostages from Somali pirates was that "if only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young, black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot."
QuoteIt is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side.
QuoteObama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot."
QuoteIt's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect -- you expect safety. But in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on.'
Seemingly lost in all of the discourse I've heard over the last 24 hours...is that Irsay and Goodell would be crazy to think Limbaugh is better for NFL business than some quiet, nondescript rich guy who wants to own part of a football team. The NFL is a business first. This stance is the same one that most smart business owners would take...particularly when they are about to sit down and bargain with a union that is 60% black. I think it's incorrect to distill their objection to Limbaugh into some type of liberal agenda-mongering. I agree with Limbaugh more often than not...and I wouldn't want any part of him as an owner.
This is not much different than had the Tribune chosen a bid from Mark Cuban to buy the Cubs. Cuban's not a racist...he's not particularly political (as far as I know)...he's just a jerk who could've been needlessly risky. Who needs the trouble?
You don't have the right to own a NFL team. A point that I would think Limbaugh would agree with.
But as with seemingly every argument that even remotely involves Limbaugh...it always turns into him vs. the evil media. It's his security blanket.
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on October 15, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
...it always turns into him vs. the evil media. It's his security blanket.
That, plus painkillers and divorces, amirite?
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on October 15, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
But as with seemingly every argument that even remotely involves Limbaugh...it always turns into him vs. the evil media. It's his security blanket meal ticket.
Truth'd.
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2009, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on October 15, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
...it always turns into him vs. the evil media. It's his security blanket.
That, plus painkillers and divorces, amirite?
Yea, ubrite.
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2009, 04:14:53 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on October 15, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
...it always turns into him vs. the evil media. It's his security blanket.
That, plus painkillers and divorces, amirite?
See, he'd be a great NFL owner. What NFL player can't sympathize with those kind of experiences?
People who never listen to Rush don't know he talks in satire alot. He has been in the business 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for 20 years. He knows the "drive by media" as he calls it will only grab soundbites from him and not bother to listen to the entire part of the program.
One quote you did put up i heard on air myself, the kid being beaten up on the bus. Rush was doing his usual satire routine about how this should not be happening in Obama's post racial America. He was also commenting as your link provides on the newsweek story of how white people are born racists to go along with the "beer summit."
The newsweek article was stupid to begin with but someone in the media thought it was worthwhile and he ran with that. If someone is deranged enough to publish an article saying white people are born racists, then they must believe that kid on the bus deserved to get beat up because he was a racist as well. Welcome to Obama's post-racial America, NOT.
That piece also tied in with Tea Party protestors as "racists" anyone who disagrees with Obama is a "racist." Its all just one big fucking joke that the left trys to portray as some kind of champion for race relations. Rush knows its a joke being portrayed as serious hard hitting news.
How the hell do you argue with people when their first comeback is to call you a racist for simply stating a different opinion? Thats what Rush does, he makes fun of the hypocrites on the left. And his main point which is continually never covered by the liberal press is you can't have the greatest post racial president ever when he is the one out in front calling everyone and their mother a racist for disagreeing with him.
Another one mentioned here is the "Magic Negro" comment. Again the link you provide will do.....
QuoteOn March 19, 2007, Limbaugh highlighted a Los Angeles Times op-ed that described Obama as "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination -- the 'Magic Negro' " -- a term used by critics of pop culture to describe certain benevolent African-American characters. Limbaugh stated: "The term 'Magic Negro' has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008. And the term 'Magic Negro,' as applied to Barack Obama has been done by an LA Times columnist, David Ehrenstein." Limbaugh later asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that, because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term," adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the 'Magic Negro,' there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the LA Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the LA Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio." Limbaugh continued to refer to Obama as the "Magic Negro" throughout the broadcast -- 27 times, to be exact -- and at one point sang "Barack, the Magic Negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon." Limbaugh defended his use of the song, stating, "Well, that's what we always do here. We do parodies and satires on the idiocy and phoniness of the left."
Pretty much what I just explained above, with the bus comment.
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 05:09:41 PM
People who never listen to Rush don't know he talks in satire alot. He has been in the business 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for 20 years. He knows the "drive by media" as he calls it will only grab soundbites from him and not bother to listen to the entire part of the program.
One quote you did put up i heard on air myself, the kid being beaten up on the bus. Rush was doing his usual satire routine about how this should not be happening in Obama's post racial America. He was also commenting as your link provides on the newsweek story of how white people are born racists to go along with the "beer summit."
The newsweek article was stupid to begin with but someone in the media thought it was worthwhile and he ran with that. If someone is deranged enough to publish an article saying white people are born racists, then they must believe that kid on the bus deserved to get beat up because he was a racist as well. Welcome to Obama's post-racial America, NOT.
That piece also tied in with Tea Party protestors as "racists" anyone who disagrees with Obama is a "racist." Its all just one big fucking joke that the left trys to portray as some kind of champion for race relations. Rush knows its a joke being portrayed as serious hard hitting news.
How the hell do you argue with people when their first comeback is to call you a racist for simply stating a different opinion? Thats what Rush does, he makes fun of the hypocrites on the left. And his main point which is continually never covered by the liberal press is you can't have the greatest post racial president ever when he is the one out in front calling everyone and their mother a racist for disagreeing with him.
Another one mentioned here is the "Magic Negro" comment. Again the link you provide will do.....
QuoteOn March 19, 2007, Limbaugh highlighted a Los Angeles Times op-ed that described Obama as "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination -- the 'Magic Negro' " -- a term used by critics of pop culture to describe certain benevolent African-American characters. Limbaugh stated: "The term 'Magic Negro' has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008. And the term 'Magic Negro,' as applied to Barack Obama has been done by an LA Times columnist, David Ehrenstein." Limbaugh later asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that, because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term," adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the 'Magic Negro,' there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the LA Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the LA Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio." Limbaugh continued to refer to Obama as the "Magic Negro" throughout the broadcast -- 27 times, to be exact -- and at one point sang "Barack, the Magic Negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon." Limbaugh defended his use of the song, stating, "Well, that's what we always do here. We do parodies and satires on the idiocy and phoniness of the left."
Pretty much what I just explained above, with the bus comment.
Rush is just misunderstood. He doesn't love to hate; he hates out of love, his love of satire
...and people who don't look like him.
Sounds like Rush is now demanding affirmative action for loud-mouth idiots.
News dump:
Yay!
QuoteWASHINGTON — A Senate panel plans to vote next week on three long-stalled nominees to fill the National Labor Relations Board.
The five-member board, which resolves conflicts between unions and management, has worked with three vacancies for nearly two years because of political wrangling in the Senate.
Business groups have complained that the views of one nominee — former union lawyer Craig Becker — are "out of the "mainstream." But the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has rejected requests to hold a hearing on Becker.
Becker and two other nominees have enough votes to clear the committee. They also face a confirmation vote in the full Senate.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court said hundreds of NLRB decisions were invalid because the board cannot act with just two members.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJUX2JlS_4tPk3KpZvm-oLELHcUAD9BBORJO1
Nay?
QuoteThe AP reports that Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell has refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because he believes that such marriages don't usually last very long:
"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
The couple said they "will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html
As usual Rush can dish it out, but can't take it.
What reaction did Rush really expect after years of setting the precedent that he is a loudmouth jackass.
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 05:09:41 PM
People who never listen to Rush don't know he talks in satire alot.
If you are going to quote James Taranto, have the decency to attribute.
Did someone say Barack the Magic Negro? David Ehrenstein: unabashed bigot! (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story)
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
Did someone say Barack the Magic Negro? David Ehrenstein: unabashed bigot! (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story)
Cool. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg195094#msg195094)
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
Did someone say Barack the Magic Negro? David Ehrenstein: unabashed bigot! (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story)
I get it. Using a racist image is racist only if you originate it, not if you only borrow the metaphor.
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 15, 2009, 06:09:06 PM
As usual Rush can dish it out, but can't take it.
What reaction did Rush really expect after years of setting the precedent that he is a loudmouth jackass.
I dunno, the Dallas Cowboys?
WOLERINES!
MAGIC MISSILE!
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
Oh, Coach... No!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-3-2009/moment-of-zen---craig-t--nelson-on-glenn-beck
QuoteI've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.
Full thing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NvuRGTS3H8
Astonishingly, it gets more confusing.
Either Craig T. Nelson, former alcoholic, is off the wagon or he's the perfect epitome of what Lionel Trilling described in 1950 as "irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas."
Not sure where to put this and I usually avoid this place like the plague...but this (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INTERRACIAL_REBUFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) is appalling-
But of course he takes the BNCMike approach
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." (ftp://"i'm%20not%20a%20racist.%20I%20just%20don't%20believe%20in%20mixing%20the%20races%20that%20way,"%20Bardwell%20told%20the%20Associated%20Press%20on%20Thursday.%20"I%20have%20piles%20and%20piles%20of%20black%20friends.%20They%20come%20to%20my%20home,%20I%20marry%20them,%20they%20use%20my%20bathroom.%20I%20treat%20them%20just%20like%20everyone%20else.")
Piles and Piles of black friends!
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2009, 05:09:41 PM
People who never listen to Rush don't know he talks in satire alot.
Bullshit. He only says he does when he goes outside the lines, or gets fact-checked.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 02:12:56 AM
Oh, Coach... No!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-3-2009/moment-of-zen---craig-t--nelson-on-glenn-beck
QuoteI've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.
Full thing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NvuRGTS3H8
Astonishingly, it gets more confusing.
Either Craig T. Nelson, former alcoholic, is off the wagon or he's the perfect epitome of what Lionel Trilling described in 1950 as "irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas."
Anything else interesting happen back in June, Thrill?
Quote from: MAD on October 16, 2009, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 02:12:56 AM
Oh, Coach... No!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-3-2009/moment-of-zen---craig-t--nelson-on-glenn-beck
QuoteI've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.
Full thing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NvuRGTS3H8
Astonishingly, it gets more confusing.
Either Craig T. Nelson, former alcoholic, is off the wagon or he's the perfect epitome of what Lionel Trilling described in 1950 as "irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas."
Anything else interesting happen back in June, Thrill?
There was a disputed presidential election in Iran, with subsequent civil unrest.
Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon and Billy Mays all died within a week of one another.
Mark Sanford hiked the Appalachian Trail.
White supremacist James Wenneker von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum, killing security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.
There was a coup in Honduras.
The WHO officially declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic.
New Hampshire legalized gay marriage.
Allen Stanford was arrested.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years.
Greenland assumed self-rule.
Marian Hossa failed to win the Stanley Cup, again.
Turns out the Gladiator allegedly enhanced, buddy.
Norm Coleman conceded the Minnesota Senate election, finally bringing the Al Franken Nightmare to fruition.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 10:46:16 AM
The WHO officially declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic.
Yeah, but they haven't been reliable since Moon died.
Quote from: Jon on October 16, 2009, 11:09:15 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 10:46:16 AM
The WHO officially declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic.
Yeah, but they haven't been reliable since Moon died.
Even moreso since Entwistle no longer slappas-da-bass.
Quote from: Indolent Reader on October 16, 2009, 11:11:35 AM
Quote from: Jon on October 16, 2009, 11:09:15 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 10:46:16 AM
The WHO officially declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic.
Yeah, but they haven't been reliable since Moon died.
Even moreso since Entwistle no longer slappas-da-bass.
The economy really could use one of Entwistle's shopping sprees.
Quote from: SKO on October 16, 2009, 07:36:47 AM
Not sure where to put this and I usually avoid this place like the plague...but this (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INTERRACIAL_REBUFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) is appalling-
But of course he takes the BNCMike approach
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." (ftp://"i'm%20not%20a%20racist.%20I%20just%20don't%20believe%20in%20mixing%20the%20races%20that%20way,"%20Bardwell%20told%20the%20Associated%20Press%20on%20Thursday.%20"I%20have%20piles%20and%20piles%20of%20black%20friends.%20They%20come%20to%20my%20home,%20I%20marry%20them,%20they%20use%20my%20bathroom.%20I%20treat%20them%20just%20like%20everyone%20else.")
Piles and Piles of black friends!
That's a plate full of FACE, son. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg195100#msg195100)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 16, 2009, 11:42:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 16, 2009, 07:36:47 AM
Not sure where to put this and I usually avoid this place like the plague...but this (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INTERRACIAL_REBUFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) is appalling-
But of course he takes the BNCMike approach
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." (ftp://"i'm%20not%20a%20racist.%20I%20just%20don't%20believe%20in%20mixing%20the%20races%20that%20way,"%20Bardwell%20told%20the%20Associated%20Press%20on%20Thursday.%20"I%20have%20piles%20and%20piles%20of%20black%20friends.%20They%20come%20to%20my%20home,%20I%20marry%20them,%20they%20use%20my%20bathroom.%20I%20treat%20them%20just%20like%20everyone%20else.")
Piles and Piles of black friends!
That's a plate full of FACE, son. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg195100#msg195100)
Yours didn't have the "I'm not a racist, but" money quote, though.
Stimulus dollars at work....
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/10/disaster-hard-stimulus-data-reveals.html
QuoteMichigan received $3.7 billion is stimulus money, of which $620 million was to be used to "create and save" jobs, while the remainder will be used by Granholm to backfill the budget deficit that she has created with her overspending so that she doesn't have to make any substantial cuts before she leaves office. When she walks away, she will have lost more than 1,000,000 jobs in a state with a population of only 10 million. A few days ago, Granholm claimed that stimulus money "created or saved" 19,500 jobs. Turns out, the number is an utter fabrication, as I suspected when I wrote that prior post. Fact is, that $620 million "created or saved" 397 jobs.
1.5 million dollars per job, christ just give the 397 people a check for 50,000 dollars a year for the next 20 years and you only spend 397 million.
Official government stats on saved or created jobs.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=recipientTopJobs&ViewAll=100
Anyone figure out what a saved job is yet and how you count it? Or we still on Obama fuzzy "trust me" math?
QuoteBut don't worry because the stimulus saved 30,000 jobs. See - instead of 4,129,000 lost jobs, if we hadn't throw that $1,000,000,000,000 into the toilet, we would have lost 4,159,000 jobs instead. Doesn't that make you feel better now? Remember that the stimulus package was supposed to stop the unemployment rate at 8%!
Total money paid out in tax benefits, grants, loans, contracts, and entitlements = 173 billion dollars for 30,000 saved or created jobs nationally to date. Thats 5.6 million dollars spent for every job.
Another 600 billion to spend at that rate and we might crack 100,000 jobs. Wooooof.
Quote from: MikeC on October 16, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
QuoteMichigan received $3.7 billion is stimulus money, of which $620 million was to be used to "create and save" jobs, while the remainder will be used by Granholm to backfill the budget deficit that she has created with her overspending so that she doesn't have to make any substantial cuts before she leaves office.
SCANDAL!!!!!
It's almost as if helping states ameliorate crippling deficits in order to help them avoid cutting jobs, spending and services (including services to the unemployed, which just happen to be on the rise) in the middle of a severe recession is a key goal of fiscal stimulus.
A key goal that was gutted by the bipartisan stimulus compromise.
Meanwhile, 48 states are facing budget shortfalls (primarily due to Jennifer Granholm's profligate spending in Michigan, no doubt) which continue to balloon.
Quote from: MikeC on October 16, 2009, 12:02:12 PMhttp://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=recipientTopJobs&ViewAll=100
Anyone figure out what a saved job is yet and how you count it? Or we still on Obama fuzzy "trust me" math?
Ummm... how about "Jobs Created/Saved as Reported by Federal Contract Recipients."
That's 30,000+ people
directly employed under specific federal contracts:QuoteA company receiving Recovery Act funding through a contract or grant and projects yet to be contracted out (Contracts Up for Bid) may offer job opportunities.
Direct employment like this (i.e., SOCIALISM) is certainly a big part of the stimulus spending, but it's not the whole point.
The point of fiscal stimulus is to pump money back into a shrinking economy to fill the demand gap. That's intended to go well beyond the effects on those employed directly through federal contracts.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 16, 2009, 12:40:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 16, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
QuoteMichigan received $3.7 billion is stimulus money, of which $620 million was to be used to "create and save" jobs, while the remainder will be used by Granholm to backfill the budget deficit that she has created with her overspending so that she doesn't have to make any substantial cuts before she leaves office.
SCANDAL!!!!!
It's almost as if helping states ameliorate crippling deficits in order to help them avoid cutting jobs, spending and services (including services to the unemployed, which just happen to be on the rise) in the middle of a severe recession is a key goal of fiscal stimulus.
A key goal that was gutted by the bipartisan stimulus compromise.
Meanwhile, 48 states are facing budget shortfalls (primarily due to Jennifer Granholm's profligate spending in Michigan, no doubt) which continue to balloon.
Quote from: MikeC on October 16, 2009, 12:02:12 PMhttp://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=recipientTopJobs&ViewAll=100
Anyone figure out what a saved job is yet and how you count it? Or we still on Obama fuzzy "trust me" math?
Ummm... how about "Jobs Created/Saved as Reported by Federal Contract Recipients."
That's 30,000+ people directly employed under specific federal contracts:
QuoteA company receiving Recovery Act funding through a contract or grant and projects yet to be contracted out (Contracts Up for Bid) may offer job opportunities.
Direct employment like this (i.e., SOCIALISM) is certainly a big part of the stimulus spending, but it's not the whole point.
The point of fiscal stimulus is to pump money back into a shrinking economy to fill the demand gap. That's intended to go well beyond the effects on those employed directly through federal contracts.
You and your crazy
big picture.
Hey, potential employers! Are you looking for a hard-working ex-Governor and former Republican Vice Presidential nominee for your multinational organization or energy concern?
Because if you are, Sarah Palin would appreciate a telephone call.
QuoteThe former Alaska governor has posted her resume on the professional social-networking web site LinkedIn. The service boasts over 45 million users who connect and refer colleagues. Instead of using the Facebook term "friends," LinkedIn users have "connections." Palin had over 500 connections as of Saturday evening.
The URL for Palin's LinkedIn profile uses "/governorpalin" despite the fact that Palin resigned from her job as Alaska's governor in July 2009.
The University of Idaho is the sole education entry on Palin's LinkedIn profile. She does not list the four other institutions she attended before earning her degree.
Real Americans can check out the news here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/sarah-palin-linkedin-pali_n_325381.html
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 19, 2009, 11:53:30 AM
Hey, potential employers! Are you looking for a hard-working ex-Governor and former Republican Vice Presidential nominee for your multinational organization or energy concern?
Because if you are, Sarah Palin would appreciate a telephone call.
QuoteThe former Alaska governor has posted her resume on the professional social-networking web site LinkedIn. The service boasts over 45 million users who connect and refer colleagues. Instead of using the Facebook term "friends," LinkedIn users have "connections." Palin had over 500 connections as of Saturday evening.
The URL for Palin's LinkedIn profile uses "/governorpalin" despite the fact that Palin resigned from her job as Alaska's governor in July 2009.
The University of Idaho is the sole education entry on Palin's LinkedIn profile. She does not list the four other institutions she attended before earning her degree.
Real Americans can check out the news here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/sarah-palin-linkedin-pali_n_325381.html
You know, it's a short trip from Sarah Palin to Richard Heene.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 19, 2009, 11:53:30 AM
Hey, potential employers! Are you looking for a hard-working ex-Governor and former Republican Vice Presidential nominee for your multinational organization or energy concern?
Because if you are, Sarah Palin would appreciate a telephone call.
QuoteThe former Alaska governor has posted her resume on the professional social-networking web site LinkedIn. The service boasts over 45 million users who connect and refer colleagues. Instead of using the Facebook term "friends," LinkedIn users have "connections." Palin had over 500 connections as of Saturday evening.
The URL for Palin's LinkedIn profile uses "/governorpalin" despite the fact that Palin resigned from her job as Alaska's governor in July 2009.
The University of Idaho is the sole education entry on Palin's LinkedIn profile. She does not list the four other institutions she attended before earning her degree.
Real Americans can check out the news here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/sarah-palin-linkedin-pali_n_325381.html
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
No, he's just hiding his birth certificate, amiright?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
In fairness, unless you're removed from office, you're always "Governor". If Sarah called herself "Ambassador", we'd have an issue.
Quote from: Fork on October 19, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
In fairness, unless you're removed from office, you're always "Governor". If Sarah called herself "Ambassador", we'd have an issue.
Only Russia.
Quote from: Fork on October 19, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
In fairness, unless you're removed from office, you're always "Governor". If Sarah called herself "Ambassador", we'd have an issue.
In fairness, she should really put down the six different schools she went to as well.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 19, 2009, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 19, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
In fairness, unless you're removed from office, you're always "Governor". If Sarah called herself "Ambassador", we'd have an issue.
In fairness, she should really put down the six different schools she went to as well.
Her attendance was put-down enough...amiright???
White people save money like this, Jews save shekels like THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/gopers-demint-like-a-jew_n_326295.html).
QuoteTwo South Carolina County Republican Party chairmen stepped up to rebut criticism of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in a newspaper editorial Sunday.After a Democratic state senator wrote in The State that DeMint didn't bring enough money back home, Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer responded that he was just looking after the nation's pennies -- like a Jew would.
"There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," Ulmer and Merwin wrote in a joint letter published by The Times and Democrat. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2009, 08:44:35 AM
White people save money like this, Jews save shekels like THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/gopers-demint-like-a-jew_n_326295.html).
QuoteTwo South Carolina County Republican Party chairmen stepped up to rebut criticism of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in a newspaper editorial Sunday.After a Democratic state senator wrote in The State that DeMint didn't bring enough money back home, Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer responded that he was just looking after the nation's pennies -- like a Jew would.
"There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," Ulmer and Merwin wrote in a joint letter published by The Times and Democrat. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."
They're just saying them Heebs is good with money.
IT'S NOT PREJUDICE IF IT'S
GOOD!!!
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 20, 2009, 08:50:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2009, 08:44:35 AM
White people save money like this, Jews save shekels like THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/gopers-demint-like-a-jew_n_326295.html).
QuoteTwo South Carolina County Republican Party chairmen stepped up to rebut criticism of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in a newspaper editorial Sunday.After a Democratic state senator wrote in The State that DeMint didn't bring enough money back home, Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer responded that he was just looking after the nation's pennies -- like a Jew would.
"There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," Ulmer and Merwin wrote in a joint letter published by The Times and Democrat. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."
They're just saying them Heebs is good with money.
IT'S NOT PREJUDICE IF IT'S GOOD!!!
I should go get a job at a bank.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 20, 2009, 08:50:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2009, 08:44:35 AM
White people save money like this, Jews save shekels like THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/gopers-demint-like-a-jew_n_326295.html).
QuoteTwo South Carolina County Republican Party chairmen stepped up to rebut criticism of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in a newspaper editorial Sunday.After a Democratic state senator wrote in The State that DeMint didn't bring enough money back home, Bamberg County GOP Chairman Edwin Merwin and Orangeburg County GOP Chairman James Ulmer responded that he was just looking after the nation's pennies -- like a Jew would.
"There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves," Ulmer and Merwin wrote in a joint letter published by The Times and Democrat. "By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed."
They're just saying them Heebs is good with money.
IT'S NOT PREJUDICE IF IT'S GOOD!!!
Appropriately enough I watched Schindler's List last night. There was some Joo hatin' going on let me tell you.
Quote from: Fork on October 19, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2009, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
So, are we to assume that our President is looking around for work as well? (http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=11932467&authToken=NHF5&authType=NAME_SEARCH&locale=en_US&srchindex=1&pvs=ps&goback=.psr_*1_barack+obama_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_Y_us_60062_*1_*1_*2_*2_*2_Y_Y_*1_Relevance)
I don't think Barry is hiding his resume and claiming titles he no longer has.
In fairness, unless you're removed from office, you're always "Governor". If Sarah called herself "Ambassador", we'd have an issue.
Impeached former Governor versus Resigned from office former Governor? I don't know. Either way you're out of a job.
Stories about how Obama raped (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm)the car industry.
"Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
"The cultural deficiencies were equally stunning. At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones)."
Quote from: BH on October 21, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Stories about how Obama raped (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm)the car industry.
"Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
"The cultural deficiencies were equally stunning. At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones)."
So then why did Obama make them have such shitty management. What a terrible leader.
RE: the bold - does this make anyone else think of Hudsucker Proxy?
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 21, 2009, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: BH on October 21, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Stories about how Obama raped (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm)the car industry.
"Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
"The cultural deficiencies were equally stunning. At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones)."
So then why did Obama make them have such shitty management. What a terrible leader.
RE: the bold - does this make anyone else think of Hudsucker Proxy?
The dysfunctional environment at GM shouldn't surprise anyone. But it's never the government's business to intervene.
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 21, 2009, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: BH on October 21, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Stories about how Obama raped (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm)the car industry.
"Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
"The cultural deficiencies were equally stunning. At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones)."
So then why did Obama make them have such shitty management. What a terrible leader.
RE: the bold - does this make anyone else think of Hudsucker Proxy?
The dysfunctional environment at GM shouldn't surprise anyone. But it's never the government's business to intervene.
That was my lame attempt at flippancy. Please ignore me in here.
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Cillit Bang on October 21, 2009, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: BH on October 21, 2009, 02:52:32 PM
Stories about how Obama raped (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto_bailout_rattner.fortune/index.htm)the car industry.
"Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company."
"The cultural deficiencies were equally stunning. At GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, the top brass were sequestered on the uppermost floor, behind locked and guarded glass doors. Executives housed on that floor had elevator cards that allowed them to descend to their private garage without stopping at any of the intervening floors (no mixing with the drones)."
So then why did Obama make them have such shitty management. What a terrible leader.
RE: the bold - does this make anyone else think of Hudsucker Proxy?
The dysfunctional environment at GM shouldn't surprise anyone. But it's never the government's business to intervene.
Politics aside, an awfully interesting article.
It confirms the theory that if you want to learn how NOT to run a business, just examine how GM's family of manufacturers and GM ran after approximately 1965.
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2009, 03:22:03 PM
It confirms the theory that if you want to learn how NOT to run a business, just examine how GM's family of manufacturers and GM ran after approximately 1965.
It was the model of efficiency compared to pre- and post-Iaccoca Chrysler.
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2009, 05:09:44 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2009, 03:22:03 PM
It confirms the theory that if you want to learn how NOT to run a business, just examine how GM's family of manufacturers and GM ran after approximately 1965.
It was the model of efficiency compared to pre- and post-Iaccoca Chrysler.
True in the sense that Neifi Perez was Babe Ruth next to Aaron Miles.
Adolf Obama is taxing us to death (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/19/4355893.html)!
QuoteFederal taxes in fiscal year 2009 claimed the smallest share of GDP since 1950—14.9 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office (see top figure). The revenue drop has many causes: tax reductions in this year's economic stimulus, the collapse of the economy, and the Bush tax cuts from earlier in the decade.
On a serious note, THIS:
QuoteReaching fiscal balance will take some combination of spending cuts and tax increases. What we don't need is more tax cuts.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2009, 10:52:03 AM
QuoteReaching fiscal balance will take some combination of spending cuts and tax increases. What we don't need is more tax cuts.
No one is paying any taxes anyway. There's nothing to cut.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2009, 10:52:03 AM
Adolf Obama is taxing us to death (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/19/4355893.html)!
QuoteFederal taxes in fiscal year 2009 claimed the smallest share of GDP since 1950—14.9 percent according to the Congressional Budget Office (see top figure). The revenue drop has many causes: tax reductions in this year's economic stimulus, the collapse of the economy, and the Bush tax cuts from earlier in the decade.
On a serious note, THIS:
QuoteReaching fiscal balance will take some combination of spending cuts and tax increases. What we don't need is more tax cuts.
The fall off in federal revenue is the more proximate cause of this year's budget deficit than any form of profligate spending on the part of the administration. I believe that the stimulus added only 250 billion to the deficit in FY09.
Go figure.
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2009, 09:29:50 AM
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
Hopefully not to Countryside.
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2009, 09:29:50 AM
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
After the trouble free parking meter deal I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this.
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 26, 2009, 09:41:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2009, 09:29:50 AM
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
After the trouble free parking meter deal I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this.
Maybe the mayor can lease out the streets to a private contractor or each cubicle in the office buildings in the loop. Not sure if he considered that. How is it that this guy keeps getting re-elected?
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2009, 09:29:50 AM
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
How will this affect my run for Cook County Water Reclamation District Commissioner?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 26, 2009, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2009, 09:29:50 AM
Hooray! (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/water.system.2.1267896.html)
QuoteIf the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.
How will this affect my run for Cook County Water Reclamation District Commissioner?
The floaters you'll have to manage "downstream" will be privatized.
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
What Nate Silver said. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt-me-out-of-public-option-purism.html)
QuoteSome of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action.
QuoteBut this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.
QuoteNow, if you could have a Jay Rockefeller-style, Medicare-for-Anyone type public option with no strings attached, would that be a superior alternative? Of course. But that amendment was rejected 8-15 by the Finance Committee and has very little chance of becoming law. Some sort of compromise is almost certainly going to be necessary. This is almost certainly the best compromise that has been floated so far.
Credit to Harry Reid for not being a milquetoast hooplehead today (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/reid-public-option-no-silver-bullet-but-strong-consensus-for-opt-out.php?ref=fpa).
QuoteSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.
QuoteReid said he was "disappointed" the public option had "frightened" Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) but that he hoped she would "come back."
"I spoke to Olympia on Friday...and at this stage she does not like the public option of any kind. And so, we'll have to move forward on this, and there will come a time I hope, where she sees the wisdom of supporting a health care bill," he said.
He also blasted Republicans, saying he can count the moderates in the GOP on "two fingers."
Meanwhile, the White House continues its effort to be as vague (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/congress_tiring_of_reading_the.html) and waffley (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/26/breaking-reid-backs-health-care-public-option/) as possible.
QuoteI'm also hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.
QuoteAn administration official went so far as to call Reid's move "dangerous," but quickly followed by saying Reid knows his caucus better than anyone, and will therefore have the support of the White House.
Oh, what's that? You were having a good day?
BAM!! (http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/10/26/9-signs-of-america-in-decline)
Since posting here has come to a screeching halt, here's a little something to keep you occupied. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/world/asia/18hostage.html?scp=5&sq=kidnapped%20in%20afghanistan&st=cse)
I meant to send this out last week. Anybody else read it?
It is a five part series that was in the NY Times.
One of their reporters was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held by the Taliban for over 7 months before he escaped.
This is his story and it demonstrates why we will probably never accomplish very much there.
Some seriously fucked up people. As if you didn't know that already.
Quote from: flannj on October 28, 2009, 12:46:39 PM
Since posting here has come to a screeching halt, here's a little something to keep you occupied. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/world/asia/18hostage.html?scp=5&sq=kidnapped%20in%20afghanistan&st=cse)
I meant to send this out last week. Anybody else read it?
It is a five part series that was in the NY Times.
One of their reporters was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held by the Taliban for over 7 months before he escaped.
This is his story and it demonstrates why we will probably never accomplish very much there.
Some seriously fucked up people. As if you didn't know that already.
Timely and related...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html
QuoteKABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.
The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home.
The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America's war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.
The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America's increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.'s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.
More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.
...
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html
QuoteThe Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week
Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:
Quote"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.
"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.
Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.
Cutting to the chase...
http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset
QuoteCIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 28, 2009, 01:20:01 PM
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html
QuoteThe Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week
Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:
Quote"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.
"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.
Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.
Cutting to the chase...
http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset
QuoteCIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?
You guys are so predictable. And ridiculous. Deflecting all the attention away from the Acorn scandal by posting these articles about things that don't affect REAL americans. Let me know when you guys want to come down from your ivory QUEERCASTLES to discuss something that matters.
From flannj's link:
QuoteFor the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.
Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.
To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.
When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?
Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?hpid=topnews), into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?
Quote from: R-V on October 28, 2009, 01:44:21 PM
From flannj's link:
QuoteFor the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.
Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.
To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.
When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?
Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?hpid=topnews), into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?
From the 3rd. page of R-V's link:
QuoteI find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.
I wouldn't pretend to have the knowledge to answer R-V's question, but it seems to me that the real danger in this region is Pakistan. The tribal areas are under who's control? Not the Pakistani Government and certainly not by the US or NATO. It seems unlikely that they ever will be and if that is true can they really be considered to be part of Pakistan?
`
I make no argument either way but if the US does decide to stay it seems that our effort should be maximum. But I doubt even with that effort would we see significant positive results anytime soon (if at all).
Quote from: R-V on October 28, 2009, 01:44:21 PM
From flannj's link:
QuoteFor the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.
Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.
To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.
When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?
Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?hpid=topnews), into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?
I think that the problem comes in when you're talking about nation building. Can you actually bring a democracy to a country that has never really had a centralized national government? The only way that this would seem to work is if you have strong regional states and a loose national government that would address national defense and infrastructure. Honestly though, I don't even think that would be enough to hold this together since the areas of the south relate more to the tribal areas of Pakistan and the north to the former Soviet stans.
Quote from: BH on October 28, 2009, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 28, 2009, 01:20:01 PM
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html
QuoteThe Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week
Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:
Quote"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.
"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.
Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.
Cutting to the chase...
http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset
QuoteCIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?
You guys are so predictable. And ridiculous. Deflecting all the attention away from the Acorn scandal by posting these articles about things that don't affect REAL americans. Let me know when you guys want to come down from your ivory QUEERCASTLES to discuss something that matters.
Don't forget about SOROS TAKING OVER TEH ECOONOMIEZ! (http://www.newsweek.com/id/219720)
DPD. Installment number 9,000 in our ongoing series of Fuck Indiana.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html (http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html)
QuoteEvan Bayh, the junior senator from Indiana, is in the middle of a heated debate in the Senate on whether a public option should be included as part of President Obama's health care reforms. An organizer of a group of so-called Senate Blue Dog Democrats, to date, Bayh's been a staunch opponent of any changes to the status quo in this debate.
QuoteHis wife, Susan Bayh, sits on the board of WellPoint(WLP Quote) in her hometown of Indianapolis. Over the last six years, Susan Bayh has received at least $2 million in compensation from WellPoint alone for serving on its board.
QuoteShe joined Anthem Insurance (the precursor organization to WellPoint) in 1998, when she was 38 years old and a midlevel attorney working for Eli Lilly (LLY Quote). Her work experience prior to her stint at Lilly was five years as a junior law professor at Butler University in Indianapolis. Her work background at the time she was appointed to the Anthem board would have been surprising, given that she had no insurance experience and was relatively young and inexperienced to serve as a director on a multibillion-dollar board.
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2009, 01:50:52 PM
DPD. Installment number 9,000 in our ongoing series of Fuck Indiana.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html (http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html)
QuoteEvan Bayh, the junior senator from Indiana, is in the middle of a heated debate in the Senate on whether a public option should be included as part of President Obama's health care reforms. An organizer of a group of so-called Senate Blue Dog Democrats, to date, Bayh's been a staunch opponent of any changes to the status quo in this debate.
QuoteHis wife, Susan Bayh, sits on the board of WellPoint(WLP Quote) in her hometown of Indianapolis. Over the last six years, Susan Bayh has received at least $2 million in compensation from WellPoint alone for serving on its board.
QuoteShe joined Anthem Insurance (the precursor organization to WellPoint) in 1998, when she was 38 years old and a midlevel attorney working for Eli Lilly (LLY Quote). Her work experience prior to her stint at Lilly was five years as a junior law professor at Butler University in Indianapolis. Her work background at the time she was appointed to the Anthem board would have been surprising, given that she had no insurance experience and was relatively young and inexperienced to serve as a director on a multibillion-dollar board.
Not shocking. The insurance industry is full of unqualified morons that would fail in most other industries. It's their unparalelled incompetence that actually gets them promoted. A 38 year old mid-level attorney with no insurance experience? Hell, now she could serve as insurance commissioner of Indiana.
<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party. I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard. This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>
Quote from: air2300 on October 29, 2009, 02:37:59 PM
<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party. I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard. This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>
Try living in New York. You get it once a week.
How anyone gets anywhere by vehicle in DC is beyond me.
Quote from: Fork on October 29, 2009, 09:15:57 PM
Quote from: air2300 on October 29, 2009, 02:37:59 PM
<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party. I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard. This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>
Try living in New York. You get it once a week.
How anyone gets anywhere by vehicle in DC is beyond me.
I wish somebody'd run over that cunt.
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Quote from: Fork on October 29, 2009, 09:15:57 PM
Quote from: air2300 on October 29, 2009, 02:37:59 PM
<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party. I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard. This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>
Try living in New York. You get it once a week.
How anyone gets anywhere by vehicle in DC is beyond me.
