The Obamanation

[Undertoad]

I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."

Do you think I've treated TheMercenary terribly?

I think it's probably a good approach, to not consider people's arguments on a matter when they don't approach it in an adult way.

Most people here do not approach the discussions in an adult way.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."

I think it's fair game to not consider people who don't approach discussions in an adult way.

I think that could apply to most people here.

Including you.

[infinite monkey]

But, you know what? Some people ARE stupid.

Seriously. Why do you think they 'measure' intelligence?

And stupid people are easily swayed...so...

If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG.

WHat!?!!? The world is not flat?!?!? Oh hell....

[infinite monkey]

We're imperfect fucking assholes.

So what? Who isn't?

But at least we're not stupid.

[BigV]

I'm not opposed to conflict.

Conflict for the sport of conflict, even. But that should be restricted to sporting events, or sparring, or other forms of vigorous exercise. But conflict in the name of some greater purpose, political, social, economic, whatever, those kinds of conflict should be conducted within certain boundaries, preferably mutually agreed upon boundaries. This makes for fair fights. Now before I'm laughed off the stage for believing in, much less desiring fair fighting, I submit that we all have a concept of fairness. We usually notice it when our opponent has breached it, but we have it and we work with it. Think about it--you don't solve all your problems with summary executions, effective (and justifiable) though it may be. It is the method that I have recently objected to, not the objective.

I like learning. When I'm learning, I'm in conflict with my own ignorance, my own bad habits, maybe with other people who hold different positions from mine, and I have to try to overcome these opposing forces if I'm going to learn anything. I have standards though, which I explained earlier.

Conflict is not just ok, it is necessary. Without friction, we would get nowhere. But the end does not justify all means.

[BigV]

The Obamanation:

[TheMercenary]

Hmmmm.....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- To the dismay of consumer groups and the discomfort of Democrats, President Barack Obama wants Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other billions owed the federal government.

The change "is expected to provide substantial increases in collections, particularly as an increasing share of households no longer have landlines and rely instead on cellphones," the administration wrote recently. The little-noticed recommendation would apply only to cases in which money is owed the government, and is tucked into the mammoth $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan the president submitted to Congress.

Despite the claim, the administration has not yet developed an estimate of how much the government would collect, and critics reject the logic behind the recommendation.

"Enabling robo-calls (to cellphones) is just going to lead to more harassment and abuse, and it's not going to help the government collect more money," said Lauren Saunders of the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. "People aren't paying their student loans because they can't find a job."

Whatever the impact on the budget deficit, the proposal has aligned the White House with the private debt collection industry - frequently the subject of consumer complaints - at a time when the economy is weak, unemployment is high and Obama is embarking on his campaign for re-election.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-04-06-36-08

[SamIam]

Man, that's really digging. I never answer automated calls of ANY kind. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a computer. If I can hang up on those calls from my land line, I can sure as hell hang up on them from my cell, too. I bet I'm not alone either. BFD

[TheMercenary]

I think people should own their debts and pay them off. I just don't think these organizations should be able to have and share my personal info, cell phone number, across the board and I don't think government should have to authority to do it.

[classicman]

Another piece of the puzzle.

Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, worked as a partner at the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm when President Obama nominated her for her current job. The same firm now represents Solyndra Chief Executive Brian Harrison.

Haag must refrain from participating in any matter related to her former employer for two years, under a broad ethics pledge promulgated by Obama that applies to executive appointees.

Haag declined to comment on Solyndra on Wednesday.

The Department of Energy's clean energy loan program also triggered a recusal promise from Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a state court judge nominated by Obama for the federal bench in Northern California. Her husband, Matt Rogers, oversaw DOE's grant and loan program before returning to McKinsey & Company.

Reuters

[classicman]

Solyndra loan supported by Obama fundraiser

A prominent 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser who held a key role in the Energy Department played an active part in Solyndra's $535 million loan guarantee despite conflict of interest concerns over his wife's work at a law firm that also represented the California solar company, according to internal Obama administration emails released Friday.

Link

[TheMercenary]

New Obama metric: “Jobs supported”

Old and busted: Jobs “saved or created.” New hotness: Jobs “supported.” In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obama’s new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure:

The American Jobs Act Will Support Nearly 400,000 Education Jobs—Preventing Layoffs and Allowing Thousands More to Be Hired or Rehired: The President’s plan will more than offset projected layoffs, providing support for nearly 400,000 education jobs—enough for states to avoid harmful layoffs and rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over the past three years.

How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable:

To start the process of estimating educator jobs at risk, the Administration refers to a June, 2011 paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a left-of-center think tank). This paper quantifies recent and projected shortfalls in state budgets.

The Administration then makes various assumptions about how the projected shortfalls would be filled. In effect, they assume first that shortfalls would be filled by a combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and then that spending cuts would be applied proportionally across all categories including education. As the Administration materials state, “These spending reduction numbers were then converted into estimates of educator jobs at risk based on estimates of average teacher compensation by state. These calculations implied that, if spending reductions had their full negative impact on education staffing, up to 280,000 educator jobs across the country would be at risk in the 2011-2012 school year.”

The Administration then points to $30 billion in spending contained in the proposed American Jobs Act. The purpose of this spending, as specified in the bill text, is to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.”

Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. That’s where jobs “saved and created” originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting “saved” thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis.

hotair.com

[TheMercenary]

Talk about Fear Mongering! Holy shit, someone needs to stuff a sock in that fools mouth....

"I think it would be hard to find anyone that doesn't agree," White House press secretary Carney said about Joe Biden's remark that rapes will increase if Congress does not pass Obama's latest stimulus bill.

Carney was asked about Vice President Joe Biden saying rapes and murders will rise if the president's jobs bill is not passed.

"I think everyone will agree with the equation that fewer police officers on the street has a direct effect on the crime rate. We saw this in the 1990's. I do know that any lawmaker up on Capitol Hill will contest that simple fact or any American who makes that assessment in their local communities. Would you want fewer or more law enforcement officers on the job? Do you think that having more officers on the job would have a positive impact on crime? That is the point that the President absolutely shares," Carney said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...will_rise.html

[TheMercenary]

Maybe at some point a reporter will ask Carney why there are fewer police on the streets today and they’re seeking billions more when the sales pitch for the original stimulus was that billions of those dollars would put more cops on the job.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-28/p...=PM%3APOLITICS

Oh, btw, they never paid for that and those jobs never materialized.