View Full Version : The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)
Visible mojo to Morrigoon. :snap:
scaeagles
10-23-2008, 02:45 PM
Bloomberg needs to get over himself. Politicians who wish to change law to stay in office longer....well, I'd say should be shot, but I don't mean that literally, I only mean it figuratively.
JWBear
10-23-2008, 03:26 PM
Bloomberg needs to get over himself. Politicians who wish to change law to stay in office longer....well, I'd say should be shot, but I don't mean that literally, I only mean it figuratively.
On that, we can agree.
sleepyjeff
10-23-2008, 04:11 PM
Gee, sleepy, you're right.
That's what I was looking for:D
BDBopper
10-27-2008, 07:19 AM
A very interesting read (http://bobgable.posterous.com/the-rights-howard-dean). the writer is someone who was part of the power struggle after the 2004 elections that brought forth Howard Dean as the DNC chairman and notes that the Republicans are about to have the same struggle and that if the struggle goes the same way that he fears the next RNC chairman could very well be Mike Huckabee. However, the writer notes, the party isn't that intelligent.
unfortunately the author, like most Americans have misunderstood Mike Huckabee as an evangelical nutjob. You can thank the media for that. For example I was interviewed during the Primaries and after going out of my way to note that I wasn't an Evangelical and most of my fellow volunteers locally and around the Country were not either, we were still covered as religious whackos.
If you really want to know who Mike Huckabee is basically imagine a George W. Bush who is who he promised he would be, add in a higher IQ and a much better level of communication, and imagine if Bush had never lied to the country, wasn't a corrupt oil man, and wouldn't have gone into Iraq and there you have it.
With that said there is one major difference between the Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee campaigns. Howard Dean was popular right off the bat and peaked too soon. It took a long time for Huck's campaign to go anywhere and the the very loyal grassroots arm was just starting to become a well oiled machine by March of this year and we we have not just stuck together we have grown in number since then.
Okay I'll stop now...you have probably gown very tired of me babbling on.
JWBear
10-27-2008, 10:12 AM
Interesting article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-devin/the-christian-right-kille_b_137946.html)
BarTopDancer
10-27-2008, 11:34 AM
So did Bush invade Syria to help McCain's "the Republicans will protect you from the evil" campaign area?
Moonliner
10-27-2008, 11:39 AM
So did Bush invade Syria to help McCain's "the Republicans will protect you from the evil" campaign area?
I think the term "raid" is probably more accurate than "Invasion" at least for now.
We apparently grabbed at least two men during the raid. I wonder who they are.
Also, given that we are fighting a civilian ememy, I find it interesting the reports we always seem to hear that "x number of civilians" were killed.
wendybeth
10-27-2008, 01:04 PM
They're only combatants when they get to Guantanamo.;)
wendybeth
10-27-2008, 01:16 PM
Well, Palin's pal just got nailed: Stevens found guilty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/stevens-convicted-on-all_n_138287.html)
Moonliner
10-27-2008, 01:19 PM
Well, Palin's pal just got nailed: Stevens found guilty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/stevens-convicted-on-all_n_138287.html)
Huh, so if Steven's is forced out I wonder who they might look at to fill his shoes.
He's up for re-election next week so I don't think he'll need to be replaced; this should make it certain he'll lose the election. Though up to today he was polling behind, it wasn't by very far. I forget the opponent's name but he's the current mayor of Anchorage.
I wonder if Stevens'll officially resign or just let his term lapse in January.
Ghoulish Delight
10-27-2008, 04:54 PM
I wonder if Stevens'll officially resign or just let his term lapse in January.Survey says....neither yet, he's still in the running:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27398089/
JWBear
10-29-2008, 11:02 AM
This article (http://washingtonindependent.com/15217/voter-fraud)paints a chilling picture of how Republicans are trying to supress votes.
This is particularly troubling:
But election lawyers worry that the problems of voter registration by groups like ACORN provide an easy way for Republicans to later claim, if Obama wins, that he’s not the legitimate president.
JWBear
10-29-2008, 12:06 PM
Absolutly sickening! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/dole-ad-fabricates-audio_n_138874.html)
Dole's 30-second ad.... features a picture of Hagan with a female voice yelling "there is no God!" -- the clear implication is that the voice is Hagan's. In fact, the Democratic candidate is a Sunday School teacher and an elder at her Presbyterian church.
It is sad that they'd distort like that. It is really sad that if she did say it, it would likely disqualify her from office.
scaeagles
10-29-2008, 12:13 PM
This is particularly troubling:
This will happen no matter who wins if it is close. If McCain wins a close one, there will be cries of voter suppression. If Obama wins a close one, there will be cries of illegal voters.
Doesn't make it good, but it will happen if it is close no matter who wins.
However, you mention that you are concerned that the republicans will claim Obama isn't legit while at the same time citing an article that lays groundwork for why McCain wouldn't be legit.
JWBear
10-30-2008, 08:34 AM
God advice for Democrats. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-berney/just-ignore-em-a-democrat_b_139120.html)
Gemini Cricket
10-30-2008, 12:56 PM
Sequel to 5 Friends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX40RsSLwF4)
Uncensored.
Borat is hysterical.
:D
Gemini Cricket
11-01-2008, 08:43 AM
One sunny day in 2009 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."
:)
alphabassettgrrl
11-01-2008, 10:27 AM
I know a couple people that I'll send that to! :)
BDBopper
11-02-2008, 05:36 PM
Wow! I agree with Richard Dryfuss! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDx7yIEBXX4)
JWBear
11-03-2008, 06:01 PM
Who knew John Cusack had brains and eloquence? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/no-currency-left-to-buy-t_b_140250.html)
We are asked to stand over the abyss and experience our own destruction as another political game show -- just another surreal horse race. We watch millionaires and paid Republican hacks appear on television yelling "Socialist!" at Obama as if the Bolsheviks are coming to rape our daughters. These are the same people who oversaw the greatest upward redistribution of wealth in the history of this country. The same people who, through general lawlessness and a privatization frenzy, succeeded in shredding the Constitution, turning war, illegal domestic spying, security, border patrol, interrogation, and even torture into profitable industries gorging on the state.
Strangler Lewis
11-03-2008, 06:50 PM
John Cusack will say anything.
He may be able to write with brains and eloquence, but most of the interviews he gave promoting his Iraq movie a few months ago suggested otherwise.
Snowflake
11-06-2008, 02:56 PM
So is Putin pulling a Bloomberg?
Putin's return? Russian parliament may allow it
By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, left, and Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi shake hands during … MOSCOW – Russia's constitution will be amended by year's end to extend the presidential term to six years, lawmakers promised Thursday — a move that could pave the way for Vladimir Putin's return to the Kremlin.
It would be the first change to the Russian constitution since its adoption in 1993. A six-year term could mean 12 more years as president for Putin — the current prime minister — who has not ruled out getting his old job back.
President Dmitry Medvedev, a Putin protege, had suggested raising the term from four years to six Wednesday in his first state of the nation address.
Story Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_president_s_term)
I guess Gov. Palin had better keep a watch for him rearing his head over Alaska. ;)
At the intersection of politics and the woo-woo crowd we find:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/11/palin_2012.jpg
SacTown Chronic
11-07-2008, 12:01 PM
Darren Daulton was right (http://deadspin.com/sports/darren-daulton/darren-daulton-has-gone-plum-damn-crazy-155506.php)!
BDBopper
11-11-2008, 07:57 AM
So other than his hit TV show what will governor Mike Huckabee be doing for the next few years? He has answered that question with the establishment of the Vertical Politics Institute (http://verticalpoliticsinstitute.com). The site launched yesterday and while there is not much to do there yet if you visit you can find out a general idea of how things are going to work.
What really impresses me is the fact that on the issue pages Mike's thoughts are not the end of the discussion. Each page ends with questions to start a healthy dialogue. There will be a dialogue on Gay Marriage. I look forward to participate and try to come to common ground (I do enjoy a good challenge!). There was some dialogue on the subject after the California court ruling but it was hardly structured or healthy (as it was un-moderated) as I was trashed and trampled upon.
Speaking of Mike's TV show I am looking forward to November 29th's episode as it will be taped in Georgia while he is on his book tour. I anxiously await all the details of his swing through my state so I can make plans to meet my hero in the flesh for the first time.
Ghoulish Delight
11-11-2008, 10:21 AM
Why are people still bothering to interview Sarah Palin?
BDBopper
11-11-2008, 10:48 AM
Why are people still bothering to interview Sarah Palin?
Because the media is insistant on her running for the 2012 GOP nomination. I highly doubt it because of her family sitution a few years from now. I could see her running again in 2016 or 2020 but not before.
innerSpaceman
11-11-2008, 11:07 AM
Maybe she'll learn that Africa's a continent by then.
Gemini Cricket
11-11-2008, 11:11 AM
Maybe she'll learn that Africa's a continent by then.
After someone on Sarah Palin's staff informed her that Africa was a continent, she then asked, "Oh, you mean like it needs Depend underwear?"
Ghoulish Delight
11-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Under the heading way too little, way too late (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/bush.post.presidency/index.html).
"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," Bush told CNN's Heidi Collins when asked to reflect on his regrets over his two terms as president. "Like 'dead or alive' and 'bring 'em on.' My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say.
Ghoulish Delight
11-13-2008, 08:05 AM
Why are people still bothering to interview Sarah Palin?
Okay, seriously, there hasn't been a day where there hasn't been a Palin story near the top of every major site. Damn "liberal media", could you please get a clue and realize she's no longer a story?
scaeagles
11-13-2008, 08:14 AM
The whole Africa is not a continent thing is now a proven hoax.
Funny how SO many stories about Palin are immediately assumed to be true. I realize Palin isn't a story any longer, but I do think it is necessary - required, I might suggest - to retract things that were stated about her that are proven false.
wendybeth
11-13-2008, 09:14 AM
Scaeagles, so far as I know the only hoax aspect of the story (thus far) is when MSNBC (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/) was duped into reporting the name of the supposed source behind the Africa story. They quickly did an on-air correction. Fox was the outlet that broke the original story, and I've yet to see any retraction from them.
alphabassettgrrl
11-13-2008, 10:48 AM
Yes, I'd like to hear retractions of incorrect information. Other than that, though, I'm not really interested. She doesn't have any idea where she's planning to go now, other than returning to her governorship, so there's not really a story. If and when she decides to run for something else, then ok.