Seriously. Why can't our elected officials just stay in their damn homes? The Executive Branch is like a woman. Their place is in the kitchen!
Quote from: R-V on October 30, 2009, 09:04:34 AM
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Where did he go?
Quote from: Oleg on October 30, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 29, 2009, 09:15:57 PM
Quote from: air2300 on October 29, 2009, 02:37:59 PM
<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party. I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard. This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>
Try living in New York. You get it once a week.
How anyone gets anywhere by vehicle in DC is beyond me.
Seriously. Why can't our elected officials just stay in their damn homes? The Executive Branch is like a woman. Their place is in the kitchen!
Yup. That's exactly what I was saying.
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 30, 2009, 09:04:34 AM
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Where did he go?
Prison.
(http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/wolimages/jail.gif)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 30, 2009, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 30, 2009, 09:04:34 AM
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Where did he go?
Prison.
(http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/wolimages/jail.gif)
Goddamn it I don't have time for your inside jokes.
I'm only being half serious. I'm just mad because I'm not
inside them.
Seriously, where is he?
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 05:33:04 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 30, 2009, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 30, 2009, 09:04:34 AM
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Where did he go?
Prison.
(http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/wolimages/jail.gif)
Goddamn it I don't have time for your inside jokes.
I'm only being half serious. I'm just mad because I'm not inside them.
Seriously, where is he?
He got a new job in a boiler room up on the North Shore that keeps him off the internets most hours of the working day.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on October 30, 2009, 06:21:45 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 05:33:04 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 30, 2009, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on October 30, 2009, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 30, 2009, 09:04:34 AM
I wish morph was still around so he could tell me what's wrong about this column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904681.html?hpid=topnews)
Where did he go?
Prison.
(http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/wolimages/jail.gif)
Goddamn it I don't have time for your inside jokes.
I'm only being half serious. I'm just mad because I'm not inside them.
Seriously, where is he?
He got a new job in a boiler room up on the North Shore thatMafia Wars keeps him off the internets Desipio most hours of the working day.
Was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotage by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.
He doesn't give a rats ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus, she wants healthcare for all, her voting record is so damn far to the left it isn't even funny. And its supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich are morons for throwing their support at Scozzafava. And it just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party one side just wants to be Democrat light to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military etc.
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
Oh and if that news is not important to some of you, there is Russia practicing war games for invasion of Poland. You may remember Poland was one of the countries Obama royally pissed off by canceling missile defense, then kinda backtracking but not really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html
QuoteDocuments obtained by Wprost, one of Poland's leading news magazines, said the exercise was carried out in conjunction with soldiers from Belarus.
The manoeuvres are thought to have been held in September and involved about 13,000 Russian and Belarusian troops.
Poland, which has strained relations with both countries, was cast as the "potential aggressor".
The documents state the exercises, code-named "West", were officially classified as "defensive" but many of the operations appeared to have an offensive nature.
One of the more fascinating political/military events in recent history was the Russian invasion of Georgia and how Russia managed to portray Georgia as the aggressor. No doubt the same strategy will probably be used against Poland as Russian trys to regain its former satellites while America is weak politically with a fool as President.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
I was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotaged by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. He also went on to say how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.
He doesn't give a rat's ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus. She wants healthcare for all. Her voting record is so damn far to the left, it isn't even funny. And it's supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich are morans for throwing their support at Scozzafava. It just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party, one side just wants to be Democrat-lite to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military, etc.
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, that's how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens, at least we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
Was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotage by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.
He doesn't give a rats ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus, she wants healthcare for all, her voting record is so damn far to the left it isn't even funny. And its supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich are morons for throwing their support at Scozzafava. And it just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party one side just wants to be Democrat light to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military etc.
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
It's hilarious to me that Newt Gingrich is now too liberal for the teabaggers.
Who are you guys sending to Illinois to primary Mark Kirk's sorry socialist ass?
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
MikeC just threw a Hershey's Kiss on an anthill.
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Just like you liberals were so tolerant of Joe Lieberman. The man voted left 99% of the time, but damn it he actually supported the war and you guys threw him out of the party.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:49:39 PMOne of the more fascinating predictable political/military messageboarding events in recent history was the Russian invasion of Georgia and how Russia managed to portray Georgia as the aggressor me being wrong about something.
Not that I'd expect you to grasp nuance'd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29georgia.html)
QuoteAfter a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year's war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government's explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators' work.
But the report is expected to balance this conclusion with an equally weighty one: If Georgia fired the first shot, Russia created and exploited the conditions that led to war, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not yet been made public.
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2009, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:49:39 PMOne of the more fascinating predictable political/military messageboarding events in recent history was the Russian invasion of Georgia and how Russia managed to portray Georgia as the aggressor me being wrong about something.
Not that I'd expect you to grasp nuance'd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29georgia.html)
QuoteAfter a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year's war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government's explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators' work.
But the report is expected to balance this conclusion with an equally weighty one: If Georgia fired the first shot, Russia created and exploited the conditions that led to war, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not yet been made public.
Does this mean we're no longer all Georgians now?
And, if we're not all Georgians now, who are?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 03, 2009, 01:03:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2009, 12:58:43 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:49:39 PMOne of the more fascinating predictable political/military messageboarding events in recent history was the Russian invasion of Georgia and how Russia managed to portray Georgia as the aggressor me being wrong about something.
Not that I'd expect you to grasp nuance'd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29georgia.html)
QuoteAfter a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year's war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government's explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators' work.
But the report is expected to balance this conclusion with an equally weighty one: If Georgia fired the first shot, Russia created and exploited the conditions that led to war, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not yet been made public.
Does this mean we're no longer all Georgians now?
And, if we're not all Georgians now, who are?
Rush Limbaugh, IDOTI.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Just like you liberals were so tolerant of Joe Lieberman. The man voted left 99% 59% of the time, but damn it he actually supported the war and you guys threw him out of the party.
Joe ain't exactly Saul Alinsky. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2008voteratings/) You done being wrong for the day?
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media.
That's what it means in my house. Then again, I don't live in Sarah Palin's "real America."
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:56:19 PM
Just like you liberals were so tolerant of Joe Lieberman. The man voted left 99% of the time, but damn it he actually supported the war and you guys threw him out of the party.
Who's he caucusing with now? Sucks that he isn't part of the Dems. He'd actually have the seniority to have committee chairmanships.
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2009, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Just like you liberals were so tolerant of Joe Lieberman. The man voted left 99% 59% of the time, but damn it he actually supported the war and you guys threw him out of the party.
Joe ain't exactly Saul Alinsky. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2008voteratings/) You done being wrong for the day?
Internet'd ---> http://www.nationaljournal.com/2008voteratings?person=300067
If you want a laugh, watch the whole thing.
If you haven't seen the Great Comar Hope that is in the NY-23rd, set the clock to around 6:00.
Oh.
My.
Gord.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-2-2009/indecision-2009---vote-or-keep-going-about-your-day
Mike--
Didn't you claim to have voted for Al Gore in 2000? I mean, I'm not sure I even believed you when you said it, but I'm pretty sure you did in fact make that claim.
Quote from: MAD on November 03, 2009, 01:26:00 PM
Mike--
Didn't you claim to have voted for Al Gore in 2000? I mean, I'm not sure I even believed you when you said it, but I'm pretty sure you did in fact make that claim.
Bob Sweeney: There was a moment... when I used to blame everything and everyone... for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed white people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions.
Mike Comar: Like what?
Bob Sweeney: Has anything you've done made your life better?
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Nor can we have a Dem in Congress doing the same. A WSJ column illustrated that 40 years ago, Congressmen and Senators voted with their parties about 65% of the time. Today, Republicans in Congress vote in lockstep with Republicans 87% of the time, while Dems vote with their kind 92% of the time.
Quote from: MAD on November 03, 2009, 01:26:00 PM
Mike--
Didn't you claim to have voted for Al Gore in 2000? I mean, I'm not sure I even believed you when you said it, but I'm pretty sure you did in fact make that claim.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the end of the movie Tears of the Sun?
Quote
Not that I'd expect you to grasp nuance'd (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29georgia.html)
QuoteAfter a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year's war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government's explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators' work.
But the report is expected to balance this conclusion with an equally weighty one: If Georgia fired the first shot, Russia created and exploited the conditions that led to war, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not yet been made public.
It clearly makes sense that an under equipped Georgian military with a population of 4 million would try to attack the heavily armed Russian army and their 150 million citizens and think they could not only pull that off, but do it while 2000 of their best troops were in Iraq. Common sense would make you think if they were going to start a war they would have waited until after they had installed new communications equipment from the US and would have waited until they got their best troops back in country.
Now think of it from Russian point of view, they don't want Georgia associated with Nato or the United States at all. Much like they don't want Poland aligning with US on missile defense. What would be the best time to invade Georgia? Before they get new communications equipment installed so that Georgian forces can't communicate and do it while their best troops are out of country.
I am trying to find an article from someone who is an expert on the region and goes over every detail of the Russian invasion. Russian had been building up forces in the region since spring. 150 tanks rushed across the border within hours of the order to invade. A lot of pre-planning of military equipment was done by the Russian military prior to Georgia's so called attack. With Georgia doing almost nothing to consolidate its forces to take on the Russian military.
The #1 claim by Russia was that they invaded Georgia to stop ethnic cleansing by Georgian forces on South Ossetians. They claimed over 2,000 people had been killed and called it genocide, so being the good Russians they were with their pre-staged military force they invaded.
QuoteRussian officials initially claimed that up to 2,000 civilians died in South Ossetia on Aug. 7 before Russian troops arrived on the scene. That estimate has since been reduced — by Russia — to 133, which is well short of anyone's definition of a "genocide" that would justify a rapid foreign intervention. Representatives of Human Rights Watch, who visited all four hospitals in the region shortly after the battle, say the organization has proof of only 44 deaths that night.
In addition to that South Ossentia region was shelling Georgian villages which required a response from the Georgian military. This is how they were suckered into a fight. By claiming an unprovoked attack and genocide this allowed the Russian military to get involved. Georgian intelligence had gotten word that the main Russian armored column was racing through the Roki Tunnel into South Ossentia. If Georgia could stop the Russian army at the tunnel they could stop the invasion in its tracks, failure to do so would allow Russian armor to take over the whole region. Again another damn fine reason to go into South Ossentia for Georgian forces.
In co-ordination with these events Russia launched cyber attacks on the Georgian Government before the supposed out of no where Georgia Invasion began. If you weren't expecting a war wouldn't these events occur after fighting started not before?
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/confirmed-kgb-launched-cyber-attack-on-georgia/
Too many coincidences line up for Russia to just be defending itself. They are not just going to invade someone out of thin air, they want the political cover to do it. And the more disinformation and doubt they can spread, the more embolden they will be to keep trying to re-control this region. Remember Hitler claimed Poland attacked them for his reason to attack Poland. Why an army made of horses would want to challenge an army made of Tanks and Iron is beyond me and ultimately untrue. So I don't believe a poorly equipped Georgian Army with their best troops in Iraq would ever go picking a fight with the Russian Military. They were simply defending themselves from Russian aggression and Russia manipulated the whole event to gain political cover for the invasion.
Does anyone read this crap?
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Nor can we have a Dem in Congress doing the same. A WSJ column illustrated that 40 years ago, Congressmen and Senators voted with their parties about 65% of the time. Today, Republicans in Congress vote in lockstep with Republicans 87% of the time, while Dems vote with their kind 92% of the time.
What's your point? Most Democrats think like Democrats and most Republicans think like Republicans?
Quote from: MAD on November 03, 2009, 01:26:00 PM
Mike--
Didn't you claim to have voted for Al Gore in 2000? I mean, I'm not sure I even believed you when you said it, but I'm pretty sure you did in fact make that claim.
Not voted for but I wanted him to win, i didn't pay attention to politics at all before that that. What I knew i learned from NBC nightly news or whatever prior to that. 9/11 made me want to learn more and blogs exploded after that into all sorts of commentary. I didn't even know the difference between Rep or Dem prior to that, now i have a better understanding and my ideals gel more with Republicans than Dems. Though some of you will say i still don't know the difference.
That's fine but that is what I believe, and its what you believe on your side. Each side thinks the other is a clueless idiot being told what to do, that none of us have a brain to think on our own. In reality we do think and make decisions on what we will or will not support on our own. But we just love telling the other side your a fucking idiot.
I want less government, i don't want trillions spent on health care reform, i didn' t want the stimulus bill and i want a strong international leadership. Most importantly any politician engaged in unethical behavior needs his ass removed. The Democrats had a wonderful chance to actually embrace that image of cleaning up Washington. And I think since coming to power in Washington they have done an epic failure in every aspect. Maybe the American public will give Republicans a chance again, and maybe this time they will hold people accountable for their actions instead of playing the political party favoritism game. I don't care if it hurts you in getting the votes you need but if you have someone like Charles Rangel who suddenly finds out he has millions in assets, something needs to be done about it. You just don't keep going on like its no big deal. Same goes for Republicans.
Wow.
I knew Bircherism was resurgent and all, but I had know clue we'd be back to blaming it all on the Russkies so soon.
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2009, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.
Nor can we have a Dem in Congress doing the same. A WSJ column illustrated that 40 years ago, Congressmen and Senators voted with their parties about 65% of the time. Today, Republicans in Congress vote in lockstep with Republicans 87% of the time, while Dems vote with their kind 92% of the time.
Are these percentages just for 2009, or over a longer time period? Also curious what the numbers looked like 30 or 20 or 10 years ago.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 03:27:59 PM
[
That's fine but that is what I believe, and its what you believe on your side. Each side thinks the other is a clueless idiot being told what to do, that none of us have a brain to think on our own. In reality we do think and make decisions on what we will or will not support on our own. But we just love telling the other side your a fucking idiot.
And to think that a Republican Congresswoman had the temerity to think "on her own".
Quote from: Slack-E on November 03, 2009, 03:18:49 PM
Does anyone read this crap?
It's only 5 words, even you don't often screw that up.
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
Was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotage by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.
He doesn't give a rats ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus, she wants healthcare for all, her voting record is so damn far to the left it isn't even funny. And its supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich are morons for throwing their support at Scozzafava. And it just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party one side just wants to be Democrat light to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military etc.
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
I'm sorry, can non-Congresspeople or Senators vote on Federal legislation? If so, I vote YES on the public option and YES on pornography for all.
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 12:14:42 AM
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
I would think this could work (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6258.0)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 12:14:42 AM
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
Wow. That was actually pretty righteous. I'm a nerd for this kind of stuff...nice find, LA Gil.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 03, 2009, 03:31:59 PM
Wow.
I knew Bircherism was resurgent and all, but I had know clue we'd be back to blaming it all on the Russkies so soon.
The Commies are taking us over. True story.
They're doing it economically rather than militarily, and it's China instead of the Russkies, but it's gonna hai.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 04, 2009, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 12:14:42 AM
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
I would think this could work (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6258.0)
This makes it Clusterfuck-worthy...
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29281
QuoteIt brings up a couple points:
* Does the fact that this is happening so quickly make the theory of plate tectonics more believable to young earthers?
* Thank God this wasn't Kenya or they'd be looking for a birth certificate in there.
Update. This is good news for conservatives.
Once again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110300352_pf.html), I need someone to explain to me why something is a bad idea.
QuoteThe British government announced Tuesday that it will break up parts of major financial institutions bailed out by taxpayers, highlighting a growing divide across the Atlantic over how to deal with the massive banks that were partially nationalized during the height of the financial crisis.
The British government -- spurred on by European regulators -- is forcing the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock to sell off parts of their operations. The Europeans are calling for more and smaller banks to increase competition and eliminate the threat posed by banks so large that they must be rescued by taxpayers, no matter how they conducted their business, in order to avoid damaging the global financial system.
Quote"We still need to see exactly which parts the [British] banks will need to sell off to judge whether the goal of having smaller banks is really achieved," said Richard Portes, an economics professor at the London Business School. "But there are lessons here for the United States. The supposed economies of scale of massive financial institutions are outweighed by the difficulties in controlling risk inside them."
Quote from: R-V on November 04, 2009, 09:46:46 AM
Once again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110300352_pf.html), I need someone to explain to me why something is a bad idea.
QuoteThe British government announced Tuesday that it will break up parts of major financial institutions bailed out by taxpayers, highlighting a growing divide across the Atlantic over how to deal with the massive banks that were partially nationalized during the height of the financial crisis.
The British government -- spurred on by European regulators -- is forcing the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock to sell off parts of their operations. The Europeans are calling for more and smaller banks to increase competition and eliminate the threat posed by banks so large that they must be rescued by taxpayers, no matter how they conducted their business, in order to avoid damaging the global financial system.
Quote"We still need to see exactly which parts the [British] banks will need to sell off to judge whether the goal of having smaller banks is really achieved," said Richard Portes, an economics professor at the London Business School. "But there are lessons here for the United States. The supposed economies of scale of massive financial institutions are outweighed by the difficulties in controlling risk inside them."
Not a bad idea at all and I think it is happening to some extent, but we just never hear about it in the news. I read a week or two ago about Citi selling off their profitable trading arm and a couple other businesses in their portfolio. In the end, there needs to be financial regulation with some teeth and possibly having definitive separation of the banking, insurance, and investment bussinesses.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 04, 2009, 09:36:41 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 04, 2009, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 12:14:42 AM
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
I would think this could work (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6258.0)
This makes it Clusterfuck-worthy...
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29281
QuoteIt brings up a couple points:
* Does the fact that this is happening so quickly make the theory of plate tectonics more believable to young earthers?
* Thank God this wasn't Kenya or they'd be looking for a birth certificate in there.
Update. This is good news for conservatives.
I didn't exactly get a time frame for this oceanic development, but I spent about two or three minutes after I read the article pondering what the impacts would be on any potential sea level incease caused by AGW.
Also, there are alot of God comments in the article I posted. Do they really think the end times are near, or some shit like that?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 04, 2009, 09:36:41 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 04, 2009, 12:34:44 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 04, 2009, 12:14:42 AM
Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.
Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean (http://www.livescience.com/environment/091102-africa-rift-ocean.html)
I would think this could work (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6258.0)
This makes it Clusterfuck-worthy...
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29281
QuoteIt brings up a couple points:
* Does the fact that this is happening so quickly make the theory of plate tectonics more believable to young earthers?
* Thank God this wasn't Kenya or they'd be looking for a birth certificate in there.
Update. This is good news for conservatives.
I didn't exactly get a time frame for this oceanic development, but I spent about two or three minutes after I read the article pondering what the impacts would be on any potential sea level incease caused by AGW.
Also, there are alot of God comments in the article I posted. Do they really think the end times are near, or some shit like that?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7047.0
Since I love pointing out hypocritical stances here is one from the GOP...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29108.html
QuoteHouse GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor created a select committee on earmark reform to bring "meaningful change to the process by which Washington spends taxpayers' hard-earned money."
Nearly a year later, the committee has done virtually nothing about earmarks — except to request more of them.
When Boehner and Cantor announced the creation of the committee last November, they proposed that Republicans in the House refrain from requesting any additional earmarks until the committee reported back with its recommendations for reform.
That report was to be delivered "no later than Feb. 16, 2009," but it still hasn't come. While a Republican aide said earlier this month that the report is a "work in progress," committee members acknowledge that they haven't met once since their February deadline came and went.
In the meantime, the vast majority of House Republicans — including eight of the 10 on the committee — have continued to seek earmarks.
And the news of the day is whether or not the GOP is on the upswing, not if they don't get their shit together on issues like this.
Quote from: MikeC on November 04, 2009, 02:03:46 PM
Since I love pointing out hypocritical stances here is one from the GOP...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29108.html
QuoteHouse GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor created a select committee on earmark reform to bring "meaningful change to the process by which Washington spends taxpayers' hard-earned money."
Nearly a year later, the committee has done virtually nothing about earmarks — except to request more of them.
When Boehner and Cantor announced the creation of the committee last November, they proposed that Republicans in the House refrain from requesting any additional earmarks until the committee reported back with its recommendations for reform.
That report was to be delivered "no later than Feb. 16, 2009," but it still hasn't come. While a Republican aide said earlier this month that the report is a "work in progress," committee members acknowledge that they haven't met once since their February deadline came and went.
In the meantime, the vast majority of House Republicans — including eight of the 10 on the committee — have continued to seek earmarks.
And the news of the day is whether or not the GOP is on the upswing, not if they don't get their shit together on issues like this.
Based on the polling data coming out of yesterday's elections, the 2 gubernatorial races were decided by non-National issues, so they might want to take a good look at the NY Congressional race, since the GOP couldn't pull together enough to hold their district.
Partisanship aside, the leadership of the Republican caucus is every bit as bad as the Democratic one - I couldn't believe when Boehner went to a Tea Party, that would be like Joe Lieberman going to a Peach march.
They might pick up seats in 2010, if the GDP growth doesn't translate into jobs by then. However, the longer Richard Steele is at the helm, and is unable to get the entire party on the same page enough of the time, 2012 will be an absolute bloodbath.
They are looking like the Dems, circa 1989.
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2009, 12:51:48 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
Was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotage by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.
He doesn't give a rats ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus, she wants healthcare for all, her voting record is so damn far to the left it isn't even funny. And its supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich are morons for throwing their support at Scozzafava. And it just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party one side just wants to be Democrat light to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military etc.
A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.
It's hilarious to me that Newt Gingrich is now too liberal for the teabaggers.
Who are you guys sending to Illinois to primary Mark Kirk's sorry socialist ass?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/il-sen-kirk-seeks-palin-endors.html
QuoteIllinois Rep. Mark Kirk penned a memo to Republican poobah Fred Malek hoping to secure an endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his Senate candidacy, according to a copy of the memo obtained by the Fix.
After noting that Palin will be in Chicago later this month to appear on "Oprah", Kirk writes that "the Chicago media will focus on one key issue: Does Gov[ernor] Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk's bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans?"
Kirk goes on to write that he is hoping for something "quick and decisive" from Palin about the race, perhaps to the effect of: "Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama's Senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that."
Malek confirmed the authenticity of the memo in an e-mail exchange with the Fix.
"Quick and decisive" = just enough to keep the teabaggers off Kirk's back, but not so much that he's actually associated with her?
Adding...
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2009/11/04/mark-kirk-asks-for-sarah-palins-endorsement
QuoteI'm now hearing that the Kirk memo was sent yesterday - before the NY congressional results came in. The word I've been getting for a few days is if the Conservative Party candidate won the race, Kirk would move hard to the right. This memo fits in with that. And the memo's date also fits. Kirk simply out-thunk himself because, despite the polls and very high expectations, the Conservative Party candidate lost and the Democrat won. Oops.
...
Statement from Republican US Senate candidate Patrick Hughes...
"I believe Mark Kirk, who has consistently supported President Obama's legislative agenda, including cap and trade legislation, is quickly realizing that Republican Primary voters do not share his extreme views. In a desperate attempt to prove otherwise, he is seeking the endorsement of Sarah Palin, a true Reagan conservative, to help disguise his liberal voting record."
And... (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/11/senate-candidate-mark-kirk-sought-sarah-palins-backing-when-shes-in-town-to-appear-on-oprah-winfrey-.html)
QuoteU.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk asked a national Republican power broker to secure an endorsement by conservative former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin when she hits town later this month to appear on the "Oprah Winfrey Show," according to a memo obtained by the Tribune today.
The request came a day after Kirk, who has long billed himself as a moderate, dodged questions from reporters about whether he would want Palin, the controversial 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, to raise campaign money for him.
...
At his Monday news conference, Kirk eventually got around to replying about a Palin fundraiser: "We'll see. We'll see. Yeah. Yeah. I've got a lot of folks coming in. I think I've got (Senate Republican Leader) Sen. (Mitch) McConnell coming in shortly."
In a statement, Kirk campaign spokesman Eric Elk said the memo was part of a briefing given to Palin's team, "including talking points on Congressman Kirk and the Illinois Senate Race.
"The memo was like many others regularly prepared for high-profile visitors, pundits and media," Elk said in the statement. "The briefing provided details on the race and only requested supportive comments."
Can we keep an eye on the real grassroots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/breckenridge-votes-overwh_n_344815.html) movement?
QuoteU.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk asked a national Republican power broker to secure an endorsement by conservative former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin when she hits town later this month to appear on the "Oprah Winfrey Show," according to a memo obtained by the Tribune today.
The request came a day after Kirk, who has long billed himself as a moderate, dodged questions from reporters about whether he would want Palin, the controversial 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, to raise campaign money for him.
...
At his Monday news conference, Kirk eventually got around to replying about a Palin fundraiser: "We'll see. We'll see. Yeah. Yeah. I've got a lot of folks coming in. I think I've got (Senate Republican Leader) Sen. (Mitch) McConnell coming in shortly."
In a statement, Kirk campaign spokesman Eric Elk said the memo was part of a briefing given to Palin's team, "including talking points on Congressman Kirk and the Illinois Senate Race.
"The memo was like many others regularly prepared for high-profile visitors, pundits and media," Elk said in the statement. "The briefing provided details on the race and only requested supportive comments."
(http://i35.tinypic.com/155s7zp.png)
Quote from: Oleg on November 04, 2009, 07:32:48 PM
Can we keep an eye on the real grassroots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/breckenridge-votes-overwh_n_344815.html) movement?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/national/main5515569.shtml
Tuesday: The electorate effectively brings Obama's presidency to an end with the stinging rebuke of two gubernatorial defeats and a close loss by Doug Hoffman in a Congressional district that's been GOP since Reconstruction.
Thursday: The CBO effectively brings the Democratic Congressional reign to an end with their score of the revolutionary GOP health plan. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html)
QuoteCBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2009/11/05/cillizza-bumbles-no-explicit-palin-endorsement-request/
Quotef Cillizza really did see the memo, as he claimed, then he would've known that nowhere in that memo does Congressman Kirk explicitly ask for an endorsement. How do I know this? Because I now have the memo...
QuoteMemorandum
November 3, 2009
To: Fred Malek
From: Mark Kirk
Re: Gov. Palin Visit to Chicago November 16th
Governor Palin is scheduled to appear on Oprah November 16th in Chicago. The Chicago media will focus on one key issue: does Gov. Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk's bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans?
We would hope Gov. Palin could say something quick and decisive:
Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama's senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that. Kirk, the first member of Congress to deploy into combat since 1942, voted against the Stimulus, Omnibus and Pelosi health care bills. He announced he will oppose Cap & Trade and is the key House national security hawk on Iran. Kirk is a unique Republican candidate who has become the number one pro-Israel fundraiser in America, Republican or Democrat.
The memo then goes on to detail Kirk's position on specific issues, including his oppositon to the Obama budget, "card check," the Ledbetter [gender pay equity] bill and the stimulus, as well as his support for President Bush's tax cuts and his proposal to cut off funding for Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere."
...
All that being said, the Kirk/Palin memo is still incredibly pandering. And it still points to a very valid question: Does Mark Kirk even know who he is?
Lynn Sweet...
QuoteThat Kirk is courting Palin takes on more significance, however, after Tuesday's balloting for an open House seat in New York yielded a Democratic win after the moderate Republican was driven out of the race by Palin and others who supported the third party conservative candidate.
Conservatives may be shopping for other moderates to knock off. But the reality in Illinois is very different from New York or other places. Though the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been trying to pump Kirk's seven primary rivals as real threats, they are barely known and hardly register in polls.
Sweet is right, but it's more than that. Why has Kirk consistently overreacted to this mild threat? I'm not just talking about the Palin thing, here. He's turned into Mr. Flip-Flop lately to placate a Right-wing that barely registers. Is he really concerned that something huge could explode or is he just thin-skinned? Is this about making sure a Constitution Party or independent candidate gains no traction in the general election? Questions, questions, questions, but few answers.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim_in_fatal_car_accident (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/victim_in_fatal_car_accident)
DPD. If you're like me and fairly ignorant of that whole Israel-Palestine thing, this paints a depressing picture of how completely fucked of a situation it is. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?printable=true)
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 08:32:43 AM
DPD. If you're like me and fairly ignorant of that whole Israel-Palestine thing, this paints a depressing picture of how completely fucked of a situation it is. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?printable=true)
Thanks for the link.
Quote from: Oleg on November 04, 2009, 07:32:48 PM
Can we keep an eye on the real grassroots (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/breckenridge-votes-overwh_n_344815.html) movement?
"San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum is facing misdemeanor marijuana charges following a traffic stop in his home state. Washington State Patrol spokesman Steve Schatzel said Thursday that the 2008 Cy Young Award winner and former University of Washington star was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 5 in the town of Hazel Dell, about four miles north of the Oregon border..."
Wait a minute? Lincecum smokes weed? Does his MLB2K9 doppelganger toke up, too?
I'm shocked. Next thing, you're going to tell me that his teammate Pablo Escobar used to run a drug cartel in Colombia. /philrogers
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 08:32:43 AM
DPD. If you're like me and fairly ignorant of that whole Israel-Palestine thing, this paints a depressing picture of how completely fucked of a situation it is. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?printable=true)
Fascinating yet depressing article R-V. Regretably I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as I should be regarding this situation.
But I suppose that could be said of most of the world including the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
Glad I read it, I don't know if there are any answers as long as these are the prevalent attitudes...
QuoteThey also underscore the biases that had taken root in each camp: the Israeli belief that Hamas terrorists and the Gazan people were one and the same; the Gazan tendency to support any act of resistance against the Israelis, no matter how self-defeating it might be.
Also, I hadn't considered the correlation between Israel's overwhelming reaction in Gaza and sending a message to Iran.
Thanks for posting it.
Quote from: flannj on November 06, 2009, 10:21:24 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 08:32:43 AM
DPD. If you're like me and fairly ignorant of that whole Israel-Palestine thing, this paints a depressing picture of how completely fucked of a situation it is. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/09/091109fa_fact_wright?printable=true)
Fascinating yet depressing article R-V. Regretably I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as I should be regarding this situation.
But I suppose that could be said of most of the world including the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
Glad I read it, I don't know if there are any answers as long as these are the prevalent attitudes...
QuoteThey also underscore the biases that had taken root in each camp: the Israeli belief that Hamas terrorists and the Gazan people were one and the same; the Gazan tendency to support any act of resistance against the Israelis, no matter how self-defeating it might be.
Also, I hadn't considered the correlation between Israel's overwhelming reaction in Gaza and sending a message to Iran.
Thanks for posting it.
Yeah, it left me feeling hopeless. You have to feel terrible for the poor bastards who are born in Gaza and have nothing to do with Hamas, but are dealt a life sentence of being confined to a third world shithole because some fuckheads decided to kidnap teenage soldier and shoot rockets into Israel. And at the same time you feel terrible for Israeli people living in constant fear of said rocket attacks.
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 10:36:08 AM
Yeah, it left me feeling hopeless. You have to feel terrible for the poor bastards who are born in Gaza and have nothing to do with Hamas, but are dealt a life sentence of being confined to a third world shithole because some fuckheads decided to kidnap teenage soldier and shoot rockets into Israel. And at the same time you feel terrible for Israeli people living in constant fear of said rocket attacks.
Maybe their parents shouldn't have voted for Hamas. Maybe their parents shouldn't have allowed the corruption that was Arafat.
Maybe their parents parents shouldn't have vacated the land they were given in 1947 as part of the Partition Plan because the Arab states were going to destroy the new state of Israel.
By the way, how about this reporting:
QuoteJust before dawn on June 25th, eight Palestinian commandos crawled out of a tunnel into a grove of trees in Kerem Shalom. A new moon was in the sky, making it the darkest night of the month. With mortar fire and anti-tank missiles providing cover, the commandos, some of them disguised in Israeli military uniforms,
A commando is a military term for a type of solider. Interesting that the New Yorker uses that term give that the Palestinian Authority has no military!
Furthermore, they were dressed in the uniform of their enemy, a violation of international humanitarian law.
These people are terrorists. The New Yorker, in trying to be fair, has actually tipped the scale in favor of the terrorists.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 10:36:08 AM
Yeah, it left me feeling hopeless. You have to feel terrible for the poor bastards who are born in Gaza and have nothing to do with Hamas, but are dealt a life sentence of being confined to a third world shithole because some fuckheads decided to kidnap teenage soldier and shoot rockets into Israel. And at the same time you feel terrible for Israeli people living in constant fear of said rocket attacks.
Maybe their parents shouldn't have voted for Hamas. Maybe their parents shouldn't have allowed the corruption that was Arafat.
Maybe their parents parents shouldn't have vacated the land they were given in 1947 as part of the Partition Plan because the Arab states were going to destroy the new state of Israel.
That seems a bit harsh. When judging their baseball opinions, I wouldn't hold it against your kids that their internet dad is wrong about everything.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2009, 10:36:08 AM
Yeah, it left me feeling hopeless. You have to feel terrible for the poor bastards who are born in Gaza and have nothing to do with Hamas, but are dealt a life sentence of being confined to a third world shithole because some fuckheads decided to kidnap teenage soldier and shoot rockets into Israel. And at the same time you feel terrible for Israeli people living in constant fear of said rocket attacks.
Maybe their parents shouldn't have voted for Hamas. Maybe their parents shouldn't have allowed the corruption that was Arafat.
Maybe their parents parents shouldn't have vacated the land they were given in 1947 as part of the Partition Plan because the Arab states were going to destroy the new state of Israel.
Chuck, I agree with your points but what should happen going forward?
Because of the past and the current entrenched attitudes how does anything get resolved?
Quote from: flannj on November 06, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Chuck, I agree with your points but what should happen going forward?
Because of the past and the current entrenched attitudes how does anything get resolved?
The Paly people have to want new leadership. As of today, most of the people are so isolated and lied to about what is actually happening in the real world and their kids are indoctrinated into a world of Jew hating (http://www.pmw.org.il/BookReport_Eng.pdf). You figure that sooner or later, some of the kids who attend schools overseas will see that hate has only benefited the leaders of the terrorist groups and gotten the general population nothing. One of those kids will rise up and become a leader.
But, for the most part, the Paly's are like the joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb. The bulb has to want to change.
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
No.
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
I have a feeling Mike C. drives a tank around Iowa. Do those need to be insured?
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PMQuestion.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail
No.
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PMand fined for not having insurance?
Yes, with some exemptions based on affordability and religious objections. Next question?
Quote from: MAD on November 06, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
I have a feeling Mike C. drives a tank around Iowa. Do those need to be insured?
Tank or Segway?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
In California you must either have auto insurance or post a bond. Obviously, if you don't have a license you can't get auto insurance. We tried to get the State to allow licenses for undocumented aliens who would then be required to carry insurance to be licensed, but the law can't get adopted because "why should illegal aliens be legal drivers?" Fortunately their aren't any uninsured illegal aliens driving out there since they can't get licenses.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
That's what the death panels will be there for.
Video like 1200 gonna drop! Computers, Hard Drives Seized at ACORN's New Orleans Office
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572706,00.html
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2009, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
That's what the death panels will be there for.
Just like Dachau. Just like Dachau.
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/teapartybig.jpg)
Hitler was all about health care for all.
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2009, 05:07:43 PM
Hitler was all about health care for all.
Healthcare and hygiene... Hence all the mandatory showers.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 06, 2009, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2009, 05:07:43 PM
Hitler was all about health care for all.
Healthcare and hygiene... Hence all the mandatory showers.
Hey, he had DOCTOR Mengele working for him...they don't just let anyone be a doctor, you know.
When (IF?) Obama gets around to lifting the ban on gays in the military, he should lift the ban on women in "combat units."
http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/)
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on November 07, 2009, 04:11:14 PM
When (IF?) Obama Congress gets around to lifting the ban on gays in the military, he should lift the ban on women in "combat units."
http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/)
Fixed, because the President cannot do it by fiat.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 07, 2009, 04:17:41 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on November 07, 2009, 04:11:14 PM
When (IF?) Obama Congress gets around to lifting the ban on gays in the military, he should lift the ban on women in "combat units."
http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/)
Fixed, because the President cannot do it by fiat.
I think that the President could win a lawsuit that he could by Executive Order as Commander in Chief. I can't see the Supreme Court rejecting a claim that military personnel decisions/policy are an Article II power, especially if a Democrat Prez would make the claim.
But I'm a reluctant believer in the unitary executive because I think it's the better Constitutional argument--not because I think it's good policy.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/11/will-i-go-to-jail-if-i-dont-buy-health.html
QuoteThe newest meme of opposition to the health insurance plan is that if you don't obey the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, you will go to jail.
This is false.
