The coming liberal thugocracy
Michael Barone COMMENTARY:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Very interesting article and contrary to what most of the media is thinking. I hope that all this smoke doesn't lead to a fire. I hope all the whispers about Obama and his alleged associations aren't true. This is too important an election.
"Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Holy crap, I remember seeing that sketch, and thinking, "This is unusually good critique of both sides - I'm used to SNL skewering the right mercilessly, but this is new!"
Then, the clip was edited.
Here's the edit - the original dialogue about campaign contributions went right the line "Nice to see you again, Nancy" in the original broadcast. I'll see if I can lift it from TIVO and post it.
I got something different from that sketch.
Hmph....Yes people that don't qualify aren't just poor. They are losers. As we all know, basic logic:
All poor people are losers:
Tony is a poor person therefore:
Tony is a loser.
*don't feel sorry for those people, losers*
People that don't qualify are also quazi criminals (single males as well, it would seem).
laffy.
Raymond Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist
Just a little FYI, the following is a more complete version of the quote that was taken out of context.
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he [Obama] stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politicsI got something different from that sketch.
Hmph....Yes people that don't qualify aren't just poor. They are losers. As we all know, basic logic:
All poor people are losers:
Tony is a poor person therefore:
Tony is a loser.
*don't feel sorry for those people, losers*
People that don't qualify are also quazi criminals (single males as well, it would seem).
laffy.
Um, what the skid did actually say was that these guys portrayed as jobless, perhaps with a criminal record...did qualify for a sub prime loan. I mean, that is exactly what the skit said, in one segment of the skit. I think that was a joke, with some grounds in reality. People have been given loans that they just can't afford.
You know, the only reason I'm not personally affected by the sub prime loan thing is I can't afford a home. I have been qualified by several lending institutions as to be able to afford a home, well not lately. The bottom line is I can't buy what I can't afford. I will not let someone who wants between 5 and 30 percent of my money convince me that I can afford one. Even if I could afford one, I'm not willing to pay 5 to 30 percent of that phenomenal cost to anyone. I'm trying to convince my wife that this is a true statement. I'm so sick of credit that if I needed a tooth pulled and couldn't afford it, I'd barter.
I'd rather put the money in a mason jar and save enough to buy a home then put one on credit right now.
Um, what the skid did actually say was that these guys portrayed as jobless, perhaps with a criminal record...did qualify for a sub prime loan. I mean, that is exactly what the skit said, in one segment of the skit. I think that was a joke, with some grounds in reality. People have been given loans that they just can't afford.
Yes and it also stated: do you feel sorry for these guys, then portrayed complete losers....like they were the majority of people that got screwed. That's alright I didn't expect anyone here to have compassion for the people that lost their homes. But I definitely didn't expect SNL to make a mockery of the affected jobless sniveling criminal losers. Must be a nation of whiney losers.
This is too important an election.
This is what i disagree with. I don't think it matters at all who gets elected. not even a little bit. I'm going to vote, but I'm going to vote for whatever the Libertarian candidate is. I will continue to do that until our two party sham of a system is disassembled.
this has been my political contribution for the year. I hope you enjoyed it.
Raymond Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist
Just a little FYI, the following is a more complete version of the quote that was taken out of context.
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he [Obama] stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics
Nothing was taken out of context - In fact, this (bold mine) is incorrect. If someone is making over $250,000 then he admittedly and unabashedly states that he will raise their taxes.
People making over $250,000 rarely attend Democratic campaign rallies. :eyebrow:
Nothing was taken out of context - In fact, this (bold mine) is incorrect. If someone is making over $250,000 then he admittedly and unabashedly states that he will raise their taxes.
Well yes, something was. Obama wasn't talking about shutting people up, as the commentary implies.
And come on, you have to know that all the speeches, ads, etc. by both parties are being aimed at folks who make under $250k, because that's where most of the potential votes are.
...unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers
not enough acts of contrition, no self-flagellation?
oh, and
Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.
He forgot to say 10 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers?
What's all this then? classicman is conceding?
We've already gone the way of the liberal thugocracy? I'm pretty sure only republicans are allowed to be thugs... :)
Bri - What am I conceding? I haven't even decided who to vote for yet - I gave myself another week to decide.
Blue - that was part of the semantics game - sorry my wiseass humor didn't translate well....again! maybe I should just stop trying.
A few of these liberal thugs have already been thrown mercilessly into prison, without trial!
Sisters and brothers, I beg you to join the
Campaign to Free the Thugs.
People making over $250,000 rarely attend Democratic campaign rallies. :eyebrow:
That's a joke, right?
Your face is a joke.
Just kidding. I was channeling Flint.
No, not a joke. I'm guessing most people in his audience that day weren't millionaires, or even quarter millionaires.
Don't be fooled. Plenty of millionares and sub millionaires are Demoncrats. Name anyone in Congress. Look at who is supporting his campaign and what businesses are supporting him. The Demoncrats, and Hillary was the best at it, appeal the poor and downtrodden. Because they are the ones out there making all the promises about what they are going to do for them. Guess what, it isn't going to happen. Congress makes the laws, and Congress appropriates the monies. No promise made by any politician during an election cycle has been kept in full.
Don't be fooled. Plenty of millionares and [COLOR="Red"]sub millionaires[/COLOR] are Demoncrats.
Yeah. I'm still just a million dollars short of being a millionaire.
Now if only I were a Dem.
Lemme see now, we've got an $850 billion bailout of wall street in progress. Pelosi wants to call congress back after the election and pass another $150 billion "incentive" plan. Now Obama wants to throw in an additional $60 billion.
That's $1.6 TRILLION. (Gonna have to buy some more printing presses to handle the load of all that new money there Barrack)
I'm laughing my ass off...when the fuck did the whole financial mess become Obama's fault? Someone said there is a 5-10 year lag in policy change, so we can't blame the current administration (which I don't get, either) but now we're projecting blame into the future?
I see what you did, thar.
It is the fault of Congress and the people who made the laws that allowed the markets to bloat and burst.
Not to nitpick, but I think you got your billions and trillions mixed up there. Just sayin
Someone said there is a 5-10 year lag in policy change, so we can't blame the current administration (which I don't get, either) but now we're projecting blame into the future?
No, I'm not projecting blame into the future at all. Its just that many policy changes take a lot of time to actually be implemented and take hold. MOST TIMES.
I never said we cannot blame the current administration either. Lets see - 8 years in office and I said a 5-10 year timeframe... 8 is still in between 5 & 10 right? Cuz if its not I didn't get the memo.
I've just heard it time after time, from both parties. If your guy is in office, it's the fault of the guy before him, or the congress who won't let your guy do what needs done. If your guy is not in office, then it's the fault of the guy in office.
Adjust time frames and blame to taste, stir, serve over rhetoric.
;)
I've just heard it time after time, from both parties. If your guy is in office, it's the fault of the guy before him, or the congress who won't let your guy do what needs done. If your guy is not in office, then it's the fault of the guy in office.
Adjust time frames and blame to taste, stir, serve over rhetoric.
Excuse me that post belongs in the "Political Drinks" thread.
I'll try it this way - All I'm saying is that an incumbent, at any time, inherits some of the effects of the prior two terms and many times they take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Or vice versa.
*I am speaking in general terms.
I've just heard it time after time, from both parties. If your guy is in office, it's the fault of the guy before him, or the congress who won't let your guy do what needs done. If your guy is not in office, then it's the fault of the guy in office.
Adjust time frames and blame to taste, stir, serve over rhetoric.
;)
Good one.
Demoncrats
Did you make this word up yourself, or is it one of those nutty talk radio lingo-isms?
It goes along with Nobama. Yawn.
Its an Obamination I tell ya!
No, I'm not projecting blame into the future at all. Its just that many policy changes take a lot of time to actually be implemented and take hold. MOST TIMES.
I never said we cannot blame the current administration either. Lets see - 8 years in office and I said a 5-10 year timeframe... 8 is still in between 5 & 10 right? Cuz if its not I didn't get the memo.
Carter defeated the Soviet Union?
Carter defeated the Soviet Union?
Yeh he did. The Soviets were all allergic to peanuts and that was his secret weapon.
Shhh, now they have to kill you, man.
Did you make this word up yourself, or is it one of those nutty talk radio lingo-isms?
I doubt I was the first one to think of it, but I have been using it for the last 8 years.
I doubt I was the first one to think of it, but I have been using it for the last 8 years.
Well stop using it. See what happens.
Blonde walks into doctor's office, says everything hurts. Doc says show me. Blonde touches kneecap, "This hurts"; touches ear, "This hurts"; touches rib, "This hurts"; touches stomach, "This hurts"; touches neck, "This hurts".
Doctor checks her out and hands her a small splint and sends her on her way.
Blonde says "What's this for? I feel pain in all those places."
Doctor says "You have a broken finger."
** ** ** **
mercy, I think you have an inflamed blamer. Try resting that finger. Stop abusing it with that kind of language and see if things don't clear up right away.
Ah. I have said it with less humour on another post.
Name calling demeans the caller.
I know it didn't work like that at school, when no matter what your Mum said no-one thought they were childish because they called you names (and they weren't picking on you because they were jelaous either) but it does apply in the grown up world. Not the jealous bit though.
Not to nitpick, but I think you got your billions and trillions mixed up there. Just sayin
I think to be more accurate we should use the terms megadollars, gigadollars and teradollars. That way is doesn't sound so bad.
Try it: I'll take 750 gigadollars, please.
Lookout, it's lookout looking in.
Try it: I'll take 750 gigadollars, please.
I'll see your 750 gigadollars and raise you 500 megadollars
Fuck you all...I got a googol.
Incidentally, that's
[size=-3]$10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size]
...so suck it!!!
I'll see your 750 gigadollars and raise you 500 megadollars
: snort :
So, the pot is, 750.5 Gigadollars, then? I'll raise it to a gazillion.
Megadollars? Ha, that's a rounding error. If a megadollar falls out of my pocket, I don't even bother picking it up.
Fuck you all...I got a googol.
Incidentally, that's
[size=-3]$10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size]
...so suck it!!!
That is the cost of Obama's health care plan.
: snort :
So, the pot is, 750.5 Gigadollars, then? I'll raise it to a gazillion.
I call - whatta ya got?
Billions. I used to think that meant 1000, 000, 000....because it did! That's one of those little changes that occur around you without you really noticing it. The official definition of billion changed in the UK 1974, but maths teachers were a little reluctant to let go of the old way and I was in my thirties before I bothered noticing that this had changed :P
From wiki:
Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK, the phrases "British usage" and "American usage" are no longer accurate or helpful characterizations. The two systems can be a subject of controversy and can arouse emotion. Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire patriotic overtones. [6]
*chuckles*
I feel a little nausea in my brain right now.