Ghoulish Delight
11-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Speaking of her political future, absentee ballots are being counted in Alaska...and Ted Stevens has lost his lead. Challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, now has a slim 814 vote lead at last report.
Ghoulish Delight
11-13-2008, 03:33 PM
Obama Resigns!! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27702953/)
from the Senate
scaeagles
11-13-2008, 04:34 PM
There was a NY Times story on it. Didn't find that one quickly, but here's (http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=884147) on from the Business Times that quotes the NY Times story.
I don't know who is right (and it doesn't really matter, I don't believe Sara Palin didn't know Africa isn't a single country, though she certainly may have misspoke in a way used maliciously).
But the version I read (and wendybeth was referencing) is that this Martin Eisenstadt was not the source for the original Fox News story. But rather he was lying when he told the NYTimes and MSNBC that he was.
So, in other words, whoever the Fox News source was, it hasn't been proven false.
That's all very confusingly worded.
So example with names:
Bobby tells Greg at Fox News that Palin is an idiot. Greg goes on TV and says "a source" says Palin in an idiot.
Peter goes to the New York Times and MSNBC and convinces them that he is a McCain operative and that he was the source for Greg's story on Fox News.
Investigation reveals that Peter is lying. So the Bobby --> Greg connection is untarnished. Though not necessarily any less partisan and spiteful. Of course, this all highlights the trouble you run into when you use anonymous sources lightly and for no good reason, as this original story does.
Ghoulish Delight
11-13-2008, 06:05 PM
Newsflash!
Jr. High School Kids are jerks with narrow views on the world! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column)
From the Duh! Network.
Snowflake
11-13-2008, 11:14 PM
What does this pic have to do with Hillary, or should I not ask? :D
867
alphabassettgrrl
11-14-2008, 12:03 AM
How random.
Gemini Cricket
11-14-2008, 10:58 AM
omg! I'm going to hell. I thought Helen Thomas passed away. I think I told a couple people that I was sad that she was gone. But I check the Huff Post and there she is! My apologies, Ms. Thomas. Oy!
Helen Thomas is still around. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/12/helen-thomas-returns-to-w_n_143355.html)
Snowflake
11-14-2008, 11:06 AM
omg! I'm going to hell. I thought Helen Thomas passed away. I think I told a couple people that I was sad that she was gone. But I check the Huff Post and there she is! My apologies, Ms. Thomas. Oy!
Helen Thomas is still around. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/12/helen-thomas-returns-to-w_n_143355.html)
Well this is great news! Go Helen!
Though when she dies I'm not sure how anybody will know the difference. I doubt she'll stop talking.
innerSpaceman
11-14-2008, 11:26 AM
In fact, I hope to channel her at many a future seance just so we can keep hearing from her.
But I'm relieved that day is yet to come. :D
Gemini Cricket
11-18-2008, 07:10 PM
Ted Stevens is out of a job (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/begich-lead-over-stevens-_n_144744.html)
wendybeth
11-18-2008, 09:57 PM
Poor Sarah Palin. Thwarted at every turn- looks like her shortcut to the Senate is closed.
Gemini Cricket
11-19-2008, 10:34 AM
Ms. "Terrorist Fist Jab" is Leaving Fox "News" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/ed-hill-leaves-fox-news-c_n_144513.html)
Gemini Cricket
11-19-2008, 02:38 PM
Ufta!
Kathleen Parker nails it again!
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886_pf.html)
Snowflake
11-19-2008, 03:58 PM
OMG, one of my VA friends (who is a very serious conservative and reveres Reagan much as Sceagles) is a member of Team Sarah on Facebook. Devoted to defending Sarah Palin's VP campaign. Ugh, I should not be surprised, she's very right wing evangelical. :rolleyes:
Gemini Cricket
11-20-2008, 08:52 AM
I can't tell if in this clip Bush is not wanting to shake hands with world leaders or if they don't want to shake hands with him. Interesting.
Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Y_ncOVlDw)
Cadaverous Pallor
11-20-2008, 09:13 AM
Now that I'm politically aware and all the election threads went away, I guess I need to start reading this thread, which I've mostly avoided since its inception.
President Bush Ends the Iraq War. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xbj3Mb588Q&feature=related)
Gauntlet has been thrown. :evil:
Morrigoon
11-20-2008, 12:02 PM
*thwack!*
Gemini Cricket
11-20-2008, 12:03 PM
No, I give Bush permission to run around and desert me.
sleepyjeff
11-20-2008, 06:19 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams111908.php3
Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it.... Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.
This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.
Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral?
Read the whole piece at the link above.
innerSpaceman
11-20-2008, 06:24 PM
How is that different than taxation?
Wait, people and money aren't the same thing? I never knew that. I think the Jewish World Review for bringing this to my attention.
And, you're right I would not support the government forcing a specific individual to do pretty much any act. But I would support considering you (to use the pronoun of the article) an asshole for not offering.
JWBear
11-20-2008, 07:18 PM
How is that different than taxation?
He's referring to tax moneys being used for charitable works (at least, that's my reading of it), and he's against it... In other words: screw the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged.
innerSpaceman
11-20-2008, 08:30 PM
Oh, I see. My money being used against my will to illegally invade other countries and kill their civilians by the hundreds of thousands is A-OK.
Got it.
wendybeth
11-20-2008, 10:01 PM
It's not Socialism if they don't want it, iSm. If it has to be forced on them, then it's Democracy.
Gemini Cricket
11-20-2008, 11:00 PM
Not for the squeamish.
Too f*cking unbelievable to be true. But it is.
The following is a link to a YouTube clip. SFW but gross.
Sarah Palin is interviewed while turkeys are being slaughtered behind her.
WTF?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8)
Obviously bad PR (though I'm guessing she wasn't particularly aware of what was going on in frame), but I'm not clear why people are reacting so negatively. That's where turkeys come from.
In a few days millions of turkeys will be consumed with great gusto. They didn't appear out of thin air as a frozen ball in the freezer section at Safeway.
Gemini Cricket
11-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Yeah, but how oblivious do you have to be to do an interview in front of that? How can you not know that's going on behind you?
Granted, that's how turkeys are slaughtered for Thanksgiving. But I mean, even if there was no one killing turkeys behind her, who picks a slaughter area as a background for an interview?
This definitely qualifies as dinglecheesery.
Ghoulish Delight
11-20-2008, 11:33 PM
Seriously. She should at least have been shooting them from a helicopter or something.
Gemini Cricket
11-20-2008, 11:38 PM
She can see Russia from her house but can't see sh*t going on behind her back.
JWBear
11-20-2008, 11:55 PM
Seriously. She should at least have been shooting them from a helicopter or something.
Or throwing them from one? (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1499909/5115198)
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 12:18 AM
... In other words: screw the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged.
No that's not what he's saying at all.
Think about it....the very fact that our democracy votes to help the poor PROVES that we would help the poor without being forced to.
Why not trust people to do the right thing? Why the need to control charity?
innerSpaceman
11-21-2008, 12:24 AM
I dunno. Why not trust the people to do everything else that's done with our tax dollars?
Remind me again what planet you are living on, among what species?
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 01:01 AM
I dunno.
Clearly.
lizziebith
11-21-2008, 02:10 AM
Can someone explain to me the hysteria I see on so many boards (this included) these days with right-wing folks shrieking socialism and wearing communist symbols and such? I'm serious. Did I miss the revolution?
innerSpaceman
11-21-2008, 06:15 AM
It's a tough call for them, as it is for many of us. I don't like the level of socialism needed to prop up failed capitalism, but the only other option seems to be immediate national financial collapse (instead of eventual national financial collapse).
Yeah, but how oblivious do you have to be to do an interview in front of that?
Not very.
Prudence
11-21-2008, 09:11 AM
People vote to help the poor when they know that everyone else will have to contribute as well. People are willing to spend from the collective pocketbook to help the poor. This most decidedly does NOT prove that people, left to their own devices as individuals, would continue to do so. In fact, I think it rather more likely that as individuals people would brush it aside as Someone Else's Problem.
JWBear
11-21-2008, 10:01 AM
People vote to help the poor when they know that everyone else will have to contribute as well. People are willing to spend from the collective pocketbook to help the poor. This most decidedly does NOT prove that people, left to their own devices as individuals, would continue to do so. In fact, I think it rather more likely that as individuals people would brush it aside as Someone Else's Problem.
Exactly! The sig line I had recently sums it up perfectly for me:
“I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes
I think that many people that object to tax money going to help the disadvantaged just plain don't give a rat's ass about their fellow humans. They're selfish and self centered.
This is where it should be pointed out that studies show that self identified conservatives on average give more in direct charitable donations than liberals.
innerSpaceman
11-21-2008, 11:01 AM
Which I attribute to the fact (well, heheh, my assumed fact) that conservatives are, almost by definition, generally far more wealthy than liberals.
No, even when corrected for income the disparity continues. It is generally attributed to the fact that conservatives are much more likely to belong to churches which are frequently very involved in charitable endeavors and soliciting their members.
Ghoulish Delight
11-21-2008, 11:16 AM
No, even when corrected for income the disparity continues. It is generally attributed to the fact that conservatives are much more likely to belong to churches which are frequently very involved in charitable endeavors and soliciting their members.I was just about to post that as my guess. What do I win?
The obligation to tithe your income to me.
Ghoulish Delight
11-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Hmm, the Church of Alex. There's a mindboggling concept.
I promise to you I'll never lie about the afterlife. Happiness is to be found in this lifetime and is to be achieved by making me rich.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 11:59 AM
Which I attribute to the fact (well, heheh, my assumed fact) that conservatives are, almost by definition, generally far more wealthy than liberals.