Section 501 of the House bill imposes a tax of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. You are exempted from the tax if you already have qualifying health insurance from your employer, if you receive benefits from Medicare or Medicaid, if you are a dependent, if you are overseas, and if you have religions objections. You also get subsidies in the form of tax credits and tax deductions if your income is below a certain level; and if you are in poverty you are already exempted because you participate in Medicaid.
If you are not exempted, and you don't purchase health insurance, you just pay a higher tax. You don't go to jail.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2009, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/11/will-i-go-to-jail-if-i-dont-buy-health.html
QuoteThe newest meme of opposition to the health insurance plan is that if you don't obey the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, you will go to jail.
This is false.
Section 501 of the House bill imposes a tax of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. You are exempted from the tax if you already have qualifying health insurance from your employer, if you receive benefits from Medicare or Medicaid, if you are a dependent, if you are overseas, and if you have religions objections. You also get subsidies in the form of tax credits and tax deductions if your income is below a certain level; and if you are in poverty you are already exempted because you participate in Medicaid.
If you are not exempted, and you don't purchase health insurance, you just pay a higher tax. You don't go to jail.
Ah, but what happens if you object to that Trotskyite "income tax" scheme and refuse to pay the oppressors, Chuck?
Then what? Then Jim Oberweis lands on your motorcycle pad in a black chopper and whisks you away to a UN internment camp. IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE!
THAT. (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/09/al_qaedas_master_plan)
QuoteSince the Ft Hood atrocity, I've seen a meme going around that it somehow exposed a contradiction between "political correctness" and "security." The avoidance of Nidal Hassan's religion out of fear of offending anyone, goes the argument, created the conditions which allowed him to go undetected and unsanctioned in the months and years leading up to his rampage. American security, therefore, demands dropping the "political correctness" of avoiding a confrontation with Islamist ideas and asking the "tough questions" about Islam as a religion and the loyalty of Muslim-Americans.
This framing of the issue is almost 100% wrong. There is a connection between what these critics are calling "political correctness" and national security, but it runs in the opposite direction. The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combatted.
QuoteA lot of people -- some well-meaning, some clowns or worse -- evidently want the American response to the Ft. Hood shootings to revive the post-9/11 "war of ideas" and "clash of civilizations" anti-Islamic discourse. It's a jihad, they shout, demanding careful scrutiny of the loyalty of American Muslims. That's what they seem to mean by the demand to throw away "political correctness" and confront the ideological menace. The overall effect of their recommendations, however, would be to revive the flagging al-Qaeda brand and to greatly strengthen the appeal of its narrative. And that's exactly what we should not want.
Finally found that article on the Russian invasion of Georgia.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
Its a long read, but it gives historical background of the situation.
In the months before the invasion....
Quote"The next provocation: On April 16 Putin signs a presidential decree recognizing the documents of Abkhazians and South Ossetians in Russia and vice versa. This effectively integrates these two territories into Russia's legal space. The Georgians were furious. So you have all these provocations mounting and mounting and mounting. Meanwhile, as of July, various air corps start moving from the rest of Russia to get closer to the Caucasus. These are obscure details, but they are available.
"Starting in mid July the Russians launched the biggest military exercise in the North Caucasus that they've held since the Chechnya war. That exercise never stopped. It just turned into a war. They had all their elite troops there, all their armor there, all their stuff there. Everyone still foolishly thought the action was going to be in Abkhazia or in Chechnya, which is still not as peaceful as they'd like it to be.
"The Georgians had their crack troops in Iraq. So what was left at their central base in Gori? Not very much. Just Soviet era equipment and not their best troops. They didn't place troops on the border with Abkhazia because they didn't want to provoke the Abkhaz. They were expecting an attempt on Kodori, but the gorge is in such a way that unless they're going to use massive air support – which the Abkhaz don't have – it's impossible to take that place. Otherwise they would have done it already.
"So fast forward to early August. You have a town, Tskhinvali, which is Ossetian, and a bunch of Georgian villages surrounding it in a crescent shape. There are peacekeepers there. Both Russian peacekeepers and Georgian peacekeepers under a 1994 accord. The Ossetians were dug in in the town, and the Georgians were in the forests and the fields between the town and the villages. The Ossetians start provoking and provoking and provoking by shelling Georgian positions and Georgian villages around there. And it's a classic tit for tat thing. You shell, I shell back. The Georgians offered repeated ceasefires, which the Ossetians broke.
....
Quote"So back to the 3rd of August. Kokoity (Ossetia's President) announces women and children should leave. As it later turned out, he made all the civilians leave who were not fighting or did not have fighting capabilities. On the same day, irregulars – Ingush, Chechen, Ossetians, and Cossacks – start coming in and spreading out into the countryside but don't do anything. They just sit and wait. On the 6th of August the shelling intensifies from Ossetian positions. And for the first time since the war finished in 1992, they are using 120mm guns."
"Can I stop you for a second?" I said. I was still under the impression that the war began on August 7 and that Georgian President Saakashvili started it when he sent troops into South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali. What was all this about the Ossetian violence on August 6 and before?
He raised his hand as if to say stop.
"That was the formal start of the war," he said. "Because of the peace agreement they had, nobody was allowed to have guns bigger than 80mm. Okay, so that's the formal start of the war. It wasn't the attack on Tskhinvali. Now stop me."
"Okay," I said. "All the reports I've read say Saakashvili started the war."
"I'm not yet on the 7th," he said. "I'm on the 6th."
"Okay," I said. He had given this explanation to reporters before, and he knew exactly what I was thinking.
"Saakashvili is accused of starting this war on the 7th," he said.
"Right," I said. "But that sounds like complete bs to me if what you say is true."
Thomas Goltz nodded.
And on the attempt to stop the Russian advance through the Roki Tunnel...
Quote
"On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions. Remember, these Georgian villages inside South Ossetia – the Georgians have mostly evacuated those villages, and three of them are completely pulverized. That evening, the 7th, the president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move. Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel [into Georgia from Russia]. Then a little bit later, somebody else sees them. That's three confirmations. It was time to act.
"What they had in the area was peacekeeping stuff, not stuff for fighting a war. They had to stop that column, and they had to stop it for two reasons. It's a pretty steep valley. If they could stop the Russians there, they would be stuck in the tunnel and they couldn't send the rest of their army through. So they did two things. The first thing they did, and it happened at roughly the same time, they tried to get through [South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war. It wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through that town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance. The second thing they did, they dropped a team of paratroopers to destroy a bridge. They got wiped out, but first they managed to destroy the bridge and about 15 Russian vehicles.
"The Georgians will tell you that they estimate that these two actions together slowed the Russian advance by 24 to 48 hours. That is what the world considered to be Misha's game. And you know why the world considers it that? Because here in South Ossetia was the head of the peacekeeping troops. He hasn't been in Iraq, he's a peace keeper. What have they been told for the last four years? They lived in a failed state, then there was the Rose Revolution – it wasn't perfect but, damn, now there's electricity, there's jobs, roads have been fixed – and what the Georgians have had drummed into them is that Georgia is now a constitutional state, a state of law and order. And everybody here knows that Ossetia is a gangster's smuggler's paradise. The whole world knows it, but here they know it particularly well. The peacekeepers had a military objective, and the first rule of warfare when you're talking to the media is not to reveal to your enemy what you're going to do. So they weren't going to blather into a microphone and say well, actually, I'm trying to go through Tskhinvali in order to stop the Russians. So what did he say instead? I'm here to restore constitutional order in South Ossetia. And that's it. With that, Georgia lost the propaganda war and the world believes Saakashvili started it. And the rest of the story...you know."
Nice article, Mike. Seriously, thanks for linking something that's pretty reasoned and level-headed. I'll defer to the author's expertise on who fired the first shots. However, considering the area has been embroiled in conflict for 14 years, I think attributing blame for the war in 2008 to one side is pretty ridiculous at this point. I did have the opportunity to research the Abkhazian conflict for a good part of 2007 with a pretty smart lady who's knowledgeable enough about Russian/Eurasian politics to have written several textbooks on the matter. Some background to consider:
Both Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhaz_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic) and South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_Autonomous_Oblast) maintained some level of autonomy prior to the breakup of the USSR in late 1991. Each enjoyed some nice perks due to this status. For instance, Abkhazia was a popular spot for Soviet higher ups and had a thriving tourism sector (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p06s01-wosc.html) because of it. That's a nice way of saying that the area is populated with enough good looking tail to satisfy even the most depraved travels of Tonker.
Both regions were then effectively annexed against their will into the newly-created Georgia. This is pretty ironic given that Georgia had declared its own independence from the USSR shortly before, only to discover that the USSR wasn't having any of it. Georgia's newly-elected nationalistic president Gamsakhurdia promised to buttfuck the shit out of both Ossetia and Abkhazia since both regions were full of ethnic minorities who were making out nicely while the rest of Georgia (populated by Georgians) was pretty much dirt poor. By losing their sovereignty, both lost some of the prestige which they held under Soviet rule. More importantly, they lost control over their purse strings to Tbilisi. As a consequence, they both fought separatist wars against Georgia in the early 90s. Both got gang raped. Then they fought again in the late 90s. And again in the early 00s. And again in the late 00s. Most people agree that everyone fought dirty (by everyone, I mean Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Russia).
Both Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_constitutional_referendum,_1999) and South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006) have since held public referendum in which their populations (99% in South Ossetia, 97% in Abkhazia) asserted that they wished to seek independence from Georgia. Tbilisi basically said "Um, no, fuck you, pay me" to both.
I won't sit here and defend the Russian government. I think we can all pretty well agree that it's extremely corrupt. Any efforts by Moscow to paint itself as an altruistic liberator of South Ossetia while simultaneously beating the living shit out of Chechnya (who helped in the gangfucking of Abkhazia in the early Oughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Kodori_crisis), wtf?) can and should ring hollow. But to simply defend the actions of the Georgian government because its corrupt, albeit pro-Western, President Sakashvili is "our corrupt guy" is hypocritical. From my perspective, I support the independence of both South Ossetia/Abkhazia; not because they were in the right in 2008 (I don't really give a shit either way), and not because I masturbate while reading Pravda in a Che Guevara shirt. Rather, I support it because I think it's pretty fucked up to take away the independence of a people as was the case in the early 90s.
I noticed on the poll for Abkhazian that ethnic Georgians who were expelled from there were not allowed to vote. This is because of what happened in the article i linked to....
Quote"Now the story starts really in 1992 when this fuse was lit in Georgia," Worms said. "Now, there's two territories. There's Abkhazia which has clearly defined administrative borders, and there's South Ossetia that doesn't. Before the troubles started, Abkhazia was an extremely ethnically mixed area: about 60 percent Georgian, 20 percent Abkhaz, and 20 percent assorted others – Greeks, Estonians, Armenians, Jews, what have you. In Ossetia it was a completely integrated and completely mixed Ossetian-Georgian population. The Ossetians and the Georgians have never been apart in the sense that they were living in their own little villages and doing their own little things. There has been inter-marriage and a sense of common understanding going back to distant history. The Georgians will tell you about King Tamar – that's a woman, but they called her a king – and she was married to an Ossetian. So the fuse was lit and two wars start, one in Abkhazia and one in South Ossetia."
...
Quote"So in 1991," Worms said, "things here explode. And basically it gets pretty nasty. Thomas can tell you what happened. Read his book, it's worth it. And by the time the dust settles, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 dead. Many atrocities committed by both sides, but mostly – at least that's what the Georgians say – by the Abkhaz. And the end result is everybody gets kicked out. Everybody who is not Abkhaz or Russian gets kicked out. That's about 400,000 people. 250,000 of those still live as Internally Displaced Persons within Georgia. As for the rest: the Greeks have gone back to Greece, the Armenians to Armenia, some Abkhaz to Turkey, etc.
While yes they voted, only the small minority who are left voted. The 400,000 people who were ejected from that region didn't have a say and I would imagine if they were allowed to vote it would not be 97%.
That also goes beyond the fact that i don't trust any votes when you get a 97% or 99% approval for something. You look at the South Ossetian independence referendum and 60 people voted no and 51,000+ voted yes. Really only 60 people voted no, with Georgian villages inside of South Ossentia and 94% of the population reporting voting. I don't know how many thousands of Georgians live in South Ossentia but 1) They weren't allowed to vote or 2) They voted but they voted Saddam Hussein style, or the the election results were simply rigged from the very beginning to get the desired result.
I agree its a messed up region with corrupt people on both sides and a whole hell of a lot of propaganda to sort through. My whole view of it could be wrong, but some things don't add up on the Russian side for it to be Georgian aggression.
My time is running short for the day and i did a quick breeze through. But I think people need to return to the places they were expelled from and then hold a vote to show the will of the people. The problem is that is never going to happen as Georgian civilians expelled in those regions far outnumbers sympathetic Russian loyalists.
Like i said a while back the entire conflict and propaganda being thrown around is fascinating. But its very hard to figure out the truth.
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
What the hell thread did it knock off?
Quote from: MAD on November 12, 2009, 06:11:29 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
What the hell thread did it knock off?
Possible candidates...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7019.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7022.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6729.msg187912#msg187912
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
Where the hell have you been for the past 178 pages?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 12, 2009, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: MAD on November 12, 2009, 06:11:29 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
What the hell thread did it knock off?
Possible candidates...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7019.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7022.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6729.msg187912#msg187912
The carpet muncher thread didn't even make top 3?
Quote from: ChuckD on November 12, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Nice article, Mike. Seriously, thanks for linking something that's pretty reasoned and level-headed. I'll defer to the author's expertise on who fired the first shots. However, considering the area has been embroiled in conflict for 14 years, I think attributing blame for the war in 2008 to one side is pretty ridiculous at this point. I did have the opportunity to research the Abkhazian conflict for a good part of 2007 with a pretty smart lady who's knowledgeable enough about Russian/Eurasian politics to have written several textbooks on the matter. Some background to consider:
Both Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhaz_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic) and South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_Autonomous_Oblast) maintained some level of autonomy prior to the breakup of the USSR in late 1991. Each enjoyed some nice perks due to this status. For instance, Abkhazia was a popular spot for Soviet higher ups and had a thriving tourism sector (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p06s01-wosc.html) because of it. That's a nice way of saying that the area is populated with enough good looking tail to satisfy even the most depraved travels of Tonker.
Both regions were then effectively annexed against their will into the newly-created Georgia. This is pretty ironic given that Georgia had declared its own independence from the USSR shortly before, only to discover that the USSR wasn't having any of it. Georgia's newly-elected nationalistic president Gamsakhurdia promised to buttfuck the shit out of both Ossetia and Abkhazia since both regions were full of ethnic minorities who were making out nicely while the rest of Georgia (populated by Georgians) was pretty much dirt poor. By losing their sovereignty, both lost some of the prestige which they held under Soviet rule. More importantly, they lost control over their purse strings to Tbilisi. As a consequence, they both fought separatist wars against Georgia in the early 90s. Both got gang raped. Then they fought again in the late 90s. And again in the early 00s. And again in the late 00s. Most people agree that everyone fought dirty (by everyone, I mean Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Russia).
Both Abkhazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_constitutional_referendum,_1999) and South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006) have since held public referendum in which their populations (99% in South Ossetia, 97% in Abkhazia) asserted that they wished to seek independence from Georgia. Tbilisi basically said "Um, no, fuck you, pay me" to both.
I won't sit here and defend the Russian government. I think we can all pretty well agree that it's extremely corrupt. Any efforts by Moscow to paint itself as an altruistic liberator of South Ossetia while simultaneously beating the living shit out of Chechnya (who helped in the gangfucking of Abkhazia in the early Oughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Kodori_crisis), wtf?) can and should ring hollow. But to simply defend the actions of the Georgian government because its corrupt, albeit pro-Western, President Sakashvili is "our corrupt guy" is hypocritical. From my perspective, I support the independence of both South Ossetia/Abkhazia; not because they were in the right in 2008 (I don't really give a shit either way), and not because I masturbate while reading Pravda in a Che Guevara shirt. Rather, I support it because I think it's pretty fucked up to take away the independence of a people as was the case in the early 90s.
You still do that, though. Right? You're just saying that's Not the reason you're making This particular argument?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 12, 2009, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: MAD on November 12, 2009, 06:11:29 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
Well, this thread finally ascended to its rightful position as the worst thread in the history of the internet.
Congratulations, smeglickers.
What the hell thread did it knock off?
Possible candidates...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7019.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7022.0
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6729.msg187912#msg187912
No Mom's Basement threads? Color me surprised.
You're all wrong.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=148.0
OMG TEH TIRRORESTS ARE COMING ITS AN ATTACK ON TIH CONSTITOSHONZ AND MA LIBIRTEES!! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/ill-town-optimistic-about-arrival-of-gitmo-detainees.html)
QuoteNews that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border.
After holding out hope that the sprawling $145 million prison might improve the economic conditions in this remote area of the state, residents say any prisoners would be a welcomed sight.
"It would help the businesses here, and God knows we could use that," said Kay Lawton, 59, a Thomson resident. "It doesn't matter to me who they bring here."
Quote from: R-V on November 15, 2009, 10:00:54 AM
OMG TEH TIRRORESTS ARE COMING ITS AN ATTACK ON TIH CONSTITOSHONZ AND MA LIBIRTEES!! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/ill-town-optimistic-about-arrival-of-gitmo-detainees.html)
QuoteNews that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border.
After holding out hope that the sprawling $145 million prison might improve the economic conditions in this remote area of the state, residents say any prisoners would be a welcomed sight.
"It would help the businesses here, and God knows we could use that," said Kay Lawton, 59, a Thomson resident. "It doesn't matter to me who they bring here."
Help the businesses there? I don't think that Kay Lawton knows exactly how prison works.
Let's right this fucking ship with a trans-national, tri-partisan display of some seriously epic mother. fucking. boner time.
http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/hiroko-mima-and-anya-ayoung-chee-intimate-video-tape-leaked/
QuoteHiroko Mima, who was crowned Miss Universe Japan 2008, and Anya Ayoung-Chee, who was crowned Miss Universe 2008 of Trinidad and Tobago 2008, are in the middle a scandal after an intimate video tape leaked allegedly showing Hiroko and Anya together having s*x with Anya's boyfriend Wyatt, and with each other.
Although neither girl was crowned Miss Universe, the Donald Trump owned organization is left with a bit of a public relations dilema. While the pageant always tries to promote the contestants as beautiful, talented, and smart, the reality is the girls are also h*rny, and subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us humans.
With that said, there are a bunch of videos floating around, but we've got 4 videos, along with pictures, of the two girls and Wyatt having a really good time. Carrie Prejean may be getting an offer for a one-time payment to allow her solo tapes to be sold and distributed, but Hiroko and Anya should get full-time contracts. These two girls are pros.
Click here (http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/goto/http://rapidshare.com/files/306733728/_fleshasiadaily.com_Miss_Universe_Japan_Sex_Scandal.rar%20) to download the videos, or view them here (http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/goto/http://fleshbot.com/5405254/alleged-beauty-queen-threeway-tape-rocks-the-internet/).
(http://imgur.com/MiMVp.jpg)
The lucky sack of shit in question.
(http://imgur.com/BOr3J.jpg)
Internet Apex will likely approve of this message.
Real life Apex, too.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 16, 2009, 07:48:53 AM
(http://imgur.com/MiMVp.jpg)
Not to take anything away from their general attractiveness, but what the hell is up with their legs?
Quote from: Kermit, B. on November 16, 2009, 10:13:01 AM
Not to take anything away from their general attractiveness, but what the hell is up with their legs?
Rug burned knees?
Quote from: ChuckD on November 16, 2009, 07:48:53 AM
The lucky sack of shit in question.
(http://imgur.com/BOr3J.jpg)
Holy mother of Christ. Who knew that all Slaky had to do was Michael Bolton his mane up a little sump'm-sump'm to morph into the pork bone in the most epic smoque sandwich ever stacked. Next time he starts talking about anything I'm just going to shut up and take notes. Got an appointment at the hair salon set for right around Christmas.
I saw that coming a million miles away. Just waited for it.
Not that I don't mind the photos (in fact, the movies are just as good), but I thought I'd interrupt this thread to note the ongoing labor strife down at the ole' alma mater.
Two of the three things Republicans hate the most: labor unions and educated people. (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/grad-students-picket-classroom-buildings-at-u-of-i.html)*
*Taken from the comments.
The LIBRUL MEDIA is at it again.
It seems that a magazine used a photo of Sarah Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) that she posed for in a photo shoot for a magazine.
Shocking.
Interesting take on a connection between the subprime crisis and something called the "prosperity" gospel.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/rosin-prosperity-gospel (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/rosin-prosperity-gospel)
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2009, 08:34:27 AM
Interesting take on a connection between the subprime crisis and something called the "prosperity" gospel.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/rosin-prosperity-gospel (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/rosin-prosperity-gospel)
Anyone who doesn't see the prosperity gospel as an extra coat of gloss on Rev. Ike's old schtick is on their way to proving out the adage about a fool and his money.
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 08:33:27 AM
The LIBRUL MEDIA is at it again.
It seems that a magazine used a photo of Sarah Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) that she posed for in a photo shoot for a magazine.
Shocking.
I can't believe this is even a story at a time when our president is subserviently bowing to foreign leaders.
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 08:33:27 AM
The LIBRUL MEDIA is at it again.
It seems that a magazine used a photo of Sarah Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) that she posed for in a photo shoot for a magazine.
Shocking.
How long has this been brewing?
My Newsweek arrived in the mail yesterday and proper credit was given to Runner's World on the cover. So this statement by the CNN article:
QuotePalin took aim at Newsweek's eye-catching cover this week that shows the former vice presidential candidate in her running outfit - an image that was apparently lifted from a Runner's World photo shoot months ago.
seems erroneous.
Apparently?
Lifted? It's in bold print right there that they borrowed it and gave proper attribution. The hell?
And yes, we get Newsweek delivered. Have at it.
Quote from: MAD on November 17, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 08:33:27 AM
The LIBRUL MEDIA is at it again.
It seems that a magazine used a photo of Sarah Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) that she posed for in a photo shoot for a magazine.
Shocking.
How long has this been brewing?
My Newsweek arrived in the mail yesterday and proper credit was given to Runner's World on the cover. So this statement by the CNN article:
QuotePalin took aim at Newsweek's eye-catching cover this week that shows the former vice presidential candidate in her running outfit - an image that was apparently lifted from a Runner's World photo shoot months ago.
seems erroneous.
Apparently? Lifted? It's in bold print right there that they borrowed it and gave proper attribution. The hell?
And yes, we get Newsweek delivered. Have at it.
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use. That's a picture that's perfectly acceptable in the context of a running magazine but seems like an odd choice in a political article. I can understand why she's upset. She of course loses that sympathy by being an intolerable whore, but I think it's a poor choice on Newsweek's part. I'm sure they could have found plenty of other photos to make her look like the inflatable bitch she is just by looking through archives from the campaign trail.
Newsweek is owned by that hotbed of LIBRUL MEDIA, the Washington Post.
And, yes, I read the Post opinions every day.
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Quote from: MAD on November 17, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 08:33:27 AM
The LIBRUL MEDIA is at it again.
It seems that a magazine used a photo of Sarah Palin (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) that she posed for in a photo shoot for a magazine.
Shocking.
How long has this been brewing?
My Newsweek arrived in the mail yesterday and proper credit was given to Runner's World on the cover. So this statement by the CNN article:
QuotePalin took aim at Newsweek's eye-catching cover this week that shows the former vice presidential candidate in her running outfit - an image that was apparently lifted from a Runner's World photo shoot months ago.
seems erroneous.
Apparently? Lifted? It's in bold print right there that they borrowed it and gave proper attribution. The hell?
And yes, we get Newsweek delivered. Have at it.
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use. That's a picture that's perfectly acceptable in the context of a running magazine but seems like an odd choice in a political article. I can understand why she's upset. She of course loses that sympathy by being an intolerable whore, but I think it's a poor choice on Newsweek's part. I'm sure they could have found plenty of other photos to make her look like the inflatable bitch she is just by looking through archives from the campaign trail.
She's a dope. I hope she and the lemmings that follow her find a nice high cliff.
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 09:26:53 AM
Newsweek is owned by that hotbed of LIBRUL MEDIA, the Washington Post.
And, yes, I read the Post opinions every day.
That "newsweek is garbage" comment wasn't politically driven. I just think it's a shitty magazine. I like Time.
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:30:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 09:26:53 AM
Newsweek is owned by that hotbed of LIBRUL MEDIA, the Washington Post.
And, yes, I read the Post opinions every day.
That "newsweek is garbage" comment wasn't politically driven. I just think it's a shitty magazine. I like Time.
I read both, they each have writers with merit, and some true dolts. Krauthammer will show up in Newsweek, which tips the dolt scale their way.
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use.
You know, of all the things about politics, this is what I get the least. Unless I am wrong, no one who posts here (save 242) is actually a member of any political party. Sure, we have our leanings and preferences, but none of us are in the party.
Further, I just had this talk with the 10 Year Old last night. He was asking me some stuff about why I don't like Palin. "It's because she's a Republican, right?" he asked. No, I told him. It's because she's a quitter and an idiot, it has nothing to do with party. I then told him that politics is not like sports and the problem is that many people treat it like it is. This isn't hoping the Cubs/Dems will beat the Mets/GOP. Politics is really about leadership and governing. I don't want a certain team to win, I want the people with the best ideas to win.
If more of us were interested in ideas, and MSNBC and FOX News were less like ESPN and Comcast Sports Net (each backing a specific team) and instead more like the BBC, perhaps not only would our discourse be better, but we would actually make real progress in order to form a more perfect Union.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2009, 09:33:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use.
You know, of all the things about politics, this is what I get the least. Unless I am wrong, no one who posts here (save 242) is actually a member of any political party. Sure, we have our leanings and preferences, but none of us are in the party.
Further, I just had this talk with the 10 Year Old last night. He was asking me some stuff about why I don't like Palin. "It's because she's a Republican, right?" he asked. No, I told him. It's because she's a quitter and an idiot, it has nothing to do with party. I then told him that politics is not like sports and the problem is that many people treat it like it is. This isn't hoping the Cubs/Dems will beat the Mets/GOP. Politics is really about leadership and governing. I don't want a certain team to win, I want the people with the best ideas to win.
If more of us were interested in ideas, and MSNBC and FOX News were less like ESPN and Comcast Sports Net (each backing a specific team) and instead more like the BBC, perhaps not only would our discourse be better, but we would actually make real progress in order to form a more perfect Union.
But I am a registered Republican? And I don't just blindly treat it like a sports contest, and I don't defend people simply for being Republican. I hate Sarah Palin and I have since day one. I just think she has a point that that photo was misused.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2009, 09:33:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use.
You know, of all the things about politics, this is what I get the least. Unless I am wrong, no one who posts here (save 242) is actually a member of any political party. Sure, we have our leanings and preferences, but none of us are in the party.
Further, I just had this talk with the 10 Year Old last night. He was asking me some stuff about why I don't like Palin. "It's because she's a Republican, right?" he asked. No, I told him. It's because she's a quitter and an idiot, it has nothing to do with party. I then told him that politics is not like sports and the problem is that many people treat it like it is. This isn't hoping the Cubs/Dems will beat the Mets/GOP. Politics is really about leadership and governing. I don't want a certain team to win, I want the people with the best ideas to win.
If more of us were interested in ideas, and MSNBC and FOX News were less like ESPN and Comcast Sports Net (each backing a specific team) and instead more like the BBC, perhaps not only would our discourse be better, but we would actually make real progress in order to form a more perfect Union.
I agree. It's too bad that corporate interests cloud this on both sides and the best ideas are usually left out.
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:35:26 AM
I just think she has a point that that photo was misused.
Yeah. It's use should be limited to it's original purpose - using her image for selling magazines.
So I guess the country is fixed right? Since this is what apparently passes for news, I'll just assume it is.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2009, 09:33:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use.
You know, of all the things about politics, this is what I get the least. Unless I am wrong, no one who posts here (save 242) is actually a member of any political party. Sure, we have our leanings and preferences, but none of us are in the party.
I was registered as a Democrat in NY - I didn't see party registration on the Illinois form - but I donate time and money to the Democratic Party. Short of actually running for office, that's as member-y as you can get.
I wanted to get back to this prosperity gospel stuff. What the hell was that? god tells you to buy a house and you buy the most unaffordable one? Where did working hard and saving suddenly go?
Quote from: MAD on November 17, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
And yes, we get Newsweek delivered. Have at it.
This guy (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/) is cool with me.
Besides, I assume that it's just to balance out your Z Magazine subscription.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2009, 09:33:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Newsweek is garbage, so this doesn't surprise me, and I hate that bitch with a fiery passion for the havoc she's brought to my party, but that is a pretty questionable use.
You know, of all the things about politics, this is what I get the least. Unless I am wrong, no one who posts here (save 242) is actually a member of any political party.
I'm still a regsitered Democrat, but have long considered myself a Disenchanted Independent. I even gave money to 242's campaign, lousy Republican scum.
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
That's a picture that's perfectly acceptable in the context of a running magazine but seems like an odd choice in a political article.
This.
Let's not play dumb. This is patently transparent, and a retarded fucking photo to boot...
(http://i35.tinypic.com/71hj5u.jpg)
(JO fodder for Yeti.)
Quote from: World B Free on November 17, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
I wanted to get back to this prosperity gospel stuff. What the hell was that? god tells you to buy a house and you buy the most unaffordable one? Where did working hard and saving suddenly go?
What about the "camel through a needle's eye" thing, or Jesus and the moneychangers?
Maybe these people need to do more than read the Cliff's Notes to the Bible.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
That's a picture that's perfectly acceptable in the context of a running magazine but seems like an odd choice in a political article.
This.
Let's not play dumb. This is patently transparent, and a retarded fucking photo to boot...
(http://i35.tinypic.com/71hj5u.jpg)
(JO fodder for Yeti.)
Schaaaawinngg!
She's got a nice pair a stems.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 17, 2009, 10:06:32 AM
She's got a nice pair a stems.
I want to put my man stem between her gams, inside her lady cave.
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: World B Free on November 17, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
I wanted to get back to this prosperity gospel stuff. What the hell was that? god tells you to buy a house and you buy the most unaffordable one? Where did working hard and saving suddenly go?
What about the "camel through a needle's eye" thing, or Jesus and the moneychangers?
Maybe these people need to do more than read the Cliff's Notes to the Bible.
I'd probably go with the moneychangers at the temple. I'd rather see some old testament god's vengence though. This new generation of christian television preachers are a scary bunch.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 17, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 17, 2009, 10:06:32 AM
She's got a nice pair a stems.
I want to put my man stem between her gams, inside her lady cave.
I'd make her Democrat By Injection.
Quote from: World B Free on November 17, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
I wanted to get back to this prosperity gospel stuff. What the hell was that? god tells you to buy a house and you buy the most unaffordable one? Where did working hard and saving suddenly go?
Step 1: Give 10% of my income to the church.
Step 2: Pray real hard.
Step 3: Buy a sweet house with the help of my pastor/loan officer.
Step 9: I'm rich!!!
http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/none/obamu-obama-gets-his-own-imaginary-verb-895834
QuoteIn 1992, shortly after getting trounced by Emperor Akihito in tennis, the first President Bush went to a state dinner in Tokyo and made world headlines by throwing up. Though the event has faded from memory, there was apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush_vomiting_incident) once a word, "bushu suru," meaning "to do the Bush thing" -- i.e. vomit in public.
Three administrations later, it looks as though another American president has been honored with an eponymous entry in the Japanese lexicon -- this time under far more favorable circumstances. Bill Sakovitch wrote on his Ampontan (http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/translating-obama-into-japanese/) blog last month about recent sightings of the Japanese verb "obamu" (オバむ), meaning "to proceed optimistically despite challenging obstacles."
The word is first and foremost a pun on the verb "kobamu" (拒む), meaning "to refuse, reject." Obamu is essentially a proposed antonym for this negatively nuanced verb.
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: World B Free on November 17, 2009, 09:44:02 AM
I wanted to get back to this prosperity gospel stuff. What the hell was that? god tells you to buy a house and you buy the most unaffordable one? Where did working hard and saving suddenly go?
What about the "camel through a needle's eye" thing, or Jesus and the moneychangers?
Maybe these people need to do more than read the Cliff's Notes to the Bible.
I saw Jesus and the Moneychangers at the Empty Bottle in 2004. Not bad. The opening band was great, too. Larry David and Hipsters. They had this great song called Oy My Freakin' Back is Killing Me and it's Making It Hard to Kvell.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 17, 2009, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 17, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 17, 2009, 10:06:32 AM
She's got a nice pair a stems.
I want to put my man stem between her gams, inside her lady cave.
I'd make her Democrat By Injection.
Only if you want to make her dumber.
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:05:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
That's a picture that's perfectly acceptable in the context of a running magazine but seems like an odd choice in a political article.
This.
Let's not play dumb. This is patently transparent, and a retarded fucking photo to boot...
(http://i35.tinypic.com/71hj5u.jpg)
(JO fodder for Yeti.)
Schaaaawinngg!
This picture creeps me out, her hotness has faded for me. A lot.
I'm probably the only one that feels this way but I just can't see beyond my intense dislike for this woman and the vapid, uninformed crap she spews.
I'm not sure I could even manage a hate fuck.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 17, 2009, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 17, 2009, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 17, 2009, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 17, 2009, 10:06:32 AM
She's got a nice pair a stems.
I want to put my man stem between her gams, inside her lady cave.
I'd make her Democrat By Injection.
Only if you want to make her dumber.
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
I've already contacted Reality Kings.
Quote from: flannj on November 17, 2009, 10:26:36 AM
I'm probably the only one that feels this way but I just can't see beyond my intense dislike for this woman and the vapid, uninformed crap she spews.
I not sure I could even manage a hate fuck.
The thing is, she's irrelevant.
There's nobody who is undecided about her, which (unless you're well-liked) is death in politics.
All she can do for the GOP is rev up the base, which is exactly what she does for the Democrats as well.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
I think "the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs" has to be something people would actually want to see.
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
I think "the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs" has to be something people would actually want to see.
What about the Turley sex tape?
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
I think "the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs" has to be something people would actually want to see.
You don't want to see IAN and I's balls bouncing off of each other below Sarah's taint? You must be a homosecks.
This: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/evan_bayh_no_difference_betwee.html)
QuoteIf you don't think a bill should become law, then it is arguably your responsibility to do everything in your power to keep it from becoming law. But if that's really how the Senate is going to work from here on out, we should actually change the Senate rules to require 60 votes for the passage of any bill. Let's end the confusion of the filibuster and the attempts to use budget reconciliation and the illegitimacy of procedural holds and the primacy of cloture votes and all the rest of it. If the Senate is to be a 60-vote body, let's have that debate, spin out the implications, and decide to change the rules of the place to make it a 60-vote body. But let's end the embarrassment of the United States Senate functioning off the implications of a procedural loophole rather than the majority vote that its designers intended.
The filibuster sucks. Would anyone here have a problem with passing a law that abolishes the filibuster in, say, 2020? That way it doesn't just benefit the party currently in power, and we could actually see some legislating instead of becoming California.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 11:00:53 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 17, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.
I think "the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs" has to be something people would actually want to see.
You don't want to see IAN and I's balls bouncing off of each other below Sarah's taint? You must be a homosecks.
Yeti still has yet to fully grasp the rule that the Shoutbox doesn't translate well at Desipio.
(Hell, most of the time it doesn't translate in the Shoutbox.)
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2009, 11:01:25 AM
This: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/evan_bayh_no_difference_betwee.html)
QuoteIf you don't think a bill should become law, then it is arguably your responsibility to do everything in your power to keep it from becoming law. But if that's really how the Senate is going to work from here on out, we should actually change the Senate rules to require 60 votes for the passage of any bill. Let's end the confusion of the filibuster and the attempts to use budget reconciliation and the illegitimacy of procedural holds and the primacy of cloture votes and all the rest of it. If the Senate is to be a 60-vote body, let's have that debate, spin out the implications, and decide to change the rules of the place to make it a 60-vote body. But let's end the embarrassment of the United States Senate functioning off the implications of a procedural loophole rather than the majority vote that its designers intended.
The filibuster sucks. Would anyone here have a problem with passing a law that abolishes the filibuster in, say, 2020? That way it doesn't just benefit the party currently in power, and we could actually see some legislating instead of becoming California.
Not only would I like to see the filibuster abolished, but I'd like to see the line-item veto restored, as long as it comes with a 51% override.
This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a
If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.
Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?
And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.
Quote from: MikeC on November 17, 2009, 11:44:24 AM
This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a
If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.
Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?
And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.
Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 17, 2009, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on November 17, 2009, 11:44:24 AM
This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a
If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.
Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?
And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.
Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.
Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act
QuoteWe fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them. Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable. We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them. That said, three big picture points should not be lost.
First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data. Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed. And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.
Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data. Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district. But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district. All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes. But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.
Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative. It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors. But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period. It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted – but again, that isn't realistic. And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over. But think about it this way: What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly? In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation: something like this has never happened before. In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent. And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.
Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 17, 2009, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on November 17, 2009, 11:44:24 AM
This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a
If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.
Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?
And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.
Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.
Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act
QuoteWe fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them. Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable. We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them. That said, three big picture points should not be lost.
First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data. Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed. And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.
Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data. Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district. But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district. All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes. But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.
Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative. It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors. But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period. It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted – but again, that isn't realistic. And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over. But think about it this way: What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly? In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation: something like this has never happened before. In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent. And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.
Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?
We all know that 80% of the stimulus money will go to the 57th state anyway.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 17, 2009, 11:47:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on November 17, 2009, 11:44:24 AM
This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a
If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.
Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?
And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.
Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.
Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act
QuoteWe fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them. Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable. We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them. That said, three big picture points should not be lost.
First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data. Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed. And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.
Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data. Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district. But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district. All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes. But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.
Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative. It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors. But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period. It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted – but again, that isn't realistic. And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over. But think about it this way: What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly? In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation: something like this has never happened before. In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent. And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.
Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?
Just?
Here's a whole bowl of idiot, served hot:
QuoteHe established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).
QuoteSome of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.
QuoteBut Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.
What. The. Fuck? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 17, 2009, 12:49:56 PM
His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.
From a previous Wesley Pruden column (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/the-inner-muslim-at-work-in-cairo/):
QuoteMr. Obama's revelation of his "inner Muslim" in Cairo reveals much about who he is. He is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA. He no doubt meant no offense in returning that bust of Churchill ("Who he?") or imagining that a DVD of American movies was appropriate in an exchange of state gifts with Gordon Brown. Nor did he likely understand why it was an offense against history (and good manners) to agree to the exclusion of the Queen from Saturday's commemoration of the Anglo-American liberation of France.
Which way is it, asshat?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 17, 2009, 12:49:56 PM
Here's a whole bowl of idiot, served hot:
QuoteHe established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).
QuoteSome of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.
QuoteBut Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.
What. The. Fuck? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/)
That guy is a dick and anyone that thinks like him also a dick.
Everyone knows that one doesn't bow to foreign leaders. Protocol dictates that you throw up in their laps.
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2009, 01:17:21 PM
Everyone knows that one doesn't bow to foreign leaders. Protocol dictates that you throw up in their laps.
Ah...
Bushu suru.
Well while the Whitehouse is at it they can now discredit the "440 phantom" congressional districts they invented.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/nov/17/recoverygov-shows-money-flowing-to-nonexistent-di/
Here is a pretty simple one that Obama and his clowns should be able to get correct on the first try.
QuoteFor example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district.
This isn't just a few reporting errors. According to our government the House of Representatives has doubled in size according to the filings.
Here is some more things the White House can try and debunk....
http://watchdog.org/2009/11/17/6-4-billion-stimulus-goes-to-phantom-districts/
QuoteMany other recipients carried the banner for congressional districts that have been defunct for decades. South Carolina's 7th took the cake, garnering more than $27 million in stimulus funds, despite being eliminated in 1930. And Virginia's 12th District may have been written off at the start of the Civil War, but it must carry some sentimental value in Old Dominion–it received more than $2 million, according to recovery.gov.
That goes along with data just being plain made up out of thin air.
http://watchdog.org/2009/10/30/media-raise-suspicions-about-white-house-job-numbers/
So lets just get this straight, we can't trust the government in how they calculate a saved job because their numbers are fuzzy at best. And now we can't trust the government to tell us accurately where the money is that created or saved these jobs because their own website is so riddled with inaccurate information.
We already know that there is a shitload of fraud going on with stimulus dollars and a shitload of false reporting. Like the school district in North Chicago claiming it save 400+ jobs but they only employ 290.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-Diego-Economy-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Media-is-discovering-the-count-of-jobs-saved-by-stimulus-is-fraudulent
But its just a bunch of simple errors that are easily explained away by the Obama administration. Good work is being done by claiming to save jobs that were never in danger to begin with and creating more jobs than actually exist. And then finding out on top of that that money is flooding into 440 new congressional districts that don't exist as well.
Seems to be a lot of data being reported, that ends up not existing with this whole stimulus stinker.
And on my way out here is a nice big list of phony data to read through and be amazed at the level of fraud and bogus claims....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html
Just more simple reporting errors, not a big deal.
Quote from: MikeC on November 17, 2009, 02:03:26 PM
We already know that there is a shitload of fraud going on with stimulus dollars and a shitload of false reporting.
At the risk of further abusing an already overworn internet rhetoric cliche...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.
All these mistakes are clearly Obama's fault.
Fucking guy thinks he's God, and he can't even build a decent datase.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.
How do you "geolocate" phantom congressional districts that DON'T EVEN EXIST? oh wait you can't unless your on FRINGE LOL
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.
How do you "geolocate" phantom congressional districts that DON'T EVEN EXIST? oh wait you can't unless your on FRINGE LOL
Er, "geocode" is the term I was looking for. Geocode.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.
How do you "geolocate" phantom congressional districts that DON'T EVEN EXIST? oh wait you can't unless your on FRINGE LOL
Er, "geocode" is the term I was looking for. Geocode.
"Real Americans" live in "real districts". D'Ur!
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.
How do you "geolocate" phantom congressional districts that DON'T EVEN EXIST? oh wait you can't unless your on FRINGE LOL
Er, "geocode" is the term I was looking for. Geocode.
ChuckD's geode must be acknowledged.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar.
On a more serious note...
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllZipCode&statecode=IL
Versus this...
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllCD&statecode=IL
Which is what's getting the morans' dander up about "phantom districts."
Congressional district 00? FRAUD!!!!!
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 17, 2009, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 17, 2009, 02:39:42 PM
I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar.
On a more serious note...
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllZipCode&statecode=IL
Versus this...
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllCD&statecode=IL
Which is what's getting the morans' dander up about "phantom districts."
Congressional district 00? FRAUD!!!!!
I would suggest taking a look at recovery.gov for a few minutes if you have a chance. It does provide a fairly amazing amount of detail.
Andrew Sullivan can be a dope sometimes, but THIS (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-institute-for-the-study-of-sarah-palin.html#more) (except for the part about how McCain should resign):
QuoteThe only reason we even know about Sarah Palin is John McCain.
He picked her so carelessly, and his thought process was so cynical, that he should stand in the dock of public opinion before Palin does. Her vanity led her to say yes to his crazy offer. But he gave her that chance. And in the end, she is his responsibility.
And that's why in fact the pushback has been almost milquetoast. How do Steve Schmidt and John McCain reveal the truth about Palin when that truth only further proves their fantastic incompetence, nihilism and unseriousness with respect to government? And what's truly telling about Washington is that a man like McCain, who perpetrated this nonsense and even now refuses to take an ounce of responsibility for it, is nonetheless invited on countless talk shows and treated like the hero he always was. And no one demands he account for this train-wreck outside his tested cant about Palin "exciting the base."
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Sincerity.
Quote from: BH on November 19, 2009, 10:34:53 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Sincerity.
I am truely sorry for your lots.
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Wait, there's an altar? I guess I can abandon the one I have at home made with Kenyan birth certificates and socailism.
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Que?
I guess a lot of people praying for Obama. Not sure if they are at the same altar though. (http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/18/bible_verse_to_battle_obama.php)
Quote from: World B Free on November 19, 2009, 11:13:40 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Wait, there's an altar? I guess I can abandon the one I have at home made with Kenyan birth certificates and socailism.
My altar is made out of acorns. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
QuoteLosing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.
The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately.
So dumb it couldn't fit in regular font.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 19, 2009, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Que?
ditto
Quote from: R-V on November 19, 2009, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: World B Free on November 19, 2009, 11:13:40 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Wait, there's an altar? I guess I can abandon the one I have at home made with Kenyan birth certificates and socailism.
My altar is made out of acorns. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
QuoteLosing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.
The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately.
So dumb it couldn't fit in regular font.
So you are suggesting that the 52% are delusional?
Quote from: CBStew on November 19, 2009, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 19, 2009, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: World B Free on November 19, 2009, 11:13:40 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Wait, there's an altar? I guess I can abandon the one I have at home made with Kenyan birth certificates and socailism.
My altar is made out of acorns. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
QuoteLosing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.
The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately.
So dumb it couldn't fit in regular font.
So you are suggesting that the 52% are delusional?
I'm surprised the number is that low.
Quote from: R-V on November 19, 2009, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: World B Free on November 19, 2009, 11:13:40 AM
Quote from: freakmaster on November 19, 2009, 10:28:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe there are still people crazy enough to still worship at the altar of Obama. Seriously, for your own health, please follow the below link. There is help available and things like this can be cured. For example, I used to truly believe the Cubs would win the World Series in my lifetime and that Jerry Angelo knew what the fuck he was doing. But I sure as hell don't anymore.
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder)
Wait, there's an altar? I guess I can abandon the one I have at home made with Kenyan birth certificates and socailism.
My altar is made out of acorns. (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html)
QuoteLosing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.
The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately.
So dumb it couldn't fit in regular font.
27%? Bizarro crazification factor. (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html)
ACORN knows how to steal an election, bitches...Unlike 1960, 2000 or 2004, where one state swung the balance, ACORN Ran their shit in a shitload of states.
Quote from: Fork on November 19, 2009, 06:49:11 PM
ACORN knows how to steal an election, bitches...Unlike 1960, 2000 or 2004, where one state swung the balance, ACORN Ran their shit in a shitload of states.
If some organization has the infrastructure, organization and leadership to steal 9.2 MILLION votes, then sign me the fuck up. That's the group that should be running things.
Geraldo Rivera is now the voice of reason. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-16-2009/law---order--ksm)
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Like all Republicans, (Rep. Franks) has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.
Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.
Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)
Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 10:52:24 AM
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Like all Republicans, (Rep. Franks) has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.
Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.
Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)
Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.
Bartlett's right. The medicare drug bill was crappy legislation. However, is Bartlett suggesting those that made mistakes should repeat them? (I know, I know, Bartlett is suggesting they lose their jobs, and I would agree).
Quote from: Brownie on November 20, 2009, 11:02:06 AM
Bartlett's right. The medicare drug bill was crappy legislation. However, is Bartlett suggesting those that made mistakes should repeat them? (I know, I know, Bartlett is suggesting they lose their jobs, and I would agree).
No, he's saying that someone who voted for a budget buster should shut his yapper over a bill designed to be budget neutral.
It's not the same mistake, it's a different one.
Apparently not a joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2qil4Swcew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2qil4Swcew)
Quote from: R-V on November 20, 2009, 02:32:19 PM
Apparently not a joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2qil4Swcew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2qil4Swcew)
"This Thanksgiving, the story of 2009 becomes the living history of the second American Revolution."
Obviously a joke.
As always, the comments are most excellent. One of my favorites:
"Why do the "Tea Partiers" always dress up like the British East India Trading Company, and not the actual Bostonians who conducted the raid, disguised as Native Americans?"
Quote from: Indolent Reader on November 20, 2009, 04:32:20 PM
As always, the comments are most excellent.
What Youtube have you been frequenting? (http://xkcd.com/202/)
WHY NOT TELL LOUIS ARMSTRONG TO HIS FACE
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 20, 2009, 06:43:07 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on November 20, 2009, 04:32:20 PM
As always, the comments are most excellent.
What Youtube have you been frequenting? (http://xkcd.com/202/)
WHY NOT TELL LOUIS ARMSTRONG TO HIS FACE
Getting beat to the punch on this is one of the biggest failures of my internet life.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 20, 2009, 11:02:06 AM
Bartlett's right. The medicare drug bill was crappy legislation. However, is Bartlett suggesting those that made mistakes should repeat them? (I know, I know, Bartlett is suggesting they lose their jobs, and I would agree).
No, he's saying that someone who voted for a budget buster should shut his yapper over a bill designed to be budget neutral.
It's not the same mistake, it's a different one.
Health Care reform is going to be budget neutral? Do you honestly believe that?
And when it isn't budget neutral can we cancel it? No? Then who really cares if it is budget neutral or not, the goal is Health Care for all (well except for the 20-30 million left out in this bill) damn the costs.
Let me propose this question.....if it wasn't budget neutral would you still want it?
Quote from: MikeC on November 21, 2009, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 20, 2009, 11:02:06 AM
Bartlett's right. The medicare drug bill was crappy legislation. However, is Bartlett suggesting those that made mistakes should repeat them? (I know, I know, Bartlett is suggesting they lose their jobs, and I would agree).
No, he's saying that someone who voted for a budget buster should shut his yapper over a bill designed to be budget neutral.
It's not the same mistake, it's a different one.
Health Care reform is going to be budget neutral? Do you honestly believe that?
And when it isn't budget neutral can we cancel it? No? Then who really cares if it is budget neutral or not, the goal is Health Care for all (well except for the 20-30 million left out in this bill) damn the costs.
Let me propose this question.....if it wasn't budget neutral would you still want it?
Do you even know I want it?
No. Of course you don't. You've avoided every question put to you.
Here's another: Did you support Medicare Part D? If so, why would you be against this bill? If not, why are you not working to unseat everyone who voted for it?
There goes the Dems' main redistributor of wealth (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/23/democrat-to-retire/).
Quote from: Fork on November 23, 2009, 10:27:14 AM
There goes the Dems' main redistributor of wealth (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/23/democrat-to-retire/).
Now where will we get our lupins?
MikeC, I assume you agree with this? (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69067-obey-wants-war-surtax-to-fund-afghan-effort)
Quote"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well," Obey told ABC News in an interview, "by having a war surtax."
This is pretty ridiculous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535)
QuoteThis is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.
Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.
The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion."
I had little respect for Kerry to begin with--now that I know he's a special-interest advocate for religious whackjobs, whatever shred of respect I had for the man is gone.
But if this goes into effect, who wants to join with me in starting a Christian spiritual healing business? $20-$40 a prayer? That's easy street if there's ever been one. It still astonishes me that there are enough fucking morons in this world to make bribing Senators to vote for this insanity worth the time and money.
QuoteThe Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer.
Seriously? Maybe Michelle Bachman can push for an expose to be done on Congressmen and women that vote with and otherwise offer support to the Christian Science lobby. It would actually be useful to know who's batshit crazier than Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.
If one itemizes deductions one can deduction contributions to a church
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on November 23, 2009, 03:57:10 PM
This is pretty ridiculous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535)
QuoteThis is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.
Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.
The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion."
I had little respect for Kerry to begin with--now that I know he's a special-interest advocate for religious whackjobs, whatever shred of respect I had for the man is gone.
But if this goes into effect, who wants to join with me in starting a Christian spiritual healing business? $20-$40 a prayer? That's easy street if there's ever been one. It still astonishes me that there are enough fucking morons in this world to make bribing Senators to vote for this insanity worth the time and money.
QuoteThe Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer.
Seriously? Maybe Michelle Bachman can push for an expose to be done on Congressmen and women that vote with and otherwise offer support to the Christian Science lobby. It would actually be useful to know who's batshit crazier than Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.
Why are the Christian Scientists so spacial as to deserve this vitriol? Once you start down the "belief" path and away from "science", the rest just seems like splitting hairs.
Quote from: Oleg on November 23, 2009, 05:27:44 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on November 23, 2009, 03:57:10 PM
This is pretty ridiculous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535)
QuoteThis is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.
Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.
The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion."
I had little respect for Kerry to begin with--now that I know he's a special-interest advocate for religious whackjobs, whatever shred of respect I had for the man is gone.
But if this goes into effect, who wants to join with me in starting a Christian spiritual healing business? $20-$40 a prayer? That's easy street if there's ever been one. It still astonishes me that there are enough fucking morons in this world to make bribing Senators to vote for this insanity worth the time and money.
QuoteThe Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer.
Seriously? Maybe Michelle Bachman can push for an expose to be done on Congressmen and women that vote with and otherwise offer support to the Christian Science lobby. It would actually be useful to know who's batshit crazier than Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.
Why are the Christian Scientists so spacial as to deserve this vitriol? Once you start down the "belief" path and away from "science", the rest just seems like splitting hairs.
This is a very valid point. Treating "prayer treatment" under the medical deduction could be less advantageous to the taxpayer than treating it as a contribution, depending upon the taxpayer's income and the amount spent on medical expenses.
Matt Taibbi explicates his General Theory of Political Reporter Jackassery to the Palin fandom...
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/11/23/yes-sarah-there-is-a-media-conspiracy/
QuoteOnce the signal comes down that this or that politician doesn't have the backing of anyone who matters, that's when the knives really come out. When a politician has powerful allies and powerful friends, you won't see reporters brazenly kicking him in the crotch the way they did to Dean and they're doing now to Sarah Palin. The only time they do this is when they know there won't be consequences, meaning when the politician's only supporters are non-entities (read: voters), as in the case of Ron Paul or Kucinich. Like America in general, the press corps never attacks any enemy that can fight back. To illustrate the point via haiku:
Journos are pussies
Only attack when it's safe
Lay off entrenched pols
...
The press corps that is bashing her skull in right now is the same one that hyped that WMD horseshit for like four solid years and pom-pommed America to war with Iraq over the screeching objections of the entire planet. It's the same press corps that rolled out the red carpet for someone very nearly as abjectly stupid as Sarah Palin to win not one but two terms in the White House. If there was any kind of consensus support for Palin inside the beltway, the criticism of her, bet on it, would be almost totally confined to chortling east coast smartasses like me and Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan.
What the people who are flipping out about the treatment of Palin should be asking themselves is what it means when it's not just jerks like us but everybody piling on against Palin. For those of you who can't connect the dots, I'll tell you what it means. It means she's been cut loose. It means that all five of the families have given the okay to this hit job, including even the mainstream Republican leaders. You teabaggers are in the process of being marginalized by your own ostensible party leaders in exactly the same way the anti-war crowd was abandoned by the Democratic party elders in the earlier part of this decade. Like the antiwar left, you have been deemed a threat to your own party's "winnability."
And do you know what that means? That means that just as the antiwar crowd spent years being painted by the national press as weepy, unpatriotic pussies whose enthusiastic support is toxic to any serious presidential aspirant, so too will all of you afternoon-radio ignoramuses who seem bent on spending the next three years kicking and screaming your way up the eternal asshole of white resentment now find yourself and your political champions painted as knee-jerk loonies whose rabid irrationality is undeserving of the political center. And yes, that's me saying that, but I've always been saying that, not just about Palin but about George Bush and all your other moron-heroes.
What's different now is who else is saying it. You had these people eating out of the palms of your hands (remember what it was like in the Dixie Chicks days?). Now they're all drawing horns and Groucho mustaches on your heroes, and rapidly transitioning you from your previous political kingmaking role in the real world to a new role as a giant captive entertainment demographic that exists solely to be manipulated for ratings and ad revenue. What you should be asking yourself is why this is happening to you. Even I don't know the answer to that question, but honestly, I don't really care. All I know is that I find it extremely funny.
"Read the whole thing."
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on November 23, 2009, 03:57:10 PM
This is pretty ridiculous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202216.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009112301535)
QuoteThis is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.
Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.
The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion."
I had little respect for Kerry to begin with--now that I know he's a special-interest advocate for religious whackjobs, whatever shred of respect I had for the man is gone.
But if this goes into effect, who wants to join with me in starting a Christian spiritual healing business? $20-$40 a prayer? That's easy street if there's ever been one. It still astonishes me that there are enough fucking morons in this world to make bribing Senators to vote for this insanity worth the time and money.
QuoteThe Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer.
Seriously? Maybe Michelle Bachman can push for an expose to be done on Congressmen and women that vote with and otherwise offer support to the Christian Science lobby. It would actually be useful to know who's batshit crazier than Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
QuoteTo a lot of us, this sounds ridiculous. Pray if you think it helps. But why should that be the government's business? And why on earth would we want the government to mandate that insurers cover prayers?
But if you want government health care, then this is the world you have chosen. We've already seen pitched battles over whether abortion should be covered by government programs, or government-subsidized programs, or insurance plans that participate in the government "exchange." The House bill eliminates a tax penalty for same-sex couples who receive health benefits from employers, but so far the Senate bill does not. The House bill provides grants to states for "home visitation" programs in which nurses and social workers counsel pregnant women and new mothers in low-income families, coaching them on "parenting practices" and skills needed to "interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development" — a program that some American families would surely find Big Brother-ish.
But that's the reality of government-funded and directed health care. If the government is paying for it, then every inclusion or exclusion — abortion, fertility treatments, prayer, same-sex couples, acupuncture, homeopathy – becomes a matter for political decision. And political decisions become the subject of political activity and lobbying, by groups ranging from Big Pharma to small insurance companies to nurses to Catholic bishops to Christian Scientists. No wonder lobbying is up in our increasingly politicized economy, particularly in the health care arena.
You can't have government pay for something as personal and intimate as health care, and not find the government poking around in the bedroom, the medicine cabinet, the sickroom, and the chapel.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 08:05:41 AM
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
I'm not smart enough to know if this is a good bill or a bad bill. But clearly there is a problem with the way the free market works and the ability to get people insured.
I had lunch with a congressional aide a few years ago and we talked about healthcare. What I told her was that I believed the purpose of government was to provide markets that are in the public interest that the private sector does not efficiently provide - i.e. that the market is one that cannot be done profitably and efficiently. Roads, military and schools are three markets that fit this profile.
Given that 16% of the population is uninsured (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/Reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm), there is certainly a case to be made that the free market is not working. Looking at that chart even closer, you see that only 69% of the insured population is covered via private insurance.
If government is the source of nearly 1/3rd of healthcare already and 16% of the population can't even get coverage, there certainly seems to be an argument to be made that the private sector does not manage this market efficiently.
I'm not saying that I know what the answer is or if the ideas being thrown around are any good. But throwing your head in the sand and saying "Let's do nothing," especially when the guys saying that are the ones that voted in favor of Medicare D, is not a way to win this person's vote.
As long as we keep propping up old, helpless people and get all their dollars (and Medicare's) while they rot in a hospital, I'm all for it. Any bill that keeps this practice going is what I want.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 08:57:25 AM
But throwing your head in the sand and saying "Let's do nothing," especially when the guys saying that are the ones that voted in favor of Medicare D, is not a way to win this person's vote.
Chuck, doing nothing is always an option. Jim Hendry could have done nothing or traded for Kevin Gregg, signed Milton Bradley and Aaron Miles and traded DeRosa. Doing nothing would have yielded, at the very least, the same results that all that activity yielded. This offseason, he could have decided that doing nothing instead of overpaying for Grabow would have been the better option. Would you have bleated: "HOW CAN HE NOT OVERPAY FOR GRABOW WHEN HE GAVE SORIANO AND MARQUIS AND MILES THOSE AWFUL CONTRACTS!?!" If Hendry passes on Granderson because the Tigers want too much, will Hendry be a dunce because he once traded three pitchers for Juan Pierre?
The first part of your argument makes a tremendous amount of sense, even if I do not agree with it.
The second part of your argument makes no sense. With that reasoning, the Bears should NOT make coaching changes after the season for the simple reason that Virginia McCaskey didn't in 1996, 1997, or 2002.
As for the first part of your argument, it really doesn't speak to the problem of more government involvement. If you want to shrink the influence of K street, of lobbyists, of special interest groups, and of religious organizations, reduce the role of government. They're all involved because government right now is where the money is.
The marketplace in health care, by the way, has been skewed dramatically by government influence. Who is the customer for those of you who have employee-sponsored insurance? Your employer, of course. If the insurance company screws you and not your employer, well guess who is renewing with them the next year. If you have government-sponsored insurance, who is the customer: the taxpayer (chortle, chortle) who has the government as its proxy. Again, the consumer is not the customer. Thus the consumer will consume the maximum it can get, while the provider will provide the minimum it can get away with. The consumer has little buying power.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 08:05:41 AM
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 08:05:41 AM
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy. Just sayin'.
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not. The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.
And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 08:05:41 AM
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy. Just sayin'.
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not. The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.
And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.
How do you measure how effective a $20 prayer is versus a $40 prayer?
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AMAnd what I said is science.
This may be my favorite sentence in the entire thread.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.
How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?
Quote from: BH on November 24, 2009, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.
How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?
That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.
I think.
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:41:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 08:05:41 AM
Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care? (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/23/should-the-government-pay-for-christian-science/)
Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy. Just sayin'.
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not. The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.
And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.
How do you measure how effective a $20 prayer is versus a $40 prayer?
I said it's ridiculous. So why should government be involved in it at all? However, the more you want to expand government, the bigger the government industry gets and the more people get in the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mindset. If you didn't see the Christian Scientists saying "let's get ours," I don't know what to say. If the Christian Scientists want to pay $40 out of their own pockets for prayers, I don't think it would bother you. But since it's their form of medical treatment, and you have offered to generously open the taxpayers' coffers for medical treatment, how is it fair that they fund others' medical treatment and not their own? That's their mindset.
And Slaky was right, with a cavaet. One way to limit special interests is to limit the size and scope of government. People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:17:54 AM
The second part of your argument makes no sense. With that reasoning, the Bears should NOT make coaching changes after the season for the simple reason that Virginia McCaskey didn't in 1996, 1997, or 2002.
I think you missed my point. The argument was simply anti-Medicare Part D yes-voters. Why did we have to do something in 2005 and nothing is the right answer now when the 2005 legislation seems to have fixed nothing. Telling me that we have to do "nothing" today is simply politics over policy. That doesn't do much to win my votes. Now, if they want to come out and say, "We should do nothing becasue 2005 did nothing, and, while we're at it, we should repeal Medicare D," you've got my attention.
Pretty much the same thing as Vag Mc SHOULD make a coaching change now BECAUSE the extension of Lovie hasn't worked out.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:17:54 AM
As for the first part of your argument, it really doesn't speak to the problem of more government involvement. If you want to shrink the influence of K street, of lobbyists, of special interest groups, and of religious organizations, reduce the role of government. They're all involved because government right now is where the money is.
That's not my goal with this. My goal here is access to healthcare. Campaign finance / money in politics can be handled directly, not indirectly by shrinking DC.
And shrinking DC will never happen. The only people in favor of smaller government are politicians in the minority. They want the party in power to have less accomplishment tallies. You don't win elections by saying, "Look what services I stopped giving you." You win elections by providing MORE services.
The GOP takes this theory even farther by not only increasing services, but also cutting taxes at the same time. "More stuff and it costs less!" is the 21st Century GOP mantra.
Bullshit.
If you think I need more services, don't tell me it's free. Have the intellectual honesty to tell me how much it costs. Right now, my three kids' kids and you on-the-way kid's kids will be paying for the "free" stuff we got from 2001 onward for the next 100 years.
So yes, Chuck, let's take it one step further. I think Congress should repeal Medicare D. Today.
Unfortunately, Barry Goldwater isn't walking through that door!
Just curious, how do the dozens of other countries with government-run health care handle an issue like this?
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 10:09:30 AM
So yes, Chuck, let's take it one step further. I think Congress should repeal Medicare D. Today.
Unfortunately, Barry Goldwater isn't walking through that door!
There's still time to get you on the ballot.
Quote from: Slack-E on November 24, 2009, 09:57:17 AM
Quote from: BH on November 24, 2009, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.
How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?
That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.
I think.
I ain't far from this. Eh, yeah, I am. But the more intolerance that's borne from it, the more I can get behind such things. No, I can't.
Not a good time for me to be discussing religious tolerance. I'm about done with another Dawkins book. Although this one is more about evolution as a whole...but, still.
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 10:29:11 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on November 24, 2009, 09:57:17 AM
Quote from: BH on November 24, 2009, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:47:07 AM
For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.
How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?
That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.
I think.
I ain't far from this. Eh, yeah, I am. But the more intolerance that's borne from it, the more I can get behind such things. No, I can't.
Not a good time for me to be discussing religious tolerance. I'm about done with another Dawkins book. Although this one is more about evolution as a whole...but, still.
I'm with you Oleg, but with BH's question the discussion was turning into a semantics debate. I was just trying to keep it on track.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 10:01:28 AM
People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
Because banks are sites of deliberative public decision making towards the betterment of the commonweal?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 10:01:28 AM
People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
Because banks are sites of deliberative public decision making towards the betterment of the commonweal?
Not when Chuck is there holding court about baseball.
Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...
Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2009, 10:41:44 AM
Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...
Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?
I ain't come from no goddamned monkey.
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2009, 10:41:44 AM
Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...
Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?
Four of the five of us got flu shots. Four of the five of us have been sick the last few weeks (as Fork can attest). Guess who didn't get a shot and hasn't gotten sick?
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2009, 10:41:44 AM
Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...
Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?
If they're allocating their own resources to get the flu shot, then they can decide for themselves whether it's a good investment, instead of having government decide who "needs" one.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 10:56:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2009, 10:41:44 AM
Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...
Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?
If they're allocating their own resources to get the flu shot, then they can decide for themselves whether it's a good investment, instead of having government decide who "needs" one.
Is the government rationing flu shots according to need?
I think the point here was pre-qualification to limited supply. This would seem to be good demand side economics. If you eliminate a portion of demand while maintaining the same supply, the new equilibrium price is lower, right?
Deny them a flu shot and, when they die from H1Ni, give them a Darwin award!
Or you could increase supply.
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't take a pregnant woman until last week to be able to get a swine flu shot.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Or you could increase supply.
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't take a pregnant woman until last week to be able to get a swine flu shot.
Problem there isn't supply, it's distribution. There's been H1N1 vaccines available for a few weeks.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Or you could increase supply.
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't take a pregnant woman until last week to be able to get a swine flu shot.
Dunno about that. I thought H1Ni production was at capacity.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Or you could increase supply.
Who?
The same people eliminating a portion of demand.
Why is distribution such a problem? Perishable goods with higher demand are available on demand, fairly inexpensively, everywhere in the U.S.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:46:30 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Or you could increase supply.
Who?
The same people eliminating a portion of demand.
Why is distribution such a problem? Perishable goods with higher demand are available on demand, fairly inexpensively, everywhere in the U.S.
A vaccine is not a tomato.
There's a process involved in preparing, testing, manufacturing, testing and testing a vaccine against a new strain.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090806/en/index.html
QuoteIt takes approximately five to six months for the first supplies of approved vaccine to become available once a new strain of influenza virus with pandemic potential is identified and isolated. These months are needed because the process of producing a new vaccine involves many sequential steps, and each of these steps requires a certain amount of time to complete. The vaccine development process from start (obtaining a virus sample) to end (availability of vaccine for use) is summarized below.
...
The full process, in a best case scenario, can be completed in five to six months. Then the first final pandemic vaccine lot would be available for distribution and use.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/jijgqr.gif)
Key: The arrows with dotted lines preceded by non-broken arrows indicate the time period required for the first time an activity is done (non-broken arrow line) that is then repeated (dotted arrow line). The solid lines signify that the activity takes place within a finite period.
Note they say "best case scenario."
Sometimes, it's not a best case.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/711245
QuoteDetailed information about snags in the manufacturing process emerged yesterday during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert panel that makes recommendations to the CDC. Bruce Gellin, MD, MPH, director of the National Vaccine Program Office of the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee that summer production of H1N1 vaccine lagged behind schedule because yields of vaccine immunogen from chicken eggs fell short of those gained in initial experiments. "For some manufacturers, it was 3- to 4-fold less than expected," said Dr. Gellin.
Manufacturers tweaked their production methods to boost immunogen yield, so that it equals or even surpasses the initial projections, but this increased efficiency will not make a difference in H1N1 vaccine supplies for at least several weeks, Dr. Gellin said. Delays in producing seasonal flu vaccine also have been a factor because the same set of manufacturers makes both types of vaccine. In addition, facilities that package both vaccines have experienced interruptions.
In short: Fork is wrong. Distribution
isn't the main problem. Supply is.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:46:30 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 11:17:47 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Or you could increase supply.
Who?
The same people eliminating a portion of demand.
Why is distribution such a problem? Perishable goods with higher demand are available on demand, fairly inexpensively, everywhere in the U.S.
A vaccine is not a tomato.
There's a process involved in preparing, testing, manufacturing, testing and testing a vaccine against a new strain.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090806/en/index.html
QuoteIt takes approximately five to six months for the first supplies of approved vaccine to become available once a new strain of influenza virus with pandemic potential is identified and isolated. These months are needed because the process of producing a new vaccine involves many sequential steps, and each of these steps requires a certain amount of time to complete. The vaccine development process from start (obtaining a virus sample) to end (availability of vaccine for use) is summarized below.
...
The full process, in a best case scenario, can be completed in five to six months. Then the first final pandemic vaccine lot would be available for distribution and use.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/jijgqr.gif)
Key: The arrows with dotted lines preceded by non-broken arrows indicate the time period required for the first time an activity is done (non-broken arrow line) that is then repeated (dotted arrow line). The solid lines signify that the activity takes place within a finite period.
Note they say "best case scenario."
Sometimes, it's not a best case.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/711245
QuoteDetailed information about snags in the manufacturing process emerged yesterday during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert panel that makes recommendations to the CDC. Bruce Gellin, MD, MPH, director of the National Vaccine Program Office of the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee that summer production of H1N1 vaccine lagged behind schedule because yields of vaccine immunogen from chicken eggs fell short of those gained in initial experiments. "For some manufacturers, it was 3- to 4-fold less than expected," said Dr. Gellin.
Manufacturers tweaked their production methods to boost immunogen yield, so that it equals or even surpasses the initial projections, but this increased efficiency will not make a difference in H1N1 vaccine supplies for at least several weeks, Dr. Gellin said. Delays in producing seasonal flu vaccine also have been a factor because the same set of manufacturers makes both types of vaccine. In addition, facilities that package both vaccines have experienced interruptions.
In short: Fork is wrong. Distribution isn't the main problem. Supply is.
I'm a little surprised you had to throw all this together - I thought it was common knowledge that there simply aren't enough vaccines ready.
Quote from: Tank on June 08, 2009, 01:41:30 AM
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.
QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?
QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.
I finally read this whole article.
It's worth your time.
The upshot seems to be a suggestion by Gawande that lower costs and better patient care are not in fact diametrically opposed, but rather go hand in hand, regardless of who's ultimately footing the bill.
Here's (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php) a bookend (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-obama-reading-and-maybe-thinking) to the Atul Gawande article.
QuoteGruber is a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties. He was one of almost two dozen top economists who sent President Obama a letter earlier this month insisting that reform won't succeed unless it "bends the curve" in the long-term growth of health care costs. And, on that front, Gruber likes what he sees in the Reid proposal. Actually he likes it a lot.
QuoteNo one can say for certain that these initiatives will improve efficiency enough to slow the growth in health care spending. Some are only pilots; others would affect only a small portion of providers' revenue from Medicare. CBO typically evaluates them skeptically: it generally scores little or no savings from most of them. Former CBO director Robert Reischauer, who signed the November 17 letter, says that's not surprising. "CBO is there to score savings for which we have a high degree of confidence that they will materialize," says Reischauer, now president of the Urban Institute. "There are many promising approaches [in these reform ideas] but you...can't deposit them in the bank." In the long run, Reischauer says, it's likely "that maybe half of them, or a third of them, will prove to be successful. But that would be very important."
QuoteThis latest tidbit is one more signal from the White House that it considers cost control a priority--a message it has been sending privately, during negotiations with Congress and interest groups, from day one.
You can't tell me that there are no death panels. The death panel has already decided that old folks like me can't get the H1N1 vaccine. What other proof do you need? Dead Pool here I come.
Quote from: CBStew on November 24, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
You can't tell me that there are no death panels. The death panel has already decided that old folks like me can't get the H1N1 vaccine. What other proof do you need? Dead Pool here I come.
On the bright side, you'll get your name in the papers.
Alexi The Crook speaks (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=36246&ba=1):
Illinois Treasurer and U.S. Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias said Tuesday that a "minimal" amount of the $70 million he and his siblings received in 2007 and 2008 dividends from Broadway Bank, the troubled Chicago lender the family owns, actually went to them individually.
Responding to concerns that the family paid itself big dividends from the real estate lender just as housing markets were imploding, Mr. Giannoulias said that most of that money went to pay taxes and to settle the estate of his father, bank founder Demetris Giannoulias, who died in 2006.
For his part, as a 3.6% shareholder of Broadway, Mr. Giannoulias said he received $2.5 million in dividends over the period. He kept something less than $1 million, with the rest going for taxes and his share of the estate expenses, he said. The campaign will release his tax returns with detailed information Wednesday.