Billions. I used to think that meant 1000, 000, 000....because it did! That's one of those little changes that occur around you without you really noticing it. The official definition of billion changed in the UK 1974, but maths teachers were a little reluctant to let go of the old way and I was in my thirties before I bothered noticing that this had changed :P
From wiki:
Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK, the phrases "British usage" and "American usage" are no longer accurate or helpful characterizations. The two systems can be a subject of controversy and can arouse emotion. Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire patriotic overtones. [6]
*chuckles*
I call - whatta ya got?
I got FOUR MILLION ACES! And they're ALL DIAMONDS!
Show!
That is the cost of Obama's health care plan.
If that's true, then we'll all be super fucking healthy then, won't we.
I got FOUR MILLION ACES! And they're ALL DIAMONDS!
Show!
I got 2-7 off suit :0(
If that's true, then we'll all be super fucking healthy then, won't we.
And broke dick as a country. But hey, we won't have any health bills!
An interesting description of Obama tax plan.
Any questions about why the richest 2% get the most tax breaks?
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the sa me amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
An interesting description of Obama tax plan.
And then we hear what the rich men have been saying. Warren Buffet has long complained that he and his peers are not taxed enough. A recent GAO study discovered that at least 50% of American corporations don't pay any taxes. The only place the tax cut does not appear - among the moderate and low income earners.
Wacko extremist conservatives whose power comes from legalized bribery would rather these realities are not discusses. Let's see. Whereas the income of the richest have increased to numbers never before seen in history, the income of the average America dropped by 2%.
Rush Limbaugh will never mention these numbers or what the richest men have long been saying. Warren Buffet long ago complained how he pays less taxes than his receptionist.
Any questions about why the richest 2% get the most tax breaks?
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the sa me amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Ohh - wow - I tried to check it out on snopes and it didn't come up. Oh well. My bad.
I took his name out so that I don't keep the incorrect info going.
Probably worth pointing out that, if you are a wealthy patron, there aren't many friendlier eateries than Uncle Sam's. I'm pretty sure they could stand a few more 'unfair' beer bills before that establishment became less appealing than others.
It's about balance. It's true, if you go too far, then you push the wealthy away to tax havens and other nations. You only have to look at the 'brain drain' in the UK when we operated the so-called Super Tax. We went too far. Now, I believe we have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction and our wealthiest people and businesses get it far too easy. But I would contend that America has a fair way to go before its wealthy start to feel even the beginnings of a tax pinch compared to those in many developed countries. The middle class meanwhile bear a disproportionately heavy burden. Damn right those guys in the middle should have their load lightened.
I think the moral of that story is, discounts are perceived as unfair so scrap them - everyone was happy until that happened.
Oh and use your fists for raising the beer glass rather than fighting, especially if you're being bought drinkd.
A friends take on it.
He is a far left liberal and his "distribution of wealth" is verging on socialism. BUT - There are many more "poor and lower class" people who will initially reap the rewards of this plan and be happy. As the wealthy, who really drive our economy get screwed, the tide will turn. This is a big fear of mine. Luckily I'm in the former not the latter group, so I'll have it good for awhile anyway - maybe.Do you remember Jimmy Carter and the 70's - how is this different?
My reply - No I don't remember...... Do any of you?
Be careful what you wish for.
The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.
So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.
Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!
"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."
This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.
And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."
It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."
So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:
A $500 "make work pay" payment.
A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.
There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.
It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.
"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."
Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.
Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?
The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.
"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."
First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.
"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."
He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.
Now that wasn't too hard, was it?
Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.htmlYou must be dizzy from all that spinning. :rolleyes:
I had to snip as the post was too long.
... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.
God's Candidate? Wow. I thought he was Muslim.
Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.
Those wonderful schools have been run by the Republican Government for 8 years - I should hope they
are wonderful.
"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."
This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.
Oh. If you're assuming a majority vote for Obama, then the majority of Americans are facile, shallow and stupid. Goodness. Well, you said it, I suppose you would know.
And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."
Hang on - one half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. At present. Under the current Government. So I guess that's okay, right? But how can working people benefit in that case? Because of course it's about the workers and not about those who have not earned it.
So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One:
A $500 "make work pay" payment.
A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.
Sooooooo, all those seem to be about people in work, getting rewarded for making choices that are good for America and good for the world.
There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure.
Eh? It seems skewed to benefit families, those in work, those paying mortgages, those in education, those making ecological choices... Can't see no benefits fo crack hos there bro.
[quote]"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."
Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.
Hmmmm. How many people here work for a small business. Raise your hands? New jobs, yes. Because established companies don't create new jobs, they just expand. New businesses are small businesses and they create jobs out of nothing.
Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison...
What? "Let's say" that this isn't the case at all and play with the figures that way. Let's say does not present any accurate facts, it's supposition.
The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.
So the taxes are higher for the most successful businesses. I'm shocked. Bear in mind they are taxed on profits, and salaries are accounted for before profits are calculated. Still, we'll see shall we. If all the small businesses go to the wall if Obama is elected we'll know you were right.
"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."
First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time.
Hang on, we're back to all Americans are stupid again, aren't we?
"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."
He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies...
And now we're back to Let's Say. Ooh I like this game!
Now that wasn't too hard, was it?
No it wasn't, but then I wasn't educated in America, which apparently makes you a moron.
Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.
Oh right. Blimey, and I thought you were serious about all the above. Now I realise it was just a joke and that was all a pile of shit. Phew! Thanks!
Just goes to show we each see what we want to see. Yay, 8 days left.
I know.
And I do accept my bias.
But on the flip side I don't watch Michael Moore films now because I know you could drive a bus through his arguments and it annoys me.
OMG - Did you just find that out? He is as full of shit, if not more, than the asshats on the right. The problem is position allows him to reach a lot more people than the others.
I didn't just find that out, no.
I came to that conclusion watching his first film with my right-wing bf.
He was so impressed that I could spot left wing spin we had fantastic sex.
Thanks Mike.
God's Candidate? Wow. I thought he was Muslim.
Hey Muslims believe in God, but I believe Obama is a Christian.
Those wonderful schools have been run by the Republican Government for 8 years - I should hope they are wonderful.
Actualy, our republickins don't run the schools, neither do the demoncrats for that matter.
Boortz rocks... :p
You must be dizzy from all that spinning. :rolleyes:
Now Bruce, your resolute intellectual dishonesty does you no credit whatsoever.
If you cannot sustain a belief in the Democrats without insisting that clear-eyed analysis of the situation that is unfavorable to the Dem's economic illiteracies must somehow be driven by some hidden agenda and be mendacious, you probably are backing the wrong horse, aren't you?
The Dems aren't good enough for
either of us.I'll vote for anyone you're not.:p
The Dems aren't good enough for either of us.
And the Republicans aren't good for anyone, anywhere...except for rich people. The rest of us are cannon fodder and cows to be milked.
Face it...they all suck.
I have to say that I find it pretty funny when UG talks about the Dems being illiterate. He obviously hasn't heard Sarah Palin try and make a speech yet...and let's not forget Georgies oratory skills. lol
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says after the election she would like to see Congress back in session to pass a second stimulus package.
"Grow the economy, create good paying jobs, in the future in a way that is a green recovery, geared toward Main Street and is fiscally sound," said Pelosi.
And on concerns that Democrats might control both the White House and Congress she said the following:
"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi.
In Cleveland Monday morning, Senator John McCain continued to link Barack Obama with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, accusing them of wanting to tax Americans and spend their money.
"Do you want to keep it and invest it in your future, or have it taken by the most liberal person to ever run for the presidency, and the Democratic leaders the most liberal who have been running Congress for the past two years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. You know my friends, this is a dangerous threesome," said McCain.
In Canton, Ohio, Barack Obama responded:
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from. You make a big election about small things. Ohio we are here to say not this time, not this year, not when so much is at stake,'" said Obama.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats will do a better job.
"will do better job" This is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off. Her congress has done the worst job of any congress in history - How could they possibly do any worse? Oh notice that she trots out another "stimulus package" READ PORK that can't wait till January? Gee - congress created this mess and it took 115+ in pork and bribes to pass that - How much is this next one gonna cost?
will do better job" This is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off. Her congress has done the worst job of any congress in history - How could they possibly do any worse? Oh notice that she trots out another "stimulus package"
Let's see. She is only doing what then entire George Jr administration has been doing for eight years to create this problem. Oh. The Republican Congress also eliminated the regulations that made this whole meltdown possible. But somehow the people who created this meltdown by also lowering the American income by 2% - they don't quality as a 'worst Congress ever'? Your wacko extremist bias is showing again. Put down your skirt.
tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?
And the Republicans aren't good for anyone, anywhere...except for rich people. The rest of us are cannon fodder and cows to be milked.
Face it...they all suck.
Brother, if Obama is elected you are about to get milked like a fucking whore with triplets. Let the milking begin and don't tell me I didn't tell ya so.
tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?
Some of the so many posted previously in other threads.
Others not mentioned. Basel 1 that defines equity required to be held. Investment banks were exempted from this international standard by the George Jr administration. Where did the liquidity crisis hit hardest? Where the exemptions were was most aggressively flaunted.
Basel 2 which addressed these stability threats to include the latest investment vehicles. Basel 2 is standard throughout the world. Large American (international) banks that also had to meet Basel 2 remained stable. But George Jr refused to implement Basel 2. After all, with higher debt to equity ratios, then profits can be higher. Basel 2 would only harm profits - and those campaign contributions.
Previously noted: the 1990s Republican Congress threatened to eliminate all SEC funding if Clinton tried to increase SEC enforcement. We liked spread sheets myths in Waste Management, Tyco, and later in Enron. We liked letting them create a mythical CA energy crisis - and no one gets investigated. Clinton administration was forced to have an SEC without any funding increases - a compromise with the Republicans who threatened to eliminate the SEC. Oklahoma had to prosecute before George Jr would consider prosecuting Enron.
Suddenly mortgages are issued with virtually no underwriting? This all happened because no regulations were changed? No. This happened with S&L style changes combined with diminished regulation enforcement. No wonder Harvey Pitts, doing the party agenda, refused to accept more money for the SEC even after Enron.
These stories are long, numerous, AND explain why, during the current meltdown, nobody can trust the fiscal stability of their counter parties - the freezing of credit markets.