Actually, there are studies that show even when adjusted for income, they still give more(in other words, ask two people who have the same income how much they give to charity and the conservative one, more likely the not, would have given more).....and not just money; they donate more blood, they donate more time volunteering, and they are more likely to give directions to a stranger on the street.
But does any of that matter......even if conservatives were the stingy, heartless sub-humans many try to paint them the fact of the matter is forcing another person to labor for another is slavery.
That is true. But forcing them to give money is not and that is where the analogy fails.
Ghoulish Delight
11-21-2008, 12:07 PM
But does any of that matter......even if conservatives were the stingy, heartless sub-humans many try to paint them the fact of the matter is forcing another person to labor for another is slavery.Sorry, but you still haven't convinced me that's happening. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The government says, "We will anyone who helps mow this lady's lawn money for doing so." And people willingly accept that compensation. No one goes to jail if they say no. No one is forced to do anything. People choose to and are compensated. Tada. Failed analogy.
The force here is taking the money (at risk of imprisonment) from person A to pay Person B to provide Service C to Person Q.
It is definitely a form of "violence" by the society against the individual. It just isn't analogous to slavery.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 12:25 PM
I think that many people that object to tax money going to help the disadvantaged just plain don't give a rat's ass about their fellow humans. They're selfish and self centered.
Do you really believe this?
Just because someone doesn't want the government to do something doesn't mean they don't want it done.
I don't want the Government to build a 3rd gate in Anaheim....but I want it done.
I don't want the Government to produce more episodes of LOST.....but I do want to see more episodes.
I don't want the Government to build interstate high speed rail......but I want it built.
I don't want the Government to cure cancer.......but I want it cured.
Strangler Lewis
11-21-2008, 12:27 PM
No, even when corrected for income the disparity continues. It is generally attributed to the fact that conservatives are much more likely to belong to churches which are frequently very involved in charitable endeavors and soliciting their members.
I was just about to post that as my guess. What do I win?
Nothing. (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=113069&postcount=24)
And Sleepy more or less agreed with me. We should probably have periodic reviews of our lessons on this board.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 12:28 PM
. The government says, "We will anyone who helps mow this lady's lawn money for doing so." And people willingly accept that compensation. No one goes to jail if they say no. No one is forced to do anything. People choose to and are compensated. Tada. Failed analogy.
??what??
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
Nothing. (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=113069&postcount=24)
And Sleepy more or less agreed with me. We should probably have periodic reviews of our lessons on this board.
More or less;)
Ghoulish Delight
11-21-2008, 12:43 PM
The force here is taking the money (at risk of imprisonment) from person A to pay Person B to provide Service C to Person Q.
It is definitely a form of "violence" by the society against the individual. It just isn't analogous to slavery.
Oh, is THAT what the author was saying? Wow, such a bad analogy that it's hardly even decipherable.
Yeah, Alex said it best, money is not equivalent to labor or people.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 12:51 PM
Yeah, Alex said it best, money is not equivalent to labor or people.
Really?
So if I decided to just trade my labor for another mans and cut "money" out of the equation the government won't mind?
The IRS won't assign a monetary value to the labor we traded?
Ghoulish Delight
11-21-2008, 12:55 PM
Wow, I can't compete with that many question marks. I give up.
Prudence
11-21-2008, 01:04 PM
So, instead of the government using legal force to require monetary contributions the church uses spiritual force to the same end. I don't see how this is any different or disproves my theory that individuals, without some sort of external coercion (whether by threat of jail or threat of eternal hellfires), generally leave the public service to someone else.
Now, you may feel that this coercion is more appropriately left to the churches. However, not everyone belongs to churches, and churches are not interested in helping all people. We are, on the other hand, all residents in this country, and the government is theoretically supposed to treat us all equally. I realize that the government isn't the poster child for efficiency and fiscal restraint, but I'd rather take my chances there.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 01:28 PM
So, instead of the government using legal force to require monetary contributions the church uses spiritual force to the same end. I don't see how this is any different or disproves my theory that individuals, without some sort of external coercion (whether by threat of jail or threat of eternal hellfires), generally leave the public service to someone else.
When you see someone in trouble do you help them?
Why?
Now, you may feel that this coercion is more appropriately left to the churches. However, not everyone belongs to churches, and churches are not interested in helping all people. We are, on the other hand, all residents in this country, and the government is theoretically supposed to treat us all equally. I realize that the government isn't the poster child for efficiency and fiscal restraint, but I'd rather take my chances there.
So basically, you trust the government more than the people?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just aksing for clarification. I realize you are actually giving me thoughtful responses and I thank you for that.
Prudence
11-21-2008, 01:51 PM
When you see someone in trouble do you help them?
Why?
Honestly? It depends. But, I also don't have the time or resources to help people efficiently. I can't tell who has already been helped and who didn't know how to or was uncomfortable asking for help. And, honestly, why should I be the one to help? Why, when I'm struggling to pay rent here and a mortgage back home, should I help, when there are people in big shiny houses using $100 bills as coasters? I'd like to say that I'd give the shirt off my back to anyone in need, but realistically I won't. I might if I knew you, but no, I don't just wander about handing out money to people who need it.
And I'll tangent here to say that I have issues with the initial analogy. Lawn mowing is not quite the "essential" task I'm concerned about. That particular task I do think is better handled at a community level. But what about the rent? The medical bills? Is it more realistic to expect the her doctor to provide free medical care out of a sense of human compassion or to collect funds from everyone to pay for medical care of similiarly situated individuals?
I'm not disputing that many individuals have altruistic leanings, but working as individuals is inefficient and ineffective.
So basically, you trust the government more than the people?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just aksing for clarification. I realize you are actually giving me thoughtful responses and I thank you for that.
In this situation, yes. And I realize that this is the fundamental point on which we will differ. It's not that I think people are essentially bad, but I think people have a fundamental desire to shirk responsibility. And maybe that's just me projecting my own failings onto the world around me, but in a society as spread out as ours has become, it's easy to convince one's self that someone else will clean up the messes.
Perhaps in a different time, I would have had a different response. If our world was still more community-oriented and we knew our neighbors and there would be a real social shaming of those who skipped out on their share of the community support I would choose to trust people over the government. (Still, even then I would view the social pressures to provide charity as the required coercive factor.) And if "the church" were an inclusive organzation to which all belonged and which did not discriminate in its selection of charity recipients, perhaps I would concur that "the church" was the right venue for charitable giving. But it's not, and and therefore of the options open to me I choose the government. Also, although it is an organization made up of people, I have greater hope that the government can improve its effectiveness than that human nature will become less responsibility-adverse.
Strangler Lewis
11-21-2008, 01:57 PM
Every human endeavor involves a pooling of effort towards an agreed upon goal. Sometimes that effort is pooled into a corporation or other association. Sometimes it is pooled into government--by the consent of the governed. All of these collectives are prone to folly and abuses. I truly do not see a difference.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 02:14 PM
I'm not disputing that many individuals have altruistic leanings, but working as individuals is inefficient and ineffective.
Perhaps....but a bag of groceries handed over the back fence to one's neighbor is 100% efficient. How full will that bag be after being passed around by our "charitable" politicians and bureaucrats?
In this situation, yes. And I realize that this is the fundamental point on which we will differ. It's not that I think people are essentially bad, but I think people have a fundamental desire to shirk responsibility. And maybe that's just me projecting my own failings onto the world around me, but in a society as spread out as ours has become, it's easy to convince one's self that someone else will clean up the messes.
Perhaps in a different time, I would have had a different response. If our world was still more community-oriented and we knew our neighbors and there would be a real social shaming of those who skipped out on their share of the community support I would choose to trust people over the government.
I think you are right but perhaps the reason we shirk responsibility and are less community-oriented can be blamed on the government.....and perhaps not. I suppose it might be a chicken and egg thing.
Again, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful, honest response to my posts.
:snap: :snap: :snap:
JWBear
11-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Sleepyjeff,
Prudence's very eloquent response above is exactly how I wanted to respond.
I just want to add that I am in the government social services field. I can't tell you how many people have come to us after being turned away from church charities because they weren't the right religion, color, marital status or sexual orientation. Even private secular charities sometimes discriminate to a degree. Government does not, can not.
sleepyjeff
11-21-2008, 05:16 PM
Sleepyjeff,
Even private secular charities sometimes discriminate to a degree. Government does not, can not.
A fair point.
Gemini Cricket
11-26-2008, 12:20 PM
lol!
:D
THAT although we didn't think it would be possible to silence Ann Coulter, the leggy reactionary broke her jaw and the mouth that roared has been wired shutSource (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252008/gossip/pagesix/we_hear_______we_hear_140601.htm)
Hmm, NYP Page Six... gossip... but if it's true, there is a god!
Ghoulish Delight
11-26-2008, 12:28 PM
You know, I can't think of the last time I heard anything from her. Definitely nothing since the republican primary was decided.
BarTopDancer
11-26-2008, 12:37 PM
scaeagles must be so sad!
JWBear
11-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think we'd heard the last of her vomitous ravings.
sleepyjeff
12-11-2008, 05:17 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/asay/asay1.asp
JWBear
12-11-2008, 06:53 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/asay/asay1.asp
Re-writing history much?
I really didn't think that Blagojevich would be able to find someone of any prominence willing to accept the nomination from him.
I don't know this Burris guy from Adam but in reading an article about him I ended up on this page (http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/167ac4/) (a larger, text legible version here (http://flickr.com/photos/southbound_07/2750018934/sizes/o/))
Not only has the man already purchased his cemetery plot, but he has already placed the monument. And adorned it with his life accomplishments. As first I thought maybe the slot on the right was already filled and he didn't want to have to pay the stone engravers for two trips. But his wife, Berlean Burris is still very much alive (I hope she doesn't renounce god between now and her death).