Mr. Giannoulias couldn't quantify how much of the $70 million went for taxes and the estate, though, saying that would have to come from his brother, Demetris, who runs the bank and thus far hasn't provided the information.
--------------------
This guy is a fraud who, if the GOP were smart (they're not), would be the way to investigate Obama. It's not Rezko that's Obama's problem, it's Alexi.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
It's not Rezko that's Obama's problem, it's Alexi.
Do explain. You have some inside info?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
It's not Rezko that's Obama's problem, it's Alexi.
Do explain. You have some inside info?
No inside info, just Occam's Razor. Alexi and his family have a bank that's had some questionable ties (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=4609432). Despite all this, Obama, who no one questions his political instincts, is tight with Alexi, going so fas as to have Alexi on the dais during the inauguration.
Why would Obama do this? What does a 33 year old banker who oversaw a lot of bad loans provide to a South Side of Chicago state senator who was already in with Daley / Emanuel?
Were I a guy gunning for Obama, that's where I would investigate. How could Obama's past continued association with Alexi benefit him?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
It's not Rezko that's Obama's problem, it's Alexi.
Do explain. You have some inside info?
No inside info, just Occam's Razor. Alexi and his family have a bank that's had some questionable ties (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=4609432). Despite all this, Obama, who no one questions his political instincts, is tight with Alexi, going so fas as to have Alexi on the dais during the inauguration.
Why would Obama do this? What does a 33 year old banker who oversaw a lot of bad loans provide to a South Side of Chicago state senator who was already in with Daley / Emanuel?
Were I a guy gunning for Obama, that's where I would investigate. How could Obama's past continued association with Alexi benefit him?
All I know is if the senate race in November is between him or Kirk, I'm voting lizard people.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
It's not Rezko that's Obama's problem, it's Alexi.
Do explain. You have some inside info?
No inside info, just Occam's Razor. Alexi and his family have a bank that's had some questionable ties (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=4609432). Despite all this, Obama, who no one questions his political instincts, is tight with Alexi, going so fas as to have Alexi on the dais during the inauguration.
Why would Obama do this? What does a 33 year old banker who oversaw a lot of bad loans provide to a South Side of Chicago state senator who was already in with Daley / Emanuel?
Were I a guy gunning for Obama, that's where I would investigate. How could Obama's past continued association with Alexi benefit him? No.
Chuck, you somehow think that not one GOP opposition researcher has already looked into this?
Alexi isn't some shadowy figure that nobody knows about. He's the state treasurer.
Quote from: R-V on November 24, 2009, 03:13:52 PM
Chuck, you somehow think that not one GOP opposition researcher has already looked into this?
Alexi isn't some shadowy figure that nobody knows about. He's the state treasurer.
Oh, come on RV. Hay has been made with far less. What's keeping this hay clear?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 24, 2009, 03:13:52 PM
Chuck, you somehow think that not one GOP opposition researcher has already looked into this?
Alexi isn't some shadowy figure that nobody knows about. He's the state treasurer.
Oh, come on RV. Hay has been made with far less. What's keeping this hay clear?
Is clear hay similar to Crystal Gravy?
Maybe a GOP strategist stopped by Desipio and saw that Internet Chuck was pushing this story, proving decisively that it was a dead end.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 24, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 24, 2009, 03:13:52 PM
Chuck, you somehow think that not one GOP opposition researcher has already looked into this?
Alexi isn't some shadowy figure that nobody knows about. He's the state treasurer.
Oh, come on RV. Hay has been made with far less. What's keeping this hay clear?
Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the GOP (being well-versed in digging up scandals) looked in to it and found nothing of note.
Gene Healy suggests the individual mandate might be unconstitutional. No, he doesn't suggest it, he says it: (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11003)
Quote
In its "Findings" section, Reid's bill hits all the jurisprudential buzzwords: The individual mandate "substantially affects interstate commerce," and regulates "activity that is commercial and economic in nature." Activity like standing around without health insurance? Apparently so.
Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office noted in a 1994 evaluation of Clintoncare, an individual mandate would be "unprecedented. ... The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Even the Supreme Court ought to recognize the "you exist, therefore you're regulated" rationale as a bridge too far. But court-watchers have learned never to underestimate the justices' creativity in inventing new rationalizations for constitutionalizing the unconstitutional.
If the court eventually has to rule on the mandate, don't be surprised if the rationalization goes something like this: "Encouraging" people to buy a product is really nothing new. Wickard shows that Congress can use the Commerce Power to force people to carry out transactions they'd rather avoid.
...
Since Obamacare also bars insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, without a requirement to purchase insurance, the healthy would have an incentive to drop their coverage, and enter the market only when they got sick.
But members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution — not the court's funhouse-mirror version of it.
Supporters of national health care are counting on congressmen not to take that obligation very seriously. Their attitude toward the rule of law echoes that famously expressed by FDR in 1935. Trying to push through a key New Deal measure, Roosevelt wrote to an important congressman: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 04:03:56 PMQuote
In its "Findings" section, Reid's bill hits all the jurisprudential buzzwords: The individual mandate "substantially affects interstate commerce," and regulates "activity that is commercial and economic in nature." Activity like standing around without health insurance? Apparently so.
No, activity like using the health care system.
Or, to quote one of those rarest of moments when Chuck was right...
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 06, 2009, 03:10:58 PM
Question.........if/when Health Care reform is put in place, should people be sent to jail and fined for not having insurance?
Do you have car insurance? It's the law.
Ah but I can choose to not drive and still not get fined or go to jail.
You could also choose not to go to a hospital if you get sick.
Via Tank in the sbox...
Like Hell I'm Going To Let Some Black President Help Me Pay For Dialysis (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/like_hell_im_going_to_let_some)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 23, 2009, 07:48:52 PM
So, a portent of things to come, or an isolated incident, I ask you, MORTON KONDRACKE!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT92400
WRONG!
Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Baker's Buchanan?
Suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/25census.html
QuoteThe Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest staged his death to look like a homicide so that his son could collect his life insurance, the authorities said Tuesday.
"We believe this was an intentional act," said Trooper Don Trosper, a Kentucky State Police spokesman. "We believe the aim was to take his own life."
The naked body of the census worker, Bill Sparkman, was found Sept. 12 hanging from a tree near a cemetery in the Daniel Boone National Forest in southeastern Kentucky.
One of the witnesses who found the body said Mr. Sparkman, 51, was bound with duct tape, gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck. A rope was tied around his neck, attached to a tree, and the word "fed" was on his chest, the police said.
The death attracted national attention and prompted concerns that it might be a sign of increased animosity toward the federal government in the first year of Barack Obama's presidency.
The police said they analyzed the ink on Mr. Sparkman's chest to determine if someone else had written the word. They concluded that the letters had been written from the bottom to the top, which is not how another person would have written them while facing Mr. Sparkman.
The police also found no evidence of a struggle, and there was only Mr. Sparkman's DNA on the rag in his mouth and near his body.
Mr. Sparkman's hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them a shoulder-width apart. The police added that they believed Mr. Sparkman had acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 23, 2009, 07:48:52 PM
So, a portent of things to come, or an isolated incident, I ask you, MORTON KONDRACKE!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT92400
WRONG!
Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Baker's Buchanan?
Suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/25census.html
QuoteThe Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest staged his death to look like a homicide so that his son could collect his life insurance, the authorities said Tuesday.
"We believe this was an intentional act," said Trooper Don Trosper, a Kentucky State Police spokesman. "We believe the aim was to take his own life."
The naked body of the census worker, Bill Sparkman, was found Sept. 12 hanging from a tree near a cemetery in the Daniel Boone National Forest in southeastern Kentucky.
One of the witnesses who found the body said Mr. Sparkman, 51, was bound with duct tape, gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck. A rope was tied around his neck, attached to a tree, and the word "fed" was on his chest, the police said.
The death attracted national attention and prompted concerns that it might be a sign of increased animosity toward the federal government in the first year of Barack Obama's presidency.
The police said they analyzed the ink on Mr. Sparkman's chest to determine if someone else had written the word. They concluded that the letters had been written from the bottom to the top, which is not how another person would have written them while facing Mr. Sparkman.
The police also found no evidence of a struggle, and there was only Mr. Sparkman's DNA on the rag in his mouth and near his body.
Mr. Sparkman's hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them a shoulder-width apart. The police added that they believed Mr. Sparkman had acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide.
Well, if he had the policy for more than two years it would have likely paid on the suicide anyway.
Which means his last hour or so on earth was completely pointless and wasted.
Quote from: CT III on November 24, 2009, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on November 24, 2009, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 23, 2009, 07:48:52 PM
So, a portent of things to come, or an isolated incident, I ask you, MORTON KONDRACKE!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbzG_BlkG2Hfc818EPRRn1bBlP6gD9AT92400
WRONG!
Patty Cake, Patty Cake, Baker's Buchanan?
Suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/us/25census.html
QuoteThe Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" scrawled on his chest staged his death to look like a homicide so that his son could collect his life insurance, the authorities said Tuesday.
"We believe this was an intentional act," said Trooper Don Trosper, a Kentucky State Police spokesman. "We believe the aim was to take his own life."
The naked body of the census worker, Bill Sparkman, was found Sept. 12 hanging from a tree near a cemetery in the Daniel Boone National Forest in southeastern Kentucky.
One of the witnesses who found the body said Mr. Sparkman, 51, was bound with duct tape, gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck. A rope was tied around his neck, attached to a tree, and the word "fed" was on his chest, the police said.
The death attracted national attention and prompted concerns that it might be a sign of increased animosity toward the federal government in the first year of Barack Obama's presidency.
The police said they analyzed the ink on Mr. Sparkman's chest to determine if someone else had written the word. They concluded that the letters had been written from the bottom to the top, which is not how another person would have written them while facing Mr. Sparkman.
The police also found no evidence of a struggle, and there was only Mr. Sparkman's DNA on the rag in his mouth and near his body.
Mr. Sparkman's hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them a shoulder-width apart. The police added that they believed Mr. Sparkman had acted alone in manipulating the scene to conceal the suicide.
Well, if he had the policy for more than two years it would have likely paid on the suicide anyway.
Which means his last hour or so on earth was completely pointless and wasted.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/US/us-census-worker-bill-sparkman-committed-suicide/story?id=9167408
QuoteTwo life insurance plans had also been taken out by Sparkman, a single father, right before the time of his death, but payment for suicide was precluded, said police.
Seems like a red flag of sorts.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 21, 2009, 03:49:15 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 21, 2009, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 20, 2009, 11:02:06 AM
Bartlett's right. The medicare drug bill was crappy legislation. However, is Bartlett suggesting those that made mistakes should repeat them? (I know, I know, Bartlett is suggesting they lose their jobs, and I would agree).
No, he's saying that someone who voted for a budget buster should shut his yapper over a bill designed to be budget neutral.
It's not the same mistake, it's a different one.
Health Care reform is going to be budget neutral? Do you honestly believe that?
And when it isn't budget neutral can we cancel it? No? Then who really cares if it is budget neutral or not, the goal is Health Care for all (well except for the 20-30 million left out in this bill) damn the costs.
Let me propose this question.....if it wasn't budget neutral would you still want it?
Do you even know I want it?
No. Of course you don't. You've avoided every question put to you.
Here's another: Did you support Medicare Part D? If so, why would you be against this bill? If not, why are you not working to unseat everyone who voted for it?
No I did not want Medicare Part D, it was nothing more than a shoddy attempt to gain votes and went against everything about reducing the scope of government. And that is the internal struggle that the GOP is going through. Whether they should be Democrat light and expand the federal government to garner support or return to Conservative Values and try to reduce the size of government and its influence in the private citizens lives.
What we can't keep doing is adding more and more stuff onto the Federal Budget and never taking anything away. Some things have to be cut and taxes have to be lowered. Its the whole reason why this country came into existence, taxes, taxes and taxes. People don't like paying a huge portion of their income and it going to people they don't believe deserve it or work hard enough to get it. What happens is the Republicans come in and get taxes lowered but they can't cut anything because they are instantly demonized for cutting services people now depend on. And for the last 100 years its been add add add, lower taxes here and there to say we care about the people, repeat over and over, bam we suddenly owe a shitload of money for crap we can't afford.
Republicans might give up on the lowering taxes thing if Democrats would stop adding more shit to the budget and actually cut things out to pay off our debt. I will pay higher taxes for the next 20 years if it puts our nation back in the black, but no way in hell will i support higher and higher taxes to pay for more and more expensive crap this nation does not and can not afford. Most importantly get some real Republicans with backbones who will not do stupid crap like Medicare Part D which further compounds the problem.
Quote from: MikeC on November 25, 2009, 01:25:14 PM
Republicans might give up on the lowering taxes thing if Democrats would stop adding more shit to the budget and actually cut things out to pay off our debt.
Republicans will never give up on the "lowering taxes thing" because it's all they have ("Vote for us! Free money!"). And, when they are in control, they add more to the budget than the Dems have.
I suppose the Clinton-Gingrich model was the best we've ever had. Maybe getting the House back to GOP hands would be a good thing. Then again, Cantor is just a more effeminate version of Pelosi. He's not Newt.
Quote from: MikeC on November 25, 2009, 01:25:14 PM
I will pay higher taxes for the next 20 years if it puts our nation back in the black, but no way in hell will i support higher and higher taxes to pay for more and more expensive crap this nation does not and can not afford. Most importantly get some real Republicans with backbones who will not do stupid crap like Medicare Part D which further compounds the problem.
Congrats. You're a grown up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk#t=37s
Eloquent endorsement, Pen.
So somehow getting to keep the money you bust your ass for is now considered "free money"? Really? Talk about warped thinking.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 25, 2009, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 25, 2009, 01:25:14 PM
Republicans might give up on the lowering taxes thing if Democrats would stop adding more shit to the budget and actually cut things out to pay off our debt.
Republicans will never give up on the "lowering taxes thing" because it's all they have ("Vote for us! Free money!"). And, when they are in control, they add more to the budget than the Dems have.
I suppose the Clinton-Gingrich model was the best we've ever had. Maybe getting the House back to GOP hands would be a good thing. Then again, Cantor is just a more effeminate version of Pelosi. He's not Newt.
Quote from: MikeC on November 25, 2009, 01:25:14 PM
I will pay higher taxes for the next 20 years if it puts our nation back in the black, but no way in hell will i support higher and higher taxes to pay for more and more expensive crap this nation does not and can not afford. Most importantly get some real Republicans with backbones who will not do stupid crap like Medicare Part D which further compounds the problem.
Congrats. You're a grown up.
Quote from: freakmaster on November 26, 2009, 09:12:13 AM
So somehow getting to keep the money you bust your ass for is now considered "free money"? Really? Talk about warped thinking.
Cutting taxes without cutting spending is free money, yes. "You can keep more of your money and we'll just keep spending your money and it won't cost a thing!"
This is bad (http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/obama-partnering-with-afghan-govt-but.html), right?
QuoteMonths after the controversial presidential election that many Afghans consider stolen, there is no cabinet, and parliament is threatening to go on recess before confirming a new one because the president is unconstitutionally late in presenting the names. There are grave suspicions that some past and present cabinet members have engaged in the embezzlement of substantial sums of money. There is little parliamentary oversight. Almost no one bothers to attend the parliamentary sessions. The cabinet ministries are unable to spend the money allocated to them on things like education and rural development, and actually spent less in absolute terms last year than they did in the previous two years. Only half of the development projects for which money was allotted were even begun last year, and none was completed.
QuoteNader Khan Katawazai, an MP from Paktika, complained that only 30 of the 238 MPs attended Monday's session. This is the government we are being asked to prop up with blood and treasure? Only 30 legislators bothered to come in to work?
Quote from: R-V on December 01, 2009, 11:25:34 AM
This is bad (http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/obama-partnering-with-afghan-govt-but.html), right?
QuoteMonths after the controversial presidential election that many Afghans consider stolen, there is no cabinet, and parliament is threatening to go on recess before confirming a new one because the president is unconstitutionally late in presenting the names. There are grave suspicions that some past and present cabinet members have engaged in the embezzlement of substantial sums of money. There is little parliamentary oversight. Almost no one bothers to attend the parliamentary sessions. The cabinet ministries are unable to spend the money allocated to them on things like education and rural development, and actually spent less in absolute terms last year than they did in the previous two years. Only half of the development projects for which money was allotted were even begun last year, and none was completed.
QuoteNader Khan Katawazai, an MP from Paktika, complained that only 30 of the 238 MPs attended Monday's session. This is the government we are being asked to prop up with blood and treasure? Only 30 legislators bothered to come in to work?
Fire Lovie.
Blue Dog "deficit hawk" Ben Nelson comes out in favor of deficit spending:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/does-ben-nelson-know-what-war-bonds-are.php
QuoteQuoteIn lieu of a "war tax" to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) is proposing war bonds.
"We didn't have a war tax in the second World War," Nelson said, and instead the government sold Americans bonds. "People invested in their country, in that fashion [and] made a lot of sense back then. I don't know why it might not make sense today, certainly in lieu of jumping to tax."
One thing NBC's Ken Strickland might have wanted to note while "reporting" this story is that what Nelson is saying here is false. During World War II taxes went up substantially....
The larger issue here, though, is that we have to wonder does Ben Nelson understand that war bonds are just bonds? Calling a bond a "war bond" is a marketing gimmick, not an actual method of financing a war. Is Nelson saying that if Obama relabels a few hundred dollars worth of deficit spending as "war bonds" that he'll stop complaining about?
Ass.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 01, 2009, 07:00:30 PM
Blue Dog "deficit hawk" Ben Nelson comes out in favor of deficit spending:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/does-ben-nelson-know-what-war-bonds-are.php
QuoteQuoteIn lieu of a "war tax" to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) is proposing war bonds.
"We didn't have a war tax in the second World War," Nelson said, and instead the government sold Americans bonds. "People invested in their country, in that fashion [and] made a lot of sense back then. I don't know why it might not make sense today, certainly in lieu of jumping to tax."
One thing NBC's Ken Strickland might have wanted to note while "reporting" this story is that what Nelson is saying here is false. During World War II taxes went up substantially....
The larger issue here, though, is that we have to wonder does Ben Nelson understand that war bonds are just bonds? Calling a bond a "war bond" is a marketing gimmick, not an actual method of financing a war. Is Nelson saying that if Obama relabels a few hundred dollars worth of deficit spending as "war bonds" that he'll stop complaining about?
Ass.
So what's the current return on these bonds? I think you can get 0.5% to 1.5% in a savings account. I find it enjoyable that the people making policy are pretty deficient on even the most basic economic concepts. Having a war? Let's cut taxes.
Quote from: World B Free on December 02, 2009, 09:29:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 01, 2009, 07:00:30 PM
Blue Dog "deficit hawk" Ben Nelson comes out in favor of deficit spending:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/does-ben-nelson-know-what-war-bonds-are.php
QuoteQuoteIn lieu of a "war tax" to pay for a troop increase in Afghanistan, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) is proposing war bonds.
"We didn't have a war tax in the second World War," Nelson said, and instead the government sold Americans bonds. "People invested in their country, in that fashion [and] made a lot of sense back then. I don't know why it might not make sense today, certainly in lieu of jumping to tax."
One thing NBC's Ken Strickland might have wanted to note while "reporting" this story is that what Nelson is saying here is false. During World War II taxes went up substantially....
The larger issue here, though, is that we have to wonder does Ben Nelson understand that war bonds are just bonds? Calling a bond a "war bond" is a marketing gimmick, not an actual method of financing a war. Is Nelson saying that if Obama relabels a few hundred dollars worth of deficit spending as "war bonds" that he'll stop complaining about?
Ass.
So what's the current return on these bonds? I think you can get 0.5% to 1.5% in a savings account. I find it enjoyable that the people making policy are pretty deficient on even the most basic economic concepts. Having a war? Let's cut taxes.
I just love how we're having a national debate about how to pay for our wars 8 years after said wars started.
Thank you, GOP.
All of these.
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2009/12/01/ten-ways-to-move-the-budget-back-toward-a-sustainable-path/ (http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2009/12/01/ten-ways-to-move-the-budget-back-toward-a-sustainable-path/)
All of these (http://www.slate.com/id/2237261/).
An in-depth profile of Slick G and Broadway Bank:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/can-alexi-giannoulias-family-bank-obamas-senate-seat/Content?oid=1245291
DPD. Finally some good news (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?_r=2&hp):
QuoteIn the strongest employment report since the recession began nearly two years ago, the government said Friday that the nation's employers had all but stopped shedding jobs in November, taking some of the pressure off of President Obama to come up with a wide-ranging jobs creation program.
The Labor Department reported that the United States economy lost 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, down from 10.2 percent in October.
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/jobs_nov.png)
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
An in-depth profile of Slick G and Broadway Bank:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/can-alexi-giannoulias-family-bank-obamas-senate-seat/Content?oid=1245291
QuoteWithin two years he'd been named senior loan officer and a bank vice president.
It's not clear what responsibilities came with these titles. He's said that as VP he oversaw all of Broadway's lending—but he's also said he was really just the guy who serviced the bank's loans—overseeing things like billing and payment collection— while more senior officers, including his older brother Demetris, negotiated the deals and made the final decisions. When I pressed him to specify his job descriptions at each stage of his employment at the bank, he laughed.
"You have to understand that it was the family business—I did everything there," he said. "Sometimes I was a teller and sometimes I serviced loans—whatever we needed."
There are more problems with this than there were with Korey Patterson's approach to an at bat.
Sarah Palin, author, quitter, social gadfly, birther? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html)
Quote"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."
Quote"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
QuotePalin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."
But later, via Facebook, sayeth Sarah:
QuoteVoters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews - have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 04, 2009, 11:47:49 AM
Sarah Palin, author, quitter, social gadfly, birther? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html)
Quote"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."
Quote"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
QuotePalin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."
But later, via Facebook, sayeth Sarah:
QuoteVoters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews - have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
[/s]
All she is, is my next sexual conquest:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg)
Quote from: IrishYeti on December 04, 2009, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 04, 2009, 11:47:49 AM
Sarah Palin, author, quitter, social gadfly, birther? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html)
Quote"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."
Quote"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
QuotePalin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."
But later, via Facebook, sayeth Sarah:
QuoteVoters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews - have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
[/s]
All she is, is my next sexual conquest:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg)
I just love the look on Biden's face. Steak sauce.
Quote from: Tank on June 08, 2009, 01:41:30 AM
Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?printable=true):
I finally read this whole article.
It's worth your time.
The upshot seems to be a suggestion by Gawande that lower costs and better patient care are not in fact diametrically opposed, but rather go hand in hand, regardless of who's ultimately footing the bill.
Gawande checks in (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande?printable=true) with an interesting farming-healthcare analogy. It's just as good as his initial article.
QuoteAt the start of the twentieth century, another indispensable but unmanageably costly sector was strangling the country: agriculture. In 1900, more than forty per cent of a family's income went to paying for food. At the same time, farming was hugely labor-intensive, tying up almost half the American workforce. We were, partly as a result, still a poor nation. Only by improving the productivity of farming could we raise our standard of living and emerge as an industrial power. We had to reduce food costs, so that families could spend money on other goods, and resources could flow to other economic sectors.
QuoteThe United States did not seek a grand solution. Private farms remained, along with the considerable advantages of individual initiative. Still, government was enlisted to help millions of farmers change the way they worked. The approach succeeded almost shockingly well. The resulting abundance of goods in our grocery stores and the leaps in our standard of living became the greatest argument for America around the world.
QuoteWhat seemed like a hodgepodge eventually cohered into a whole. The government never took over agriculture, but the government didn't leave it alone, either. It shaped a feedback loop of experiment and learning and encouragement for farmers across the country. The results were beyond what anyone could have imagined. Productivity went way up, outpacing that of other Western countries. Prices fell by half. By 1930, food absorbed just twenty-four per cent of family spending and twenty per cent of the workforce. Today, food accounts for just eight per cent of household income and two per cent of the labor force. It is produced on no more land than was devoted to it a century ago, and with far greater variety and abundance than ever before in history.
QuotePick up the Senate health-care bill—yes, all 2,074 pages—and leaf through it. Almost half of it is devoted to programs that would test various ways to curb costs and increase quality. The bill is a hodgepodge. And it should be.
QuoteWhich of these programs will work? We can't know. That's why the Congressional Budget Office doesn't credit any of them with substantial savings. The package relies on taxes and short-term payment cuts to providers in order to pay for subsidies. But, in the end, it contains a test of almost every approach that leading health-care experts have suggested. (The only one missing is malpractice reform. This is where the Republicans could be helpful.) None of this is as satisfying as a master plan. But there can't be a master plan. That's a crucial lesson of our agricultural experience. And there's another: with problems that don't have technical solutions, the struggle never ends.
DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpblg).
QuoteACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.
QuoteThe videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpblg).
QuoteACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.
QuoteThe videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
Sure.
Quote from: morpheus on December 08, 2009, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpblg).
QuoteACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.
QuoteThe videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
Sure.
That's what the ACORNNaziSocialistKenyan-Zombies want you to think.
It's a conspiracy.
Details...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php
QuoteAs has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.
Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.
That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.
It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_team_of_10_reaches_a_deal.html
QuoteThe details will be important here... But assuming those pieces don't come in much worse than expected, the combination of national non-profits and a Medicare buy-in seems like a pretty good deal. Better by far than what Democrats looked likely to get a week ago. And more likely, by far, to seed health-care reform with scalable experiments.
A public option partnered with Medicare might have been better than these policies, but national non-profits and direct competition between Medicare and insurers is more promising than the compromised public plans that succeeded the initial policy idea. In fact, it's like we split the idea into two parts.
The national non-profits are not exactly like, but not that far from, the compromised public plan in the House version of the bill. They won't be publicly run, but with the OPM regulating them tightly and carefully choosing which offerings are accepted into the market, the impact might not be that different in practice. They're like publicly-regulated utilities more than private plans, and they have the advantages of offering a single product nationally and being freed from the profit motive, both of which were key to the theory of the public option. Indeed, these look a lot like the semi-private insurers that function well in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, among others.
Meanwhile, the Medicare buy-in lets people in the broader insurance market see what national bargaining power can do for individual premiums. Right now, Medicare's rates are largely hidden, as no one pays premiums, and so no one can really compare it to private offerings. But if the premiums become visible, and Medicare's superior bargaining power is capable of offering rates 20 to 30 percent lower than its private competitors can muster, we'll see how long it is before representatives begin getting calls from 50-year-olds who'd like the opportunity to exchange money in return for insurance as good as what 55-year-olds can get.
All I want to know is this:
Does Mike C have to go to the hospital?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 08, 2009, 10:42:31 PM
Details...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php
QuoteAs has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.
Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.
That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.
It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.
This part seems strange...an idea championed by known Marxist Howard Dean ends up in a version approved by Wise Centrists Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe? HYEEEEEEEAH!
I also like this (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/08/report-democrats-reach-deal-drop-government-run-pl/):
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 08:50:12 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 08, 2009, 10:42:31 PM
Details...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php
QuoteAs has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.
Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.
That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.
It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.
This part seems strange...an idea championed by known Marxist Howard Dean ends up in a version approved by Wise Centrists Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe? HYEEEEEEEAH!
Yeah... Not so fast there, comrade...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/snowe-says-she-opposes-medicare-buy-in-idea.php
QuoteSen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says a Medicare buy-in approach will be a hard sell with her. She told reporters this afternoon that she's not inclined to support the idea, currently being discussed by liberal and conservative Democrats seeking a compromise on the public option.
"We looked at it...we evaluated that, because it's an attractive approach. This has appeal...but we examined that issue this summer and a number of issues cropped up."
She's expressed her doubts to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "I told him I have concerns," she said. "The Medicare buy in is problematic."
A reporter asked if that meant she's not inclined to support the idea. "Correct," she said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71223-senate-dem-health-talks-advance-snowe-skeptical
QuoteLiberal and centrist Democratic senators huddled behind closed doors throughout Tuesday seeking an elusive agreement that would enable them to propel healthcare reform forward.
But even as Democrats tentatively said the talks were promising, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), whose backing has been sought all year, expressed deep skepticism about key components of the tenuous Democratic framework.
...
Nelson, one of the toughest sells in the Democratic caucus on the healthcare reform bill, said he would continue to work with his liberal counterparts even if he did not feel he could support the final product.
"I'm continuing to try to work with a variety of different issues with my colleagues to try to be, at least, a friend of the process," Nelson said. "Until everything is settled and you've got a clear view of what changes might be made and what may be there, it's hard to say."
...
Snowe emerged from a meeting in Reid's office Tuesday, telling reporters that she is intrigued by the proposal to have the OPM, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, offer plans on the health insurance exchange that the bill would create. Snowe opposes a public option except a version she introduced, which would "trigger" the program in states underserved by private insurance.
But Snowe shot down the Medicare and Medicaid expansions under discussion by Democrats.
"It's an expansion of government at a time in which we should be moving in the opposing direction, frankly," Snowe said. "...[M]y deep concern is about the breadth and scale of this legislation moving and taking a more expansionistic approach for government's role, rather than the reverse, at a time in which people are questioning expanding the scale of government's involvement in healthcare."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance? Do they have to pay out extra? Lower premiums next year? Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?
Loophole heaven.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance? Do they have to pay out extra? Lower premiums next year? Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?
Loophole heaven.
You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.
At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 09, 2009, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance? Do they have to pay out extra? Lower premiums next year? Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?
Loophole heaven.
You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.
At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.
Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 09, 2009, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance? Do they have to pay out extra? Lower premiums next year? Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?
Loophole heaven.
You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.
At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.
Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.
A) Plenty of people see it. You are just ignoring it.
B) Do you really have that much confidence in the effectiveness of the Federal Government legislating control of corporate P&L statements? No one is that naive.
I'm just ecstatic that y'all might enjoy the pleasantries of dealing with the FEHBP or OPM when dealing with health care.
More prosaically, I'm just curious as to what kind of pressure the GOP is putting on Snowe and Collins. It must have been pretty threatening; this seems to be something they'd jump at.
Fucking Maine.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 09, 2009, 10:29:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 10:13:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 09:16:24 AM
QuoteAdditionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
That smells of loopholes all over the place.
- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.
Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.
Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/how-much-money-do-insurance-companies-make-a-primer/?pagemode=print) of total revenue for insurance companies.
QuoteAccording to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).
I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.
And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.
What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance? Do they have to pay out extra? Lower premiums next year? Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?
Loophole heaven.
You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.
At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.
Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.
A) Plenty of people see it. You are just ignoring it.
B) Do you really have that much confidence in the effectiveness of the Federal Government legislating control of corporate P&L statements? No one is that naive.
Minimum medical loss ratios aren't something new - several states already have them in place (http://www.cppp.org/files/2/poguetestimonyHB%20531.pdf).
QuoteFifteen states set a minimum medical loss ratio standard in the small employer or individual markets. If an insurance company does not meet the minimum medical loss ratio standard, some states require the company's premiums be adjusted accordingly the next year. Other states require insurance companies that fail to meet the standard to refund excess premiums to enrollees.
At the state level, I haven't found anything that suggests the minimums have been particularly sensitive to fraud by the insurance companies.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 12:30:32 PM
At the state level, I haven't found anything that suggests the minimums have been particularly sensitive to fraud by the insurance companies.
That's because the loopholes suggested aren't fraud. See if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented. Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts. If Congress sets the hurdle at 90% payouts and the last three years have seen an average of 92%, then it's a meaningless hurdle.
I don't know the data.
I do know legislating expense ratios is a bad idea due to compliance and to unintended consequences.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 01:27:00 PMSee if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented. Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts.
I'm not your research assistant, pal.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 01:27:00 PMI don't know the data.
Yet you seem certain you are right about this.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 01:46:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 01:27:00 PMSee if you can find how fee schedules changed the year or two after minimums were implemented. Also, it would be interesting to see where the hurdle rate was relative to historical payouts.
I'm not your research assistant, pal.
You have been so far.
Quote from: R-V on December 09, 2009, 01:46:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2009, 01:27:00 PMI don't know the data.
Yet you seem certain you are right about this.
I am. It's not a new legislative tack.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/laz-parking-chicago-meter-electronic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29 (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/laz-parking-chicago-meter-electronic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29)
Daley's parking meter deal, the gift that keeps on giving.
Michael Steele is awesome. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/12/best-boss-ever-michael-steele-the-rnc-interns.php?img=1)
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-steeleinterns2.jpg)
Quote from: R-V on December 11, 2009, 02:41:41 PM
Michael Steele is awesome. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/12/best-boss-ever-michael-steele-the-rnc-interns.php?img=1)
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-steeleinterns2.jpg)
I'm 93% certain that Michael Steele is a supertan white guy.
Quote from: R-V on December 11, 2009, 02:41:41 PM
Michael Steele is awesome. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/12/best-boss-ever-michael-steele-the-rnc-interns.php?img=1)
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gallery-steeleinterns2.jpg)
Is this the RNC interns, or casting for next season's Tool Academy?
Joe Lieberman is a penis. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/lieberman_again.php?ref=fpblg)
QuoteIt's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.
What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.
If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.
It's coming to a breaking point.
President Obama is mad at bankers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091214/ts_nm/us_obama_banks_12):
QuoteObama, who has complained about "fat cat bankers" taking big bonuses, will use the meeting to press the firms to expand their lending to small businesses and to stop trying to thwart legislation to overhaul the financial regulatory system.
Well, Mr. President. How about asking your hoops buddy running for your old seat? (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=36246)
Quote(Crain's) — Illinois Treasurer and U.S. Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias said Tuesday that a "minimal" amount of the $70 million he and his siblings received in 2007 and 2008 dividends from Broadway Bank, the troubled Chicago lender the family owns, actually went to them individually.
Responding to concerns that the family paid itself big dividends from the real estate lender just as housing markets were imploding, Mr. Giannoulias said that most of that money went to pay taxes and to settle the estate of his father, bank founder Alexis Giannoulias, who died in 2006.
Quote from: R-V on December 14, 2009, 09:35:59 AM
Joe Lieberman is a penis. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/lieberman_again.php?ref=fpblg)
QuoteIt's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.
What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.
If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.
It's coming to a breaking point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html
QuoteMore than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.
...
Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds...
...
Lieberman, on Sunday, informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would, in fact, be filibustering health care reform in its current incarnation. But leadership aides have remained mum about what kind of punishment such a vote would provoke.
It is entirely possible that a heated internal drama will play out within the Democratic caucus should the Connecticut independent prove to be the one-vote obstacle to getting legislation passed. The polling numbers certainly show where the heart of the party lies.
That there's even any question about this says everything that needs saying about systemic Democratic political incompetence.
He's not a Democrat. He campaigned against the Dems' Presidentical candidate last year. He's acting to obstruct their top policy priority this year because... well, mostly just
because, apparently.
I don't care if his filibuster threat is 100% Droopy bluster and no follow through. I don't see what the Democrats have to gain from continuing to be magnanimous to this eminently self-regarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman) numbnuts.
Time to speed him on his way to his 2012 irrelevancy. Maybe give him a chance to get a head start on drafting his RNC speech.
One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton. He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish. Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton
Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2009, 11:51:44 AM
One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton. He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish. Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton
I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright (http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/)
(http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/max-wright-1.jpg)
Quote from: flannj on December 14, 2009, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2009, 11:51:44 AM
One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton. He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish. Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton
I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright (http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/)
(http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/max-wright-1.jpg)
Who is the guy to the left of Lieberman in that picture? Wait. Everyone is to the left of Lieberman.
Quote from: flannj on December 14, 2009, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2009, 11:51:44 AM
One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton. He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish. Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton
I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright (http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/)
(http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/max-wright-1.jpg)
Willie is bisexual? Thats....well that's not surprising at all.
Quote from: Tony on December 14, 2009, 12:54:34 PM
Quote from: flannj on December 14, 2009, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2009, 11:51:44 AM
One of my favorite character actors is Austin Pendleton. He plays a wimpy, whiney nebbish. Next time you hear Joe Lieberman speaking close your eyes and you will hear Austin Pendleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Pendleton
I always thought Joe Lieberman sounds like the Dad on Alf.
Max Wright (http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/)
(http://www.nndb.com/people/217/000030127/max-wright-1.jpg)
Willie is bisexual? Thats....well that's not surprising at all.
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9331/maxwrightforpresident.jpg)
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 14, 2009, 09:35:59 AM
Joe Lieberman is a penis. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/lieberman_again.php?ref=fpblg)
QuoteIt's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.
What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.
If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.