Not that I expect loyal Republican extremist to admit to any of this. In fact, Republican extremists will even deny that investment banks were permitted by George Jr's administration to increase debt to equity ratios from 12:1 to 30:1. Or that AIG's ratio may be $1trillion to $67billion. Clearly the meltdown is only the usual cyclic market activity.
One would expect the Congress and administration to crack down on equity rating agencies after Long Term Capital Management. Nope. Another precursor to what has now happened – ignored because we did not want to regulate our financial firms. After LTCM, little was done. Finance corporations that most need more regulation and have a long history of deserving such regulation. Finance industry does not create American wealth – too often leaches on what creates American wealth.
What do we do? Predicted long ago by this poster - the government will put out something under $2trillion in corporate welfare. Instead of eliminating the biggest reason for our meltdown - top management - instead we are rewarding this nation's least productive companies.
Well GM will get another $10billion for being one of the most anti-American companies in this country. How do they qualify? First they must become more of a finance company. Why do we not reward productive companies with $2trillion? Instead we reward the companies who get the most regulation? Instead we protect the management most responsible for this meltdown? Yes, that is what the Republicans did for over a decade and now what some Democrats are doing in a desperate (and somewhat misguided) attempt to fix the damage.
What created the S&L crisis? Deregulation. What created this current economic meltdown? Insufficient regulation and so little enforcement that everyone rewrote contract to be 'regulated' by the Feds - not by the states where regulations were not diminished or eliminated.
Even the unibomber has more education than TheMercenary. Even the unibomber does not worship what George Jr tells him to think. So which one is crazier - TheMercenary or the unibomber? Good question.
Some of the so many posted previously in other threads.
Point to ONE. Just ONE.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html
While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector. Indeed, the only significant legislation with any effect on financial risk-taking was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, adopted during the first Bush administration in the wake of the collapse of the savings and loans (S&Ls). FDICIA, however, substantially tightened commercial bank and S&L regulations, including prompt corrective action when a bank's capital declines below adequate levels and severe personal fines if management violates laws or regulations.
. . .
Basel 1 that defines equity required to be held. Investment banks were exempted from this international standard by the George Jr administration. ... But George Jr refused to implement Basel 2.
[citation needed]
Meanwhile at the liberal thugocracy front,
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.
The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.
"Joe the Plumber": whatever you think of him, he has now been searched for by public officials at four Ohio databases, including welfare, child support, and unemployment compensation.
Their defense:
such searches are routine when somebody is thrust into a public spotlight. :eek: :mad2:
Lesson learned:
it's dangerous to speak politically in public.
Meanwhile at the liberal thugocracy front,
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101
"Joe the Plumber": whatever you think of him, he has now been searched for by public officials at four Ohio databases, including welfare, child support, and unemployment compensation.
Their defense: such searches are routine when somebody is thrust into a public spotlight. :eek: :mad2:
Lesson learned: it's dangerous to speak politically in public.
Welcome to the new liberal Government of the US. Motto: "Trust us, we know what is best for you."
Here is another one, "If we don't like what you have to say we will make laws to muzzle you":
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm?page=2I really do feel for this guy. I know he was probably a plant at the Obama rally, but I doubt he was prepared to be under this much scrutiny. If he was a plant, shame on the republicans for shoving him into the limelight...and whether he was or not, shame on the rest for pursuing him.
Oh don't feel sorry for the man. He's gotten himself an agent!
"Bush Did It!" - tw
TheMercenary could not even graduate from college. Even the unibomber did that. Even George Jr did that. Even Sarah Palin is rumored to have done that.
TheMercenary could not even graduate from college. Even the unibomber did that. Even George Jr did that. Even Sarah Palin is rumored to have done that.
I graduated from college 2 times! :D So why did you delete your multi-paragraph rambling's on tw. Does it make you angry when I make fun of how you blame everything on Bush and make completely false claims without any footnotes or citations?
Originally Posted by tw View Post
TheMercenary could not even graduate from college. Even the unibomber did that. Even George Jr did that. Even Sarah Palin is rumored to have done that.
That looks like a hypocritical statement. IS that tw attacking or mocking or disparaging another poster? Is that not what tw claims to dislike abhor and accuse others for doing? Seems like it to me.
Point to ONE. Just ONE.
Where does the FDIC legislation make Enron accounting illegal? It does not. The 1991 legislation addresses principles from Basel 1 - an international standard for how much equity a bank must hold. Equity in banking – not public corporation accounting standards.
BTW, the US is the only nation that does not comply to the International standards for accounting? The US standards are different from the rest of the world.
Only American banks required to meet Basel 2 are those who operate internationally. And those are the banks that have been so stable during this meltdown. Where did George Jr implement Basel 2? He did not even do that.
Enron style accounting remains so common as to even be evident in AIG just before its collapse. The detail cited in numerous other posts. Yes, the auditor had doubts. But today's deregulated accounting and near zero SEC enforcement made it difficult even for the internal auditor or PriceWaterhouse to see that AIG was collapsing.
Fortunately we have the accounting that a business school graduate - George Jr - wants. So what happened to all that cash in the Highway Trust Fund that the spread sheets say is still there? Sabanes-Oxley does not even require the president to sign off on the accounting.
UT tells us that the new American deregulated accounting standards are good? UT - show me where Enron style accounting practices were made illegal. You cannot. AIG was fully involved in hiding losses even just before the collapse. So what are these 'surprise' AIG losses that have already consumed $120billion? UT tells us everyone knew about these losses? Hardly. Due to today's deregulated accounting, nobody knows how much more AIG will lose.
I graduated from college 2 times!
So you are a liar as well as a poster of insults and mockery. How curious that right wing wacko extremists are perverse liars.
Why do you want to turn the Cellar into a playground of insult and mockery?
I don't know anything about Merc's truthiness, but I know liars attract liars, and they run in packs. I hope it's not catching.
It's pretty simple, someone lies once about something major, they'll lie about everything else too.
Sad, ain't it? :headshake
So you are a liar as well as a poster of insults and mockery. How curious that right wing wacko extremists are perverse liars.
Why do you want to turn the Cellar into a playground of insult and mockery?
:D
So you are a liar as well as a poster of insults and mockery. How curious that right wing wacko extremists are perverse liars.
:D 2 times! :D
TW #82: The Republican Congress also eliminated the regulations that made this whole meltdown possible.
L123 #83: tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?
TW #85: Some of the so many posted previously in other threads.
UT #88: Point to ONE. Just ONE.
TW #97: (doesn't point to one)
Question is repeated for clarity: [SIZE=4]
tw, which regulations did the republican congress eliminate that caused the current mess?[/SIZE]
adult is to go and find the previously posted replies
childish is to yell and scream in bold letters
i really regret losing the password for tw. any chance you could reset that and set it to a new email for me?
its the same as anonymous now
uh oh - this sounds dangerous.
yes, no good can possibly come of it.
"Joe the Plumber": whatever you think of him, he has now been searched for by public officials at four Ohio databases, including welfare, child support, and unemployment compensation.
Their defense: such searches are routine when somebody is thrust into a public spotlight.
Lesson learned: it's dangerous to speak politically in public.
If you're wanted for breaking the law, it's dangerous to do a lot of things that might let the authorities know where to find you.
I really do feel for this guy. I know he was probably a plant at the Obama rally, but I doubt he was prepared to be under this much scrutiny. If he was a plant, shame on the republicans for shoving him into the limelight...and whether he was or not, shame on the rest for pursuing him.
Oh yeah - the R's picked HIM as a plant - hardly. But I agree with you on the shame on the D's for hounding the living shit out of Joe NOBODY.
It's like this:
You take off your shirt and wave your titties all over the place. Then you say "STOP LOOKING AT MY TITTIES!"
If you believe that he wasn't planted, you're more oblivious than I could have believed. Even the Rs aren't denying that.
Shove your "hard working American family man downtrodden business owner who doesn't really own a business" in people's face, then people get to gawk at the hard working titties.
Currently there is absolutely no evidence to prove or support the notion that Joe the Plumber was a plant. If there is I would like someone to show it.
Except that he hadn't broken the law Clod, so S123's analogy is kind of like getting your titties put up on the Internet by your doctor when you announced to the public that you have a broken toe. If you don't want your titties on the Internet, don't complain about a broken toe.
Now the official who looked into the database -- a maxed-out Obama donor, according to public record that anybody can look up -- that was breaking the law.
I say let her go if she puts up her titties on the net.
I want to see them first. Then you can fire her.
I'll agree that the employee was way out of line. When I read that I thought "Uh, privacy laws, folks."
The initial act of putting him out there, unless you're completely naive about this campaign process, was so freaking obvious. Come on.
I'll agree that the employee was way out of line. When I read that I thought "Uh, privacy laws, folks."
The initial act of putting him out there, unless you're completely naive about this campaign process, was so freaking obvious. Come on.
You want to believe it is true. But really no one has any evidence that it is the case. How about this? The guy is just some joe who asks an honest question that totally catches Obamy and his handlers off guard. Obamy steps on it big time wth his response and the repubs exploit it. Much more logical and believable.
No Merc, the simplicity & logic of your reasoning makes me incredulous. Its far more believable that there is a grand conspiracy.
What I love is how t-dub has you two pegged! :lol: Silly young lovers.
I could write your posts before you do. I'm more inclined to actually listen to Merc, because he does tend to say more than "look at how you suck...your posts suck, hey everyone can I get some validation that t-dub sucks because I am like a little dog in the tall grass always jumping up to see what everyone else is doing."
A short liar AND a boring jellyfish. Seriously, you should reconsider your existence.
:lol2:
What I love is how t-dub has you two pegged!
Now that right there is some funny shite. :lol2: :lame: :fumette:
Time for the chime in:
C: Yes, you're right about the shite!
Wait for it...
Kind of like Steve and Edie being Sinatra's puppies.
I could write your posts before you do. I'm more inclined to actually listen to Merc, because he does tend to say more than "look at how you suck...your posts suck, hey everyone can I get some validation that t-dub sucks because I am like a little dog in the tall grass always jumping up to see what everyone else is doing."
It really bothers you that people agree on something you and others may disagree on. It's not that big of a deal. This is just a conversation. I mean you don't have to join in it if you don't want to, I would rather you did join the conversation. But if you don't understand the subject you don't need to join it if you choose not to, I don't think anyone is going to think less of you. I don't fully understand it all either, but I am trying. And the more I educate myself the more I realize if Obamy gets elected this country may get something they didn't bargin for in the long run. Hey I am good for it. Be careful what you wish for. I think post election we are going to go through some serious economic hardships, significant lay offs, corprate flight, followed by more lay offs, and more people who can't pay the bills or feed their families. Hey that's just me MHO. Good luck.