Now, I've been to exactly two funerals in my life. In my socio-economic class growing up death was not something you planned for it was simply something you dealt with when it happened. But this strikes me as an extremely odd thing. Or am I, like with giving Christmas tips to your mailman, just clueless?
katiesue
12-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Some people do plan it - my Mom has had 4 plots for years. We've filled two so far. She also had her funeral pre-paid, casket picked out, which hyms to use, a request for a veiwing (which is gross), down to having her glasses on for the viewing but not for the burial.
It is weird but some people do it.
Anyone need two cemetary plots? I can make you a deal. They do unfortunately now overlook the excercise yard for the Jail next door. And you have to be next to my Mother for eternity.
alphabassettgrrl
12-30-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm not even sure what state I'll be in when I die. I'm not that settled. I've thought about my future funeral, and husband and I agree that a wake is better than a funeral, and that we'd probably like to be cremated but that's about as far as we've gotten.
I don't mind a viewing. One last chance to say good bye. I would have liked to go to my grandmother's but it wasn't possible. For my dad we didn't have anything; he was cremated. My mom got to see him and my brothers were offered a chance at the coroner's office, but that was about it. I would definitely have wanted that one last look but I didn't get to.
bewitched
12-30-2008, 08:33 PM
I've known several people who, like katiesue's mom, have planned every detail.
My plans are simple. No viewing, cremation (at a crematorium that doesn't embalm first-- although legally funeral homes cannot require embalming), a rocking wake and then my ashes spread near the Ocean (although I haven't settled on a final spot yet).
I only have plans because I absolutely do not want my body buried or embalmed nor do I want to be viewed (personally, I think it's a morbid ritual even though I know it brings solace to some). So I figured someone ought to know (it's also in my will but I would hate to be embalmed and buried, have the will read and...oops!)
alphabassettgrrl
12-30-2008, 08:44 PM
You're absolutely right that people ought to know what you want done.
I know some people plan everything, what I find weird is actually installing the monument long before death.
As for me, I've told Lani that if she want to throw my body in the street to be eaten by vultures, that is fine with me. I won't be there so whatever she wants to do after I die is fine by me. If she goes first and I need to leave instructions then I'd donate anything that could be donated; of particular interest would be that outdoor decomposition test site (I forget which university hosts it).
katiesue
12-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Dan did it on One Tree Hill. Sadly I watch horrible teen dramas.
I have known people who do put the monument in ahead of time, they just leave the death date blank. We spent every Memorial Day putting flowers on graves and it's not all that uncommon.
alphabassettgrrl
12-30-2008, 09:40 PM
Alex, it's called The Body Farm. I think it's somewhere in one of the Carolinas.
I have known people who do put the monument in ahead of time, they just leave the death date blank. We spent every Memorial Day putting flowers on graves and it's not all that uncommon.
Interesting. I'd seen it with family plots where some were already in the ground and it was known they'd eventually be joined.
Oh well, still an amusing one with the grandiosity of the memorial and the trivialness of some accomplishments.
katiesue
12-30-2008, 11:11 PM
Well if you do it yourself ahead of time you'll be remembered exactly as you wanted to be, right?
Drince88
12-31-2008, 05:32 AM
I don't mind if I'm cremated or not, but I DON'T want to be scattered, and I do NOT want to be buried here in New Orleans. Mostly because I do NOT want to 'be with anyone' in death, and the way the tombs, etc are dealt with around here, I would be. I choose to live my life as a single person, I'd prefer my body to remain that way 'after'!
bewitched
12-31-2008, 06:28 AM
I don't mind if I'm cremated or not, but I DON'T want to be scattered, and I do NOT want to be buried here in New Orleans. Mostly because I do NOT want to 'be with anyone' in death, and the way the tombs, etc are dealt with around here, I would be. I choose to live my life as a single person, I'd prefer my body to remain that way 'after'!
Didn't a lot of coffins and/or bodies...um..."pop-up" out of the ground after Katrina?
I think I'd rather join Alex at the body farm.
Drince88
01-02-2009, 06:10 AM
Didn't a lot of coffins and/or bodies...um..."pop-up" out of the ground after Katrina?
There were a couple of cemeteries that had issues, yes - but not from New Orleans proper or 'up river' (where I am). They were in more coastal areas.
Moonliner
01-06-2009, 11:44 AM
Obama selected a carrier politician (Leon E. Panetta) to head the CIA.
After an initial WTF? Reaction I think I'm starting to like this appointment.
After all who uses the data the CIA gathers? Primarily the executive branch. Politicians. So why not have a politician guiding the agency to collect the type of data they can actually use? As long has he takes that type of roll and does not try to micromanage field ops this could work out OK.
scaeagles
01-06-2009, 01:23 PM
I still have a WTF reaction, as as did Feinstein, from what I've read.
I am somewhat concerned about people with no experience in intelligence gathering being in charge of intelligence gathering.
Moonliner
01-06-2009, 01:32 PM
I still have a WTF reaction, as as did Feinstein, from what I've read.
I am somewhat concerned about people with no experience in intelligence gathering being in charge of intelligence gathering.
Let's compare it to Donuts.....
Panetta does not know how to bake donuts or the steps to mix up the tasty jelly filling.
What Panetta does know is the catering business. He can tell you how many donuts he's going to need for a given client function and what percentage of each type (cake, jelly filled, etc...) they should be. Panetta then just needs to relate to the bakers what his needs are and let them get on with subverting baking.
Morrigoon
01-06-2009, 01:34 PM
But it also means he's going to have to delegate the job of ordering supplies to someone who can predict how much sugar and flour will be needed to make that many doughnuts. And he lacks the skill to tell when that delegate is not doing his job properly. He may know that the doughnuts are coming out rather diminutive, or that the profit margin has shrunk, but may not be able to tell that it's from an overage or shortage of supplies.
SacTown Chronic
01-06-2009, 01:35 PM
All part of Obama's plan to help the terrorists win.
Ghoulish Delight
01-08-2009, 11:28 PM
This whole segment is funny, but the reason I'm posting starts at 2:40.
Taint (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215373/january-05-2009/colbert-and-colmes---roland-burris-appointment)
scaeagles
01-09-2009, 01:43 PM
What? Anyone else hear Blago's post impeachment press conference? He has some kind of chutzpah, I'll tell you. He seems to think he was impeached because he wants to help sick people.
??????????????
sleepyjeff
01-09-2009, 11:17 PM
What? Anyone else hear Blago's post impeachment press conference? He has some kind of chutzpah, I'll tell you. He seems to think he was impeached because he wants to help sick people.
??????????????
He's just taking on that powerful anti-sick people lobby:)
Ghoulish Delight
01-14-2009, 10:33 AM
I see SCHIP is back in the news.
Somehow last time around I failed to notice that it was slated to be funded by another cigarette tax.
I have a real issue with that. With funding things with cigarette taxes in general. Doesn't that, you know, leave our government with a vested interest in keeping the number of smokers high?
Andrew
01-14-2009, 12:05 PM
I have a real issue with that. With funding things with cigarette taxes in general. Doesn't that, you know, leave our government with a vested interest in keeping the number of smokers high?
I think it simultaneously encourages smokers to quit (because their habit is getting more expensive) and achieves some public good from those who don't. The problem comes when enough smokers do finally quit, or die, and then these programs wither because their funding has dried up.
Which is (one reason) why I think most recreational drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed.
I don't think the government should be encouraging people to stop smoking, so to the extent that taxes exist for that reason, I oppose them.
Ghoulish Delight
01-14-2009, 12:13 PM
I think it simultaneously encourages smokers to quit (because their habit is getting more expensive) and achieves some public good from those who don't. The problem comes when enough smokers do finally quit, or die, and then these programs wither because their funding has dried up.
Which is (one reason) why I think most recreational drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed.
I don't get your logic here. "...their funding has dried up." That was my point. We're creating programs that rely on smokers, a system where every time someone quits smoking, a kid doesn't get health insurance (an exaggeration, obviously, but it makes my point). It doesn't sit well with me, and it makes me question how committed government is to discouraging regulating the dangerous business practices of the smoking industry.
GD, just so you know, you're in bed right now with George Will. That has been his oft-taken point of view on smoking taxes (it seems to be more muted for other sin taxes where he is more strongly opposed to the sin).
Ghoulish Delight
01-14-2009, 12:31 PM
I've seen the argument before, but I've mostly overlooked it because I connected the cig. taxes to the anti-smoking propaganda programs. And whether or not I agree with those programs, at least it was a fairly closed system in that if tax revenue dropped due to successful deterrence, then need for that tax revenue would also drop since less propaganda would theoretically be needed.
But seeing it linked to SCHIP got under my skin because it's so removed. The "smoking=2nd hand smoke=need for child health insurance" link is tenuous at best. If all smokers were to suddenly quit, that would not make the need for SCHIP disappear, so it doesn't seem to make sense to me to link the funding so directly to it.
And while I'm not necessarily in favor of government being responsible for discouraging smoking, I'm uneasy about creating a motivation for encouraging it.
I just wanted to plant the image of you in bed with George Will.
Ghoulish Delight
01-14-2009, 02:19 PM
Hey, if he's sexy enough for Kramer...
Ghoulish Delight
01-15-2009, 08:33 PM
"You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
Willing to make them? As opposed to what? Curl up in a fetal position and cry? Umm, okay, sure, I agree that you maintained at minimum a level of consciousness that allowed you to decide one way or another on something. Now, can we get back to talking about HOW you made those decisions and whether they were good or not?
SacTown Chronic
01-15-2009, 09:22 PM
My favorite 'it-takes-special-balls-and-W-has-'em' tough decision?
The tough decision to invade Iraq after spending months leading all the intelligence and public opinion down that path.
Ghoulish Delight
01-19-2009, 08:17 PM
Sometimes I wonder about the editors at MSNBC. This is the image they decided to go with for the front-page bipartisan fundraising story:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-090119-obamaMcCain-523p.grid-4x2.jpg
Snowflake
01-19-2009, 09:02 PM
Keith Olberman's wet blanket special comment certainly could have waited a few days. I do not like George Bush anymore than he does, but really, tonight of all nights? :mad:
scaeagles
01-22-2009, 02:42 PM
I am greatly relieved that Caroline Kennedy will not be the appointed Senator from NY to replace Clinton. That would have been a serious joke.