It's coming to a breaking point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/81-of-dems-want-lieberman_n_390797.html
QuoteMore than 80 percent of Democrats say they believe Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) should be stripped of his powerful chairmanship in the Senate if he ends up supporting a Republican filibuster of health care reform, according to a new poll.
...
Eighty-one percent of Democrats said they would like to see the senator's chairmanship -- which he was allowed to keep despite campaigning for Sen. John McCain in 2008 -- taken away should he sustain a filibuster. Only 10 percent of Democrats said there should be no punishment. Even fewer (nine percent) said they had yet to make up their minds...
...
Lieberman, on Sunday, informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would, in fact, be filibustering health care reform in its current incarnation. But leadership aides have remained mum about what kind of punishment such a vote would provoke.
It is entirely possible that a heated internal drama will play out within the Democratic caucus should the Connecticut independent prove to be the one-vote obstacle to getting legislation passed. The polling numbers certainly show where the heart of the party lies.
That there's even any question about this says everything that needs saying about systemic Democratic political incompetence.
He's not a Democrat. He campaigned against the Dems' Presidentical candidate last year. He's acting to obstruct their top policy priority this year because... well, mostly just because, apparently.
I don't care if his filibuster threat is 100% Droopy bluster and no follow through. I don't see what the Democrats have to gain from continuing to be magnanimous to this eminently self-regarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman) numbnuts.
Time to speed him on his way to his 2012 irrelevancy. Maybe give him a chance to get a head start on drafting his RNC speech.
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 01:36:09 PM
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.
If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 01:36:09 PM
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.
If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.
Seriously. If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it. It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase. The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.
Get some balls, Harry.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 01:36:09 PM
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.
If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.
Seriously. If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it. It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase. The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.
Get some balls, Harry.
Of course, given Reid's precarious re-election straits, he'll probably be at least a little bit afraid of the GOP blaming such a shutdown on him.
As we all know, far-left wacko Harry Reid loves socialism as much as he hates than the troops.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 01:36:09 PM
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.
If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.
Seriously. If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it. It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase. The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.
Get some balls, Harry.
Here's an attempt (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/did_the_invention_of_the_airpl.html) to answer some filibuster questions:
QuoteWhy don't the Democrats just break out the cots and let the Republicans filibuster?
There's a reason the Senate stopped doing this. Democrats are not going to want to sit around all day and be in the chamber listening to Republicans talk. They don't want to give up fundraisers. They don't want to give up trips. They'd have to give Republicans as much time as they wanted.
How would it work if they tried, though?
If you're serious about attrition, you make the opponents do all the talking. Any time there is a gap in the speaking, you begin your voting. Part of the problem is that I don't think any modern senator really understands how this works. When you see senators pretend to do this in the recent past, it's play-acting. In 2003, when the Republicans ran a reverse filibuster, if you tuned into C-SPAN 2 -- and I did -- you saw Republicans talking, which they shouldn't be doing! If it's the middle of the night and there's no Democrat there, that's when you bring up your amendment!
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 01:36:09 PM
Let Lieberman and the rest of the GOP filibuster. I would let the American public see who is holding up this from happening. Do filibusters still work like that, wherein said senator needs to actually talk, or do they have some sort of new trick now?
I'm pretty sure it's at the discretion of the Majority Leader. He can set aside a filibustered bill, or he can force the minority to make a legit filibuster of it and effectively shut down the Senate.
If it comes down to it, Reid has to force their hand.
Seriously. If all legislative business grinds to a halt because of the filibuster, do it. It will force someone from the GOP to vote for cloture, especially since Congress needs to finish the FY2010 Defense budget with a debt limit increase. The GOP, nor Lieberman I presume, would be so stupid as to play politics with the debt ceiling.
Get some balls, Harry.
Of course, given Reid's precarious re-election straits, he'll probably be at least a little bit afraid of the GOP blaming such a shutdown on him.
As we all know, far-left wacko Harry Reid loves socialism as much as he hates than the troops.
It worked for Clinton, but Reid is Reid.
In a way, I feel sorry for him, because this seems like a really tough job, but another part of me thinks he is probably the worst majority leader in a long time.
Oh LBJ...
DPD, but I would be in support of Sen. Harkin's proposal to eliminate the filibuster. I recognize the necessity for oversight on legislation, but to have 59 Senators blocked by 41 is sheer lunancy. What government body can continue if this is the rule?
Too bad that you'd need 67 votes to change the rules though.
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Yeah. If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 14, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Yeah. If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.
Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.
Quote from: R-V on December 14, 2009, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 14, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Yeah. If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.
Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.
If we had the fillibuster in the House, California wouldn't be a state. Neither would Texas. That means we'd never have had a Bush or LBJ or a Reagan as president.
Quote from: R-V on December 14, 2009, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 14, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Yeah. If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.
Indeed. America would be in great shape, just like California.
Because the federal government has a crazy property tax law and referda on fiscal decision making?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 14, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on December 14, 2009, 03:43:50 PM
Imagine if the House hadn't changed its rules in 1847. God bless America, indeed.
Yeah. If you'd needed 2/3rds of both houses, we'd have a lot less shitty laws on the books.
I'm not necessarily arguing against the constitutional structure. I, of course, like to see one good bill be defeated if it means that ten shitty bills are defeated as well. But the problem is that we have these requirements and shitty bills still become shitty laws. The PATRIOT Act is just one of many.
What I'd be in favor of is exactly what Harkin introduced, that is, a sliding backwards scale of votes needed to invoke cloture.
Also, bear in mind that this would do nothing to restrict the use of the veto, nor the strenous requirements needed to overcome it.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/joe-lieberman-not-the-man-he-used-to-be-on-medicare-buy-in.php
QuoteMeet Joe Lieberman, Medicare buy-in advocate. It's the winter of 2000, and Lieberman is pressing flesh and kissing babies in Bangor, Maine as the presidential election approaches. After holding a town hall meeting with voters at Bangor's opera house on Main Street, Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, sits down with the local paper to discuss the upcoming election and his ticket's plan to improve the nation's health care system by allowing some younger Americans to "buy in" to the government run program. As his running mate, Al Gore, has been doing on the trail for weeks, Lieberman talks up the value of a buy-in, eloquently arguing that it's a great compromise way to get incremental health care reform past members of Congress wary of a robust health care reform bill.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/222762
QuoteThe latest trouble started after Lieberman said on Fox that "as a matter of conscience," he would filibuster any health-care bill with a public option. Flashback: when he ran for reelection in 2006, Lieberman bragged about his MediChoice plan. It would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national health-insurance pool like the federal-insurance pool we federal employees and members of Congress have." That sounds suspiciously like—ahem—the public option. What's changed?
...
... For Lieberman the only principle at stake is his stake in looking principled.
To conservatives. Lieberman doesn't care how liberals view him. He's given up on them after all the mean things they've said. Some of his oldest supporters voted for Ned Lamont in Connecticut's 2006 Democratic primary! Unforgivable! He's technically an independent and still votes for some liberal things because he wants to get reelected in 2012. But Joe's heart is with the right.
TPM again...
QuoteIt's not clear exactly when the Lieberman of 2000 turned into the Lieberman of Dec. 14, 2009, but it looks like it wasn't too long ago. In a Sept. 8, 2009 interview with the Connecticut Post (http://www.connpost.com/ci_13257617), Lieberman outlined his opposition to a public option but suggested a way coverage could be expanded without one:
QuoteReform should also include malpractice reform and health exchanges, which would offer different plans for varying costs and coverage for individuals or small businesses, he said.
Lieberman added that he supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance.
As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don't have insurance because they cannot afford it.
By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.
To arrive at his position, Lieberman said he reached out to "every conceivable group" in the state, including residents, providers, doctors and hospitals.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/video-watch-lieberman-endorse-medicare-buy-in-three-months-ago/
QuoteHere's some video of Joe Lieberman only three months ago appearing to endorse the Medicare buy-in idea — in seeming contradiction of his decision to bail on the Senate deal.
...
In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added:
Quote"My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid...
"When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they're too young to qualify for Medicare.
"What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you're 55 or 60 and you're without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you're older ... you're rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/lieberman-no-need-for-medicare-buy-in-because-baucus-bill-was-so-good.php
Quote"I didn't change my mind," Lieberman insisted. "I've been in this position for the last few weeks."
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 14, 2009, 06:57:00 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/joe-lieberman-not-the-man-he-used-to-be-on-medicare-buy-in.php
QuoteMeet Joe Lieberman, Medicare buy-in advocate. It's the winter of 2000, and Lieberman is pressing flesh and kissing babies in Bangor, Maine as the presidential election approaches. After holding a town hall meeting with voters at Bangor's opera house on Main Street, Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, sits down with the local paper to discuss the upcoming election and his ticket's plan to improve the nation's health care system by allowing some younger Americans to "buy in" to the government run program. As his running mate, Al Gore, has been doing on the trail for weeks, Lieberman talks up the value of a buy-in, eloquently arguing that it's a great compromise way to get incremental health care reform past members of Congress wary of a robust health care reform bill.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/222762
QuoteThe latest trouble started after Lieberman said on Fox that "as a matter of conscience," he would filibuster any health-care bill with a public option. Flashback: when he ran for reelection in 2006, Lieberman bragged about his MediChoice plan. It would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national health-insurance pool like the federal-insurance pool we federal employees and members of Congress have." That sounds suspiciously like—ahem—the public option. What's changed?
...
... For Lieberman the only principle at stake is his stake in looking principled.
To conservatives. Lieberman doesn't care how liberals view him. He's given up on them after all the mean things they've said. Some of his oldest supporters voted for Ned Lamont in Connecticut's 2006 Democratic primary! Unforgivable! He's technically an independent and still votes for some liberal things because he wants to get reelected in 2012. But Joe's heart is with the right.
TPM again...
QuoteIt's not clear exactly when the Lieberman of 2000 turned into the Lieberman of Dec. 14, 2009, but it looks like it wasn't too long ago. In a Sept. 8, 2009 interview with the Connecticut Post (http://www.connpost.com/ci_13257617), Lieberman outlined his opposition to a public option but suggested a way coverage could be expanded without one:
QuoteReform should also include malpractice reform and health exchanges, which would offer different plans for varying costs and coverage for individuals or small businesses, he said.
Lieberman added that he supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance.
As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don't have insurance because they cannot afford it.
By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.
To arrive at his position, Lieberman said he reached out to "every conceivable group" in the state, including residents, providers, doctors and hospitals.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/video-watch-lieberman-endorse-medicare-buy-in-three-months-ago/
QuoteHere's some video of Joe Lieberman only three months ago appearing to endorse the Medicare buy-in idea — in seeming contradiction of his decision to bail on the Senate deal.
...
In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added:
Quote"My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid...
"When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they're too young to qualify for Medicare.
"What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you're 55 or 60 and you're without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you're older ... you're rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/lieberman-no-need-for-medicare-buy-in-because-baucus-bill-was-so-good.php
Quote"I didn't change my mind," Lieberman insisted. "I've been in this position for the last few weeks."
I don't have time to read all that shit. What happened?
Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/public-option-fight-may-not-have-been.html) on Droopy and the Gang vs. the public option/Medicare expansion:
QuoteAt the end of the day, negotiations are about leverage, and in this case, the ConservaDems had almost all of it. Why?
Firstly, because a bill without a public option still does a world's worth of good from a progressive standpoint, providing in excess of $100 billion per year in subsidies to the disadvantaged to help them procure health care.
Secondly, because the public option is considerably more popular in progressive districts than in ConservaDem ones.
Thirdly, because the health care bill has become fairly unpopular overall. Whereas for a moderate or liberal Democrat, a vote for health care is nevertheless a slam dunk, the more conservative Democrats have to weigh a nay vote that would really hurt their party nationally versus an aye vote that could potentially harm them personally.
Fourthly, because money talks in politics, and corporate campaign donations tend to push policy toward the center-right, and the ConservaDems tend to be especially reliant on corporate contributions.
Fifthly, because progressives do not have a history of behaving "irrationally", and so attempts to refute the above logic are not credible.
Sixthly, because the threat to use reconciliation is only minimally credible -- it could be done, but the bill that emerged could easily be worse from a progressive standpoint than a bill passed under regular order without a public option, and the attendant political fallout would be damaging to all Democrats.
This is a very difficult set of circumstances to overcome. Perhaps not impossible -- if Joe Lieberman weren't such a prick, for instance, maybe it could have been done. But very, very tough. I see neither a strategic failure on behalf of progressives, nor "enabling" behavior on behalf of moderates**, nor bad faith on behalf of conservatives. Nothing was yanked away from progressives -- they set a very high bar, worked their butts off, and just barely failed to clear it.
Republicans totally get the internet...
http://gop.am/
"GOP.AM » Making Long URLs... Conservative"
Just remember, no
lewd lude content:
QuoteTerms of Use:
GOP.AM was created as a free service to make posting long URLs easier. If you use it for spamming, illegal purposes or to promote lude content, your GOP.AM URL will be disabled. This service is provided without warranty of any kind.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/gop-removes-conservative-url-shortener-following-pranks/
QuoteThe Republican party took down its innovative link shortening tool Tuesday after pranksters had a field day using the tool to associate the GOP with bondage sites.
Conservatives generally advocate a minimalist approach to certain areas of government. One wouldn't necessarily expect them to extend that approach to the web links, but that's exactly what the Republican National Committee did with GOP.am, a URL shortener designed to facilitate the exchange of links to web pages of interest to conservative web surfers.
Almost immediately after it launched yesterday, pranksters began using the service to link to controversial or ironically-intended websites such as the official site of the American Communist Party, a bondage website and a webpage advertising a sex toy in the likeness of Barack Obama. GOP.am started blocking such links apparently at some point Tuesday morning, and the GOP.am homepage is now offline.
Possibly the first branded URL shortener (Google also launched its own URL shortener yesterday afternoon), GOP.am was designed by the R.N.C.'s new media consultants, Political Media, to work somewhat like bit.ly in that it shortens URLs so that they can be more easily exchanged via short messaging services like Twitter.
But unlike bit.ly, GOP.am includes a toolbar at the top of the screen that follows the user as they click through to see whatever page the link goes to, and an animation of Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele walking around on the lower right as if he's showing off the website — particularly awkward when that website is the alt.com bondage site. Users of the Balloon-Juice website entertained each other last night by exchanging scores of such links, which have since been blocked.
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/742/thiscouldgetugly.png)
QuoteThe toolbar includes branding for the G.O.P., links for re-propagating the link on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, and a "donate to the G.O.P." button. Political Media, whose other clients include Republican candidates, think tanks and the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee's Republican minority according to a Political Media spokesman, designed it with right-wing users in mind, but was apparently unaware that it could be hijacked in this way.
Who could have predicted?
http://twitter.com/toddeherman/status/6680251605
QuoteA GOP URL Shortener: http://gop.am/gopurl/remote Use It And Anger Liberals! #tcot #goptech
I'M SO ANGRY!
Somehow this one still works (for the time being)...
http://gop.am/XSNy
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/959/gopnambla.jpg)
I'm literally ANGERING out loud.
I don't get the audience the GOP is trying to attract with their URL shortener.
Quote from: BH on December 15, 2009, 11:55:31 AM
I don't get the audience the GOP is trying to attract with their URL shortener.
Are you kidding? It's "the coolest thing in internet advocacy in a LONG time"...
http://twitter.com/lward99/status/6514506432
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 15, 2009, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: BH on December 15, 2009, 11:55:31 AM
I don't get the audience the GOP is trying to attract with their URL shortener.
Are you kidding? It's "the coolest thing in internet advocacy in a LONG time"...
http://twitter.com/lward99/status/6514506432
It's a service though right? It's not really a new medium.. what a bunch of IDITOS.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on December 15, 2009, 11:02:40 AM
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/gop-removes-conservative-url-shortener-following-pranks/
QuoteThe toolbar includes branding for the G.O.P., links for re-propagating the link on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, and a "donate to the G.O.P." button. Political Media, whose other clients include Republican candidates, think tanks and the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee's Republican minority according to a Political Media spokesman, designed it with right-wing users in mind, but was apparently unaware that it could be hijacked in this way.
Update:
QuoteThe toolbar includes branding for the GOP, links for re-propagating the link on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, and a "donate to the GOP" button. Political Media, whose other clients include Republican candidates, think tanks and the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee's Republican minority, according to a Political Media spokesman, designed it with conservative users in mind.
Political Media's Ward told Wired.com he saw the pranks coming a mile away (updated). "Believe me, we were well aware that this was going to happen," he said. "We've been on the internet doing business for every aspect of it since 1996. I was well aware exactly what was going to happen."
I can't believe I fell into his carefully constructed trap.
So. Much. Angry.
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
Someone's been using the GOP's URL shortener.
Quote from: CT III on December 16, 2009, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
Someone's been using the GOP's URL shortener.
Que Fork Joke? Morph?
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:58:25 AM
Quote from: CT III on December 16, 2009, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
Someone's been using the GOP's URL shortener.
Que Fork Joke? Morph?
LEAVE OLEG OUT OF THIS!
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
What about the people between 100% and 133% of the poverty line who currently don't qualify for Medicaid, but will under the Senate bill?
What about the people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line who currently get no help to buy health insurance, but will get some pretty generous subsidies under the Senate bill?
That's direct help, aside from the market reforms and regulations. Insurance won't be "cheap" for these people, but they'll be a whole hell of a lot better off than they are now if they happen to get penis cancer or anus rabies.
I know "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a way overused cliche, but yeah, I do think Howard Dean is being a penis when he suggests that the entire bill should be killed because it doesn't have a public option.
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
What about the people between 100% and 133% of the poverty line who currently don't qualify for Medicaid, but will under the Senate bill?
What about the people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line who currently get no help to buy health insurance, but will get some pretty generous subsidies under the Senate bill?
That's direct help, aside from the market reforms and regulations. Insurance won't be "cheap" for these people, but they'll be a whole hell of a lot better off than they are now if they happen to get penis cancer or anus rabies.
I know "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a way overused cliche, but yeah, I do think Howard Dean is being a penis when he suggests that the entire bill should be killed because it doesn't have a public option.
I may just be an ignorant caveman, but isn't that precisely the Medicare buy-in provision that was just stripped out of the bill bill by Lieberman?
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
What about the people between 100% and 133% of the poverty line who currently don't qualify for Medicaid, but will under the Senate bill?
What about the people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line who currently get no help to buy health insurance, but will get some pretty generous subsidies under the Senate bill?
That's direct help, aside from the market reforms and regulations. Insurance won't be "cheap" for these people, but they'll be a whole hell of a lot better off than they are now if they happen to get penis cancer or anus rabies.
I know "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a way overused cliche, but yeah, I do think Howard Dean is being a penis when he suggests that the entire bill should be killed because it doesn't have a public option.
I may just be an ignorant caveman, but isn't that precisely the Medicare buy-in provision that was just stripped out of the bill bill by Lieberman?
The Medicaid expansion was always planned for. The Medicare buy-in only came up as a replacement for the full-throated public option, both of which were killed by Lieberman.
The "up to 400% of the poverty line" thing relates to subsidies for citizens to buy health insurance through the exchange.
If you have time, which I did apparently, I'd start reading the Baucus bill over again, as it seems that will be the one that gets signed by the Kenyan Nazi.
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2009, 11:37:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 16, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
I don't have time to read any news right now, but I think Howard Dean might be a penis.
Yep. A man who's worked his whole life to bring more affordable health care to the poor is the penis for suggesting that this bill, which will not bring more affordable health care to anyone, may not be worth voting for. I'm sure the penis is NOT the sell-out who mere months ago was advocating a medicare buy-in, while now changing his mind and being against it, just so he could grab whatever power his rotting soul will allow him.
What about the people between 100% and 133% of the poverty line who currently don't qualify for Medicaid, but will under the Senate bill?
What about the people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line who currently get no help to buy health insurance, but will get some pretty generous subsidies under the Senate bill?
That's direct help, aside from the market reforms and regulations. Insurance won't be "cheap" for these people, but they'll be a whole hell of a lot better off than they are now if they happen to get penis cancer or anus rabies.
I know "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a way overused cliche, but yeah, I do think Howard Dean is being a penis when he suggests that the entire bill should be killed because it doesn't have a public option.
I may just be an ignorant caveman, but isn't that precisely the Medicare buy-in provision that was just stripped out of the bill bill by Lieberman?
No. That's independent of the Medicare provision. That was for people from age 55-64, regardless of income.
The subsidies/increased Medicaid eligibility are for people making between 100 and 400% of the poverty level.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?m=200911
DPD. For Oleg and Howard Dean (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/starting-over):
QuoteIf you don't like the Senate bill, fine. Don't support it. But in what universe will healthcare reform get revived anytime soon if it dies this year? 2010? With the legislative plate already jammed, healthcare reform probably polling in the mid 30s, and midterms coming up? 2011? After Republicans have gained a bunch of seats in both the House and Senate thanks to public disgust with Democratic disarray? 2012? A presidential election year? 2013? 2014?
I usually don't say much about legislative tactics because I figure you need some serious ground level knowledge before you mouth off about what's possible and what's not on Capitol Hill. But the fate of failed major initiatives is so obvious that I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously. When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon — and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?
If healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time. Say what you will about the Democratic leadership, but Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer all know this perfectly well. So do John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. (Boy do they know it.) But if it passes, here's what we get:
* Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
* Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
* Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
* A significant expansion of Medicaid.
* Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
* Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
* Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
* A broad range of cost-containment measures.
* A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.
What's more, for the first time we get a national commitment to providing healthcare coverage for everyone. It won't be universal to start, unfortunately, but it's going to be a lot easier to get there once the marker is laid down. That's how every other country has done it, and that's how we did it with Social Security and Medicare, both of which had big gaps in coverage when they were first passed.
But if we don't pass it, we don't get any of this. Not now, and not for a long time. Instead of being actual liberals, we'll just be playing ones on TV.
Penis.
PEnis!
Franken shuts up Liebermann.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/watch-wielding-gavel-fran_n_396267.html
The Christmas story meets the 2010 census:
(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/12/17/PH2009121702191.jpg)
I don't know if the Roman census and the way it works into the Christmas story really makes one want to fill out a census form. I instead leave you with the 1967 Mike Royko column...
QuoteMary and Joe were flat broke when they got off the bus in Chicago. They didn't know anybody and she was expecting a baby.
They went to a cheap hotel. But the clerk jerked his thumb at the door when they couldn't show a day's rent in advance.
They walked the streets until they saw a police station. The desk sergeant said they couldn't sleep in a cell, but he told them how to get to a welfare office.
A man there said they couldn't get regular assistance because they hadn't been Illinois residents long enough. But he gave them the address of the emergency welfare office on the West Side.
It was a two-mile walk up Madison Street. Someone gave them a card with a number on it and they sat down on a bench, stared at the peeling green paint and waited for their number to be called.
Two hours later, a caseworker motioned them forward, took out blank forms and asked questions: Any relatives? Any means of getting money? Any assets?
Joe said he owned a donkey. The caseworker told him not to get smart or he'd be thrown out. Joe said he was sorry.
The caseworker finished the forms and said they were entitled to emergency CTA fare to County Hospital because of Mary's condition. And he told Joe to go to an Urban Progress Center for occupational guidance.
Joe thanked him and they took a bus to the hospital. A guard told them to wait on a bench. They waited two hours, and then Mary got pains and they took her away. Someone told Joe to come back tomorrow.
He went outside and asked a stranger on the street for directions to an Urban Progress Center. The stranger hit Joe on the head and took his overcoat. Joe was still lying there when a paddy wagon came along so they pinched him for being drunk on the street.
Mary had a baby boy during the night. She didn't know it, but three foreign-looking men in strange, colorful robes came to the hospital asking about her and the baby. A guard took them for hippies and called the police. They found odd spices on the men so the narcotics detail took them downtown for further questioning.
The next day Mary awoke in a crowded ward. She asked for Joe. Instead, a representative of the Planned Parenthood Committee came by to give her a lecture on birth control.
Next, a social worker came for her case history. She asked Mary who the father was. Mary answered and the social worker ran for the nurse. The nurse questioned her and Mary answered. The nurse stared at her and ran for the doctor. The doctor wrote "Postpartum delusion'' on her chart.
An ambulance took Mary to the Cook County Mental Health Clinic the next morning. A psychiatrist asked her questions and pursed his lips at the answers.
A hearing was held and a magistrate committed her to the Chicago State Hospital.
... continued
Quote
Joe got out of the House of Corrections a couple of days later and went to the County Hospital for Mary. They told him she was at Chicago State and the baby had been placed in a foster home by the state Department of Children and Family Services.
When Joe got to Chicago State, a doctor told him what Mary had said about the baby's birth. Joe said Mary was telling the truth. They put Joe in a ward at the other end of the hospital.
Meanwhile, the three strangely dressed foreign-looking men were released after the narcotics detail could find no laws prohibiting the possession of myrrh and frankincense. They returned to the hospital and were taken for civil rights demonstrators. They were held in the County Jail on $100,000 bond.
By luck, Joe and Mary met on the hospital grounds. They decided to tell the doctors what they wanted to hear. The next day they were declared sane and were released.
When they applied for custody of Mary's baby, however, they were told it was necessary for them to first establish a proper residence, earn a proper income and create a suitable environment.
They applied at the Urban Progress Center for training under the Manpower Development Program. Joe said he was good at working with wood. He was assigned to a computer data-processing class. Mary said she'd gladly do domestic work. She was assigned to a course in key-punch operating. Both got $20-a-week stipends.
Several months later they finished the training. Joe got a job in a gas station and Mary went to work as a waitress.
They saved their money and hired a lawyer. Another custody hearing was held and several days later the baby was ordered returned to them.
Reunited finally, they got back to their two-room flat and met the landlord on the steps. He told them Urban Renewal had ordered the building torn down. The City Relocation Bureau would get them another place.
They packed, dressed the baby and hurried to the Greyhound bus station.
Joe asked the ticket man when the next bus was leaving.
"Where to?'' the ticket man asked.
"Anywhere,'' Joe said, "as long as it is right now.''
He gave Joe three tickets and in five minutes they were on a bus heading for southern Illinois--the area known as ``Little Egypt.''
Just as the bus pulled out, the three strangely dressed men ran into the station. But they were too late. The bus was gone.
So they started hiking down U.S. 66. But at last report they were pinched on suspicion of being foreigners in illegal possession of gold."
The only thing that I hate about the bill is the individual mandate. It's just another way for the elderly to screw the young.
If I were independently wealthy, I would make my life's cause organizing the 35 and younger block to break the AARP's electoral back for eternity. I think we'll see the day when young/working America tells retiring baby boomers to go fuck themselves and reap what they've sewn as far as electing people who have squandered social security and other entitlement spending, and that day isn't going to be pretty.
But I will be at the front of that revolution.
Until then, those of us who need little more than catastrophic care are going to be forced into risk pools to subsidize health care for older folks. I still support the bill, but only because I have faith that the courts will have the good sense to strike down the individual mandate for the unconstitutional garbage that it is.
But, count this as one more exploitation of the "don't give a shit" young crowd. It's a shame. I'm a big believer in generational warfare politics, and I really hope that battle comes to pass and that the young people win it.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 11:03:47 AM
The only thing that I hate about the bill is the individual mandate. It's just another way for the elderly to screw the young.
If I were independently wealthy, I would make my life's cause organizing the 35 and younger block to break the AARP's electoral back for eternity. I think we'll see the day when young/working America tells retiring baby boomers to go fuck themselves and reap what they've sewn as far as electing people who have squandered social security and other entitlement spending, and that day isn't going to be pretty.
Considering nobody can make you feel guilty like an organization of old people. I'm sure this cause will go swimmingly.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 11:03:47 AM
The only thing that I hate about the bill is the individual mandate. It's just another way for the elderly to screw the young how you achieve universal coverage or something close to it.
Fixed. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html)
QuotePick your favorite system. Socialized medicine in Britain. Single-payer in Canada. Multi-payer with a government floor in France. Private plans with heavy public regulation in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere. None of these plans are "voluntary." In some, there's an individual mandate forcing you to pay premiums to insurance companies. In some, there's a system of taxation forcing you to pay premiums to the government. In all of them, at least so far as I know, participation is required except in very limited and uncommon circumstances. And there's a reason for that: No universal system can work without it.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 11:03:47 AMIf I were independently wealthy, I would make my life's cause organizing the 35 and younger block to break the AARP's electoral back for eternity. I think we'll see the day when young/working America tells retiring baby boomers to go fuck themselves and reap what they've sewn as far as electing people who have squandered social security and other entitlement spending, and that day isn't going to be pretty.
But I will be at the front of that revolution.
Until then, those of us who need little more than catastrophic care are going to be forced into risk pools to subsidize health care for older folks. Fuck you, old people, I got mine. Until I get old.
Fixed.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 11:03:47 AMI still support the bill, but only because I have faith that the courts will have the good sense to strike down the individual mandate for the unconstitutional garbage that it is.
Or not. (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7DFE7C51-18FE-70B2-A81B83D9F09A146F)
QuoteUnder an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. People not purchasing health insurance unquestionably has this effect.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 11:03:47 AMBut, count this as one more exploitation of the "don't give a shit" young crowd. It's a shame. I'm a big believer in generational warfare politics, and I really hope that battle comes to pass and that the young people win it.
I hope whatever generation you're a part of, loses.
I didn't want to figure out how to break down quoting stuff in R-V's post...
But I think that as a matter of constitutional law, if you look at commerce clause cases, all of the regulations that the court has upheld have been about "positive" individual conduct--individuals have to do something. But there are limits to the commerce clause, and Chemerinsky just ignores those. I think that the individual mandate explodes the enumerated powers clause. It's totally different than the race cases--those say that if you want to participate in the market, you have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally, because that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That's fine.
But the individual mandate says "if you want to be alive and over 18, the mere fact of your existence has a substantial effect on interstate commerce." At the point where Congress can reduce any exercise of power to mere existence, there are no enumerated powers. Congress can do whatever it wants.
Even his taxation argument is flawed because he ignores the universality clause. A selective tax on those who purchase health insurance would fail for the same reasons a selective tax on corporate bonuses would fail.
He also ignores that the court leans right, right now, and if Obama loses in 2012, it's going to lean even further right. Even if Obama wins in 2012, absent some very unlikely circumstances, we aren't going to see a consequential president for court makeup until after the 2016 elections. I'm generally for a strong Congress, but at the point where Congress can equate living with commerce clause implications, I have serious reservations. From a matter of pure logic, we can't both be a society with a federal government of enumerated powers and a society with an individual mandate.
And even relatively liberal me think it's still more important to be a society of enumerated powers.
As for the generational stuff--I don't expect there to be any left for me when I'm old. Which is why I think the battles need to be fought now. I don't care if there's any left for me when I'm old.
What I'm more concerned about is that a self-entitled baby-boomer generation (the worst generation in American history) is going to destroy this economy and country with their selfishness. Europe is only postponing the inevitable because we subsidize their defense spending. The modern European welfare state would not and could not exist if European nations actually had to maintain armies and navies with any sort of real military capability.
At some point, the US is going to have to choose between maintaining its military or funding our insane health-care and retirement entitlements. If we choose the latter over the former--and given how old people vote, there's a good chance we will--we will end up undermining our ability to project force, which is crucial for our economy...and we'll still ultimately lose the race between economic growth and the welfare state, further weakening our economy and making our obligations even more untenable.
I'm all about the cost-control measures of the bill, because I think they're necessary for the long run. But the reality that we need to confront is that it's both fair and better for us in the long run if individuals who need top-end care give that up (or have it far more heavily rationed) in exchange for lowering costs and providing basic care to those who don't have it.
That's what needs to happen. But there's no way the self-entitled, politically feckless and worthless, baby-boomer generation will ever accept that. So hence, my desire to not ever be forced to subsidize the abysmal political and economic decisions of a generation that only made bad ones.
There will be a giant generational battle in my lifetime. It's not going to be pretty, but the older crowd has no moral high ground to claim when it happens.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 03:46:05 PMThere will be a giant generational battle in my lifetime. It's not going to be pretty, but the older crowd has no moral high ground to claim when it happens.
Viva la revolución! I recommend you contact Paul to help you subvert the Old People Regime.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 18, 2009, 03:46:05 PM
I didn't want to figure out how to break down quoting stuff in R-V's post...
But I think that as a matter of constitutional law, if you look at commerce clause cases, all of the regulations that the court has upheld have been about "positive" individual conduct--individuals have to do something. But there are limits to the commerce clause, and Chemerinsky just ignores those. I think that the individual mandate explodes the enumerated powers clause. It's totally different than the race cases--those say that if you want to participate in the market, you have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally, because that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That's fine.
But the individual mandate says "if you want to be alive and over 18, the mere fact of your existence has a substantial effect on interstate commerce." At the point where Congress can reduce any exercise of power to mere existence, there are no enumerated powers. Congress can do whatever it wants.
Even his taxation argument is flawed because he ignores the universality clause. A selective tax on those who purchase health insurance would fail for the same reasons a selective tax on corporate bonuses would fail.
He also ignores that the court leans right, right now, and if Obama loses in 2012, it's going to lean even further right. Even if Obama wins in 2012, absent some very unlikely circumstances, we aren't going to see a consequential president for court makeup until after the 2016 elections. I'm generally for a strong Congress, but at the point where Congress can equate living with commerce clause implications, I have serious reservations. From a matter of pure logic, we can't both be a society with a federal government of enumerated powers and a society with an individual mandate.
And even relatively liberal me think it's still more important to be a society of enumerated powers.
As for the generational stuff--I don't expect there to be any left for me when I'm old. Which is why I think the battles need to be fought now. I don't care if there's any left for me when I'm old.
What I'm more concerned about is that a self-entitled baby-boomer generation (the worst generation in American history) is going to destroy this economy and country with their selfishness. Europe is only postponing the inevitable because we subsidize their defense spending. The modern European welfare state would not and could not exist if European nations actually had to maintain armies and navies with any sort of real military capability.
At some point, the US is going to have to choose between maintaining its military or funding our insane health-care and retirement entitlements. If we choose the latter over the former--and given how old people vote, there's a good chance we will--we will end up undermining our ability to project force, which is crucial for our economy...and we'll still ultimately lose the race between economic growth and the welfare state, further weakening our economy and making our obligations even more untenable.
I'm all about the cost-control measures of the bill, because I think they're necessary for the long run. But the reality that we need to confront is that it's both fair and better for us in the long run if individuals who need top-end care give that up (or have it far more heavily rationed) in exchange for lowering costs and providing basic care to those who don't have it.
That's what needs to happen. But there's no way the self-entitled, politically feckless and worthless, baby-boomer generation will ever accept that. So hence, my desire to not ever be forced to subsidize the abysmal political and economic decisions of a generation that only made bad ones.
There will be a giant generational battle in my lifetime. It's not going to be pretty, but the older crowd has no moral high ground to claim when it happens.
You want to know a couple of the things I learned in law school? One, throw enough shit on the wall and something will stick. Two, write way too much in response to your audience, and you'll eventually win because they don't want to respond to all of your bullshit.
Case in point.
You know what's worse than MikeC? A putatively educated MikeC.
You're better than that...
marginally.
I would have just drank through law school.
Quote from: Oleg on December 18, 2009, 04:33:20 PM
I would have just drank through law school.
That too.
Quote from: Oleg on December 18, 2009, 04:33:20 PM
I would have just drank through law school.
Not saying I didn't...
Quote from: Oleg on December 18, 2009, 04:33:20 PM
I would have just drank through law school.
You wouldn't be the first...have you seen how many lawyers are around here?
This is most likely a goof and not a real teabagger, but hilarious either way.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31642
The Republican revolution is here!
http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/28/gop_senate_race_gets_nasty.php
This strategy can't possibly fail.
Quote from: Slack-E on December 28, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
The Republican revolution is here!
http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/28/gop_senate_race_gets_nasty.php
This strategy can't possibly fail.
Hey, this guy lines up the heavyweights on the relevant issues (http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-joins-andy-martin-in-obama.html)
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on December 28, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
The Republican revolution is here!
http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/28/gop_senate_race_gets_nasty.php
This strategy can't possibly fail.
Hey, this guy lines up the heavyweights on the relevant issues (http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-joins-andy-martin-in-obama.html)
Andy Martin is insane. This is all.
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on December 28, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
The Republican revolution is here!
http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/28/gop_senate_race_gets_nasty.php
This strategy can't possibly fail.
Hey, this guy lines up the heavyweights on the relevant issues (http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-joins-andy-martin-in-obama.html)
The Obama presidency is a vast conspiracy put into motion and continued by the Republican Party homosexual club.