Except that he hadn't broken the law Clod, so S123's analogy is kind of like getting your titties put up on the Internet by your doctor when you announced to the public that you have a broken toe. If you don't want your titties on the Internet, don't complain about a broken toe.
Now the official who looked into the database -- a maxed-out Obama donor, according to public record that anybody can look up -- that was breaking the law.
Right, he hadn't broken the law (i.e., been behind on child support payments or received welfare when he had demonstrable income) which means he wasn't in the databases to find in the first place. From your article:
"Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance is receiving significant media attention which suggests that the person appears to have available financial resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to take note and respond," Jones-Kelley wrote.
The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential, she wrote.
Furthermore, it's not illegal to search for someone in the database, that's what they're there for. When you are pulled over for speeding, they check you in the outstanding warrants database too. It would have been illegal to publicly release someone's welfare or unemployment status, but they didn't do that--and in the case of child support, there's nothing private about it in the first place. The dollar amounts are part of public court proceedings, and if you don't pay you have committed a crime which is also public information.
TheMercenary, I think all those things are going to happen regardless of the outcome of the election - in fact, they're already happening.
"The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential, she wrote."
Really? So how did that info make it to the press???? Hmmmmm. How is that we are talking about those details now????? Hmmmmm. Seems like someone on the inside with an axe to grid got the info out to all of us so we could talk about it.
TheMercenary, I think all those things are going to happen regardless of the outcome of the election - in fact, they're already happening.
You may be right. When I read the reports of what AGI and many of the banks are doing with the Bail Out Cash it makes me think they are still not being appropriately regulated.
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
I could write your posts before you do. I'm more inclined to actually listen to Merc, because he does tend to say more than "look at how you suck...your posts suck, hey everyone can I get some validation that t-dub sucks because I am like a little dog in the tall grass always jumping up to see what everyone else is doing."
Oh sorry - didn't read this as I still have you on ignore ad you and I agreed to do not too long ago. I stuck by it. Guess you didn't. Anyway...
Yeh thats pretty funny, comparing me to the little dog jumping up for attention. Hmm, I'm not half the attention whore you are deary. Please put me back on ignore like we agreed. kthxbai.
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 View Post
I could write your posts before you do. I'm more inclined to actually listen to Merc, because he does tend to say more than "look at how you suck...your posts suck, hey everyone can I get some validation that t-dub sucks because I am like a little dog in the tall grass always jumping up to see what everyone else is doing."
Oh sorry - didn't read this as I still have you on ignore ad you and I agreed to do not too long ago. I stuck by it. Guess you didn't. Anyway...
Yeh thats pretty funny, comparing me to the little dog jumping up for attention. Hmm, I'm not half the attention whore you are deary. Please put me back on ignore like we agreed. kthxbai.
Bwaaahaaahaaa...you weren't ignoring. HA. I knowed it!
Oh, I am an attention whore. That isn't what I was saying about you, deerie: I was saying you are a namby pamby little man who wouldn't take a poo if you weren't completely sure at least one other person on earth poos as well. :urinal: I guess your poor reading skills are why you have been asking since April "oh dear me, who should I vote for, what should I do? Where are my smelling salts?"
kthxbai!!!!!!!! :grinnylov
It really bothers you that people agree on something you and others may disagree on. It's not that big of a deal. This is just a conversation. I mean you don't have to join in it if you don't want to, I would rather you did join the conversation. But if you don't understand the subject you don't need to join it if you choose not to, I don't think anyone is going to think less of you. I don't fully understand it all either, but I am trying. And the more I educate myself the more I realize if Obamy gets elected this country may get something they didn't bargin for in the long run. Hey I am good for it. Be careful what you wish for. I think post election we are going to go through some serious economic hardships, significant lay offs, corprate flight, followed by more lay offs, and more people who can't pay the bills or feed their families. Hey that's just me MHO. Good luck.
Thanks Merc, for the thoughtful response. Yes, I am having fun and being evil at you and (mostly) c-man's expense, but my prob with him came about a long time ago.
I don't agree with you, but when have I EVER been able to bring about points that I might have without you and (mostly) Robin chiming in to tell me I'm stupid. And by ME I mean anyone who has hope that Obama is the real deal.
I truly hope that whomever is elected gives our country some hope. I did not vote for the last 8 years of stupidity, and I didn't even vote for "my" congressman. I have hope in Obama. I could be way wrong. Don't you think that I wonder sometimes how I will feel if I am completely wrong and we get f*cked even more? As much as I feel that McCain, and by extension Palin, are wrong for our country, I haven't said the shitty things I've heard from you and Tonto's mouths.
So I'm glad we can agree to disagree Merc. I think both our hearts might be in the right place. :)
I am not telling you that you are stupid. I am just having an exchange of ideas to maybe get you to understand where I am coming from in my thinking. I did not vote for Obama or McCain. But I voted. I don't want to see any group suffer. I just think that people are being sold a bill of goods that will be impossible for Obama to deliver on. I will be around to remind him and his supporters of the difference between what you were told you were promised and what you got in it's place.
I think every president since the beginning has sold a bill of goods they can't ALWAYS NECESSARILY deliver, at least the ones who had to campaign. Remember "read my lips...blah blah blah"?
They deliver what they can, what they can get through congress or whatever, but they have always and will always present it as "this is what I'm gonna do." THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. And I, at least, vote for the one whose IDEAS most closely match the things I find important. THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
Can I have an itemized list of any of the past 10 president's "campaign" promises and how many of those promises actually came to fruition?
Obama is no different, just because you don't like him. I seriously hope you don't point for 4 years, because then I will have to ignore you. ;)
Obama is no different, just because you don't like him. I seriously hope you don't point for 4 years, because then I will have to ignore you. ;)
He hasn't won yet, and the Democrats have a long record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Just sayin'...
Personally, I think the election is going to be given to Obama because this country will go ballistic if it has to deal with another four years of the last 8 years worth of republican crap. O'bama is really going to be nothing more than a panacea for the really bad ill will that has been brewing in the voting public.
I think every president since the beginning has sold a bill of goods they can't ALWAYS NECESSARILY deliver, at least the ones who had to campaign. Remember "read my lips...blah blah blah"?
They deliver what they can, what they can get through congress or whatever, but they have always and will always present it as "this is what I'm gonna do." THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. And I, at least, vote for the one whose IDEAS most closely match the things I find important. THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
Can I have an itemized list of any of the past 10 president's "campaign" promises and how many of those promises actually came to fruition?
Obama is no different, just because you don't like him. I seriously hope you don't point for 4 years, because then I will have to ignore you. ;)
Certainly you must feel that this is different and the media circus and supposed aura around this guy is different? It is like how people swooned over the Beatles in the 60's, a rock star mentality that makes people stop thinking with their heads.
"The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential, she wrote."
Really? So how did that info make it to the press???? Hmmmmm. How is that we are talking about those details now????? Hmmmmm. Seems like someone on the inside with an axe to grid got the info out to all of us so we could talk about it.
How did what info make it into the press? The fact that they did the searches? The
results of the searches are still private. We choose to assume he hasn't broken the law because they haven't brought any charges on him, and
he says that he has no child support to pay and has never received welfare. He made that part public.
How did what info make it into the press? The fact that they did the searches? The results of the searches are still private. We choose to assume he hasn't broken the law because they haven't brought any charges on him, and he says that he has no child support to pay and has never received welfare. He made that part public.
Info that he even owed child support. That he even owed back taxes. That only came out after someone did a search and put it in the press. That is the reason that an investigation was started in the first place to see how that info made it to the press and who did the searches. The only thing that may have been protected to this point is PID, ssn, ex-wife's name and address, etc.
Certainly you must feel that this is different and the media circus and supposed aura around this guy is different? It is like how people swooned over the Beatles in the 60's, a rock star mentality that makes people stop thinking with their heads.
And there you go again. Why do you not only assume that Obama supporters are mindless sheep, you damn near assert it?
I am not stupid. I read. I listen. I make up my own mind. I find it extremely insulting that you imply I'm an idiot. It isn't about his supposed aura. But we have gotten to the gist of every post you have made in regards to this election: you are bound and determined to enlighten us who are blind, to steer those of us with no wheel, and deliver us from our mindless following of a cult leader.
I thought you just really had strong opinions. I see now you think I'm stupid in comparison to you and yours.
Thanks though, I'll live in my fog, if that's what you think it is. I don't think it's a fog, however. I may not have 47000 college degrees, rkz (oh, sorry) but I have an education, and I assure you I'm no mindless fool nor am I one to follow a crowd, unless that crowd is right, in my (informed and aware) eyes.
He hasn't won yet, and the Democrats have a long record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Just sayin'...
And by snatching you mean stealing, right?
Toledo police-records clerk Julie McConnell has been charged with gross misconduct for accessing the Law Enforcement Automated Data System to retrieve Wurzelbacher's address. She reportedly did it as a favor to a reporter.
Authorities also say the Cuyahoga County social-services office was compromised and an outside contractor with access to the state attorney general's test account similarly searched Wurzelbacher's data.
Moreover, his driver's-license and vehicle-registration information were obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
Guess the D's are learning. The R's are not the only ones playin this game.
And there you go again. Why do you not only assume that Obama supporters are mindless sheep, you damn near assert it?
I am not stupid. I read. I listen. I make up my own mind. I find it extremely insulting that you imply I'm an idiot. It isn't about his supposed aura. But we have gotten to the gist of every post you have made in regards to this election: you are bound and determined to enlighten us who are blind, to steer those of us with no wheel, and deliver us from our mindless following of a cult leader.
I thought you just really had strong opinions. I see now you think I'm stupid in comparison to you and yours.
Thanks though, I'll live in my fog, if that's what you think it is. I don't think it's a fog, however. I may not have 47000 college degrees, rkz (oh, sorry) but I have an education, and I assure you I'm no mindless fool nor am I one to follow a crowd, unless that crowd is right, in my (informed and aware) eyes.
You are reading to much into my comments. Take a chill pill, I made no such assertions. If you put yourself into a group of people who are blindly voting for Obama then that is something you ascribe to yourself, not me.
No, I am not reading too much into your comments. You likened Obama to the Beatles and his following to a thousand screaming teenyboppers. Surely you have more respect for us than that, and surely you aren't going to go back to the "you just didn't understand what I said" argument when what you said was very, very clear.