I am too. And I'll be disappointed if it ends up going to Andrew Cuomo.
At least Andrew Cuomo has created his own political legacy but I'm tired of political appointments becoming hereditary positions. I don't like political elections being hereditary but that is voter stupidity getting what it asks for.
Gemini Cricket
01-22-2009, 05:36 PM
I was surprised that Bush didn't pardon Libby.
Andrew
01-22-2009, 06:12 PM
I was surprised that Bush didn't pardon Libby.
I was surprised at the lack of massive blanket pardons on his way out the door. Truly, truly surprised. Surprised enough to make me cynically wonder if there's some sort of classified pardon that would only be revealed if the pardonee was actually charged with a crime.
Apparently Kirsten Gillibrand is not the most popular Representative on the hill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17877.html), and the other members of New York's congressional delegation have a nickname for her: Tracy Flick.
And in other news, Rod Blagojevich has apologized (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Blago_Had_I_known_they_were_listening_I_wouldnt_ha ve_used_those_words.html)... for using profanity.
scaeagles
01-26-2009, 08:05 AM
More on Blago....this is hysterical. I just heard him being interviewed about his impeachment trial, and for strength he said he "thinks about Dr. King and Ghandi and other great persecuted leaders".
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
He also considered Oprah as the new Senator. She certainly has the dough to afford it.
Moonliner
01-26-2009, 08:23 AM
More on Blago....this is hysterical. I just heard him being interviewed about his impeachment trial, and for strength he said he "thinks about Dr. King and Ghandi and other great persecuted leaders".
He does sound a bit desperate at this point, once that desperation turns to bitterness and hate he should write one hell of a tell all book.
JWBear
01-26-2009, 09:18 AM
The man is barely sane.
alphabassettgrrl
01-26-2009, 10:28 AM
Got to wonder what's going on in Blago's head. Other than "I can't believe I got caught".
Dude.
Ghoulish Delight
01-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Got to wonder what's going on in Blago's head. Other than "I can't believe I got caught".
Dude.
"How's my hair?"
I think he is honestly confused about the hubbub over the senate seat.
In my opinion that is a relatively minor issue. Blagojovich may have been excessively explicit about it but what he did is barely any farther along selling the seat than happens all the time.
It's the other charges (the one that nobody in the national press cares about) that are far more damning in my opinion. So, I think -- a tad reasonably -- he's feeling the outrage of a jaywalker getting a ticket. Sure, technically it is illegal but everybody does it so why are you picking on him?
This is not to say that his public responses have been particularly sane.
JWBear
01-26-2009, 11:10 AM
"How's my wig?"
There... Fixed it for you.
Ghoulish Delight
01-26-2009, 11:12 AM
There... Fixed it for you.
Hardly. Even if it IS a toupee, do you think for a second he hasn't deluded himself into considering it real hair?
JWBear
01-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Good point.
alphabassettgrrl
01-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I think he is honestly confused about the hubbub over the senate seat.
In my opinion that is a relatively minor issue. Blagojovich may have been excessively explicit about it but what he did is barely any farther along selling the seat than happens all the time.
It's the other charges (the one that nobody in the national press cares about) that are far more damning in my opinion. So, I think -- a tad reasonably -- he's feeling the outrage of a jaywalker getting a ticket. Sure, technically it is illegal but everybody does it so why are you picking on him?
This is not to say that his public responses have been particularly sane.
That's what made it so sad for me- in the normal course of politics, people will give him goodies voluntarily, yet he had to get greedy and make it explicit, and solicit the handouts. If he'd just let people come to him, he wouldn't have been in as much trouble.
He got too bold, too greedy.
What are the other charges he's facing? I haven't done any research.
Snowflake
01-26-2009, 12:23 PM
The man is barely sane.
Agreed, watch this (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=11678812) if you can stand it. Seriously, cowboy analogies?
scaeagles
01-26-2009, 12:54 PM
He also claimed that he was being targeted because he wants to cut taxes.
I believe him.
That was the motive behind the invesitation that ultimately brought down Scooter Libby, wasn't it? Patrick Fitzgerald loves taxes and want to have their babies.
scaeagles
02-02-2009, 07:22 AM
Apparently one requirement of Obama for his nominees is to be a tax cheat. We now have Daschle paying 140,000 in back taxes after he's been nominated to Sec of Health and Human Services.
Best comment I read on that -
"Sen. Dick Durbin (D, IL) claims that Daschle is one of the most honest people that he knows. Probably for an Illinois politician that statement is true."
Hahaha.
Moonliner
02-02-2009, 07:36 AM
Apparently one requirement of Obama for his nominees is to be a tax cheat. We now have Daschle paying 140,000 in back taxes after he's been nominated to Sec of Health and Human Services.
Best comment I read on that -
"Sen. Dick Durbin (D, IL) claims that Daschle is one of the most honest people that he knows. Probably for an Illinois politician that statement is true."
Hahaha.
I think this is a clear call for tax reform. If these highly educated, intelligent individuals cannot do their own taxes correctly then it's the system that is broken. We need serious tax reform.
Goll darn cheats... We need tax reform now to eliminate all these loop holes and dodges. A simplified tax structure would give these varmints no place to hide.
scaeagles
02-02-2009, 08:38 AM
I'm for tax reform....ain't never gonna happen.
In a moment from bizarro world, yesterday I was listening to some news story and a Republican congressman was criticizing the stimulus package saying that it seems to think that if you spend money at the top it will just trickle down to regular people making their lives better.
He actually used the phrase "trickle down."
Now, he's right about that assumption and it is pretty much the basis of any form of stimulus that is not in the form of direct assistance checks from the government. And Obama has been pretty explicit that the goal is not to give people $500 now but to "lift all boats" so that they are earning money this month and next month and the month after.
Independent of the question as to whether this approach is right or wrong, since when do Republicans find that idea bad?
(Do-si-do, partner's switch sides...)
Moonliner
02-02-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm for tax reform....ain't never gonna happen.
Never? That's a long time.... Regan was able to put in meaningful tax reform, Bush and Clinton failed, it might be time once again...
Certainly tax reform is in the Obama game plan but it will take some time before he can focus on that.
I do think if Obama is able to spend $850 Billion (plus or minus) on his stimulus plan along with the leftover $350 Billion from the first go round, cut taxes on 95% of Americans, Increase federal spending and programs, reform the tax code, while at the same time reducing the federal budget deficit, strengthening the economy and providing for our national defence, well then the Republican party might just as well fold up and call it quits because it would make a mockery of everything they have ever stood for.
Ghoulish Delight
02-02-2009, 10:46 AM
well then the Republican party might just as well fold up and call it quits because it would make a mockery of everything they have ever stood for.
But they got a black dude in charge now, they've already solved all their problems!
scaeagles
02-02-2009, 11:15 AM
Obama may want to (not saying he does or doesn't), but Congress knows their real power is the power to write the tax code. They don't want it simple.
wendybeth
02-02-2009, 11:24 AM
I must admit, I am cranky about the Daschle nomination. Surely Obama can find someone else qualified for this position that has a bit less baggage?
Andrew
02-02-2009, 01:23 PM
I must admit, I am cranky about the Daschle nomination. Surely Obama can find someone else qualified for this position that has a bit less baggage?
And less silly glasses.
wendybeth
02-02-2009, 01:25 PM
And less silly glasses.
Yeah, that too.
scaeagles
02-03-2009, 11:48 AM
I guess WB can be happier now - Daschle has withdrawn.
Guess he didn't want to be shown up by the other tax cheat that withdrew.
sleepyjeff
02-05-2009, 11:59 AM
"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don't think we can go fast enough to stop that."
~Nancy Pelosi
So much for trading fear for Hope. :rolleyes:
SacTown Chronic
02-05-2009, 12:12 PM
Sounds like a Bush-ism, but if Palin had said it I suppose the response would be, "The fvck you doing in Washington, Sarah? You have no business there".
Ghoulish Delight
02-05-2009, 12:35 PM
I hate Pelosi.
It is a stupid gaffe but I think the record will show that I generally don't find obvious verbal slips all that interesting as conversation fodder unless I have reason to believe they represent an actual lack of knowlege.
I have no reason to believe that Nancy Pelosi really believes that 500 million people would lose their jobs a month. So either it was a simple slip of the tongue (though even 500,000 would be an exaggeration of truth) or she was intentionally speaking hyperbolically (which I doubt).
If Bush had said the same thing I would have the same response. If Palin had said the same thing I think I would have the same response. But she did frequently show herself truly uninformed so I'd wonder more.
But I do agree that the hue and cry would have switched polarity.
Moonliner
02-05-2009, 02:12 PM
There are days where I think these things are analogous to a magician's hand gestures. "Look over here! Ignore what the other hand is doing".
scaeagles
02-05-2009, 04:30 PM
I think the real fear is coming from Obama right now, not Pelosi's stupid gaffe. Obama is saying if this (ridiculous) 900 billion dollar spending (not stimulus, spending) bill isn't passed that we may never recover.
alphabassettgrrl
02-05-2009, 05:09 PM
He shouldn't be saying it quite so black-and-white. We will recover, even without the spending bill. Just will take longer.
I believe the intent of his statement was that if it takes too long things will have degraded beyond the ability of any action to cause recovery. Not that there would never be a recovery.
But that isn't what he said. And if that is what he meant, then unless he is relying on an economic theory with which I am not familiar (certainly a possibility) it is unlikely to be true (though if the global financial network and unbacked fiat currencies truly did break down completely we'd probably be looking at a couple centuries before recovery happened in any meaningful way).
Anyway, if nothing else it is good to see that the Republican side of the party has so quickly realized that ramming through government action on the back of overhyped fear is a bad thing. Overracting out of economic fear is a nice change of pace from overreacting because a brown person might know the atomic weight of uranium.
Just to provide an avatar for use by those keen on the "Obama Messiah Complex" meme:
http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/5/9/599980/1233840166154.JPEG
alphabassettgrrl
02-05-2009, 06:03 PM
Well, he should say what he means. We know he can.