The Birthers are barking up the wrong tree. They place their emphasis upon where Obama was born. They should be focusing upon whether he was born. How do we know that he is not a hologram? The Democrats have never formally denied that Obama is not a hologram. The American people deserve to know whether their President exists or not.
Quote from: Brownie on December 28, 2009, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on December 28, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
The Republican revolution is here!
http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/28/gop_senate_race_gets_nasty.php
This strategy can't possibly fail.
Hey, this guy lines up the heavyweights on the relevant issues (http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/12/sarah-palin-joins-andy-martin-in-obama.html)
Andy Martin is insane. This is all.
HUTCHINS/MARTIN IN 2012!
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
That site could induce seizures.
Quote from: flannj on December 28, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
That site could induce seizures.
So do Republicans.
Quote from: flannj on December 28, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
That site could induce seizures.
The questions posed by "Josh" at that web site are very pertinent. I am eagerly awaiting Mr. Hutchins' responses.
Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2009, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: flannj on December 28, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
That site could induce seizures.
The questions posed by "Josh" at that web site are very pertinent. I am eagerly awaiting Mr. Hutchins' responses.
Awesomeness: He wishes everyone a happy Hannukah, Merry Christmas, and Happy Winter Solstice (!).
Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2009, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: flannj on December 28, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on December 28, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
HUTCHINS (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=32505992)!
That site could induce seizures.
The questions posed by "Josh" at that web site are very pertinent. I am eagerly awaiting Mr. Hutchins' responses.
They were more pertinent when posed to Dr. Laura, who couldn't weasel out by virtue of the New Covenant.
Another Obama promise bites the dust.
How is that promise to put all negotiations of the Health Care bill on C-span? Its not like he made it a one time comment and never said it again. He said it over and over again.
He wanted to make sure we could see what the choices are, who is making arguements on behalf of their consituents or the drug companies, and of course it will be transparent.
C-Span has been denied and Nancy Pelosi had this to say....
Quote"There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference.
Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations--likely without TV cameras--might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.
"We will do what is necessary to pass the bill," Pelosi said.
You got to love the lies coming out of DC. And they aren't even trying to be sneaky about it. It reminds me of the beginning of the Iraq War and the Iraqi Information Minister saying they have slaughtered the Americans and that they are not in the city, when in fact they were nearby his location and could be seen from the hotel. There is an audience for gullible people and it seems its Democrats voters. Because if Obama and Nancy say it, you know its 100% true.
BTW, i was giddy as hell as the main guy in charge of the Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac disaster, helper of porkulus and reciever of sweet heart loans, Chris Dodd will retire. Never has one Democrat cost this nation so many trillions of dollars based on his stupidity and his stupidity alone. He famously stood on that wall and claimed nothing was ever wrong with FM and FM, while the Bush administration pushed for reform. He was then a key player in trying to decide how clean up the mess (that he helped create) and screw this nation out of a trillion+ more.
There is incompetence, and then there is Chris Dodd incompetence. He went from untouchable for re-election to a dead heat in less than a year thanks to Tea Party protests and sites like InstaPundit who continued to pound home his hypocrisy, his lies, and his sweet heart deals he made in back rooms to ignore the obvious.
I should also mention he has a prominent role in the health care debate. Nothing like ending your career with a few trillion dollar fuck ups. When Chris Dodd screws up, he goes all in, he doesnt leave anything to chance.
You do know that Obama and Pelosi are different people.
You do know about separation of powers and that Obama has no control over the Legislative Branch.
You do know that this is, primarily, a sports forum.
You do know that Andre Dawson got in the Hall of Fame yesterday.
You do know that cutting and pasting stuff here doesn't sway anyone's opinion.
Nah. You don't know any of that.
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2010, 09:28:36 AM
Another Obama promise bites the dust.
How is that promise to put all negotiations of the Health Care bill on C-span? Its not like he made it a one time comment and never said it again. He said it over and over again.
He wanted to make sure we could see what the choices are, who is making arguements on behalf of their consituents or the drug companies, and of course it will be transparent.
C-Span has been denied and Nancy Pelosi had this to say....
Quote"There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference.
Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations--likely without TV cameras--might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.
"We will do what is necessary to pass the bill," Pelosi said.
You got to love the lies coming out of DC. And they aren't even trying to be sneaky about it. It reminds me of the beginning of the Iraq War and the Iraqi Information Minister saying they have slaughtered the Americans and that they are not in the city, when in fact they were nearby his location and could be seen from the hotel. There is an audience for gullible people and it seems its Democrats voters. Because if Obama and Nancy say it, you know its 100% true.
BTW, i was giddy as hell as the main guy in charge of the Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac disaster, helper of porkulus and reciever of sweet heart loans, Chris Dodd will retire. Never has one Democrat cost this nation so many trillions of dollars based on his stupidity and his stupidity alone. He famously stood on that wall and claimed nothing was ever wrong with FM and FM, while the Bush administration pushed for reform. He was then a key player in trying to decide how clean up the mess (that he helped create) and screw this nation out of a trillion+ more.
There is incompetence, and then there is Chris Dodd incompetence. He went from untouchable for re-election to a dead heat in less than a year thanks to Tea Party protests and sites like InstaPundit who continued to pound home his hypocrisy, his lies, and his sweet heart deals he made in back rooms to ignore the obvious.
I should also mention he has a prominent role in the health care debate. Nothing like ending your career with a few trillion dollar fuck ups. When Chris Dodd screws up, he goes all in, he doesnt leave anything to chance.
Starting off the New Year.
MikeC 1, Librul Scum 0
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2010, 09:28:36 AM
Another Obama promise bites the dust.
How is that promise to put all negotiations of the Health Care bill on C-span? Its not like he made it a one time comment and never said it again. He said it over and over again.
He wanted to make sure we could see what the choices are, who is making arguements on behalf of their consituents or the drug companies, and of course it will be transparent.
C-Span has been denied and Nancy Pelosi had this to say....
Quote"There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference.
Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations--likely without TV cameras--might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.
"We will do what is necessary to pass the bill," Pelosi said.
You got to love the lies coming out of DC. And they aren't even trying to be sneaky about it. It reminds me of the beginning of the Iraq War and the Iraqi Information Minister saying they have slaughtered the Americans and that they are not in the city, when in fact they were nearby his location and could be seen from the hotel. There is an audience for gullible people and it seems its Democrats voters. Because if Obama and Nancy say it, you know its 100% true.
BTW, i was giddy as hell as the main guy in charge of the Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac disaster, helper of porkulus and reciever of sweet heart loans, Chris Dodd will retire. Never has one Democrat cost this nation so many trillions of dollars based on his stupidity and his stupidity alone. He famously stood on that wall and claimed nothing was ever wrong with FM and FM, while the Bush administration pushed for reform. He was then a key player in trying to decide how clean up the mess (that he helped create) and screw this nation out of a trillion+ more.
There is incompetence, and then there is Chris Dodd incompetence. He went from untouchable for re-election to a dead heat in less than a year thanks to Tea Party protests and sites like InstaPundit who continued to pound home his hypocrisy, his lies, and his sweet heart deals he made in back rooms to ignore the obvious.
I should also mention he has a prominent role in the health care debate. Nothing like ending your career with a few trillion dollar fuck ups. When Chris Dodd screws up, he goes all in, he doesnt leave anything to chance.
You got to love that Chris Dodd retiring greatly increases the chances of librul scum holding on to that Senate seat. Will this Teabagger victory parade be as triumphant as the one in the 23rd district in New York?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 07, 2010, 09:36:42 AM
You do know that this is, primarily, a sports forum.
Nah. You don't know any of that.
You do know that this is a thread for political shit.
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2010, 09:28:36 AM
BTW, i was giddy as hell as the main guy in charge of the Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac disaster, helper of porkulus and reciever of sweet heart loans, Chris Dodd will retire.
Porkulus, indeed. As I have no doubt already mentioned, Eli Wallach took care of such grandstanding in Circle of Iron some time ago. But with class.
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
Quote"We scream about our problems, but as long as we have the immigrants, and the universities, we'll be fine," James McGregor, an American businessman and author who has lived in China for years, told me.
QuoteAmericans often fret about the troops of engineers and computer scientists marching out of Chinese universities. They should calm down. Each fall, Shanghai's Jiao Tong University produces a ranking of the world's universities based mainly on scientific-research papers. All such rankings are imprecise, but the pattern is clear. Of the top 20 on the latest list, 17 are American, the exceptions being Cambridge (No. 4), Oxford (No. 10), and the University of Tokyo (No. 20). Of the top 100 in the world, zero are Chinese.
QuoteThe American Society of Civil Engineers prepares a "report card" on the state of America's infrastructure—roads, bridges, dams, etc. In the latest version, the overall "GPA" for the United States was D, and the cost of bringing all systems up to adequacy was estimated at $2.2 trillion over the next five years, or twice as much as is now budgeted by all levels of government. In 1988, the comparable study gave an overall grade of C, with many items getting B's. Now, the very highest grade was for solid-waste systems, at C+, or "mediocre." Roads, dams, hazardous-waste systems, school buildings, and public drinking water all received a D or D–. The average dam in the United States is 50 years old. "More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete," according to the latest report.
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
Quote"We scream about our problems, but as long as we have the immigrants, and the universities, we'll be fine," James McGregor, an American businessman and author who has lived in China for years, told me.
QuoteAmericans often fret about the troops of engineers and computer scientists marching out of Chinese universities. They should calm down. Each fall, Shanghai's Jiao Tong University produces a ranking of the world's universities based mainly on scientific-research papers. All such rankings are imprecise, but the pattern is clear. Of the top 20 on the latest list, 17 are American, the exceptions being Cambridge (No. 4), Oxford (No. 10), and the University of Tokyo (No. 20). Of the top 100 in the world, zero are Chinese.
I'll go one step further- it's not as important where folks get their education compared with where they are employed, paying taxes, and otherwise contributing the benefits of their education.
Quote from: motown on January 08, 2010, 09:16:29 AM
I'll go one step further- it's not as important where folks get their education compared with where they are employed, paying taxes, and otherwise contributing the benefits of their education.
I'll take yet another step: any such ranking based on the Science Citation Index, as the Jiao Tong one appears to be, is a load of horseshit. Academic publishing is not a magic box, and it is certain that China has been pushing for years for publication in "occidental" journals rather than those that formerly appeared in translation. This leads to quite a bit of self-citation and frank gibberish. It's not a measure of anything in particular.
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.
The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.
The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.
Nobody wants mob rule.
Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.
If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000? Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.
The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.
Nobody wants mob rule.
Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.
If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000? Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).
I approve of TJ's ideas. If we get 7 or 8 more Desipiots to sign on, that means it has to hai, right?
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Combine the Dakotas.
I'm all for that. Combine the Carolinas and Virginias too. There's no reason to have two of them.
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 08, 2010, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
An interesting, semi-optimistic look at whether or not America is F'd in the A.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWhen the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucer" George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool," into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states—which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.)
Ah, but that's the rub of a federal system. It's also a check that you don't have tyranny of the majority. The Senate is also supposed to speak for the rights of the states, while the House is supposed to speak for the rights of the people. That's why the State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Funny, but I don't remember a revolution occurring during the Taft and Wilson Administrations.
The alternative to a tyranny of the majority, therefore, is a tyranny of the minority.
Nobody wants mob rule.
Perhaps a better solution would be to break California into three or four different states, New York into three, Texas into three, Pennsylavania into two and Florida into three. Combine the Dakotas. Add in P.R. statehood and capitol retrocession (give DC back to Maryland and Virginia, fully enfranchising its voters) and you have 65 states and 130 Senators and a little more balance.
If you want to further change the representation in this country, why not triple or quadruple the number of reps in the House? Right now, we're represented one for every, what, 800,0000? Actually if we increase the total 10-fold, you'd have one rep for every 80,000 people, making your representatives a lot easier to reach. And you would see a lot more diversity in the reps' political beliefs, less gerrymandering, and again fewer disparities (Wyoming's rep represents far fewer people than any of Illinois' reps).
Or, we can add about a hlaf-deozen parties and make our democracy a truly representative one with a proportional representation. Force coalitions and make people truly vote for what they believe in elections instead having to play devil's advocate on issues that one may not agree with.
TJ can have his non-religious conservatism, I can have my socilaism, and so on and so forth. On some issues, it would make sense for our candidates to work together, on others, we can tell each other to fuck off.
This would drive the lobbyist nuts.
I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system. It goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. However, it seems to work better than the system in a country like Israel, where the head of the party gathering the most votes must put together a coalition with other parties in order to form a government. Described that way it sounds like what the Obama administration had to do in order to get a health care bill through the Senate. Many times coaltion members have only one thing in common with each other and that is contempt for one or more of the non-coaltion parties. Too often it results in having a government which takes actions based solely upon being the least offensive to the majority of the parties rather than reflecting that platform of the party receiving the most votes. Maybe that is not so different from our system after all.
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 06:36:59 PM
I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system.
The Electoral College.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2010, 07:04:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 06:36:59 PM
I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system.
The Electoral College.
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)
Quote from: ChuckD on January 08, 2010, 08:34:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2010, 07:04:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 08, 2010, 06:36:59 PM
I don't know how it happened that we have an institutionalized, but unofficial, two party system.
The Electoral College.
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law)
All of a sudden this belongs in the "Only Site I'll Ever Need" thread. Interesting.
TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/liquor-union-rep-accused-of-purse-theft-at-mag-mile-store.html)
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 12, 2010, 02:34:14 PM
TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/liquor-union-rep-accused-of-purse-theft-at-mag-mile-store.html)
Apparently he misunderstood the term "bagman."
Quote from: fiveouts on January 12, 2010, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 12, 2010, 02:34:14 PM
TRUE TALES OF UNION THUGGERY!!!! (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/liquor-union-rep-accused-of-purse-theft-at-mag-mile-store.html)
Apparently he misunderstood the term "bagman."
His next stop was going to be Barney's to get shoes to match.
That Massachusetts race has heated up. Coakley has gone from a sure bet to a dead heat in a few short weeks. Brown is raising money hand over fist and Coakley, well she has the backup of SEIU. Really, SEIU is throwing its weight to another Democrat? I am shocked just shocked.
Not only that but Coakley has the support of the Health-Care industry, who say they are against Obama-Care but are desperatly trying to get Coakley elected. It must be a Democrat thing, say one thing, hope the public believes it while you do another.
QuoteAs first reported by Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner, the host committee for the fundraiser at Pennsylvania Avenue's Sonoma Restaurant includes lobbyists for Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis and sundry other drug companies that have been among the biggest of ObamaCare's corporate sponsors. Other hosts—who have raised at least $10,000 for Ms. Coakley—include representatives from UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana and other insurers. As far as we can tell, the insurance industry claims to oppose ObamaCare's current incarnation.
Naturally, lobbyists from America's Health Insurance Plans and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the major trade groups, were on hand too. Money follows power in Washington, obviously, though this example seems especially inexplicable given that Ms. Coakley's GOP opponent, state senator Scott Brown, may be the last chance to defuse the health-care doomsday machine. But maybe someone in the press corps will bother to mention this episode the next time President Obama takes aim at the "special interests" he claims are opposing his agenda.
And if your into believing more Democrat bullshit the Stimulus package has now created or saved 1.7 to 2 million jobs. We still don't have a clue how you calculate a saved job. But if its a Democrat saying it, it must be true. They have been so honest with everything else so far. I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.
Quote from: MikeC on January 13, 2010, 09:14:15 AM
I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.
I'm sure they're fucking terrified.
Quote from: fiveouts on January 13, 2010, 09:34:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 13, 2010, 09:14:15 AM
I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.
I'm sure they're their fucking terrified.
I am the lowest form of life...
Quote from: CT III on January 13, 2010, 09:42:04 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 13, 2010, 09:34:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 13, 2010, 09:14:15 AM
I am looking at you Nancy and Obama.
I'm sure they're their fucking terrified.
I am the lowest form of life...
Intrepid Reader: Inigo Montoya"I do not think it means what you think it means."
I'm just trying to wrap my brain around MikeC's amazement that a labor union would endorse a Democrat.
Quote from: Oleg on January 13, 2010, 10:02:46 AM
I'm just trying to wrap my brain around MikeC's amazement that a labor union would would've endorsed a Democrat.
Translated.
Quote from: Oleg on January 13, 2010, 10:02:46 AM
I'm just trying to wrap my brain around MikeC's amazement that a labor union would endorse a Democrat.
I'm trying to figure out whether he's pro- or anti-O-Commu-Care.
Quote from: BH on January 13, 2010, 10:09:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 13, 2010, 10:02:46 AM
I'm just trying to wrap my brain around MikeC's amazement that a labor union would would've would of endorsed a Democrat.
Translated.
I'm annoyed. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34831989/ns/politics-white_house/)
Quote from: Slack-E on January 13, 2010, 12:39:22 PM
I'm annoyed. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34831989/ns/politics-white_house/)
Cost of Iraq war (and this estimate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html) is almost 2 years old), with no revenue offsets: $3 trillion
Cost of health care reform, completely offset (and then some): less than $1 trillion (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-alternative-catastrophe)
Priorities!
Quote from: Slack-E on January 13, 2010, 12:39:22 PM
I'm annoyed. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34831989/ns/politics-white_house/)
QuoteWASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
Whatever became of those UNPRECEDENTED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET CUTS?
How can this be twisted to show how much Obama hates the troops?
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 13, 2010, 12:39:22 PM
I'm annoyed. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34831989/ns/politics-white_house/)
QuoteWASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
Whatever became of those UNPRECEDENTED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET CUTS?
How can this be twisted to show how much Obama hates the troops?
Easily... He wants to extend the war so they have more chances to get killed..
Any other questions?
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/glennanger,0,2567014,post.triviaquiz
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Quote from: Wheezer on January 13, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Why settle for Pat Robertson when Molly Shephard gives you such a better tits/crazy ratio?
(http://i.imgur.com/Qn6pm.png)
Quote from: ChuckD on January 13, 2010, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 13, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Why settle for Pat Robertson when Molly Shephard gives you such a better tits/crazy ratio?
Too much crazy for my delicate state of mind. I did think this one was kind of pithy, though:
Quotealey08 @mollymshephard I hope you choke on a Black dick, and if you're lucky, a monkey will throw shit on you
Quote from: ChuckD on January 13, 2010, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 13, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Why settle for Pat Robertson when Molly Shephard gives you such a better tits/crazy ratio?
SheDubbs?
Anyone else been readin' this (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/12/a-new-survivors-show-watching-a-week-of-cable-news-and-living/?icid=main%7Csearch3%7Cdl5%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F01%2F12%2Fa-new-survivors-show-watching-a-week-of-cable-news-and-living%2F)?
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Well, we Michiganders don't want your Asian carp screwing with the lovely fishing industry here. Hey, it's all we have left!
Actually, this Asian carp issue is a dream come true for Michigan politicians who want to change the subject from the local economy, Detroit schools, etc. The only constituency aligned against *anything* proposed by the governor, Attorney General, etc. is the fish themselves or out-of-staters who don't vote in their local elections.
Quote from: motown on January 14, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Well, we Michiganders don't want your Asian carp screwing with the lovely fishing industry here. Hey, it's all we have left!
Actually, this Asian carp issue is a dream come true for Michigan politicians who want to change the subject from the local economy, Detroit schools, etc. The only constituency aligned against *anything* proposed by the governor, Attorney General, etc. is the fish themselves or out-of-staters who don't vote in their local elections.
It doesn't hurt that your AG is a Republican running for Gov. and is able to run ads showing black and white grainy photographs of Jennifer Granholm (if she's running for re-election) alongside Barack Obama with menacing background music and a voiceover like this:
"Mike Cox stood up to Jennifer Granholm and her White House buddies who are run by the Chicago cronies. Why, Mike Cox SUED ILLINOIS to shut down their awful, awful Sanitary Canal because of the Asian Carp! But Barack (Granholm's friend) used the EPA to fight that because he wanted to help out his old friends!"
And Granholm and her folks can claim that nothing was done the previous eight years (show photo of Mike Cox alongside Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush/Condoleeza Rice), and besides the S&S Canal was built under the TEDDY ROOSEVELT administration (show picture of John McCain proudly next to some TR representation) and completed during the Republican COOLIDGE administration (show Reagan speaking in the Oval Office with portrait of Coolidge over his shoulder).
It's obviously a regional issue (not surprising, then, that I'm fully on board with Durbin and Obama), and the Asian Carp might wreak havoc on the Great Lakes (although there has been some doubt to their ability to thrive in a cold, deep lake). However, all the neighboring states underestimate the importance of the S&S Canal to the city, Illinois, and the Midwest. And judging by the somewhat muted interest locally, so do Chicagoans.
From what I've read lately, it sounds like this suit, onto which Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario have all joined, has a great chance of happening, no?
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
3) Fuck Dallas
Always applicable.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
3) Fuck Dallas
Always applicable.
Not this weekend.
Quote from: Slack-E on January 14, 2010, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
3) Fuck Dallas
Always applicable.
Not this weekend.
Pulling for an asteroid to plow into the Earth on the 50 yard line this weekend.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 14, 2010, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
3) Fuck Dallas
Always applicable.
Not this weekend.
Pulling for an asteroid to plow into the Earth on the 50 yard line this weekend.
It's called the equator, IDITO.
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
Maybe the carp will eat the alewives that infest Wilmette.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 03:18:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
Maybe the carp will eat the alewives that infest Wilmette.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-nm0-SJemAD13M%3Ahttp://i19.tinypic.com/4m8t6ok.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:16:54 PM
Quote from: motown on January 14, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Well, we Michiganders don't want your Asian carp screwing with the lovely fishing industry here. Hey, it's all we have left!
Actually, this Asian carp issue is a dream come true for Michigan politicians who want to change the subject from the local economy, Detroit schools, etc. The only constituency aligned against *anything* proposed by the governor, Attorney General, etc. is the fish themselves or out-of-staters who don't vote in their local elections.
It doesn't hurt that your AG is a Republican running for Gov. and is able to run ads showing black and white grainy photographs of Jennifer Granholm (if she's running for re-election) alongside Barack Obama with menacing background music and a voiceover like this:
"Mike Cox stood up to Jennifer Granholm and her White House buddies who are run by the Chicago cronies. Why, Mike Cox SUED ILLINOIS to shut down their awful, awful Sanitary Canal because of the Asian Carp! But Barack (Granholm's friend) used the EPA to fight that because he wanted to help out his old friends!"
And Granholm and her folks can claim that nothing was done the previous eight years (show photo of Mike Cox alongside Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush/Condoleeza Rice), and besides the S&S Canal was built under the TEDDY ROOSEVELT administration (show picture of John McCain proudly next to some TR representation) and completed during the Republican COOLIDGE administration (show Reagan speaking in the Oval Office with portrait of Coolidge over his shoulder).
It's obviously a regional issue (not surprising, then, that I'm fully on board with Durbin and Obama), and the Asian Carp might wreak havoc on the Great Lakes (although there has been some doubt to their ability to thrive in a cold, deep lake). However, all the neighboring states underestimate the importance of the S&S Canal to the city, Illinois, and the Midwest. And judging by the somewhat muted interest locally, so do Chicagoans.
From what I've read lately, it sounds like this suit, onto which Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario have all joined, has a great chance of happening, no?
Granholm's term-limited, so she's out. Speculation has been that she'll move on to an appointed position with the Obama administration, but who knows. Her lieutenant governor, previously thought of as the logical Dem nominee, recently announced that he will not seek the nomination. Turns out that when things are going bad, people tend to blame the politicians in power, right or wrong- who knew? Granholm is political kryptonite presently in the state of Michigan, and so the guv election next year is probably going to be about assigning blame. As with all elections. (someone insert that "More You Know..." pic)
I don't know what the likelihood of a carp suit is, however Granholm and Cox have recently been in the papers as "looking into all means available" to stem the oncoming Asian carp disaster. Like I said, a politician's dream issue without adverse constituencies amongst the voters. "Yeah! Let's SUE those nasty fish back to the stone age!"
Quote from: Jon on January 14, 2010, 09:31:33 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 13, 2010, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 13, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Why settle for Pat Robertson when Molly Shephard gives you such a better tits/crazy ratio?
SheDubbs?
More deliberate.
(http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/4691/effhaiti.jpg)
Quote from: Wheezer on January 14, 2010, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 14, 2010, 09:31:33 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 13, 2010, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 13, 2010, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 13, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
Ed Anger (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/business/media/30weekly.html) or Glenn Beck?
Pat Robertson (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.pat.robertson/).
Why settle for Pat Robertson when Molly Shephard gives you such a better tits/crazy ratio?
SheDubbs?
More deliberate.
(http://img124.yfrog.com/img124/4691/effhaiti.jpg)
Wheezer, I love you. Please tell me you're coming out tomorrow.
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 14, 2010, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 14, 2010, 02:27:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 14, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Maybe we could reverse the flow of the river?
Unfortunately, that's not an option. They first wanted to close the canal at Lockport, but after that ND student found carp DNA at Wilmette, they'll want to close the entire canal system. So in short:
1) Fuck Michigan.
2) Fuck Notre Dame.
3) Fuck Dallas
Always applicable.
Not this weekend.
Pulling for an asteroid to plow into the Earth on the 50 yard line this weekend.
Would a 7.0 earthquake do?
Or what about playing the game in Haiti?
Too soo?
I don't know why everyone is so worried about Haiti when scary religious discrimination is going on in Great Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones).
(P.S.: Be sure to read the comments after the story. Its like a dunk contest for puns.)
Quote from: fiveouts on January 15, 2010, 09:03:54 AM
I don't know why everyone is so worried about Haiti when scary religious discrimination is going on in Great Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jedi-religion-tesco-hood-jones).
(P.S.: Be sure to read the comments after the story. Its like a dunk contest for puns.)
"twunt" is a keeper.
Quote from: motown on January 14, 2010, 03:59:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 02:16:54 PM
Quote from: motown on January 14, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 14, 2010, 01:13:34 PM
Anyone else concerned about the suit filed against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeking to permanently close the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan?
Not only would this jeopardize the water quality of the 5 million people in the MWRD, nor would it merely cause widespread flooding not seen since before the completion of Deep Tunnel (and really the I & M Canal), but it would eliminate any chance of you taking a pleasure cruise from Lake Michigan to ... St. Louis?
Well, we Michiganders don't want your Asian carp screwing with the lovely fishing industry here. Hey, it's all we have left!
Actually, this Asian carp issue is a dream come true for Michigan politicians who want to change the subject from the local economy, Detroit schools, etc. The only constituency aligned against *anything* proposed by the governor, Attorney General, etc. is the fish themselves or out-of-staters who don't vote in their local elections.
It doesn't hurt that your AG is a Republican running for Gov. and is able to run ads showing black and white grainy photographs of Jennifer Granholm (if she's running for re-election) alongside Barack Obama with menacing background music and a voiceover like this:
"Mike Cox stood up to Jennifer Granholm and her White House buddies who are run by the Chicago cronies. Why, Mike Cox SUED ILLINOIS to shut down their awful, awful Sanitary Canal because of the Asian Carp! But Barack (Granholm's friend) used the EPA to fight that because he wanted to help out his old friends!"
And Granholm and her folks can claim that nothing was done the previous eight years (show photo of Mike Cox alongside Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush/Condoleeza Rice), and besides the S&S Canal was built under the TEDDY ROOSEVELT administration (show picture of John McCain proudly next to some TR representation) and completed during the Republican COOLIDGE administration (show Reagan speaking in the Oval Office with portrait of Coolidge over his shoulder).
It's obviously a regional issue (not surprising, then, that I'm fully on board with Durbin and Obama), and the Asian Carp might wreak havoc on the Great Lakes (although there has been some doubt to their ability to thrive in a cold, deep lake). However, all the neighboring states underestimate the importance of the S&S Canal to the city, Illinois, and the Midwest. And judging by the somewhat muted interest locally, so do Chicagoans.
From what I've read lately, it sounds like this suit, onto which Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario have all joined, has a great chance of happening, no?
Granholm's term-limited, so she's out. Speculation has been that she'll move on to an appointed position with the Obama administration, but who knows. Her lieutenant governor, previously thought of as the logical Dem nominee, recently announced that he will not seek the nomination. Turns out that when things are going bad, people tend to blame the politicians in power, right or wrong- who knew? Granholm is political kryptonite presently in the state of Michigan, and so the guv election next year is probably going to be about assigning blame. As with all elections. (someone insert that "More You Know..." pic)
I don't know what the likelihood of a carp suit is, however Granholm and Cox have recently been in the papers as "looking into all means available" to stem the oncoming Asian carp disaster. Like I said, a politician's dream issue without adverse constituencies amongst the voters. "Yeah! Let's SUE those nasty fish back to the stone age!"
Apparently the Supremes can't hurry love or decisions on closing one of America's greatest engineering feats (U-S-A! U-S-A!). They held off on any action today. But for people like Gil (who might actually find this fun), here's Madigan's response to Michigan's suit. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/downloads/madigancarp.pdf)
I'll maintain that if Michigan's successful, it will be the biggest story in Chicago this year.
Matt Taibbi (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/18/translating-david-brooks-haiti/) on David Brook's article about Haiti.
Quote from: BH on January 19, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
Matt Taibbi (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/18/translating-david-brooks-haiti/) on David Brook's article about Haiti.
Great article if you like ad hominem and placing words into one's mouth. I'm no Brooks fan, but Taibbi brings nothing to the table with that.
Quote from: Brownie on January 19, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: BH on January 19, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
Matt Taibbi (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/18/translating-david-brooks-haiti/) on David Brook's article about Haiti.
Great article if you like ad hominem and placing words into one's mouth. I'm no Brooks fan, but Taibbi brings nothing to the table with that.
Does he ever?
Fucking Gonzo wannabe.
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2010, 06:33:09 PM
I'll maintain that if Michigan's successful, it will be the biggest story in Chicago this year.
SCOTUS rejects (http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBLVdRvAFS8nrAHqdx5AsqbVW3B/ccb43). The big story now is Joliet seeking EPA hikes in radium limits.
Or something.
Quote from: flannj on January 19, 2010, 11:18:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 19, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: BH on January 19, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
Matt Taibbi (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/18/translating-david-brooks-haiti/) on David Brook's article about Haiti.
Great article if you like ad hominem and placing words into one's mouth. I'm no Brooks fan, but Taibbi brings nothing to the table with that.
Does he ever?
Fucking Gonzo wannabe.
THI.
Quote from: powen01 on January 19, 2010, 11:31:50 AM
Quote from: flannj on January 19, 2010, 11:18:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 19, 2010, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: BH on January 19, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
Matt Taibbi (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/18/translating-david-brooks-haiti/) on David Brook's article about Haiti.
Great article if you like ad hominem and placing words into one's mouth. I'm no Brooks fan, but Taibbi brings nothing to the table with that.
Does he ever?
Fucking Gonzo wannabe.
THI.
THA.
You can't beat a good old-fashioned triple detainee homicide and cover-up.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368
The French? Yeah, they still suck. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/18/french-minister-rips-us-t_n_427366.html)
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
I didn't know about this election until today. A Republican won. That's nice. I still don't know the Dem-Repub totals. Don't care. I'd rather worry about titties, Fagstats, homogheymes, and JOing later tonight.
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
Dude. I was seriously going to come in here and say "que MikeC". You ruined it.
I think the surprise for some was not that he won, but that healthcare "reform" turned out to be such deadweight for Dems.
Quote from: powen01 on January 19, 2010, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
Dude. I was seriously going to come in here and say "que MikeC". You ruined it.
I think the surprise for some was not that he won, but that healthcare "reform" turned out to be such deadweight for Dems.
The polls don't bear that out. (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/poll-more-think-health-care-reform-isnt-ambitious-enough/) I lean more towards the economy's in the shitter and voters are angry about it and this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32825):
QuoteThis is about an arrogant state party, a horrible and lazy candidate who was unprepared and unmotivated, out of touch with the voters, incapable or unwilling to put in the work and shake the hands and massage the egos and put in the hours, and they got their asses handed to them. I'm sure the exit polling will give us more information, but right now it looks to me that this was about the fundamentals of running a good campaign. Coakley and company didn't adhere to them.
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
Quote from: R-V on January 19, 2010, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 19, 2010, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
Dude. I was seriously going to come in here and say "que MikeC". You ruined it.
I think the surprise for some was not that he won, but that healthcare "reform" turned out to be such deadweight for Dems.
The polls don't bear that out. (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/poll-more-think-health-care-reform-isnt-ambitious-enough/) I lean more towards the economy's in the shitter and voters are angry about it and this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32825):
QuoteThis is about an arrogant state party, a horrible and lazy candidate who was unprepared and unmotivated, out of touch with the voters, incapable or unwilling to put in the work and shake the hands and massage the egos and put in the hours, and they got their asses handed to them. I'm sure the exit polling will give us more information, but right now it looks to me that this was about the fundamentals of running a good campaign. Coakley and company didn't adhere to them.
Hmmm. Not sure the original poll bore that opinion out. Regardless, Dems will have an interesting time passing the reform bill and getting over in November... not that I think republicans are going to do any better. I will be interested to see polling that shows why MA voted the way they did. Interesting.
The fundamentals of running a good campaign? I read a bunch of horse shit today about how the Democrats only just realized last week or something that this thing wasn't in the bag. I guess there's merit to the theory that a full-court press from the outset would have been the best strategy considering all the FAIL that was on the line if this dumbass Brown got fatass Kennedy's seat.
It all makes a hill of beans if you ask me but it's nice to see the arrogance that the Dems have trotted out for the past 365+ days meet its just ends right here tonight. I wish I still had a Republican party to root for like a sports team but they make Wannstedt's Bears look competent by comparison.
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 19, 2010, 11:02:02 PM
The fundamentals of running a good campaign? I read a bunch of horse shit today about how the Democrats only just realized last week or something that this thing wasn't in the bag. I guess there's merit to the theory that a full-court press from the outset would have been the best strategy considering all the FAIL that was on the line if this dumbass Brown got fatass Kennedy's seat.
It all makes a hill of beans if you ask me but it's nice to see the arrogance that the Dems have trotted out for the past 365+ days meet its just ends right here tonight. I wish I still had a Republican party to root for like a sports team but they make Wannstedt's Bears look competent by comparison.
Motherf'ing tit zoom spinning THI.
Quote from: Yeti on January 19, 2010, 09:47:02 PM
I didn't know about this election until today. A Republican won. That's nice. I still don't know the Dem-Repub totals. Don't care. I'd rather worry about titties, Fagstats, homogheymes, and JOing later tonight.
Right on, Yeti.
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so quiet in here because we're so wrong and you're so right.
About everything.
Quote from: powen01 on January 19, 2010, 10:46:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 19, 2010, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 19, 2010, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
Dude. I was seriously going to come in here and say "que MikeC". You ruined it.
I think the surprise for some was not that he won, but that healthcare "reform" turned out to be such deadweight for Dems.
The polls don't bear that out. (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/poll-more-think-health-care-reform-isnt-ambitious-enough/) I lean more towards the economy's in the shitter and voters are angry about it and this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32825):
QuoteThis is about an arrogant state party, a horrible and lazy candidate who was unprepared and unmotivated, out of touch with the voters, incapable or unwilling to put in the work and shake the hands and massage the egos and put in the hours, and they got their asses handed to them. I'm sure the exit polling will give us more information, but right now it looks to me that this was about the fundamentals of running a good campaign. Coakley and company didn't adhere to them.
Hmmm. Not sure the original poll bore that opinion out. Regardless, Dems will have an interesting time passing the reform bill and getting over in November... not that I think republicans are going to do any better. I will be interested to see polling that shows why MA voted the way they did. Interesting.
Agreed. The only option left is for the House to just pass the Senate bill as is, but I don't know if that'll hai. I know this has been brought up before but in a normal non-fubar majority rule democracy, the majority party dropping from 60 to 59 votes wouldn't be POLITICAL ARMAGEDDON.
As for why Brown won, according to the gasbags on MSNBC's Morning Blow, his open support for waterboarding pushed him over the top with independent voters. Alright America!
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 19, 2010, 11:02:02 PM
The fundamentals of running a good campaign? I read a bunch of horse shit today about how the Democrats only just realized last week or something that this thing wasn't in the bag. I guess there's merit to the theory that a full-court press from the outset would have been the best strategy considering all the FAIL that was on the line if this dumbass Brown got fatass Kennedy's seat.
It all makes a hill of beans if you ask me but it's nice to see the arrogance that the Dems have trotted out for the past 365+ days meet its just ends right here tonight. I wish I still had a Republican party to root for like a sports team but they make Wannstedt's Bears look competent by comparison.
I think part of the arrogance was Coakley's whole "Fenway Park" gaffe, after which Brown showed up anywhere there were 2 or more people - which is how candidates should run anyway.