No, I am not reading too much into your comments. You likened Obama to the Beatles and his following to a thousand screaming teenyboppers. Surely you have more respect for us than that, and surely you aren't going to go back to the "you just didn't understand what I said" argument when what you said was very, very clear.
SO basically you are saying that there are not a majority of voters who are voting for Obama because 1) Anyone but McCain/Republickin and or 2)He is black and or 3)They just like him better because he is young and or 4)He sounds so hip when he talks.
And that there are not people just voting for McCain because 1)Anyone but a Democrat and or 2)He is right-to-life and or 3)He is white and or 4)He has been around a lot longer.
IMHO there are a lot of people on both sides of the issue who have no freaking clue what either canidate stands for.
Oh for fuck's sake. Quit lumping me into this "everybody" and quit trying to find ways to show that anything you've said regarding WHY people choose who they vote for is any different than any other reason people have ever chosen who they vote for.
My god do you listen to yourself?
Charisma in a pol you support, is a remarkable leadership quality.
In a pol you don't support, is fiendish trickery.
Me, I've come to admire it. Getting people to like you. I wish I were better at it. I wish I had Reagan's natural disarming charm, Clinton's conveyance of immediate compassion, Obama's remarkable poise. All three are men at ease with themselves.
Info that he even owed child support. That he even owed back taxes.
As I already pointed out, child support is public information to begin with. Ever check The Smoking Gun? All court documents are public unless they are specially sealed by the judge for some reason. And owing back taxes is a crime, so as soon as they charge you with it, that too becomes public information. They did not release his tax returns (private information), they did not reveal whether he has received welfare/unemployment (we assume because he didn't, but if he did, it must have been under legitimate circumstances, because they didn't press charges--if they had, then yes, those charges would have been public,) and the one person who illegally gave out information (the police officer who gave his home address to a reporter) is being punished accordingly.
Most people would be appalled to learn how much of their information is 100% public.
The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation's first African-American candidacy would play a big role.
Barbara KelleyPush past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real "change" being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America's idea of itself.
I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.
The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.
(continues)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.htmlMerc, I often don't know if I'm reading something you've written or just something you pasted in.
Its an article from the Wall street Journal.
I especially don't like the last paragraph - hope thats not true. If so then we are moving into a plan/policy that has repeatedly failed and been proven to be a disaster.
Merc, I often don't know if I'm reading something you've written or just something you pasted in.
Sorry about that. Yes it is from the wsj and is only the first part of the article it continues in the link. Just another assessment. I hope it is not true. The times are uncertain.
19 months into the campaign, Obama used some boilerplate lefty lingo and everybody saw it as an opportunity to lose their shit.
End of the world sighted. Cats and dogs, living together. Four days out.
I'll be out of the country for all the insanity - THANK GOD.
I think if Obama wins, he will be an effective, smart, and I dare say moderately conservative leader (to the frustration of the true left), knowing he needs to build consensus to tackle the economy, healthcare, the wars, energy, etc.
I hope he gets the chance. Oh, and I think the temperament and verbal ability is a plus.
plus....he's got soft hands and is a great kisser.
Why do you not only assume that Obama supporters are mindless sheep, you damn near assert it?
Well -- I for one have to. Having read; having observed.
What kind of sheep-fucking
idiot drags his feet about winning a war against totalitarian, unabashedly illiberal and oppressive enemies? That's been the Democratic senior leadership all over. Mindless, undemocratic, and unstrategic, focused not on winning the war for humanity (democracy being indisputably better for humans than the Islamists' alternative) but on winning the White House for partisanry's sake.
And, for some people,
this is all just fine. Hunky-dory.You're such an idiot. I can't BELIEVE Merc calls tw Ted K...you're the craziest son of a bitch to ever float down the proverbial pike. Cuckoo cuckoo.:crazy:
kthxbai
sheep-fucking idiot
Wow. You're classy.
Hey, sheep do tend to fuck other sheep. It's the natural order of things. That makes for a pretty smart sheep, IMHO.
♪Sheeple
Sheeple who need sheeple
Are the luckiest sheeple in the world.♪
Oh, how embarrassing. I hate it when I break into song...
:blush:
[COLOR="Silver"]the music notes were handmade for dar![/COLOR]
[COLOR="Silver"]the music notes were handmade for dar![/COLOR]
:blush:
Well -- I for one have to. Having read; having observed.
What kind of sheep-fucking idiot drags his feet about winning a war against totalitarian, unabashedly illiberal and oppressive enemies? That's been the Democratic senior leadership all over. Mindless, undemocratic, and unstrategic, focused not on winning the war for humanity (democracy being indisputably better for humans than the Islamists' alternative) but on winning the White House for partisanry's sake.
And, for some people, this is all just fine. Hunky-dory.
<sarcasm>
Well isn't it kind of us to raise up those poor misguided Muslims. I'm sure all was done in the spirit of Christian kindness. It's the white man's burden but we must bear it as best we can.
</sarcasm>
I notice we haven't gone in to help those poor misguided souls in North Korea yet. I wonder why that is?
If you look up imperialism in the dictionary, I think you'll find a picture of UG.
If you look up complete fucking mentalist in the dictionary, I think you'll find a picture of UG.
Fixed that for ya
Ah, ah, ah, you two... how do you call yourself disciples of liberty, or indeed a freedom-minded anything, without a willingness to hang tyrants and shoot their lackeys until they decide anything but democracy is a nonstarter? If you aren't a democrat, you're a tyrant, and that just sucks in all directions.
I know I'm vehement about this, but here I stand and I can no other. I see neither of you are managing a germane response, preferring instead to shield your eyes from the light of liberty. If you can't stand the light, how bright are you, then?
What are you going to do now that the Dems are in power UG? How are you going to manage? Will we see less or more of you around here?
He already lives in what may be the most liberal state in the country. I see nothing changing. :)
Perhaps you'll see more, Ali. I'll be the more needed, after all. I still wander in here every couple days to a week already, and I don't see that changing much.
Well that's good. I'd miss you if you stopped posting so much. ;)
CHANGE, we want CHANGE. :lol2:
I'd even miss you Bruce. :)
[Fishes two cents from pocket, tosses these to Bruce]
You will when Australia blocks all sites with adult content.
lol....it wont happen, so I don't even have to entertain the thought. :)
:eek:
You're such an idiot. I can't BELIEVE Merc calls tw Ted K...you're the craziest son of a bitch to ever float down the proverbial pike. Cuckoo cuckoo.:crazy:
kthxbai
Um... pikes are roads. If you're floating down one, you've had a bad hurricane or something.
Metaphors mixed While-U-Wait.
Oh, like that, huh?
Here's another one: You have to pee like a racist.
Button your seat belts, I can read UG like an open can of worms, and he's not the sharpest marble in the drawer.
:lol:
Um... pikes are roads. If you're floating down one, you've had a bad hurricane or something.
Floating down the pike means your ungrounded.;)
Floating down the pike means your ungrounded.;)
My ungrounded
what?
Zinged, zanged, zung, from Zen.
The first part of peeing like a racist is to lift the sheet well up. Next is don't whiz on the burning cross. It'll get you talked about.
Oh, like that, huh?
Here's another one: You have to pee like a racist.
Sort of like peeing on the toilet seat in a unisex bathroom? :D
He already lives in what may be the most liberal state in the country. I see nothing changing. :)
I can see UG leaving the country and joining Slang on a road trip through Southeast Asia. Sort of like Hope & Crosby, but with guns, beer, and prostitutes.:D
Sounds like a great time - I'm in!
Go for it, I can see you doing Hunter Thompson. :haha:
Fear and Loathing in The Cellar? I'm in......
I can't believe how far this thread has degenerated. lol
You kids are so silly... :rolleyes:
Go for it, I can see you doing Hunter Thompson. :haha:
Class is many things but a necrophiliac?!!!
I can see UG leaving the country and joining Slang on a road trip through Southeast Asia. Sort of like Hope & Crosby, but with guns, beer, and prostitutes.:D
Cue up Zevon's "Lawyers, Guns, And Money" on the in-dash CD. Make sure the cooler has plenty of Singha beer. But no Mekong brand whiskey. I learned a life lesson once; never drink anything that only gets a lukewarm endorsement from an Australian Army infantryman.
("We are
not drinking Mekong!!") /Sideways
Whatever we use for firearms depends on what threats we're planning to encounter. Pistols can be small and innocent; selective fire assault rifles are only de rigueur on the rifle-rack up in opium country.
Slang's never mentioned his singing voice to me, and I dance pretty clumpish. Maybe we can do the harmony parts of "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner."
[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Time time time, for another peaceful war[/COLOR] Roland the headless Thompson gunner [COLOR="DarkOrange"]Time stands still for Roland 'til he evens up the score[/COLOR] Norway's bravest son
[COLOR="DarkOrange"]They can still see his headless body[/COLOR] stalking through the night
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
Larry M. Bartels, Princeton political scientist, wrote in his book "Unequal Democracy"...
"On average, the real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans."
For decades, rising inequality coincided with conservative electoral success, because voters were largely ignorant of the effects of tax-code changes and other economic policies, those in power were unresponsive to the concerns of working-class citizens, and broader income growth occurred in election years.
In other words, the causes of inequality are essentially political--an insight that suggests that Obama might use economic policy to begin reversing a decades-long trend.
George Packer
The New Liberalism
Newsweek Magazine
November 17, 2008
Have hope! It's ALL we have left!
Oh, I would bleed to love her.
I learned a life lesson once; never drink anything that only gets a lukewarm endorsement from an Australian Army infantryman.
("We are not drinking Mekong!!") /Sideways
That must be some seriously dodgy stuff. The Australian palate recognises three grades of spirits:
Knickersoff (suitable for women)
Rocket fuel (suitable for men)
Window cleaner (Suitable for teenagers who haven't learnt better yet)
Mind you ...
I learned a life lesson once;
[COLOR="Wheat"]Must ... not ... willfully ... misinterpret ... ... ... must ... ignore ... opportunity ... for ... sarcastic ... comment ... oh fuckit[/COLOR]
I hope you learn another one soon. ;)
Oh, me too. I always like to get better. But not generally in accord with the lights of the "leave totalitarians alone" mentality that plagues so many in the Cellar, which I reprehend as permitting oppression, nurturing tyranny, and not being liberationist enough. That's the thing I really, really like about George W. Bush -- he does the liberating things the anti-Bush CellarDwellars just can't connect with, to their enduring shame. This guy really appreciated what it takes to liberate the oppressed. Naturally, his wisdom in the matter impresses.
Mekong brand whiskey is quite raw and clearly never saw the inside of a cask. Goes -- or did -- for about fifty cents US the half liter. I think they construct the stuff in patent stills and assemble it like cheap gin.