JWBear
02-06-2009, 01:08 PM
Bristol Palin named after ESPN headquarters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/palin-reveals-daughter-na_n_164587.html)
Two meanings in Bristol's name: I worked at the Bristol Inn, and Todd grew up in Bristol Bay. But also, Bristol, Connecticut, is the home of ESPN. And when I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster. ESPN was just kicking off, just getting off the ground, and I thought that's what I was going to do in life, is be one of the first woman sportscasters. Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.
Thank goodness this moron lost. This country dodged that bullet!
The best part is the quote from the Mayor of Bristol Conneticut:
Bristol Mayor Art Ward tells the local paper that it's probably for the best that Palin stayed in Alaska.
"You can't see Russia from here," he said.
:D
SacTown Chronic
02-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Wanna know why I named my boy Waco?
Really, I should have my own talking head pundit show (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=236189&postcount=257). Scooped them by 6 months.
That said, it doesn't strike me as any stupider than many of the other reasons children are given the name they get. And it is, I think, a perfectly nice name.
JWBear
02-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Oh, it isn't the name, or the reason she gave it. It was the whole "Like... gosh... I was going to be this totally rad sports announcer or something. But I found out I'd have to move to Connecticut. (Whatever!) So I stayed here and got this gig as Governor instead. It’s totally like work, so it kinda sucks. Then this old creepy dude wanted to make me Vice President. At first I said 'as if!'. But he explained what it was, and I thought it sounded totally cool, so I totally went for it.”
Well, I didn't read the article so I'll take your word that tone is there (though I don't see it in the quoted part).
Snowflake
02-06-2009, 02:02 PM
Well, she should have kept to her original plan, become a sportscaster. She'd probably be best buddies with Keith Olbermann now.
Probably not, most people who have worked with him haven't really enjoyed the experience (from what I hear).
Drince88
02-06-2009, 05:55 PM
I understand that Congressman basically have to start campaigning for their next election as soon as they start the term - but I think the Democratic Congressional Committee is starting a LITTLE too early on bashing Republicans for voting against the first version of the stimulus package.
Yes, I realize the Republican from New Orleans is going to face a tough opponent in 2 years and Yes, the Democratic National group is going to be throwing TONS of dollars because it probably IS a seat they can win back. But to start the anti-campaign THIS early is a bit extreme, in my book.
Gemini Cricket
02-09-2009, 01:08 PM
Don't know how to link to it but... CNN.com is reporting that Obama bumped his head getting into Marine One this morning.
Call out the National Guard!
:D
It's actually a pretty funny clip in that there is no narration. It just shows him walking across the lawn and then bumping his head. At least they could have put in some Looney Tunes music behind it or something...
Not Afraid
02-09-2009, 01:09 PM
Don't know how to link to it but... CNN.com is reporting that Obama bumped his head getting into Marine One this morning.
Call out the National Guard!
:D
It's actually a pretty funny clip in that there is no narration. It just shows him walking across the lawn and then bumping his head. At least they could have put in some Looney Tunes music behind it or something...
Shouldn't this be in the First 100 Days thread?
innerSpaceman
02-09-2009, 01:12 PM
They should photoshop Obama into that Stormtrooper bit in Star Wars.
Gemini Cricket
02-09-2009, 01:23 PM
I can't wait to see what people do with that piece of video on YouTube...
;) :D
I just watched the video (here (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=276103)). It looks to me like he just brushed his head and mostly managed to avoid it and he didn't even slow down so no comical "boing" effect. No competition yet for Bush trying to go through the locked doors (purely on the issue of comedic value).
Gemini Cricket
02-09-2009, 07:29 PM
No competition yet for Bush trying to go through the locked doors (purely on the issue of comedic value).
That was classic because of the face he made once he realized the door was locked.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/Picture1.png
scaeagles
02-09-2009, 07:29 PM
Didn't Obama run into the glass door going from the Rose Garden into the White HOuse? I remember seeing that somewhere.
If he did, I didn't hear about it. But if so and it is funny I'll laugh.
Strangler Lewis
02-10-2009, 07:03 AM
Didn't Obama run into the glass door going from the Rose Garden into the White HOuse? I remember seeing that somewhere.
That was Hillary. And it was a ceiling.
scaeagles
02-10-2009, 07:04 AM
I search a bit -apparently he didn't run into the glass door, he tried to open a window thinking it was a door.
Here's a link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_hey_bam_thats_not_the_door.html) with a pic....
Strangler Lewis
02-10-2009, 07:15 AM
People make that mistake in our house all the time. Which, I guess, means that anyone can be President.
This being a big country, someone out there is making the joke that the black man still hasn't got used to the fact that he doesn't have to break into the White House to get inside.
Maybe I just did. But someone is making it seriously.
scaeagles
02-13-2009, 06:50 AM
I'm getting really tired of being silent.
So much for openness. The dems will not even allow the "stimulus" bill to to be posted online for 48 hours to be read by those who would care to. They don't want the details of the spending to come out because every detail that comes out, well, sucks. They said they would, but now they won't.
Turns out that the tax cuts will result in about $8/week to the average worker! WOW! That's amazing. During the campaign, Michelle Obama was mocking the small size of the Bush stimulus checks as being too small to relaly help.
Obama says the Caterpiller will be able to hire back recently laid off workers if the package passes. Problem is the CEO of Caterpiller said there will be more layoffs even if the so called stimulus passes.
I wish I had more time to keep going. This stimulus bill and the spending in it SUCKS.
OH! And the whole concept of the "fairness doctrine". I know what would be fair - if liberal talk radio could make money, they would have more liberal talk radio on the air. Why don't they try making a profit and see how quickly stations pick up the programming? It is not the place of government to determine what on the airwaves is fair in terms of political speech. It is censorship and there is no other way to describe it.
wendybeth
02-13-2009, 09:03 AM
Is this what you were looking for, Scaeagles? (Btw, posted at a lib site- the Huffington Post- and with the request that readers help sift through it to identify potential pork). Stimulus Report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/final-stimulus-bill-full_n_166604.html)
I'm getting really tired of being silent.
So don't be silent.
So much for openness. The dems will not even allow the "stimulus" bill to to be posted online for 48 hours to be read by those who would care to. They don't want the details of the spending to come out because every detail that comes out, well, sucks. They said they would, but now they won't.
It should be made available but regardless it doesn't really matter if it is or not since the bill is now beyond the point when it can be changed. 5 days won't particularly matter so I hope Obama does make it available for review before he signs (though I doubt he will).
Turns out that the tax cuts will result in about $8/week to the average worker! WOW! That's amazing. During the campaign, Michelle Obama was mocking the small size of the Bush stimulus checks as being too small to relaly help.
A key difference being that unlike the Bush stimulus that amount (I'd been seeing $13/week but I'm sure the number can be sliced in various ways) is not the complete extent of the stimulus.
Obama says the Caterpiller will be able to hire back recently laid off workers if the package passes. Problem is the CEO of Caterpiller said there will be more layoffs even if the so called stimulus passes.
That's true, but it misrepresents Caterpillar's CEO as saying that the stimulus package won't help. In fact he said that the government needs to spend even more. All he said was that the stimulus package wouldn't help immediately and that there would likely be more layoffs before things improved.
This is a contradiction of what Obama said, but it appears that Obama may have said what he said because that is what the same CEO told him a couple of days ago (and is now contradicting himself).
OH! And the whole concept of the "fairness doctrine".
I agree. The government should not be regulating the airwaves at all. If someone wants to set up transmitters and interfere with the local talk news stations broadcast that should be their right.
Seriously though, I do agree that the fairness doctrine is an anachronism.
SacTown Chronic
02-13-2009, 09:30 AM
Rise so high, yet so far to fall
A plan of dignity and balance for all
Political breakthrough, euphoria's high
More borrowed money, more borrowed time
Backed in a corner, caught up in the race
Means to an end ended in disgrace
Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase
(Megadeth cyber-hug for scaeagles)
scaeagles
02-13-2009, 09:53 AM
So don't be silent.
It should be made available but regardless it doesn't really matter if it is or not since the bill is now beyond the point when it can be changed.
That's true, but it misrepresents Caterpillar's CEO as saying that the stimulus package won't help. In fact he said that the government needs to spend even more. All he said was that the stimulus package wouldn't help immediately and that there would likely be more layoffs before things improved.
Self imposed silence. Wanted to back off and see what would happen with Obama and the dem congressional control without jumping on everything that I disagreed with.
It does matter. Too much money to violate the calls for transparency.
I think Obama was trying to mislead regarding the Caterpillar stuff. He wanted it to seem as if this bill would make an immediate impact if passed in putting pressure to act immediately.
Moonliner
02-13-2009, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure what's worse, the Republicans who always operate in the shadows or the Dem's who promise to work in the light then shoot out the bulb at the last second.
I would like a chance for a public review, the markets are closed over the weekend so I don't think the country would suffer irreparable harm waiting the 48 hours.
I'm keeping an eye on this site: ReadTheStimulus.org (http://readthestimulus.org/)
BarTopDancer
02-13-2009, 10:08 AM
My unemployment (as well as the unemployment of my co-workers) is an indirect result of Caterpillar's volume dropping. They are our largest client and when they aren't hiring and moving people my [former] company is effected. Also, CAT is a global company, and their volume is not solely dependent on the state of the US economy. When demand drops off throughout the world CAT runs into issues.
I don't think anyone expected an immediate fix to the economy. It took us a long time to get to where we are, it's not going to be fixed overnight.
I think Obama was trying to mislead regarding the Caterpillar stuff. He wanted it to seem as if this bill would make an immediate impact if passed in putting pressure to act immediately.
Unless, as has been suggested (though I don't know the provenance of it) the CEO of Caterpillar had told him that passage of the stimulus would result in them holding off on some of the announced layoffs.
In which case Obama was lead out on the branch and then had it cut off behind him.
If that was not said to him then yes it was misleading.