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
Batty crazy or batty ghey?
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
Batty crazy or batty ghey?
I don't know what batty ghey means.
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
Batty crazy or batty ghey?
I'll be damned if I ever have to choose between the two.
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:46:38 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
Batty crazy or batty ghey?
I don't know what batty ghey means.
(http://superdickery.com/images/stories/oneshot/smartbombstudios-justice.jpg)
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
Quote from: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 08:56:43 AM
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
I'm in complete agreement that Mike C was being a douche, and I'm certainly not going to gloat about how "quiet" the Democrats are when they hold 59 seats and the House. I'm not fond of the direction the Republicans are going, either. I just resent the notion that my rooting for a Republican to win a key seat, or any seat in the Senate really, when the party whose policies I oppose more often than not held a supermajority, is some kind of mindless Republican flag waving.
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
Quote from: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 08:56:43 AM
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
I think the bolded is the most important. Unless you're Mike C, we're all cool with each other's opinions and after the poo flinging is over, it's nice to know we can have a beer or 17 and scream "Cubs suck!" at the top of our bitter lungs.
Not batty "ha ha." Batty "ghey (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=batty+boy)."
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
It could mean that more and more moderates and independents start forming some sort of third party in which people try to come up with actual solutions to actual problems instead of trying to control large sections of the population through fear and batty "ha ha"s on either side are left without a home. Maybe even a little bit of this would be better than what we have had since we started this whole democracy thing.
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:05:49 AM
I think the bolded is the most important. Unless you're Mike C, we're all cool with each other's opinions and after the poo flinging is over, it's nice to know we can have a beer or 17 and scream "Cubs suck!" at the top of our bitter lungs.
The best part is that people are also free to stop caring about politics, like I have. Like is so much less stressful.
Quote from: Eli on January 20, 2010, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:05:49 AM
I think the bolded is the most important. Unless you're Mike C, we're all cool with each other's opinions and after the poo flinging is over, it's nice to know we can have a beer or 17 and scream "Cubs suck!" at the top of our bitter lungs.
The best part is that people are also free to stop caring about politics, like I have. Like is so much less stressful.
Well yeah, but this is the politics thread.
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
It could mean that more and more moderates and independents start forming some sort of third party in which people try to come up with actual solutions to actual problems instead of trying to control large sections of the population through fear and batty "ha ha"s on either side are left without a home. Maybe even a little bit of this would be better than what we have had since we started this whole democracy thing.
I really can't believe I'm agreeing with Oleg, but the more I think about it, proportional representation would be a much better solution for the problems that ail this country than the current winner-take-all situation. You'd still have the Democrats and Republicans filling the moderate roles and getting the majority of the seats like Labour and Conservatives in the UK, but you'd have your parties for Christians, Socialists, and other left or right voting blocs. Maybe voter turnout would increase and it would take something other than an incredibly pissed off populace to get something done.
Quote from: Eli on January 20, 2010, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:05:49 AM
I think the bolded is the most important. Unless you're Mike C, we're all cool with each other's opinions and after the poo flinging is over, it's nice to know we can have a beer or 17 and scream "Cubs suck!" at the top of our bitter lungs.
The best part is that people are also free to stop caring about politics, like I have. Like is so much less stressful.
How is your like these days? Beyond less stressful, that is.
Quote from: Yeti on January 20, 2010, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 20, 2010, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:05:49 AM
I think the bolded is the most important. Unless you're Mike C, we're all cool with each other's opinions and after the poo flinging is over, it's nice to know we can have a beer or 17 and scream "Cubs suck!" at the top of our bitter lungs.
The best part is that people are also free to stop caring about politics, like I have. Like is so much less stressful.
How is your like these days? Beyond less stressful, that is.
It like totally less stressful and stuff?
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:23:32 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
It could mean that more and more moderates and independents start forming some sort of third party in which people try to come up with actual solutions to actual problems instead of trying to control large sections of the population through fear and batty "ha ha"s on either side are left without a home. Maybe even a little bit of this would be better than what we have had since we started this whole democracy thing.
I really can't believe I'm agreeing with Oleg, but the more I think about it, proportional representation would be a much better solution for the problems that ail this country than the current winner-take-all situation. You'd still have the Democrats and Republicans filling the moderate roles and getting the majority of the seats like Labour and Conservatives in the UK, but you'd have your parties for Christians, Socialists, and other left or right voting blocs. Maybe voter turnout would increase and it would take something other than an incredibly pissed off populace to get something done.
I know the idea of an actual viable 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. party would make me more likely to vote
for someone I agree with, as opposed to my usual path of holding my nose and voting
against someone I find repugnant.
I haven't found anything to disagree with on this entire 202nd page of posts. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 09:34:22 AM
I haven't found anything to disagree with on this entire 202nd page of posts. What the hell is wrong with you people?
What about Fork's non sequitur?
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:39:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 09:34:22 AM
I haven't found anything to disagree with on this entire 202nd page of posts. What the hell is wrong with you people?
What about Fork's non sequitur?
I'm willing to accept any Fork post that doesn't contain words.
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 09:34:22 AM
I haven't found anything to disagree with on this entire 202nd page of posts. What the hell is wrong with you people?
This is the 203rd page of posts, IDOTI.
And it's off to a tremendous start.
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:23:32 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
It could mean that more and more moderates and independents start forming some sort of third party in which people try to come up with actual solutions to actual problems instead of trying to control large sections of the population through fear and batty "ha ha"s on either side are left without a home. Maybe even a little bit of this would be better than what we have had since we started this whole democracy thing.
I really can't believe I'm agreeing with Oleg, but the more I think about it, proportional representation would be a much better solution for the problems that ail this country than the current winner-take-all situation. You'd still have the Democrats and Republicans filling the moderate roles and getting the majority of the seats like Labour and Conservatives in the UK, but you'd have your parties for Christians, Socialists, and other left or right voting blocs. Maybe voter turnout would increase and it would take something other than an incredibly pissed off populace to get something done.
I know the idea of an actual viable 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. party would make me more likely to vote for someone I agree with, as opposed to my usual path of holding my nose and voting against someone I find repugnant.
Agreed. This could just be typical Pepperidge Farm nostalgia, but I have to believe there was a time when the system meant something other than choosing the lesser evil. Then again, given my favorite candidate of all time...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/morris8860/cthulu.jpg)
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 09:32:35 AM
I know the idea of an actual viable 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. party would make me more likely to vote for someone I agree with, as opposed to my usual path of holding my nose and voting against someone I find repugnant.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/14/arts/greg.span.jpg)
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:23:32 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 09:15:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 20, 2010, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 19, 2010, 10:24:09 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.
Fuck its silent in here.......
To quote the "only memorable line..."
People who treat government like sports and literally root for their "team" to win regardless of the situation can shampoo my crotch.
In principle, I see what you mean here. However, this isn't merely rooting for the Republican for the Republican's sake, it's a key vote that can break the supermajority. If you're in opposition to many of the policies of the party in power, that's a seriously important seat. Also, are you suggesting that the people here interested in seeing Coakley win Weren't just rooting for the Democrat for the Democrat's sake, but rather on Coakley's merits as a candidate? Because I'm somehow doubting that.
Not to put words in his mouth, but he's saying you're all fucking batty.
THI.
Pretty much anyone who supported that incompetent mess Coakley is no better than the people who supported the Steve Stone wannabe Brown. That was a terrible race that represented every suckitude that politics has to offer. Nobody should have been celebrating (or crying about) that crap fest.
Besides that and regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of health care reform, if Democrats can't pass a reasonable version of the bill they chose to bring to the floor and championed for a year and a half with an eighteen seat fucking majority, they don't deserve to govern in the first place.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that the Democrats might be a more pathetic collective than the '03 Tigers.
If there's anything I've learned here, it's that hatred, bile, and voter discontent are bad pillars for a politic platform. The Democrats rode the vast wave of anger people had at George Bush to massive gains in 06 and 08, and now that they're governing, and life still sucks, people are quick to sweep them out as well. I'm momentarily happy that the pendulum might possibly be swinging back the other way, but the fact of the matter is I don't believe that Republicans in office would have any plan to sustain that momentum, and they'd collapse the same way the Democratic platform is faltering. I just don't see how this cycle of negativity ends well for the American people.
It could mean that more and more moderates and independents start forming some sort of third party in which people try to come up with actual solutions to actual problems instead of trying to control large sections of the population through fear and batty "ha ha"s on either side are left without a home. Maybe even a little bit of this would be better than what we have had since we started this whole democracy thing.
I really can't believe I'm agreeing with Oleg, but the more I think about it, proportional representation would be a much better solution for the problems that ail this country than the current winner-take-all situation. You'd still have the Democrats and Republicans filling the moderate roles and getting the majority of the seats like Labour and Conservatives in the UK, but you'd have your parties for Christians, Socialists, and other left or right voting blocs. Maybe voter turnout would increase and it would take something other than an incredibly pissed off populace to get something done.
I know the idea of an actual viable 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. party would make me more likely to vote for someone I agree with, as opposed to my usual path of holding my nose and voting against someone I find repugnant.
Bring back the Whig Party!
Quote from: Wheezer on January 20, 2010, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 09:32:35 AM
I know the idea of an actual viable 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc. party would make me more likely to vote for someone I agree with, as opposed to my usual path of holding my nose and voting against someone I find repugnant.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/14/arts/greg.span.jpg)
For a second, I thought that was Whitman Mayo. Who I met, and quite possibly would have voted for, if he were alive.
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
As a South Carolinian, I am saddened that my home state's glory days are long since past in this area.
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
As a South Carolinian, I am saddened that my home state's glory days are long since past in this area.
Buck up. South Carolina is still second to none in political comedy fodder.
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
As a South Carolinian, I am saddened that my home state's glory days are long since past in this area.
Buck up. South Carolina is still second to none in political comedy fodder.
Yeah, but Sanford, DeMint, Graham,
et al are
clowns. Preston Brooks and John C. Calhoun were legitmately insane in a kickass, scary fireeater way.
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
As a South Carolinian, I am saddened that my home state's glory days are long since past in this area.
Buck up. South Carolina is still second to none in political comedy fodder.
Yeah, but Sanford, DeMint, Graham, et al are clowns. Preston Brooks and John C. Calhoun were legitmately insane in a kickass, scary fireeater way.
I'm sure with Obama in office it won't be long before SC has another nullification crisis.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
I want to see guys cane each other on the Senate floor again. People might actually start watching C-Span.
As a South Carolinian, I am saddened that my home state's glory days are long since past in this area.
Buck up. South Carolina is still second to none in political comedy fodder.
Yeah, but Sanford, DeMint, Graham, et al are clowns. Preston Brooks and John C. Calhoun were legitmately insane in a kickass, scary fireeater way.
I'm sure with Obama in office it won't be long before SC has another nullification crisis.
I can't wait.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ca61V1Z1LU0/SqDCQJvm6dI/AAAAAAAAAQo/ZAL2RGu-4kI/s400/BujuBanton.jpg)
Me no like no batty bwoy.
Quote from: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 08:56:43 AM
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
Don't worry, TJ, I could whip all three of those TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS by myself faster than TDubbs can offend an angry married broad.
(just doing my part to restore the anger and hostility to this seemingly suddenly peaceful dark corner)
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 08:56:43 AM
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
Don't worry, TJ, I could whip all three of those TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS by myself faster than TDubbs can offend an angry married broad.
(just doing my part to restore the anger and hostility to this seemingly suddenly peaceful dark corner)
Morph is tougher than ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon? That's quite a statement.
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2010, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 08:56:43 AM
To be fair, the silence WASN'T deafening. Gil Gunderson referenced Coakley being in danger earlier on Tuesday with a Dead Pool post. Those who met at Kitty O'Shea's were predicting DOOOOOOOM for Coakley. By the way, for as rancorous the political landscape is and as heated as the discussions get here, and as opposed some of us are to each others' politics, it IS amazing that a barroom brawl didn't erupt between Morph-Bill Cadigan-Me on one side and ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon on the other. Or maybe this is not North Korea and we can remain friends and argue in good faith and buy each other beers. What a country! U-S-A! U-S-A!
However, Fiveouts is right in that taunting the loser in an election is bad form. Scott Brown's win is good news for those more conservative than the government's agenda, just as Obama's win (and the Dems' overall ass-kicking in the House and Senate in '06 and '08) was good news for the Left.
However, are we just rooting for "laundry" in politics too? Voting for laundry gave us George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. And City Council. Yay?
But Scott Brown is a good win for the right. So I'm happy. Cheers!
Don't worry, TJ, I could whip all three of those TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS by myself faster than TDubbs can offend an angry married broad.
(just doing my part to restore the anger and hostility to this seemingly suddenly peaceful dark corner)
Morph is tougher than ThrillHo-Oleg-Jon? That's quite a statement.
Tougher than an art fhag, a drama fhag, and a little person? Those are bold words.
Two gheys and a midget walk into a bar...
I'd be worried about Oleg just wandering away mid-ruckus, when he forgets what's happening.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:03:59 AM
I'd be worried about Oleg just wandering away mid-ruckus, when he forgets what's happening.
You should recruit Ian and Yeti, they played ball in high school.
Fuck its silent in here.......
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:26:27 AM
Fuck its silent in here.......
Well, now that everything to the left of Orrin Hatch has been completely refuted by an ineptly run Democratic campaign in Massachusetts, what more is left to be said?
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:26:27 AM
Fuck its silent in here.......
Well, now that everything to the left of Orrin Hatch has been completely refuted by an ineptly run Democratic campaign in Massachusetts, what more is left to be said?
That Mike C. is a bottomless well of turdblossoms?
Quote from: MAD on January 20, 2010, 11:39:57 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:26:27 AM
Fuck its silent in here.......
Well, now that everything to the left of Orrin Hatch has been completely refuted by an ineptly run Democratic campaign in Massachusetts, what more is left to be said?
That Mike C. is a bottomless well of turdblossoms?
Needless to say...
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2010, 11:13:38 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:03:59 AM
I'd be worried about Oleg just wandering away mid-ruckus, when he forgets what's happening.
You should recruit Ian and Yeti, they played ball in high school.
IAN did? Sweet
I've resisted commenting on the recent brouhaha in Massachusetts for fear of looking like a partisan hack. I don't root for Democrats and Republicans like I root for the CUBBIES!! and Hawks. However, I do root for the team that has a genuine interest in improving the safety and welfare of the nation, rather than simply saying no.
At the moment, I believe that there is a strong chance that the House will swallow the bitter pill known as the Senate bill, giving the president a legislative accomplishment he can hang his hat on. Beyond that, I believe, as 538 does, that the president and the Congress will push hard to the center and pass measures that have only 50%+ support. It is very difficult to say to the average voter that your government is trying to do things for you when you're out of work and the Congress is talking about climate change and other liberal initiatives. How does that get Joe Average a job anytime soon?
So, what happens in 2010 and beyond is hard to say. Republicans will probably slim the majorities considerably, but I doubt they'll retake either the House or the Senate. And 2012, so much depends on things that haven't happened yet.
I expect the President to continue to tack towards the center, the Congress to get very populist, and Republicans to continue to say no to anything. So, there.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 11:03:59 AM
I'd be worried about Oleg just wandering away mid-ruckus, when he forgets what's happening.
Neh, I'd be all...hey look! Shiny object!
Going to back to what SKO said before, the political climate in this country is certainly partisan. However, that may be just because there are such differing ideas about where this country should be and how to get there.
I vote Democrat because they simply line up much better with what I believe, in a practical sense. It hasn't always been that way, and it's 50-50 that it will be that way in 2010 or 2012 (Green Party!). But, that leads to what Apex (I think) said earlier. My vote in 2004 was as much against Bush as it was for Kerry, and that sucks. Yada, yada...I got SKO on board. Who's next? It'll be us against Stew for a truly representative system!
As for the election yesterday...in a purely political sense, it was extremely remarkable. Who the hell could blow a 20 point lead in 7 weeks? However (pardon the upcoming analogy), this was like The Wild coming back after being down 5-1 to The Hawks. To borrow from the Hockeenight crew, if other teams think they found a formula to win, good luck with that. If the Republicans think they can cruise to victories because every campaign in 2010 is going to be complacent and the candidate will suck, good luck with that.
Ideologically, this race says nothing about health care. Nate Silver pointed out that Mass already has a public option in their health care system that's immensely popular and it works. So, if anyone wants to blame the health care debate, fine. But that's not the reason. The economic climate sucks, but it could have been worse. It's not like the Mass voters all of a sudden decided that economic prudence was all of a sudden a priority after voting for Kennedy and Kerry for thirty-whatever years.
This was what it was...an anomaly that has almost zero chance to be repeated. Like I said, it was fun to watch, if all I gave a shit about was the numbers.
I typed fast. I may or may not have made sense. Carry on.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 12:38:49 PM
I've resisted commenting on the recent brouhaha in Massachusetts for fear of looking like a partisan hack. I don't root for Democrats and Republicans like I root for the CUBBIES!! and Hawks. However, I do root for the team that has a genuine interest in improving the safety and welfare of the nation, rather than simply saying no.
At the moment, I believe that there is a strong chance that the House will swallow the bitter pill known as the Senate bill, giving the president a legislative accomplishment he can hang his hat on. Beyond that, I believe, as 538 does, that the president and the Congress will push hard to the center and pass measures that have only 50%+ support. It is very difficult to say to the average voter that your government is trying to do things for you when you're out of work and the Congress is talking about climate change and other liberal initiatives. How does that get Joe Average a job anytime soon?
So, what happens in 2010 and beyond is hard to say. Republicans will probably slim the majorities considerably, but I doubt they'll retake either the House or the Senate. And 2012, so much depends on things that haven't happened yet.
I expect the President to continue to tack towards the center, the Congress to get very populist, and Republicans to continue to say no to anything. So, there.
Um, this is false and makes you look exactly like the partisan hack you are trying to avoid appearing to be. Do you really believe that only one party has an interest in improving the safety and welfare of this nation? That's ridiculous, and shame on you for saying it.
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 12:38:49 PM
I've resisted commenting on the recent brouhaha in Massachusetts for fear of looking like a partisan hack. I don't root for Democrats and Republicans like I root for the CUBBIES!! and Hawks. However, I do root for the team that has a genuine interest in improving the safety and welfare of the nation, rather than simply saying no.
At the moment, I believe that there is a strong chance that the House will swallow the bitter pill known as the Senate bill, giving the president a legislative accomplishment he can hang his hat on. Beyond that, I believe, as 538 does, that the president and the Congress will push hard to the center and pass measures that have only 50%+ support. It is very difficult to say to the average voter that your government is trying to do things for you when you're out of work and the Congress is talking about climate change and other liberal initiatives. How does that get Joe Average a job anytime soon?
So, what happens in 2010 and beyond is hard to say. Republicans will probably slim the majorities considerably, but I doubt they'll retake either the House or the Senate. And 2012, so much depends on things that haven't happened yet.
I expect the President to continue to tack towards the center, the Congress to get very populist, and Republicans to continue to say no to anything. So, there.
Um, this is false and makes you look exactly like the partisan hack you are trying to avoid appearing to be. Do you really believe that only one party has an interest in improving the safety and welfare of this nation? That's ridiculous, and shame on you for saying it.
Yeah, you'd never catch a Republican doing that.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/02/55_cheney.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:55:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 12:38:49 PM
I've resisted commenting on the recent brouhaha in Massachusetts for fear of looking like a partisan hack. I don't root for Democrats and Republicans like I root for the CUBBIES!! and Hawks. However, I do root for the team that has a genuine interest in improving the safety and welfare of the nation, rather than simply saying no.
At the moment, I believe that there is a strong chance that the House will swallow the bitter pill known as the Senate bill, giving the president a legislative accomplishment he can hang his hat on. Beyond that, I believe, as 538 does, that the president and the Congress will push hard to the center and pass measures that have only 50%+ support. It is very difficult to say to the average voter that your government is trying to do things for you when you're out of work and the Congress is talking about climate change and other liberal initiatives. How does that get Joe Average a job anytime soon?
So, what happens in 2010 and beyond is hard to say. Republicans will probably slim the majorities considerably, but I doubt they'll retake either the House or the Senate. And 2012, so much depends on things that haven't happened yet.
I expect the President to continue to tack towards the center, the Congress to get very populist, and Republicans to continue to say no to anything. So, there.
Um, this is false and makes you look exactly like the partisan hack you are trying to avoid appearing to be. Do you really believe that only one party has an interest in improving the safety and welfare of this nation? That's ridiculous, and shame on you for saying it.
Yeah, you'd never catch a Republican doing that.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/02/55_cheney.jpg)
Nice irrelevant but true statement.
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 12:56:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:55:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 12:38:49 PM
I've resisted commenting on the recent brouhaha in Massachusetts for fear of looking like a partisan hack. I don't root for Democrats and Republicans like I root for the CUBBIES!! and Hawks. However, I do root for the team that has a genuine interest in improving the safety and welfare of the nation, rather than simply saying no.
At the moment, I believe that there is a strong chance that the House will swallow the bitter pill known as the Senate bill, giving the president a legislative accomplishment he can hang his hat on. Beyond that, I believe, as 538 does, that the president and the Congress will push hard to the center and pass measures that have only 50%+ support. It is very difficult to say to the average voter that your government is trying to do things for you when you're out of work and the Congress is talking about climate change and other liberal initiatives. How does that get Joe Average a job anytime soon?
So, what happens in 2010 and beyond is hard to say. Republicans will probably slim the majorities considerably, but I doubt they'll retake either the House or the Senate. And 2012, so much depends on things that haven't happened yet.
I expect the President to continue to tack towards the center, the Congress to get very populist, and Republicans to continue to say no to anything. So, there.
Um, this is false and makes you look exactly like the partisan hack you are trying to avoid appearing to be. Do you really believe that only one party has an interest in improving the safety and welfare of this nation? That's ridiculous, and shame on you for saying it.
Yeah, you'd never catch a Republican doing that.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/02/55_cheney.jpg)
Nice irrelevant but true statement.
So you have the same indignation toward Cheney doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
So you have the same indignation toward Chekey doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
This is your standard M.O., Fork. "They all do it." For the record, I don't think that the left doesn't have an interest in said safety and improvement, OK? I believe that the left's policies will not bring it about, but that's another story. And if Cheney said something to that effect (which I don't know about) then he was wrong to say it.
DPD, "Death Panels," "Obama's a Muslim," and "I want my country back" are also unacceptable answers.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
WRONG! Most of those don't even exist!
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
So you have the same indignation toward Cheney doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
This is your standard M.O., Fork. "They all do it." For the record, I don't think that the left doesn't have an interest in said safety and improvement, OK? I believe that the left's policies will not bring it about, but that's another story. And if Cheney said something to that effect (which I don't know about) then he was wrong to say it.
Have you been in a cave? He's called Obama a traitor, accusing him of "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". He said in 2004 if John Kerry was elected, we'd get attacked again. His douchebaggery is pretty well chronicled.
And I'm not using the "they all do it" argument. I'm using the "Morph is being pretty selective in his outrage" argument.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
That's not a good question.
Some of that stuff the GOP has no interest in for various reasons. Climate change and regulatory reform being two of them.
A better question is: What does the GOP see in being a problem with:
1) Getting insurance companies 30 million new clients without having the government provide insurance
2) Talking to Arabs like grown ups
3) Asking the financial institutions that took government money to pay it back, and placing a slightly heavier burden on those that are "too big to fail"
4) Stimulus in a demand crunch, 1/3rd of which was in the form of tax cuts
5) Medicare cuts of 1/2 a trillion dollars
6) Sotomayor on SCOTUS
7) No card check
8) DADT and DOMA still in effect
9) More troops for Afghanistan
10) GITMO still open
All that sounds pretty centrist to me. Maybe if a GOP had proposed it....
Nah. That would be cheering for uniforms.
I should note that IF there is an alternative that addresses these problems that the Republicans have been keeping secret in the inner recesses of their unholy sanctums, then I will retract my statement, but what was 2009 if nothing but death panels, muslin presidents, fake climate change, teabaggers and NO!!!?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Allow me:
Deregulate the industry so insurance companies can sell across state lines. Malpractice reform.
Not caused by man, so no point in doing anything.
Cut Medicare costs, unless the cuts are proposed by Democrats.
Tax cuts. Tax credits.
Deregulate/leave John Galt alone.
Win it.
Win it.
Let's ask it this way:
Fine, you hate where the country is going. Where is it going that you don't like?
And what part of that is Obama's fault and what part wasn't the fault of his predecessors?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
Will everyone please be quiet? I'm still listening to the hush fall over the room.
For the record, Morph has a point. Gil, whether he meant to or not, was being partisan by saying that he felt only one party cares about the welfare of the nation. The Republican Party's been reeling this year. No, it doesn't have a lot of ideas right now. God knows anyone that's been around me understands my frustration with that. The thing is, not having an alternative is still no excuse to vote for bad ideas. Just because the Obama plan is the only one out there that deals with health care reform, that doesn't mean they need to vote for it. Cheney is a douche and he's the most unpopular vice president in American history. I didn't realize that Morph needed to point out and criticize every Republican partisan hack before calling Gil on a remark he made In this forum.
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
So you have the same indignation toward Cheney doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
This is your standard M.O., Fork. "They all do it." For the record, I don't think that the left doesn't have an interest in said safety and improvement, OK? I believe that the left's policies will not bring it about, but that's another story. And if Cheney said something to that effect (which I don't know about) then he was wrong to say it.
Have you been in a cave? He's called Obama a traitor, accusing him of "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". He said in 2004 if John Kerry was elected, we'd get attacked again. His douchebaggery is pretty well chronicled.
And I'm not using the "they all do it" argument. I'm using the "Morph is being pretty selective in his outrage" argument.
I have yet to see anything in your argument that addresses my statement to Gil, which was about a political party and not the actions of one individual.
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
I totally guessed right. What do I win?
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
Not good enough without a "how." And the how has been, "Well, the 22nd Amendment means we don't have to figure out the how."
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
I totally guessed right. What do I win?
168 more pages of this thread by June.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 20, 2010, 01:23:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
Not good enough without a "how." And the how has been, "Well, the 22nd Amendment means we don't have to figure out the how."
I didn't realize that there were new proposals the Democrats have made to "win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." Iraq has undergone serious improvement since the surge strategy of 2006. The troop increases in Afghanistan are merely an attempt to apply that same strategy to Afghanistan. Those troop movements have been under development for quite some time. I didn't see any new or bold ideas from either party this year on how to win those wars.
Remember Page 202. Never forget.
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
How is the Senate bill a "complete government takeover" of health care? There is no public option, or Medicare buy-in. What is the government taking over, exactly? Passing a law to curb the abuses of the industry is a takeover?
Thank you for denying climate change and proving RV's point. Next issue.
The government creates the climate for business to operate and jobs to be created. No, it does not create jobs. Point understood. But to suggest that the government should do nothing so as to allow the private sector free reign is absurd. We learned that lesson already.
Right, the collapse was all on Fannie and Freddie, not BoA, Citi, AIG, or any of the "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You're right, my mistake.
Win is a great policy, ain't it? Can I use a poll-tested bromide rather than an actual idea too?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:28:28 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
How is the Senate bill a "complete government takeover" of health care? There is no public option, or Medicare buy-in. What is the government taking over, exactly? Passing a law to curb the abuses of the industry is a takeover?
Thank you for denying climate change and proving RV's point. Next issue.
The government creates the climate for business to operate and jobs to be created. No, it does not create jobs. Point understood. But to suggest that the government should do nothing so as to allow the private sector free reign is absurd. We learned that lesson already.
Right, the collapse was all on Fannie and Freddie, not BoA, Citi, AIG, or any of the "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You're right, my mistake.
Win is a great policy, ain't it? Can I use a poll-tested bromide rather than an actual idea too?
Here's the thing, Gil. This whole mess started as an argument over whether you were being partisan by saying the Republicans don't have any ideas. Morph told you that they did in fact have ideas. You disagree with those ideas, that's fine. But to suggest that only one side is even making suggestions that
they feel will help the American people is pure partisan hackery, good sir.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:28:28 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Gil... you approach this whole thing as if government is the solution to all problems. If you view the world through that prism, then you will always find a conservative or smaller-government party lacking (and I also wonder whether the GOP is such a party, given its performance during the Bush years). But anyway, let's play the game your way.
1) The GOP proposed an alternative which simply removed the state monopolies on insurance and added some malpractice caps. That's not "nothing." It may not be your preferred solution of a complete government takeover of questionable constitutionality, but it's not nothing.
2) Climate change... what should we do? Cripple the world economy, transfer huge amounts of wealth from developed to developing economies, all based on "science" that is more corrupt than the Haitian government? Um, I vote no.
3) Spiraling Medicare costs. A tough nut to crack, but you assume that the Democratic proposal will tackle this. Sure... by assuming that the "doc fix" will not happen. i.e.: Pretend.
4) Unemployment. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. The government can only take resources from one sector and transfer them to another. I will never understand why this simple fact of basic economics gets past people. You want the government to create jobs? Tell the government to get the fuck out of the way. Businesses are not hiring right now because they are scared to death of the increased costs of doing business. That's not just me talking. See page 6 of this (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET200912.pdf).
5) Financial regulatory reform. What do you have in mind? A tax on banking transactions (that will ultimately hurt consumers of banking services, since like all taxeds the ultimate cost is borne by the consumer)? Perhaps stricter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Oh, wait, that was proposed during the Bush years and shot down by "roll the dice" Barney Frank. Anything else?
6) Iraq & Afghanistan. The GOP's proposal is to win, not to say to the other side "as long as you hold on until date x you'll win."
How is the Senate bill a "complete government takeover" of health care? There is no public option, or Medicare buy-in. What is the government taking over, exactly? Passing a law to curb the abuses of the industry is a takeover?
Thank you for denying climate change and proving RV's point. Next issue.
The government creates the climate for business to operate and jobs to be created. No, it does not create jobs. Point understood. But to suggest that the government should do nothing so as to allow the private sector free reign is absurd. We learned that lesson already.
Right, the collapse was all on Fannie and Freddie, not BoA, Citi, AIG, or any of the "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You're right, my mistake.
Win is a great policy, ain't it? Can I use a poll-tested bromide rather than an actual idea too?
Here's the thing, Gil. This whole mess started as an argument over whether you were being partisan by saying the Republicans don't have any ideas. Morph told you that they did in fact have ideas. You disagree with those ideas, that's fine. But to suggest that only one side is even making suggestions that they feel will help the American people is pure partisan hackery, good sir.
So any suggestion or policy, regardless of how good it is, represents a party's intent to better the safety and welfare of the country? The GOP's health care policy was and is a love letter to the insurance industry, their climate policy is deny, and they think that any, ANY, government intervention is tantamount to treason.
Fine, the GOP has proposed ideas...ideas that will immensely benefit their friends in high places.
(http://airamerica.com/imagecache/uploads/scott_brown_naked_display.jpg)
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 01:35:26 PM
(http://airamerica.com/imagecache/uploads/scott_brown_naked_display.jpg)
I think Fork just won. Damnit.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:28:28 PM
Win is a great policy, ain't it? Can I use a poll-tested bromide rather than an actual idea too?
That's why we needed a President McCain.
His anti-bullshit-tolerance stance is the stuff of legend. (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7502.html)
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:20:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
So you have the same indignation toward Cheney doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
This is your standard M.O., Fork. "They all do it." For the record, I don't think that the left doesn't have an interest in said safety and improvement, OK? I believe that the left's policies will not bring it about, but that's another story. And if Cheney said something to that effect (which I don't know about) then he was wrong to say it.
Have you been in a cave? He's called Obama a traitor, accusing him of "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". He said in 2004 if John Kerry was elected, we'd get attacked again. His douchebaggery is pretty well chronicled.
And I'm not using the "they all do it" argument. I'm using the "Morph is being pretty selective in his outrage" argument.
I have yet to see anything in your argument that addresses my statement to Gil, which was about a political party and not the actions of one individual.
That's because it's a retarded argument. But I'll help end it for you.
Yes, Fork, I'm sure if Morph had personally met Cheney, and Cheney posted something similar on Desipio, Morph would probably be as indignant as he is about Gil's comments. Or maybe if you give Morph Cheney's e-mail address, he can personally call him out on it. Would that make you stop for a while?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:33:46 PM
So any suggestion or policy, regardless of how good it is, represents a party's intent to better the safety and welfare of the country? The GOP's health care policy was and is a love letter to the insurance industry, their climate policy is deny, and they think that any, ANY, government intervention is tantamount to treason.
Fine, the GOP has proposed ideas...ideas that will immensely benefit their friends in high places.
The health care policy might also be called "it ain't as broke as you say it is, and your proposed solution will completely fuck it up." The climate policy can be described as "before we wreck the economy with trillions of dollars in taxes to be transferred to developing countries we should at least have something more than 'value-added' data from HadCRU." And "less government intervention is better than more as a rule of thumb." (I wonder whether that's the GOP's policy but I think it's supposed to be.)
And on your last point... is that as opposed to the Democrats who are proposing huge government programs out of the goodness of their hearts? Please.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 01:03:00 PM
Morph, name one idea that the Republicans have proposed under Obama that will address the following national concerns:
Health care coverage and affordability.
Climate change.
Spiraling Medicare costs.
Unemployment.
Financial regulatory reform.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
"No" is not an acceptable answer, nor is "blow the fuckers up" for the last two.
Health care- We are NO FANS of Obama-Care.
Also, Eugenics is the product of TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT Control, which this campaign, as a REAL CONSERVATIVE, is against.
Climate Change- OFF-SHORE Oil Rigs will lower U.S. Gas Prices, and Create Countless Good Stable American Jobs - Careers nationwide. If elected to U.S. Congress, I will FIGHT with all legal ethical methods, to bring OFF-SHORE Oil Rigs to the Atlantic Ocean North Carolina East Coast.
Spiraling Medicare costs-The GEORGE HUTCHINS For U.S. Congress 2010 Campaign desires to assist all organizations which assist the poor, through creating a larger tax base, WITHOUT Raising Taxes, through DEREGULATION, which will bring more companies and corporations back to North Carolina, to include Nationwide.
Unemployment- Through a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, we need to remove these ridiculous, STUPID, so-called Anti-Racial Discrimination Laws, in order to, bring our corporate jobs back to American, in order to, establish a LESS Hostile, LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE EMPLOYER, Work Environment by Law; for, more Better Paying Careers, and Good Paying Jobs, for ALL Americans, nationwide, on U.S. Soil.
Financial Regulatory Reform- Ehem- The GEORGE HUTCHINS For U.S. Congress 2010 Campaign desires to assist all organizations which assist the poor, through creating a larger tax base, WITHOUT Raising Taxes, through DEREGULATION, which will bring more companies and corporations back to North Carolina, to include Nationwide.
Iraq and Afghanistan- Defending America, NEVER becomes out of date, and is very important today, during the 21st Century, no matter what type of grammar is used.
Quote from: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 01:43:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:20:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
So you have the same indignation toward Cheney doing it as Gil? If you don't, then it's relevant as a motherfucker.
This is your standard M.O., Fork. "They all do it." For the record, I don't think that the left doesn't have an interest in said safety and improvement, OK? I believe that the left's policies will not bring it about, but that's another story. And if Cheney said something to that effect (which I don't know about) then he was wrong to say it.
Have you been in a cave? He's called Obama a traitor, accusing him of "giving aid and comfort to our enemies". He said in 2004 if John Kerry was elected, we'd get attacked again. His douchebaggery is pretty well chronicled.
And I'm not using the "they all do it" argument. I'm using the "Morph is being pretty selective in his outrage" argument.
I have yet to see anything in your argument that addresses my statement to Gil, which was about a political party and not the actions of one individual.
That's because it's a retarded argument. But I'll help end it for you.
Yes, Fork, I'm sure if Morph had personally met Cheney, and Cheney posted something similar on Desipio, Morph would probably be as indignant as he is about Gil's comments. Or maybe if you give Morph Cheney's e-mail address, he can personally call him out on it. Would that make you stop for a while?
Since Cheney was Vice President of the United States for 8 years, Morph probably knows him better than he knows his internet pals.
Besides, I'm pretty sure they have the same monacle guy.
VOTE QUIMBY!
Quote from: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 01:43:52 PM
Would that make you stop for a while?
Probably not.
But this might...
(http://airamerica.com/imagecache/uploads/scott_brown_naked_display.jpg)
/Thread
Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 09:29:54 AMI believe that evolution occurs. I don't fully subscribe to the Apes to man thing, but that's the main objection that I have.
Bumped for safekeeping.