I've called the stuff "burner fuel" on a whiskey website. The Australian infantryman in question told me it was okay mixed with Coke, but advised me against taking it without. He was indeed correct.
Posted by David Boaz
Paging Naomi Klein. In her book The Shock Doctrine, the left-wing polemicist claimed that right-wing governments — which she defined very broadly — take advantage of crises, or “shocks,” to implement their dastardly policies of free trade, privatization, and tax cuts. Well, one government has now announced its intention to take advantage of an economic crisis to implement “things you could not do before.” And since this government no doubt includes a lot of people who have read Naomi Klein, she may very well be able to take credit for giving them the idea.
According to the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Obama’s first and most central appointee is excited at the opportunities presented by the current economic shock:
Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking to a Wall Street Journal conclave of business leaders Tuesday, said the economic crisis facing the country is “an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Klein’s fans would be all over that if a Republican had said it. Instead, Paul Krugman praises that very line. Maybe he’s learned a few things from Naomi Klein, too.
In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs demonstrated that government growth in the United States has not been slow and steady, year in and year out. Rather, its scope and power tend to shoot up during wars and economic crises. Occasionally, around the world, there have been instances where a crisis led to free-market reforms. Generally, though, governments seek to expand their power, and they take advantage of crises to do so. But they rarely spell their intentions out as clearly as Rahm Emanuel did.
I think the real question here is: why do right-wingers, those most oppressive of oppressive peoples, think liberal thinking is a thug thing?
Ever work in a state hospital under republicans? THAT is a thugocracy. My own state hospitals motto was thus: Whoever is least qualified WINS!
And how do monkeys possess spanking? Does monkey's has to much trouble?
I don't think you haz the right mindset to haz cheezburger.
I haz unlimited cheezburgers. When ever I wants one.
I ownz the cheezborg companiz. Free Cheezborgs upon graduasion from reeducazion camp.
Cheezborg?
Oh Noes!
:borg:
Hyu guyz iz all beginning to sound like Jägermonsters.
Girl Geniuslmao @ cheezborg.
Umm...want!
I think the real question here is: why do right-wingers, those most oppressive of oppressive peoples, think liberal thinking is a thug thing?
Ever work in a state hospital under republicans? THAT is a thugocracy. My own state hospitals motto was thus: Whoever is least qualified WINS!
What kills me, is now all these republicans are coming out and saying Obama has to be careful with his spending. HELLO! After 8 years of them running the debt up so high they had to take down the debt clock to add more numbers to it, and after creating the highest deficit and trade deficit in history, they have a lot of nerve saying that. Where was
their careful consideration of spending and expanding government for the past 8 years? Buncha wankers.
Which is one reason I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican -- over Radar's objections. I could, I suppose, call Radar a few "perfectly true and applicable names" over it, but in honor of the holiday we're both enjoying, I'll refrain.
Well, I'm Green or Independent. I have voted for Nader three times. I did vote for Obama, but I really believe he can actually make a difference in some things that are very important to me, like green technology.
Well looks like this guy isn't going to make it to the party!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081127/D94N91600.htmlPelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
Hit the link for the letter.
Yay! Pelosi is serious about getting things done. One person's "fairness" rule is another's procedural game piece. Rather than "polarize", it will probably serve to reveal the fringes (on any edge) as the fringes.
Pelosi is serious about getting things done.
Sorry, but I just found that part funny.
Perhaps you are right and the idea is to eliminate anything and/or anything in the way of her plans.
It's about time the Dems put their foot down. "Fairness" schmairness. What wouldn't be fair is if the change the majority of Americans voted for can't happen, because some far-right Republicans with axes to grind continue to send everything into legislative limbo with their ridiculous game playing. Talk about "procedural abuses."
Good point Blue - who needs democracy anyway.:eyebrow:
You mean a republic, right?
You mean a republic, right?
Stop clouding the facts.
Oh please, classic's the one being all vague. I'm just trying to help him clarify his...whatever he's doing.
I understand him. I see no vagueness.
Pelosi's plan eliminates debate on an issue - that isn't a democracy thats a virtual dictatorship.
I know it's wrong of me, but I read the last part of that sentence to the tune of Virtual Insanity (Jamiriquoi -sp?)
Here's a fact ya'll need to get straight. We are democratic republic. Meaning we vote in people who are supposed to represent US. We are NOT directly democratic. Pelosi is meant to represent those who voted her in. The majority of voters want changes to go through, they want a the Democratic agenda to succeed. If that means repressing the Republican agenda, than thats what is needed. I don't think its right that the party that is clearly not the favored of this country can keep the party that has been chosen by a popular vote from fulfilling the wishes of the majority, of the people. I think all parties need to work harder to represent the people, not just their own party agendas, not just those who voted for them. We are not a bi-partisan country, only our government is. That is not representative and the democractic process is severly hindered by big bucks and big business.
I don't think its right that the party that is clearly not the favored of this country can keep the party that has been chosen by a popular vote from fulfilling the wishes of the majority, of the people.
So, you think it's right that homosexuals are banned from marriage in CA, since that is clearly what the majority in that state wish?
Here's a fact ya'll need to get straight. We are democratic republic. Meaning we vote in people who are supposed to represent US. We are NOT directly democratic. Pelosi is meant to represent those who voted her in. The majority of voters want changes to go through, they want a the Democratic agenda to succeed. If that means repressing the Republican agenda, than thats what is needed. I don't think its right that the party that is clearly not the favored of this country can keep the party that has been chosen by a popular vote from fulfilling the wishes of the majority, of the people. I think all parties need to work harder to represent the people, not just their own party agendas, not just those who voted for them. We are not a bi-partisan country, only our government is. That is not representative and the democractic process is severly hindered by big bucks and big business.
Fail.
So, you think it's right that homosexuals are banned from marriage in CA, since that is clearly what the majority in that state wish?
At what point did I say ANYTHING about that?
No because the ban is a violation of the constitution. All citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It violates seperation of church and state. It also violates right to privacy. The ban should be thrown out for its violation of the constitution, unless they can amend the constitution to get rid of all that. One reason why we have a representative government rather than a directly democratic government is because the majority will completely bully the minorities otherwise.
Thats why I stated our government needs to do a better job of representing ALL of us. Also why are gov is set up with a Supreme Court, if a law made by congress is unconstitutional, it can be fought by the people. Of course everyone's opinion of unconstitutional and freedom differ, their will always be hairs to split. Not every one is gonna be happy.
Fail.
Oh yeah a one word post that is not in anyway backed up by truth, or even your opinion. You are obviously right. [/sarcasm]
At what point did I say ANYTHING about that?
Are you high? :eyebrow:
No because the ban is a violation of the constitution. All citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It violates seperation of church and state. It also violates right to privacy. The ban should be thrown out for its violation of the constitution, unless they can amend the constitution to get rid of all that. One reason why we have a representative government rather than a directly democratic government is because the majority will completely bully the minorities otherwise.
Thats why I stated our government needs to do a better job of representing ALL of us. Also why are gov is set up with a Supreme Court, if a law made by congress is unconstitutional, it can be fought by the people. Of course everyone's opinion of unconstitutional and freedom differ, their will always be hairs to split. Not every one is gonna be happy.
The phrase "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
The first amendment argument is better, but still not exactly cut and dry. There are more than one religion that oppose gay marriage, it's not exactly a 'favoring one religion over another issue". It does seem to be a religious idea with no secular purpose though... but if that's not enough to overturn it, is this a not everyone is gonna be happy situation?
Jinx - Can I just answer "Yes" to your last question or get a mulligan perhaps?
I'm being lazy, I'm gonna let a lawyer speak for me:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20090102.html
...also bein too lazy to copy/paste.
from that link:
Majority rule is not the same thing as majority whim. Even if a majority of the people can legitimately alter and abolish their system of government, the people should at least be required to understand and reflect deeply upon the changes they are adopting. And the unique value of constitutional law is that it both protects and constrains the operation of democracy.
*bold mine
Thats what I was talking about blue. With Pelosi's changes this will not exist.
Its pretty clear that both parties like to use "debate" and revision, amendments to muck up, super fast track without time to review, deregulate and pork up essential legislation. Pelosi has been a keen study of the other side of the aisle. She's got power and I'm glad to see her use her strength. She is there to govern and frankly, we need it. Time to help right the ship or get out of the way.
Theory is not practice.
from that link:
*bold mine
Thats what I was talking about blue. With Pelosi's changes this will not exist.
Just humor me a minute, so I can see more clearly what page you're on.
Would you please spell out to me what you think the actual proposed changes to the House Rules are? Not from the biased site that you quoted, but what they
really are.
(Hint: They're not "Pelosi's changes" per se)
Nancy Pelosi’s rule changes for "fairness" in the House of Representatives will…
* bar Republicans from offering alternative bills
* bar Republicans from proposing amendments to Democratic bills
* bar Republicans of open debate for any legislation during the entire 111th Congress
* repeal the six-year limit for committee chairmen
* repeal other House Rule reform measures enacted in 1995
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair (more by this author)
Posted 01/05/2009 ET
Updated 01/05/2009 ET
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=30143By talking to them we can tell them the recourse to their actions and maybe, just maybe, offer them a friggin carrot to STOP KILLING PEOPLE. Perhaps then Israel could do the same. WTF? It certainly can't hurt. Could things really get much worse over there? I know its a long shot, but can it really hurt?
Agreed, they are the duly elect reps of the Palestinians so it's not elevating their status... see what they have to say.
Honestly, I really think had we all (the western powers) recognised them from the start (as the duly elected reps) and talked to them sooner, then the situation would not now be as bad as it is. I think we missed the boat on that one. There was a point, just after the elections, when we could possibly have turned the situation in a more peaceful direction.
I have mixed opinions on this. Its not really "us" they need to be talking/dealing with, its Israel. I recognize that we can, and should, exert our influence to achieve a more peaceable outcome for all involved,but it really comes down to them.
"If we could just sit down and talk and get over our differences!" The very idea that one might do that is a Western concept, not shared with Arabic culture.
The thing that's hard to remember, and almost impossible to come to grips with, is that
they don’t think the same way we do.
Yes, follow that link... required reading, from an American anthropologist who spent years in Eastern Europe and then a year with the Saudis.
It's amazing, because the dominant lesson for us Westerners, for the last few generations, is
people are all the same. We can't possibly imagine that, when Israelis bomb innocent Palestinian children, that is exactly what the mothers and fathers of those children want to have happen. We imagine they value their children in the same ways we do. We can't accept the notion in our heads that the father teaches the children that the greatest glory is if they die with him when he is bombed from above. We really can't accept that this is what he actually believes.