Stan4dSteph
02-13-2009, 11:18 AM
I think Obama got told something and then the CEO decided to go back on what he said.
scaeagles
02-13-2009, 01:46 PM
Well, I suppose it is all conjecture about what happened. I'm certain Obama fans and non Obama fans will disagree as to exactly why that happened.
I make no claims as to what happened. But if there are conflicting versions I have no basis on which to choose one over the other. And pending that, I don't see why I would choose the one that assumes malicious intent.
Ghoulish Delight
03-03-2009, 10:49 AM
This American Life did another episode in its series of simplified explainers for the economic meltdown. This one specifically on how the banking industry works, what the collapse really looks like on paper, and the theories behind the competing proposals to try to reverse it.
This one didn't really impart any drastically new information to me, it pretty much reaffirmed what I already knew. But it was a good crash course none the less.
What it definitely solidified for me is how pissed off I am at politics in the country. Specifically, the stupid backlash to the idea of "nationalizing the banks." It's socialism!!! It's unamerican!!!! Damn pinkos!!!
Leave me alone with your ideological B.S. Who cares if it can be labled socialism? Is that a reason to ignore an option that has been proven to work? The US has been involved in rescuing collapsed banking systems in many countries around the world. Guess what they've advocated, and done? Temporarily nationalizing banks!! Gasp!
Now, there may be some very good reasons why it might not work in this particular case. Among other things, since the whole world is feeling this one, and in some sense, banks outside the US are in worse shape, if the government buys the banks, there may not be anyone to eventually sell them to (since the idea is to only nationalize temporarily, not own them forever).
But whether are rational arguments against it is beside the point. The cries of socialism prevent a rational debate about it. They throw out a viable option, proven to have worked in similar, if not identical, situations. Simply because O'Reilly can attach an "evil" buzz word to it. Pisses me off. A lot.
JWBear
03-03-2009, 01:16 PM
It's very difficult for adults to have a rational discussion with children who just want to throw a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.
bewitched
03-03-2009, 04:45 PM
It's socialism!!! It's unamerican!!!! Damn pinkos!!!...
Simply because O'Reilly can attach an "evil" buzz word to it. Pisses me off. A lot.
You're a *%!@*&^ liberal socialist, aren't you?
;)
Ghoulish Delight
03-04-2009, 10:07 AM
Say what you want about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, at least it's not some idiotic shoehorned acronym like TARP.
Moonliner
03-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Say what you want about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, at least it's not some idiotic shoehorned acronym like TARP.
Still, they could have called it the Ameican Security and Savings Act. That would have been more fitting.
JWBear
03-04-2009, 11:28 AM
ASSA?
Moonliner
03-04-2009, 11:41 AM
ASSA?
Ass Act.
Ghoulish Delight
03-08-2009, 08:34 PM
Barack Obama, you won't like him when he's angry (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/the-rock-obama/1056126/).
scaeagles
03-09-2009, 08:18 AM
Hillary sure is off to a great start as Secretary of State.
She gave the Russians a "reset" button that actually said "overcharge", with an added implication of intentionally ripping someone off.
She claimed the American democracy is older thn European democracy. Considering the Europeans regard Greece as their roots of democracy, that's a bit of a problem.
She mispronounced several names of dignitaries she was meeting with.
Great start, Hillary! Woo-hoo!
American democracy is older than European democracy. But no, it isn't older than the concept of European democracy. So to the extent that anybody is seriously bothered by the comment I'd say they were going out of their way to have bruised feelings. Besides, since when do you care what other countries think and if their feelings are hurt?
The reset button was stupid for many reasons. Though I'm told by my Russian speaking friend that the mistaken word doesn't so much have a meaning of paying too much but is more an electrical term and closer to "overloaded." Search the term (in Cyrillic) and you'll find mostly pictures of electrical diagrams and things carrying too much weight.
And unless she was meeting people she didn't know she would be meeting, mispronouncing names is embarrassing.
scaeagles
03-09-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't care, honestly. However, since the theme seems to be that we need to "rebuild" our image in the world, and she has insulted (whether they have reason to take offense or not) European leaders with her American vs. European democracy comment, I decided to make an issue of it from a purely rhetorical standpoint.
I debated whether or not to bring up Obama's insult of the British PM, when he gave 25 DVDs to him as a gift (I honestly don't know if that was a slight or not, but there has been some uproar over the thoughtlessness of it compared to the gift from him to the Obamas) and the lack of the traditional joint press conference (which I find to be far more insulting).
Ghoulish Delight
03-09-2009, 09:49 AM
I
I debated whether or not to bring up Obama's insult of the British PM, when he gave 25 DVDs to him as a gift (I honestly don't know if that was a slight or not, but there has been some uproar over the thoughtlessness of it compared to the gift from him to the Obamas) and the lack of the traditional joint press conference (which I find to be far more insulting).
It's only an insult in comparison to the out and out bromance between Bush and Blair.
wendybeth
03-09-2009, 09:51 AM
Well, as long as she doesn't throw up on anyone or flash obscene or culturally insensitive gestures, I'm good.
JWBear
03-09-2009, 09:57 AM
Or touch world leaders inappropriately…
Betty
03-09-2009, 09:58 AM
Or touch world leaders inappropriately…
Unless they're into that. ;)
I don't care, honestly. However, since the theme seems to be that we need to "rebuild" our image in the world, and she has insulted (whether they have reason to take offense or not) European leaders with her American vs. European democracy comment, I decided to make an issue of it from a purely rhetorical standpoint.
A valid point, but if Obama really does bring us out of Iraq, works diplomatically and honestly on global environmental issues, and smiles handsomely when abroad, I somehow don't think that failing to pat the Greeks and Romans on the head for trying and then abandoning democracy will overwhelm the impact on world opinion.
But it should be noted that all of these countries do have conservative (by U.S. definition of the word) wings -- especially in England -- that will be complaining about anything Obama does just as is the case here (and similarly, the knee-jerk whining brigade about Bush was replicated worldwide even in more conservative nations). I would say that the big difference insofar as you're concerned will be that you now will hear about them because it will be in the interests of your primary news sources to repeat them where they were ignored before as the mewlings of wuss's jealous of U.S. power.
I debated whether or not to bring up Obama's insult of the British PM, when he gave 25 DVDs to him as a gift.I tend not to care much for empty symbolic gestures and give exchanges between heads of state pretty much fall into that category (like either Obama or Brown spent an evening at Saks trying to find just the perfect thing).
I think that Obama should have just handed Brown a card, and inside that card a piece of paper that said "In lieu of a gift i have donated $25 to the March of Dimes in your name."
But I will agree that unless they were of some deeply personal meaning, that a gift of DVDs (man I hope they were region free or of the appropriate region) and Marine One models is lame. As they were making fun of this on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me this weekened it really does have the look of a last minute gift Obama got from the White House Gift Shop on his way to the meeting.
sleepyjeff
03-09-2009, 11:26 AM
The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thought long and hard about what gift to bring on his visit to the White House last week. Barack Obama is the first African American president, so the prime minister gave him an ornamental desk-pen holder hewn from the timbers of one of the Royal Navy's anti-slaving ships of the 19th century, HMS Gannet. Even more appropriate, in 1909 the Gannet was renamed HMS President.
The president's guest also presented him with the framed commission for HMS Resolute, the lost British ship retrieved from the Arctic and returned by America to London, and whose timbers were used for a thank-you gift Queen Victoria sent to Rutherford Hayes: the handsome desk that now sits in the Oval Office.
And, just to round things out, as a little stocking stuffer, Gordon Brown gave President Obama a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill.
In return, America's head of state gave the prime minister 25 DVDs of "classic American movies."
Evidently, the White House gift shop was all out of "MY GOVERNMENT DELEGATION WENT TO WASHINGTON AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT" T-shirts. Still, the "classic American movies" set is a pretty good substitute, and it can set you back as much as $38.99 at Wal-Mart: Lot of classics in there, I'm sure — "Casablanca," "Citizen Kane," "The Sound Of Music" — though this sort of collection always slip in a couple of "Dude, Where's My Car? 3" and "Police Academy 12" just to make up the numbers. I'll be interested to know if Mr. Brown has anything to play the films on back home, since U.S.-format DVDs don't work in United Kingdom DVD players.
------------------------------
From Canada to India, the implications of the Obama ascendancy are becoming painfully clear. The other week Der Spiegel ran a piece called "Why Obamania Isn't The Answer," which might more usefully have been published before the Obamessiah held his big Berlin rally. Written by some big shot with the German Council on Foreign Relations and illustrated by the old four-color hopey-changey posters all scratched up and worn out, the essay conceded that Europe had embraced Obama as a "European American." Very true. The president is the most European American ever to sit in the Oval Office. And, because of that, he doesn't need any actual European Europeans getting in the way — just as, at his big victory night rally in Chicago, the first megastar president didn't need any megastar megastars from Hollywood clogging up the joint: Movie stars who wanted to fly in were told by his minders that he didn't want any other celebrities deflecting attention from him. Same with world leaders. If it's any consolation to Gordon Brown, he's just not that into any of you.
What Mr. Brown and the rest of the world want is for America, the engine of the global economy, to pull the rest of them out of the quicksand. Which isn't unreasonable. Even though a big chunk of the subprime/securitization/credit bubble axis originated in the United States and got exported round the planet, the reality is that almost every one of America's trading partners will wind up getting far harder hit.
And that was before Obama made clear that for him the economy takes a very distant back seat to the massive expansion of government it provides cover for. That's why he's indifferent to the plummeting Dow. The president has made a strategic calculation that, to advance his plans for socialized health care, "green energy" and a Big Government state, it's to his advantage for things to get worse. And, if things go from bad to worse in America, overseas they'll go from worse to total societal collapse. We've already seen changes of government in Iceland and Latvia, rioting in Greece and Bulgaria. The great destabilization is starting on the fringes of Europe and working its way to the Continent's center.
We're seeing not just the first contraction in the global economy since 1945, but also the first crisis of globalization. This was the system America and the other leading economies encouraged everybody else to grab a piece of. But whatever piece you grabbed — exports in Taiwan, services in Ireland, construction in Spain, oligarchic industrial-scale kleptomania in Russia — it's all crumbling. Ireland and Italy are nation-state versions of Bank of America and General Motors. In Eastern Europe, the countries way out on the end of the globalization chain can't take a lot of heat without widespread unrest. And the fellows who'll be picking up the tab are the Western European banks who loaned them all the money. Gordon Brown was hoping for a little more than: "I feel your pain. And have you ever seen 'The Wizard Of Oz'?" It's about this sweet little nobody who gets to pay a brief visit to the glittering Emerald City before being swept back to the reassuring familiarity of the poor thing's broken down windswept economically devastated monochrome dust bowl. You'll love it!"
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"? Oh, perish the thought. The prime minister flew 8,000 miles for dinner and a movie. But the president says he'll call. Next week. Next month. Whatever.
Read the whole thing...
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0309/steyn030909.php3
BarTopDancer
03-09-2009, 11:07 PM
Obama lifted the ban on using Federal funding for stem cell research.
Story here (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1883861,00.html).
Ghoulish Delight
03-10-2009, 09:37 AM
That's why [Obama's] indifferent to the plummeting Dow.Hey Sleepy, the Dow's up 300 points today. Does that mean you now have to declare Obama a resounding success as a President?
The Dow is b.s. I've watched my company's stock fall 10% on a day where we announced record profits and guidance for even higher profits the next quarter. So forgive me if I don't consider the sum of a bunch of stock prices the be all and end all of financial doom. It's a mediocre indicator of economic health at best, and an absolutely irrelevant indicator over 60 days of a President's performance.
You might, by the way, want to take a look at what the dow did the first two months after Reagan's inauguration. Or the first two months after WWII ended (what a horrible decision THAT turned out to be, geez).
sleepyjeff
03-10-2009, 10:25 AM
Hey Sleepy, the Dow's up 300 points today. Does that mean you now have to declare Obama a resounding success as a President?
The Dow is b.s. I've watched my company's stock fall 10% on a day where we announced record profits and guidance for even higher profits the next quarter. So forgive me if I don't consider the sum of a bunch of stock prices the be all and end all of financial doom. It's a mediocre indicator of economic health at best, and an absolutely irrelevant indicator over 60 days of a President's performance.
You might, by the way, want to take a look at what the dow did the first two months after Reagan's inauguration. Or the first two months after WWII ended (what a horrible decision THAT turned out to be, geez).
Fair enough.
Ghoulish Delight
03-12-2009, 09:56 AM
A lot of dems have been giggling with glee over Michael Steele cowing to Rush Limbaugh. They are happy to see the 'pubs defer to a bumbling oaf that no one of importance takes seriously anymore.
But if that doesn't pan out, Steele looks like he'll make a perfectly fine substitute bumbling oaf:
From an interview with GQ's Lisa DePaulo (L)
L: How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your catholic faith, but by the fact that you were adopted?
M: Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that. I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it, uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
L: Explain that.
M: The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
L: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
M: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.
L: You do?
M: Yeah. Absolutely.
L: Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
M: I think Roe v. Wade--as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
L: Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
M: The states should make that choice: that's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Uhhhhh....
I too think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that women should have the right to choose. Except when I say that, unlike him apparently, I understand what I mean by that.
sleepyjeff
03-12-2009, 10:29 AM
A lot of dems have been giggling with glee over Michael Steele cowing to Rush Limbaugh. They are happy to see the 'pubs defer to a bumbling oaf that no one of importance takes seriously anymore.
Are you suggesting that President Obama is "no one of importance"?
SacTown Chronic
03-12-2009, 10:34 AM
Grasping at the "Roe v Wade was wrongly decided" straw usually means they've run out of anti-choice arguments. I guess they think it gives them some sort of high ground. You know, because all they really care about is the sanctity of a well-written law.
It Mr. Steele's case, it appears he got a bit confused while engaging in some auto-pilot party locksteppery.
sleepyjeff
03-12-2009, 11:03 AM
As Politico.com reported last week, Demo gurus James Carville and Stan Greenberg first concocted the idea of making Limbaugh the GOP albatross last year after a poll showed that among younger voters Limbaugh's ratings were in the toilet. White House adviser David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joined in the get-Limbaugh gambit, while White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party" on CBS' "Face the Nation."
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee jumped into the act and sent out an e-mail instructing recipients to send an "urgent call" for GOP senators "to denounce (t)his shameful rhetoric." Key to the strategy are gullible partisans who fall for the phony umbrage of cynical operatives. Tens of thousands of outraged sheep — I mean, concerned individuals — have signed on, according to the DSCC.
"Shameful rhetoric?" Sorry, but the only thing that would make these operatives more gleeful would be if GOP leaders were caught in hotel rooms with hookers. This whole brouhaha is designed to get Republicans to snipe at each other and, perhaps more important, to distract voters from what is happening to their 401(k)s — after Democrats have thrown an extra trillion dollars at the economy.
"It's incredibly cynical," former McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace wrote in The Daily Beast. "It assumes that voters are too stupid to know the difference between a talk-radio host and a party's elected leaders."
"I can think of no pursuit more childish than an Oval-Office-initiated food fight with a talk-radio host," Wallace wrote. Apparently Team Obama sees the Limbaugh feud as an effective use of its time.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0309/saunders031009.php3
Ghoulish Delight
03-12-2009, 11:09 AM
Do you ever read any other news source?
SacTown Chronic
03-12-2009, 11:15 AM
What's wrong with going after Limbaugh? I'd support putting a bullet in his brain for the greater good of this country. In the interest of balance, go ahead and pop Randi Rhodes too.
Ghoulish Delight
03-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Steele seems to have no problem looking to Rush for leadership, so who are the Dems to argue?
SacTown Chronic
03-12-2009, 11:21 AM
But The Jewish World Review has the best coupons!
Ghoulish Delight
03-12-2009, 11:29 AM
Randomizing -
Earmarks. I don't get it. What exactly is the alternate suggestion to earmarks? What does getting rid of earmarks in a spending bill accomplish? Because as far as I can tell, all it does is delay the exact same process and deal making. The money has to be spent. It has to be spent on something. Someone has to decide what it gets spent on. Without earmarks, it's not like they're just going to throw money on the sidwalk in front of Congress, first come first served. Eventually, a decision is going to be made about what to spend the money on. Who gives a sh*t if that decision is made when the bill is written and passed, or after that? It's the exact same thing. What am I missing?
Obviously targeting Limbaugh is a political strategy. It may be a good one in that the core despises Limbaugh and to the extent that the meme catches on it marginalizes the official Republican leadership.
So yes, it is craven, but as far as such things go it isn't particularly distasteful or dishonest. What is odd is that it seems to be a rare example of the Democrats trying something like this and having it work moderately well. Republicans have been masters of controlling the conversation for a very long time.
That said, it would probably help deflate the thing if every Republican who dares say anything remotely negative about Limbaugh wasn't seen crawling to him on hands-and-knees with keister raises for just punishment, babbling incoherently about how they were quoted out of context or didn't mean it the way it sounded or meant it the way it sounded but that meaning isn't really bad.
On earmarks, I'm not specifically opposed to them. That said, I don't think it is a great idea that the same politician that doesn't have time to actually read the full budget he votes for to fund the Department of Transportation somehow thinks he has enough knowledge about the operations to circumvent the project prioritization process.
And, a lot of times, something is passed as an earmark specifically because it is known that it is an idea that would never get funded if actually put through any standard review process.
And a certain amount of horsetrading leeway is needed to grease the wheels of any legislative process.
So I think saying "absolutely any earmark is bad" is just as misguided as saying "there's absolutely nothing wrong with them." And, of course, once you say you won't accept any earmarks then you run into a definitional problem of what exactly is an earmark.
My biggest problem with them historically is how they came to be included in legislation which generally offered no option for true review and frequently you couldn't even tell who had put it in there.
JWBear
03-12-2009, 11:57 AM
Randomizing -
Earmarks. I don't get it. What exactly is the alternate suggestion to earmarks? What does getting rid of earmarks in a spending bill accomplish? Because as far as I can tell, all it does is delay the exact same process and deal making. The money has to be spent. It has to be spent on something. Someone has to decide what it gets spent on. Without earmarks, it's not like they're just going to throw money on the sidwalk in front of Congress, first come first served. Eventually, a decision is going to be made about what to spend the money on. Who gives a sh*t if that decision is made when the bill is written and passed, or after that? It's the exact same thing. What am I missing?
Beacuse spending a few million for a badly needed road, or to build a dam to prevent a rural town from being flooded, or building a community center are bad things; but giving billions to banks and Wall Street firms so that they can buy $50 million dollar jets, or give their executives millions in bonuses is good.
Didn't you get the memo?
JWBear
03-12-2009, 12:00 PM
(Pssst... Don't let the GOP sheeple know, but the earmarks were less than 1% of the OBRA bill, and over half of them were included by republicans.)
Strangler Lewis
03-12-2009, 12:17 PM
Life happened again.
I think we should all be having more fun with the Levi/Bristol breakup.
JWBear
03-12-2009, 12:21 PM
I was sitting here puzzled, thinking to myself "When did Levi Straus and Bristol-Meyers merge? And more importantly, why?"
Then it hit me....
Poor little dears. :rolleyes:
sleepyjeff
03-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Do you ever read any other news source?
1) It's not a news source....it's basically just the best darn archive of syndicated pundits(mostly conservative I must admit) out there. I'd have to visit the websites of a score or more newspapers to match it.
2) What difference does it make?(surely you are not attempting to make the fallacious argument that anything I post should be dismissed because it may come from a single source?)
3) Yes....Bloomberg being my favorite.
Ghoulish Delight
03-12-2009, 01:46 PM
2) What difference does it make?(surely you are not attempting to make the fallacious argument that anything I post should be dismissed because it may come from a single source?)
No, it says nothing about the validity of the stories (those speak for themselves), but after a while it certainly makes me question any perspective you might have on things.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.