The goal of our negotiations will be for them to become more Western. Not outright, not obviously; we will depend on things like cause and effect, ideas of Western honor, things they don't believe in and don't value. We can't see that because we are Western. And so, when we sit down with them and negotiate with them from our Western point of view, the negotiations will necessary fail because of things we just can't understand.
The thing that's hard to remember, and almost impossible to come to grips with, is that they don’t think the same way we do.
Interesting read. I value a truth that can be logically validated above a desired ideal, i.e. political correctness. We are taught that all people are equal. That is a stupid concept.
5) They do not think of obligations as running both ways.
I've been told, from someone who worked extensively with Saudis in the circa 1980s oil business, that they never consider a signed contract to be the final word. If they want to change things at the drop of a hat, it doesn't matter what your previous arrangement was.
The blog you've linked to explains a little more about
why that is. Footnote: Does anyone cringe at my use of the word "they" as a generalization? Sorry, we can't function in the real world without stereotypes,
which exist for a reason.
And ultimately, that is how our brains are designed. We are estimation machines.
[SIZE="1"]
I suspect and hope that I am digging a hole here that someone will take exception with.[/SIZE]
3) Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.
This section and the corollary following it were the most illuminating to me. There have probably been any number of graduate papers written on the cultural effects
on the slave-owners from living in a slave state--but if there aren't, there ought to be.
There have been quite a few historical studies looking into the effects of slave ownership on American slave owners in the Ante-bellum South.
[eta] There are other aspects to Arab culture and different variations on those themes. I have a good friend who spent several years as a VSO worker in a few different places. I also have some friends who are regular visitors to the West Bank. The idea that they don't view obligations as running both ways does not correllate in anyway with anything that any of those friends have reported back. Far from it. What comes through from their anecdotes is a complicated network of mutual obligations and a cultural leaning towards individual and familial generosity: not at all unusual for a family in the West Bank to offer what little hospitality they can and the last or best of what they have to these western visitors. It was the same in the Sudan when my friend Les was there in the late 80s.
If you read the blog linked to here, they cover all that; and it is mutually exclusive from the subject of honoring agreements.
ahhh agreements, as in contractual obligations? Rather than obligations in a more general sense...sorry, I misunderstood UT's post.
I personally witnessed the obligation-as-oneway-street phenomenon during my time in Saudi.
So, basically, what we're saying here is... the Ferengi?
Actually that was very interesting. More so than I had expected.
No double standard here? Why isn't the press looking into her past to see how many abortions she had or whether or not her children are really her own?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD95JUK4G0The real boss moves in. :lol2:
Mrs. Robinson in da house... boom, shhseesh, boom, da la, boom, shhseesh, boom boom...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008611979_obama10.htmlThis is a good one, Neil smokes em..
IS THERE A BETTER IDEA? YOU BET!
By Neal Boortz @ January 9, 2009 9:16 AM Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0)
So we now have the benefit of PEBO's* general position on a plan to stimulate our economy. Government shall be our savior. We shall not want. More specifically, government spending. About $800 billion (probably more) will be created out of thin air and then spent by politicians and their cronies in an effort to get our economy moving. PEBO has decided that our economy can be stimulated by purchasing computers for teachers and building windmills.
Obama's stimulus plan is very little more than a plan to enhance and solidify the power of the Imperial Federal Government over our economy at the expense of the private sector and free markets.
Is there a better idea out there? You bet there is, and it came from the 1st Congressional District of Texas. We've talked about this great idea several times on the show ... and after Obama's speech its time to bring it up again.
Texas Congressmen Louie Gohmert notes that the federal government collects about $100 billion in income taxes every month, plus another $60 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes. If those of you who are government educated have a calculator handy, you'll see that this adds up to about $160 billion a month. Now if you divide Obama's proposed $800 billion stimulus plan by $160 billion, you'll come up with five. This means that our government will collect $800 billion in income and payroll taxes from February through June of 2009.
So, Gohmert asks, instead of bureaucrats and politicians deciding how all of this money is going to be spent, why not let the people who actually worked for this cash make their own independent spending decisions for this money. How would you do that? Simple: declare a five-month tax holiday. From February through June everybody keeps their paycheck. No income tax withholding ... no payroll taxes. No income or payroll taxes owed. What will the people do with this money? What, are you crazy? They'll spend it, that's what. And they'll spend it on the stuff that they want! Not the stuff Obama promised during his campaign. Talk about stimulating the economy!
Let's just wrap this up with a handy little chart. Politicians just love charts.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/01/is-there-a-better-idea-you-bet.htmlThat is an interesting idea and to think I was one :lol2: from the ignore button. I'd appreciate it if you would try to improve your ratio.
I'm working on it, but there are a few out there that will just not get along, no matter what I say or because of it. That is the way of the Cellar I guess.
No double standard here? Why isn't the press looking into her past to see how many abortions she had or whether or not her children are really her own?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD95JUK4G0
Because she's pro-choice, and isn't a scolding political "family values" moralizer. What issues
could she be called out on for hypocrisy? Hard to say, since just about her only political "qualification" is her name. and the press is certainly calling her out on that.
Patterson doesn't appear to be buying into the Kennedy franchise. He has the only vote that counts.
Both Palin and Kennedy had a press pass for a little while, but then they started talking.
Patterson doesn't appear to be buying into the Kennedy franchise. He has the only vote that counts.
Both Palin and Kennedy had a press pass for a little while, but then they started talking.
Can't argue with that.
This is a good one, Neil smokes em..
I don't see that as a better idea. There are a few that are truly shaken by this recession and would pay off their debts, but the rest of the populace has already proven that any increase in income bids drunken sailor time. More spending by the public
might slow the decline, but won't fix the system, just give the Chinese more money to buy US bonds. Plus I don't think his plan will help many of the out of work people that aren't paying taxes, as wild spending isn't going to create many jobs.
After that, our infrastructure still needs fixing, so that has to be addressed.
I just read today about PA;
We spend more than $2 billion a year on an immense system of roads that equals all the highways, local roads and city streets in New Jersey and New England combined. We've got more roads than California, a state three times our size. Potholes are the price we pay for enjoying all that nature's four seasons have to offer. Hot and humid summers mixed with cold and snowy winters equals expanding and contracting pavement. That means more cracks, which in turn become potholes big enough to swallow a Mini Cooper. But according to Overdrive magazine's annual survey, we no longer have the worst roads in the nation. That designation belongs to Arkansas. And for five years running, Pennsylvania was voted most improved. So, next time you bitch about the bumpy ride or construction delays, give us a break. We're working on it.
I fear other states are in the same boat.
For eight years we've been neglecting education and perverting science so badly it's going to take the feds to help getting that back on track. Granted I think the GM loan was a bad move, and Chrysler was a crime... yes crime, as in theft, fraud, string 'em up. But I still have hopes that Obama can get us moving in the right direction, so at least we don't drown swimming
away from shore.
But basically the general public has to get their shit together and show some fiscal responsibility too. No you don't have to spend every cent you can beg, borrow and steal. No you don't need 8 credit cards maxed out. No you don't need a Jumbotron bigger than your house. I've rambled enough. :o
But I still have hopes that Obama can get us moving in the right direction, so at least we don't drown swimming away from shore.
But basically the general public has to get their shit together and show some fiscal responsibility too. No you don't have to spend every cent you can beg, borrow and steal. No you don't need 8 credit cards maxed out. No you don't need a Jumbotron bigger than your house. I've rambled enough. :o
Ftw.
I don't see that as a better idea...
But basically the general public has to get their shit together and show some fiscal responsibility too. No you don't have to spend every cent you can beg, borrow and steal. No you don't need 8 credit cards maxed out. No you don't need a Jumbotron bigger than your house. I've rambled enough. :o
The good idea part is that the money will flow to whatever sectors of the economy the people value, hopefully avoiding the boom-bust of a massive temporary commitment by the Feds, which can lead to massive mis allocation of men and material. Middle-class folks can get their financial lives in order if they choose to.
There is a lot to be said for Obama's plan to improve infrastructure, but we do have to remember that the Democratic majority is temporary so the money spent needs to go into things of permanence that Republicans will complete or maintain. It is also possible to make the recession longer by hindering the natural flow of capital and manpower. At work, there is a lot of talk about Obama's comittment to early education, which I see as a good long-term investment. Unfortunately, relying on Federal dollars means that the comittment and the dollars can disappear on a whim leaving us with too many resources committed to things not presently in our bare-bones operation. I can see our organization going belly up if money leaves before mandates are reduced, which is standard Republican practice.
I agree that the education process needs investment but that will not turn us around economically in the short term. And a short term immediate fix is what we need to survive this current crisis.
Even the discussion of an infrastructure investment, rebuilding roads, broadband advancements, etc is not going to give us a short term fix. One of the biggest weaknesses I see is that the average worker is pretty lazy when it comes to manual labor, unlike the WPA programs that were all about manual labor and putting people to work. Not everyone will be able to participate in that program of work. The 50 year old line worker from a GM plant may not be so willing to grab a shovel and hit the road. Much of the infrastructure discussion is more of a feel good solution to make our daily lives better but I still don't see how that is going to jump start our economy. Growing the number of people who are on a government pay roll by 400,000 is not a solution.
The infrastructure investment is a great idea - it immediately creates jobs from the bottom to the top. Puts money - real money into the hands of working consumers who will consume goods and services from all areas of the economy. There is absolutely nothing bad about that. There will be supplemental jobs, probably many off them that will spin off from this.
Sounds like an interesting plan to me.
The infrastructure investment is a great idea - it immediately creates jobs from the bottom to the top. Puts money - real money into the hands of working consumers who will consume goods and services from all areas of the economy. There is absolutely nothing bad about that. There will be supplemental jobs, probably many off them that will spin off from this.
It just seems like such a small area of the economy I don't see how it is going to jump start us back on the road to economic recovery. How does any of that address the real estate issue, mortgage crisis, or banking issues?
I just read today about PA; I fear other states are in the same boat.
PA has unique problems because foundations beneath their roads are significantly less than what New Jersey does. PA roads break down faster because of insufficient, or in some cases, no roadbed foundations. The interstate highway called Route 80 as an example of why PA must spend more money constantly fixing roads. Citing PA is a poor or worse case example.
Question of whether money spent is on the right things will always be a challenge. But here is the rub. The economic benefits from these capital projects does not appear for four years.
Economics is not solved by making jobs. Jobs are only a symptom. How to make more jobs? Do the same work with less people. So yes, the sound byte is “make more jobs by eliminating employees.” (An example of how soundbytes distort facts.) 'Reap the benefits' (make possible more jobs) occurs when the benefits appear on spread sheets mostly four and more years later.
Making jobs by only making work creates less jobs. Especially true in an economy that must have a lower American standard of living to be fixed. Economics takes revenge for unproductive ‘make jobs’ activities. The solution (to stop economics taking revenge) has traditionally been things we don't like to admit such as bankruptcies and higher interest rates.
One can appreciate the severe contradictions that Obama faces. This recession is directly traceable to what we were doing four and more years ago. There is no short term solution for that kind of problem other than to minimize its symptoms using many forms of welfare (ie government spending without corresponding tax increases).
Very interesting will be how these policies will 'fix' an economy that deserves a severe recession, lowering the nation’s living standards, and the resulting hard decisions. It will be very interesting to see how policies that contradict the lessons of history will somehow solve this problem.
Some are so foolish as to ignore the numbers - assume the economy will upturn in a year. That's not what numbers suggest. The numbers say we will be paying off the last decade of economic mismanagement for most of the next decade.
That also gives credence to European suggestions that the Euro may replace the dollar as the dollar once replaced the pound. No, I am not saying that will happen either despite the many who would jump to that conclusion. But we have a problem far more serious that many realize as the elite profited massively while leaving Enron accounting lies that are only just beginning to be discovered.
It just seems like such a small area of the economy I don't see how it is going to jump start us back on the road to economic recovery. How does any of that address the real estate issue, mortgage crisis, or banking issues?
True it's only one area that needs to be addressed, but one I don't want to see kicked to the curb in the fray. I'm not sure the feds
can solve the real estate/mortgage/banking mess beyond treating the symptoms and letting play out. I hope somebody much smarter than me (that's most everyone) can find a solution. :confused:
Question of whether money spent is on the right things will always be a challenge. But here is the rub. The economic benefits from these capital projects does not appear for four years.
True, but maybe if people see some tangible effort to improve their infrastructure and services, they will perceive they can put some faith in the future and boost the economy.
Some are so foolish as to ignore the numbers - assume the economy will upturn in a year. That's not what numbers suggest. The numbers say we will be paying off the last decade of economic mismanagement for most of the next decade.
First I was hearing a year and was very skeptical. Then I was hearing 3to4 years and was cautiously optimistic. But I think we have to face the probability that we may never regain the level we've been living at for the past decade.
The infrastructure investment is a great idea - it immediately creates jobs from the bottom to the top. Puts money - real money into the hands of working consumers who will consume goods and services from all areas of the economy. There is absolutely nothing bad about that. There will be supplemental jobs, probably many off them that will spin off from this.
I guess this is sort of what I was getting at. By Boortz:
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/01/pebos-plan-is-so-transparent.html True, but maybe if people see some tangible effort to improve their infrastructure and services, they will perceive they can put some faith in the future and boost the economy.
There is no doubt that infrastructure has been neglected. After all, replacing something does not get the credit found in building something new. The question also remains what infrastructure must be abandoned with the lower living standards.
We know just making jobs does not solve problems. But then look at the wide ranging questions already being asked by Obama.
For example, virtually all earth environment science in NASA has been quashed. Some birds were ready to fly when killed. Obama is asking some embarrassing questions about the new (Orion?) spacecraft ((that is rumored to have Shuttle like development problems). Also asking about grounding of so much science (American spaceflight) to pay for a 'Man to Mars' boondoggle. IOW he is asking about restarting the tiny budgets where virtually all NASA science was once done - such as something like eight earth environmental science spacecraft. After all, that (innovation, discovery, science) is what created productive jobs. So yes, this man appears to be asking damning questions that would result in productive jobs.
The initial problem cannot be solved. Massive obstruction to science over most of the past decade will haunt us with jobs not created in the next decade. Jobs that would have been created in future years have already been lost due to the stifling of innovation over the past eight years. Nothing can fix that. Rather interesting is that Obama is discussing a revival of the American innovation pipeline. He is discussing obstructions to productive job creation.
Another example are the jobs and exports made possible should be address global warning and other problem with new innovative products and industries. All hyped in the 'green' soundbyte. The hybrid car being an example of products available only from America had government continued to force the anti-innovative automakers to market existing innovations. Stifled hybrids is example of jobs lost AND how it now takes so long to create productive jobs. Jobs cannot be created by stifled innovations.
In short, the damage is so deep that it will take the next decade to restore the innovation pipeline to normal capacity so that jobs are created many years later. Just another example of why this economic damage will take so many years to correct.
There is no one magic example. Cited above in as short as possible are one in a long list of reasons why we have a recession and how long it will take to fix a problem that only we created.
In TheMercenary's
www.bootz.com political commentary is the perfect example of why we have been harming job creation this past decade.
Again, can someone please explain to me how switching all of America's medical records to computers is going to provide an immediate stimulus to our economy?
A perfect example of how jobs get created by doing what also destroys jobs. Eliminate a large bureaucracy with machines is why American companies generated so many jobs in the 1990s - and wealth, higher standards of living, more products, etc.
It has long been known that where industries did the equivalent, then those industries become world competitive. But instead, the political ostrich mentality is "is does not make jobs today so its money wasted". Jobs are best created by destroying jobs when we do more with less people. The resulting increased productivity always results in more jobs.
A medical information industry was only possible if standards exist. In software, Microsoft did that. In computers, wide ranging cross industry consortiums did that. In the auto industry(unfortunately) government standards were necessary to make that happen. Unfortunately that is also the problem in a medical industry where leadership is severely lacking. When the industry cannot create standards, government must. Why is a computerized medical record industry not destroying jobs? Apparently everyone who has tried to solve this problem is confronted with the same problem - no standards. Create standards and the medical record industry is another example of how productive jobs are created by eliminating unproductive jobs. Ironic as it sounds superficially, that is what we must do to halt a recession.
Having not done anything to address or even consider this records problem in the past 10 years, how many jobs were lost due to lower productivity - due to too many people manually doing that work. These is no magic solution that creates productive jobs this year or even next. It takes time for innovation to result in new jobs due to increased productivity. IOW that has remains stifled for most of the past decade. Maybe someone (Obama) will make that possible now. Or at least someone is actually considering a solution which is more than we can say for the past eight years. As usual, the productive jobs take years to create. There is no magic formula for creating productive jobs in the next two years. The time to have been addressing productive new jobs and industries was years ago. A recession necessary for years until innovation can show results.
The columist does not get it. Productive jobs are not created this year. He does not get it. Productive jobs come from innovations such as industry wide computerization that also destroys unproductive manual labor. And that takes years.
[youtube]d2AIkm5iIq0[/youtube]
[youtube]AUZBnrdrDVI[/youtube]
:lol2: Those are frigging funny. Thanks for the laugh zippy!
thats all I see when I read all this Bickering back and forth
I don't care about that, it was still funny. :D
Whats your point there Merc? It seems like he is being up front about the situation. I for one, think thats refreshing.
Well I guess it is just as I said all along during the election. That when you talked with his most ardent supporters they would give you a long list of all these great things that he was promising the electorate. Most of us realize that many of the promises were nothing more than empty pandering to get votes, even if they had merit, it was obvious there was no way he could do everything he was telling people he could. And most of us know that it is how the game is played in this day and age. But many people are not informed as well as the members of The Cellar. It is just such a fimilar circle of our election cycle. Listen to the most recent comments coming from the Obama camp and many things are being taken off the table and even tax cuts are being offered up, a poison of the democratic platform. I just find it all so ironic.
And this was an interesting report as well:
Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
Stephen Dinan
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.
Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/Quick, hide! There's a red under your bed!
Most of us realize that many of the promises (from any politician) are nothing more than empty pandering to get votes, even if they had merit, it was obvious there was no way (said politician) could do everything (said politician)was telling people (said politician) could. And most of us know that it is how the game is played in this day and age.
D or R - fixed that for ya.
Better dead than red! :D
or something like that they said during the McCarthy years.
D or R - fixed that for ya.
Yea, that is why I said it was a familar fixture of our election cycles.
Then why was it ironic? It's more like business as usual, isn't it?
I was thinking about the overwhelming support for "Change, Yes We Can." when in fact there may be little change after all. Can't close Gitmo, Health Care (a big one) way on the back burner, raise taxes, etc. Just about everything that stood out on his platform in a big way. There were so many promises anyone should have seen it was all talk. But hey, he is not there yet so who knows. I am going to give him the benifit of the doubt.
Well maybe if things weren't so fucked up right now that wouldn't be the case - just maybe. We got a lot of cleaning up to do before we go forward with anything, don't you think?
Absolutely. I don't think anyone could have seen how bad things were going to be economically. I'm just afraid that the recovery will be so long we may never find out if anything could have been done or not.
I was thinking about the overwhelming support for "Change, Yes We Can." when in fact there may be little change after all.
George Stephanopoulos asked him this same question. As I remember it, "What parts of your campaign promises will you not keep" as if it is a given that some campaign pledges will be ignored. Obama, gave an answer that was not worth remembering.
Every presidential candidate promises change. Even Humphrey did it which Lyndon Johnson did not appreciate.
How much have things changed? Overall consensus in the American Economics Association in San Francisco, even from those who normally oppose government intervention, is that government fiscal policies must be aggressive even though some also acknowledge that quantitative proof that such policies work is almost non-existent.
A benchmark paper for the conference based upon 14 previous severe recessions including the last big five (Norway, Finland, Japan, and Sweden) suggest a GDP drop of 9% which takes two years to reach bottom. Unemployment averages 7% and keeps dropping for five years. Housing prices take five years to drop 36%. Government debt rises 86%. Scary part is that America has already surpassed some of these averaging numbers. However statistical variations for 'average' GDP and unemployment numbers are large.
When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that you came to drain the swamp.- Anon.
I was thinking about the overwhelming support for "Change, Yes We Can." when in fact there may be little change after all. Can't close Gitmo, Health Care (a big one) way on the back burner, raise taxes, etc. Just about everything that stood out on his platform in a big way. There were so many promises anyone should have seen it was all talk.
For the record (FTR? Oh goodie) I think Obama would serve the Republic well
if he can't or doesn't deliver on
any of the bread-and-circuses promises he made. I disdain them. They're not my idea of what a government should be doing, and one reason I'm a libertarian, despite anything radar could possibly say or think. At least until such time as radar understands and thinks libertarianism includes me. Fat chance, no?:rolleyes:
