September 30, 2005
Daily Kos Diarist Calls For Streets Awash In Blood
— Ace Quick, before it gets deleted:
— Ace Quick, before it gets deleted:
It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America.
When y'all want to start throwing molotovs and sniping from windows come and talk to me. Until then, I will be content to retire, be a hermit, and laugh at everyone. Even then, I may still just feel like laughing as the world falls apart around me, but at least I'll be willing to listen.
Believe it or not, this Kosmonaut fears she's losing her grip on reality:
My mental state is collapsing and deteriorating almost daily. It's so consistent you could practically graph it.
Yes, they have a machine for that and everything. It's called an EEG. And you should see this other cool machine they have... it delivers the most pleasant electric shocks to the frontal lobe of your brain. Some people swear by it!
Thanks to Bareknuckle Politics.
Posted by: Ace at
09:14 PM
| Comments (170)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.
1
.............
The mask slipped entirely off...
I almost don't believe it...
It will be deleted by morning.
The mask slipped entirely off...
I almost don't believe it...
It will be deleted by morning.
Posted by: Josh at September 30, 2005 09:17 PM (f8ZUQ)
2
*yawn* Just another sorry case of BDS.
There's some quack head shrinker down in Boca Raton FL that initiated a "treatment program" for BDS after Kerry lost.
Sounds like a Hari Krishna scheme to me though - "give us all your money and we'll solve your problems and give you this nifty designer sheet and flip-flops to wear."
There's some quack head shrinker down in Boca Raton FL that initiated a "treatment program" for BDS after Kerry lost.
Sounds like a Hari Krishna scheme to me though - "give us all your money and we'll solve your problems and give you this nifty designer sheet and flip-flops to wear."
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:28 PM (X+OCl)
3
(a) I can't tell whether the appropriate response is "this would be scary if it weren't so funny" - or vice versa.
(b) Today my lunchtime reading was "The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS," and, mutatis mutandis, this sounds like a brownshirt or Red Front rally speech ...
(c) I'm not *too* worried, though - a second civil war would last about three days. Was it Dennis Miller who said "One side has all the guns and armored trucks, the other has all the aerobics centers?"
(b) Today my lunchtime reading was "The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS," and, mutatis mutandis, this sounds like a brownshirt or Red Front rally speech ...
(c) I'm not *too* worried, though - a second civil war would last about three days. Was it Dennis Miller who said "One side has all the guns and armored trucks, the other has all the aerobics centers?"
Posted by: Knemon at September 30, 2005 09:30 PM (QaHR7)
4
this is OT but why not;
PA, I live next door to a Hare Krishna church or youth center or some damn thing. In Berkeley. (cults in Berkeley? who knew?) Hare Krishnas (Krishnae? Krishni?) are the salt of the earth compared to these nuts.
PA, I live next door to a Hare Krishna church or youth center or some damn thing. In Berkeley. (cults in Berkeley? who knew?) Hare Krishnas (Krishnae? Krishni?) are the salt of the earth compared to these nuts.
Posted by: Knemon at September 30, 2005 09:32 PM (QaHR7)
5
Made me laugh, but then again, I'm evil that way.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at September 30, 2005 09:36 PM (ipjUv)
6
We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots.
Otherwise, people might die in a war! She should not fear that she's losing her grip on reality. She should be in mourning because she already lost it.
Otherwise, people might die in a war! She should not fear that she's losing her grip on reality. She should be in mourning because she already lost it.
Posted by: Kevin at September 30, 2005 09:39 PM (24kgX)
7
Interesting article on Bridge Jumpers....Every two weeks, on average, someone jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge. It is the world’s leading suicide location. In the eighties, workers at a local lumberyard formed “the Golden Gate Leapers Association”—a sports pool in which bets were placed on which day of the week someone would jump. At least twelve hundred people have been seen jumping or have been found in the water since the bridge opened, in 1937, including Roy Raymond, the founder of Victoria’s Secret, in 1993, and Duane Garrett, a Democratic fund-raiser and a friend of Al Gore’s, in 1995. The actual toll is probably considerably higher, swelled by legions of the stealthy, who sneak onto the bridge after the walkway closes at sundown and are carried to sea with the neap tide. Many jumpers wrap suicide notes in plastic and tuck them into their pockets. “Survival of the fittest. Adios—unfit,” one seventy-year-old man said in his valedictory; another wrote, “Absolutely no reason except I have a toothache....”The "good by cruel world schtick is kinda lame" -- the guy who complained about the aching tooth I can understand though.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 09:49 PM (X+OCl)
8
Don't worry, like most liberals she wants the fire and bloodshed on someone else's dime. While she hides and laughs.
DUDE WE SHOULD TOTALLY REVOLT YEAH YOU FIRST OKAY
DUDE WE SHOULD TOTALLY REVOLT YEAH YOU FIRST OKAY
Posted by: Sortelli at September 30, 2005 09:49 PM (tHvzT)
9
I got a .pdf just for a keepsake.
Posted by: See-Dubya at September 30, 2005 10:11 PM (abOU0)
10
" All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. "
Amazing to have a leftist admit that. Of course, they miss the obvious conclusion that all their social engineering programs and trillions of dollars spent have abjectly failed to produce the desired results.
But rather than face the obvious and design/promote/adopt different tactics, they simply enact the definition of insanity....trying the exact same thing again & expecting different results.
Go, lemmings, go.
Amazing to have a leftist admit that. Of course, they miss the obvious conclusion that all their social engineering programs and trillions of dollars spent have abjectly failed to produce the desired results.
But rather than face the obvious and design/promote/adopt different tactics, they simply enact the definition of insanity....trying the exact same thing again & expecting different results.
Go, lemmings, go.
Posted by: West at September 30, 2005 10:14 PM (sFFEH)
11
Speaking as a Civil War Reenactor myself, I found this to be the most bizarre...
P.S. Visit as many Civil War battlefields as you can and maybe donate a little while you're there. They need all the help they can get and you'll be a better person for it.
...a presumably anti-war moonbat telling her flock to give money towards preservation of Civil War battlefields...WTF?????
Talk about clueless............Hel-looooooooooo!!!
Weeeeee.....Ooooooo....Weeeeeeee.....Oooooo.....
P.S. Visit as many Civil War battlefields as you can and maybe donate a little while you're there. They need all the help they can get and you'll be a better person for it.
...a presumably anti-war moonbat telling her flock to give money towards preservation of Civil War battlefields...WTF?????
Talk about clueless............Hel-looooooooooo!!!
Weeeeee.....Ooooooo....Weeeeeeee.....Oooooo.....
Posted by: The Ugly American at September 30, 2005 10:47 PM (INE9X)
12
...are the salt of the earth compared to these nuts.
If I could wave a magic wand and transmute all the moonbats into Krishnas it would improve the world quite a bit.
They're loopy but harmless, and don't do a lot of talking about armed revolutions and such.
If I could wave a magic wand and transmute all the moonbats into Krishnas it would improve the world quite a bit.
They're loopy but harmless, and don't do a lot of talking about armed revolutions and such.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2005 10:49 PM (X+OCl)
13
As a medical professional, I'd say this one needs an adjunct to her medicine regimine.
Posted by: grumpyunk at September 30, 2005 11:11 PM (XbQKE)
14
We need terror.Next stop, the local Saudi-funded mosque.
Posted by: someone at September 30, 2005 11:13 PM (6Swlb)
15
sorry, but aside from suicide, if any of these pussies had an ounce of sack, they'd be dangerous. fortunately, they don't.
Posted by: Jason at October 01, 2005 12:04 AM (o47qQ)
Posted by: Enas Yorl at October 01, 2005 12:07 AM (Aem9I)
17
Also, the Krishnas do a weekly jam session which actually sounds kind of nice ... Rama rama etc. but with a synthesizer and some tablas. Honestly, a lot better than you'd think.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 01:19 AM (QaHR7)
18
It's a "he" apparently. Which figgers -- you usually don't get the "blood in the streets" schtick from a girl.
I've heard the same hallucinatory weirdness coming from the far right. Heck, I've even heard it from the religious right (the End Times, and all that). There's a not insignificant percentage of the population waiting to live out some Road Warrior fantasy of violence and anarchy. They gots the MRE's in the bunker and they're just waiting for the music to start. There's always a current of relish running through it, not least because of the giant "I told you so!" raspberry they plan to blow at us when it finally, really and truly, happens.
I blame the Sci Fi channel.
I've heard the same hallucinatory weirdness coming from the far right. Heck, I've even heard it from the religious right (the End Times, and all that). There's a not insignificant percentage of the population waiting to live out some Road Warrior fantasy of violence and anarchy. They gots the MRE's in the bunker and they're just waiting for the music to start. There's always a current of relish running through it, not least because of the giant "I told you so!" raspberry they plan to blow at us when it finally, really and truly, happens.
I blame the Sci Fi channel.
Posted by: S. Weasel at October 01, 2005 02:26 AM (6ed4W)
19
1) We need terror. We need horror
2) When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame
Do you suppose the mindless f*ck who authored these two lines has any idea of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?
He has, of course, justified the slaughter of everyone in his neighborhood. And everyone in the neighborhoods of all of the contributors of Kos, by association.
Proof, I guess, that BDS removes all ability to think rationally.
1) We need terror. We need horror
2) When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame
Do you suppose the mindless f*ck who authored these two lines has any idea of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?
He has, of course, justified the slaughter of everyone in his neighborhood. And everyone in the neighborhoods of all of the contributors of Kos, by association.
Proof, I guess, that BDS removes all ability to think rationally.
Posted by: W at October 01, 2005 02:32 AM (oAfPy)
20
I'm not laughing for a second.
First this person could well be sick enough to eventually follow through and kill innocent people.
Secondly this kind of open talk encourages other zealots, which the site is full of, to also do the same.
First this person could well be sick enough to eventually follow through and kill innocent people.
Secondly this kind of open talk encourages other zealots, which the site is full of, to also do the same.
Posted by: Village Idiot at October 01, 2005 02:51 AM (N5NIk)
21
well adios, mo-fo
Posted by: Governor Rick Perry at October 01, 2005 03:33 AM (pzen5)
22
Actually West -
" All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. "
Amazing to have a leftist admit that. Of course, they miss the obvious conclusion that all their social engineering programs and trillions of dollars spent have abjectly failed to produce the desired results.
What a strange ideological take you have - it's gotten them nowhere? I don't believe in social engineering programs and trillions of dollars for failed paradigms much myself, but what's "amazing" is that a fucking nutty moonbat thinks that the "civil rights era (has) gotten African Americans precisely nowhere," given that in the 50's blacks sat in segregated lunch counters and schools and the back of buses, and now a black woman is Secretary of State and institutionalized and cultural racism against blacks is fairly dead. So he's not "admitting" anything - he's delusional.
And this Kos post reminds me of something I wrote after attending my first moonbat rally:
"a good portion of these people are ill, channeling their emotional pain into a political struggle, and no amount of reasoning with them would have any effect. Luckily, the worst elements marginalize themselves with their overt displays of lunacy"
As Ace has also wrote about (I believe), this amplification of political and social disaster in their head is sort of like a replacement belief system for religion. And in the case of the hardest core radicals, an outlet for some serious mental illness and personal dissatisfaction with themselves. The insanity came first, the political views came later. But that's not what the Kos diarist thinks - as with most things, it's all Karl Rove's fault.
" All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. "
Amazing to have a leftist admit that. Of course, they miss the obvious conclusion that all their social engineering programs and trillions of dollars spent have abjectly failed to produce the desired results.
What a strange ideological take you have - it's gotten them nowhere? I don't believe in social engineering programs and trillions of dollars for failed paradigms much myself, but what's "amazing" is that a fucking nutty moonbat thinks that the "civil rights era (has) gotten African Americans precisely nowhere," given that in the 50's blacks sat in segregated lunch counters and schools and the back of buses, and now a black woman is Secretary of State and institutionalized and cultural racism against blacks is fairly dead. So he's not "admitting" anything - he's delusional.
And this Kos post reminds me of something I wrote after attending my first moonbat rally:
"a good portion of these people are ill, channeling their emotional pain into a political struggle, and no amount of reasoning with them would have any effect. Luckily, the worst elements marginalize themselves with their overt displays of lunacy"
As Ace has also wrote about (I believe), this amplification of political and social disaster in their head is sort of like a replacement belief system for religion. And in the case of the hardest core radicals, an outlet for some serious mental illness and personal dissatisfaction with themselves. The insanity came first, the political views came later. But that's not what the Kos diarist thinks - as with most things, it's all Karl Rove's fault.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 01, 2005 04:25 AM (YKq2l)
23
With a majority of the country opposed to
Bush's policies, we see... what chance for change?
None.
The KOS diarist is a bit hysterical-sounding... but basically it will take some serious upheavals to knock the people in control out of their successful strategy.
The current admin has found the perfect machine of corruption and pay-to-play. Or rather rediscovered it.
It's easy to laugh at those gnashing teeth over what has happened to the country.
It's not so funny when you realize they are looting the treasury, the US reputation, trashing the military, and leaving us with debt for decades -- and there's nothing you can do about it.
Why do you find that funny?
Bush's policies, we see... what chance for change?
None.
The KOS diarist is a bit hysterical-sounding... but basically it will take some serious upheavals to knock the people in control out of their successful strategy.
The current admin has found the perfect machine of corruption and pay-to-play. Or rather rediscovered it.
It's easy to laugh at those gnashing teeth over what has happened to the country.
It's not so funny when you realize they are looting the treasury, the US reputation, trashing the military, and leaving us with debt for decades -- and there's nothing you can do about it.
Why do you find that funny?
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 04:46 AM (LEpXa)
24
Cognitively dissonant socialist fucking lunatic.
Posted by: Tom at October 01, 2005 04:47 AM (AGC/u)
25
Yeah, and he same goes for the guy at Kos.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 01, 2005 05:04 AM (QriEg)
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 01, 2005 05:08 AM (YKq2l)
27
How can you go from voting peacefully alongside your fellow citizens, to the fervent desire to butcher all those who disagree with your political views?
You don't. This person has never held any meaningful appreciation for the democratic process. So from the opening statement, "It's become more and more apparent to me..." he is a liar.
He has wanted to take part in bloody revolution his whole life, it didn't just dawn on him now. Another fundamentally dishonest lefty who will never find the cause of his dissatisfaction, because he never looks inside himself.
Yawn.
You don't. This person has never held any meaningful appreciation for the democratic process. So from the opening statement, "It's become more and more apparent to me..." he is a liar.
He has wanted to take part in bloody revolution his whole life, it didn't just dawn on him now. Another fundamentally dishonest lefty who will never find the cause of his dissatisfaction, because he never looks inside himself.
Yawn.
Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2005 05:16 AM (Lt6Tu)
28
It reminds me of that famous quote, that I can't find, about old stalinist Lillian Hellman at a party in a full length fur coat and arriving by limousine. She began foaming at the mouth that there would be “blood in the streets” after the Hollywood 10 were indicted.
Posted by: at October 01, 2005 05:17 AM (52h84)
29
Okay, so back in the 60s there were plenty on the left advocating violence for social change.
Obviously the Kos diarist thinks it will take the same kind of struggle this time.
But it's very very different this time.
The current admin has argued -- successfully so far -- that it can lock up US citizens indefinitely, without charges, and without legal counsel.
J Edgar Hoover couldn't dream of that power. Neither could Nixon.
While some on the left advocate some sort of handgun control, the current admin has asserted a right to simply take your guns when it decides it wants to. To hell with laws and regulation proposed by the left, where people would have some say, some vote, and could legally retain handguns -- the current admin says it can march in and take them.
The currrent admin says it can use your tax dollars to fund propaganda through ostensibly neutral journalists.
The current admin has polished a pay-to-play system that means that deLay's replacement will simply continue the same policies.
I'm not advocating Molotov cocktails at police stations. But the right-wingers are cheering while one party asserts more control over your life and rights than ever before -- and ensures that you will be paying a large chunk of your tax dollar in interest on hundreds of billions of Bush-borrowed loans.
Have a good laugh at the rhetorical excesses -- ignoring of course that on any given day one can find right-wingers talk openly about using guns and bombs to take over the country. (Does anyone remember Timothy McVeigh???)
But at the end of your good laugh, take a look at what's happening to your country. How do YOU propose to reverse the trend???
Obviously the Kos diarist thinks it will take the same kind of struggle this time.
But it's very very different this time.
The current admin has argued -- successfully so far -- that it can lock up US citizens indefinitely, without charges, and without legal counsel.
J Edgar Hoover couldn't dream of that power. Neither could Nixon.
While some on the left advocate some sort of handgun control, the current admin has asserted a right to simply take your guns when it decides it wants to. To hell with laws and regulation proposed by the left, where people would have some say, some vote, and could legally retain handguns -- the current admin says it can march in and take them.
The currrent admin says it can use your tax dollars to fund propaganda through ostensibly neutral journalists.
The current admin has polished a pay-to-play system that means that deLay's replacement will simply continue the same policies.
I'm not advocating Molotov cocktails at police stations. But the right-wingers are cheering while one party asserts more control over your life and rights than ever before -- and ensures that you will be paying a large chunk of your tax dollar in interest on hundreds of billions of Bush-borrowed loans.
Have a good laugh at the rhetorical excesses -- ignoring of course that on any given day one can find right-wingers talk openly about using guns and bombs to take over the country. (Does anyone remember Timothy McVeigh???)
But at the end of your good laugh, take a look at what's happening to your country. How do YOU propose to reverse the trend???
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 05:20 AM (LEpXa)
Posted by: at October 01, 2005 05:29 AM (52h84)
31
Pinhead issues het another challenge full of overwrought dramatic significance (to him only).
Don Quixote, tilting at reichwing windmills. God, what a bore.
Don Quixote, tilting at reichwing windmills. God, what a bore.
Posted by: lauraw at October 01, 2005 05:31 AM (Lt6Tu)
32
Good God, Tubino- you act like numerous right-wing bloggers aren't up in arms about the betrayal of the Republican party in financial matters. The difference is they are trying to work within the system instead of issuing irrational, hysterical calls for indiscriminate violence. There's a difference there, in case you missed it.
Posted by: KJ at October 01, 2005 05:33 AM (Kq33y)
33
I agree with Bill at INDC about these kind of liberals being crazy first, political second.
The writer's words:
"I'm dissatisfied and miserable beyond measure and no amount of medication, therapy, or vacation seems able to change that."
match most of the liberals I know.
The writer's words:
"I'm dissatisfied and miserable beyond measure and no amount of medication, therapy, or vacation seems able to change that."
match most of the liberals I know.
Posted by: adolfo velasquez at October 01, 2005 05:56 AM (MOBU+)
34
They say they want a revolution, but none of them own any guns or have any military training. That's why they bring puppets to protests.
Posted by: William Young at October 01, 2005 06:07 AM (+Uq/U)
35
Ah, Tubino: spewing one-sided crap from biased sources again. Let's look at just your first statement.
With a majority of the country opposed to
Bush's policies, we see... what chance for change?
While true that Bush's popularity is currently below 50%, the democratic party is faring no better. From the Gallup web site (9/29/05):
Slightly less than half of Americans give favorable ratings to either of the major political parties. In fact, the public's favorable rating of the Republican Party is the lowest Gallup has measured since 1999, and the Democratic Party's rating is among the lowest Gallup has recorded since 1992. Consistent with recent polling, Americans believe the Republican Party is better able to handle international affairs while the Democratic Party is better on economic matters.
Seems like people are dissatisfied with the political process overall, not just Bush's policies.
With a majority of the country opposed to
Bush's policies, we see... what chance for change?
While true that Bush's popularity is currently below 50%, the democratic party is faring no better. From the Gallup web site (9/29/05):
Slightly less than half of Americans give favorable ratings to either of the major political parties. In fact, the public's favorable rating of the Republican Party is the lowest Gallup has measured since 1999, and the Democratic Party's rating is among the lowest Gallup has recorded since 1992. Consistent with recent polling, Americans believe the Republican Party is better able to handle international affairs while the Democratic Party is better on economic matters.
Seems like people are dissatisfied with the political process overall, not just Bush's policies.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 06:19 AM (pSxN9)
36
They say they want a revolution, but none of them own any guns or have any military training. That's why they bring puppets to protests.
Oh, I dunno. Being beaten with a big papier-mache head may hurt.
Oh, I dunno. Being beaten with a big papier-mache head may hurt.
Posted by: at October 01, 2005 06:31 AM (52h84)
37
At least it's obvious she was being hyperbolic and dramatic for effect. She reverses her position by the end. Would have been obvious to your readers if you had posted the whole thing.
Regardless, I'm not fond of the rhetoric. Its not helpful.
There is no question about this one, however:
Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?
That's an outright threat of violence. And its serious. What is your response to that.
Regardless, I'm not fond of the rhetoric. Its not helpful.
There is no question about this one, however:
Do the Democrats Want a Civil War?
That's an outright threat of violence. And its serious. What is your response to that.
Posted by: at October 01, 2005 06:41 AM (d3G0S)
38
Toob, how many times can you rehash the same message? These comments are for the bloodthirsty peacenik at Kos. This is where we ridicule a shithead for for pouring out his heart on an online forum.
The best part of the shithead's post is his/her signature line, a quote by Robert Byrd.
(You've got to wonder why Byrd hasn't received the same treatment as a pariah as Joe McCarthy.)
Don't fret, Toobino. Things have a way of correcting themselves. The country is on the right track. So what about deficits. Big fucking deal. Speniding the money now for the government departmental reforms will save trillions in the future by making the Federal government "liberal" proof.
That means if we get another president like Clinton or Carter they can't fuck things up so bad.
And that means the Patriot Act is here to stay, pre-emptive war isn't the big bad of all time, and the SCOTUS will be in the hands of constitution-lovin' conservatives.
You're right about one thing: The future is bleak...for the Dems. (Have you noticed that nobody gives a shit about Tom Delay's situation?) The "see, see, see how bad they are" shit ain't working. Why? Because the it's the same old crap from the same old crappers.
*Insert quote from Chomsky or Darwin here*
P.S. I am laughing at the shithead from Kos; just like I laugh when I listen to Randi Rhodes on the radio. It's funny stuff.
The best part of the shithead's post is his/her signature line, a quote by Robert Byrd.
(You've got to wonder why Byrd hasn't received the same treatment as a pariah as Joe McCarthy.)
Don't fret, Toobino. Things have a way of correcting themselves. The country is on the right track. So what about deficits. Big fucking deal. Speniding the money now for the government departmental reforms will save trillions in the future by making the Federal government "liberal" proof.
That means if we get another president like Clinton or Carter they can't fuck things up so bad.
And that means the Patriot Act is here to stay, pre-emptive war isn't the big bad of all time, and the SCOTUS will be in the hands of constitution-lovin' conservatives.
You're right about one thing: The future is bleak...for the Dems. (Have you noticed that nobody gives a shit about Tom Delay's situation?) The "see, see, see how bad they are" shit ain't working. Why? Because the it's the same old crap from the same old crappers.
*Insert quote from Chomsky or Darwin here*
P.S. I am laughing at the shithead from Kos; just like I laugh when I listen to Randi Rhodes on the radio. It's funny stuff.
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 06:45 AM (p3fcK)
Posted by: W.C. Varones at October 01, 2005 07:16 AM (yhLbX)
40
Just over 4 years ago I started reading Tom Tomorrow's occasional postings to his old website...since then I've been an Eschatonian, then moved away to become a Kossack, and now I'm a front page poster on My Left Wing.
It is spiritually corrosive for anyone, left or right, to spend too much time following and arguing politics. If you spend all your time reading and commenting on political blogs, it changes your perspective and you forget the things that really matter in life.
It's easy to get yourself worked up into a rage over "the other side," but when you find yourself losing your sense of humor, it's time to step back and reaffirm your priorities. Go outside and take a walk, spend some quality time with your spouse, help your kid with his homework, call your mother, get some yardwork done, have a beer with your best buddy...something.
Let's face it, no one is going to change the world by reading or writing blogs. You change the world by making a difference to the people around you in everyday life - by being loving and responsible father or by cleaning the house of a friend who's wife is lying in the hospital with cancer.
This political stuff matters, but not as much as we pretend it does. My day to day life isn't really all that much different under George W than it was under Bill Clinton. They simply don't have that much control over my happiness. In fact, they have only as much as I allow them. I control whether I have a good day or bad by my own attitude and outlook. It's my choice.
I feel sorry for that poster over at Kos. He's spiritually bankrupt, miserable, lost, and unsure of where to turn. Unfortunately, he's surrounded by people who are in just the same place as he, so the commenters aren't able to even point him in the right direction.
It is spiritually corrosive for anyone, left or right, to spend too much time following and arguing politics. If you spend all your time reading and commenting on political blogs, it changes your perspective and you forget the things that really matter in life.
It's easy to get yourself worked up into a rage over "the other side," but when you find yourself losing your sense of humor, it's time to step back and reaffirm your priorities. Go outside and take a walk, spend some quality time with your spouse, help your kid with his homework, call your mother, get some yardwork done, have a beer with your best buddy...something.
Let's face it, no one is going to change the world by reading or writing blogs. You change the world by making a difference to the people around you in everyday life - by being loving and responsible father or by cleaning the house of a friend who's wife is lying in the hospital with cancer.
This political stuff matters, but not as much as we pretend it does. My day to day life isn't really all that much different under George W than it was under Bill Clinton. They simply don't have that much control over my happiness. In fact, they have only as much as I allow them. I control whether I have a good day or bad by my own attitude and outlook. It's my choice.
I feel sorry for that poster over at Kos. He's spiritually bankrupt, miserable, lost, and unsure of where to turn. Unfortunately, he's surrounded by people who are in just the same place as he, so the commenters aren't able to even point him in the right direction.
Posted by: The Warden at October 01, 2005 07:17 AM (Zxtyv)
41
It's a "he" apparently. Which figgers -- you usually don't get the "blood in the streets" schtick from a girl.Maybe Ace was using "she" in the Terry Glenn sense.
Posted by: someone at October 01, 2005 07:34 AM (6Swlb)
42
Thanks, Bill, your point is well taken. Minorities in general and Blacks in particular do enjoy greater freedoms and economic parity with others than they did 50 years ago. However, civil liberties legislation, suported by both the left and the moderate right, are responsible for much of this progress. The rest I attribute to people excercising their constitutional liberties by working hard, getting educated and improving their position in society by individual effort.
Leftist's pet programs - social engineering, such as affirmative action, the welfare state, free or almost free housing, feeding children in public education, 'hate crime' laws, all have produced little or no results, or in many cases have exacerbated the very social ills they were intended to alleviate.
I made an innacurate gross generalization in the interest of brevity, and stand corrected.
P.S. Your blog is also one of my regular reads.
Leftist's pet programs - social engineering, such as affirmative action, the welfare state, free or almost free housing, feeding children in public education, 'hate crime' laws, all have produced little or no results, or in many cases have exacerbated the very social ills they were intended to alleviate.
I made an innacurate gross generalization in the interest of brevity, and stand corrected.
P.S. Your blog is also one of my regular reads.
Posted by: West at October 01, 2005 08:04 AM (uHmio)
43
Tubine speciously says: "when you realize they are looting the treasury, "
On a deeper level this is completely false. In reality we're looting the Japanese, PRC, etc treasuries. WE got the hard goods - roads, buildings, weapons, etc from spending their money. All they have in return is our promise to pay someday.
On a deeper level this is completely false. In reality we're looting the Japanese, PRC, etc treasuries. WE got the hard goods - roads, buildings, weapons, etc from spending their money. All they have in return is our promise to pay someday.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 08:52 AM (X+OCl)
44
Well, it finally happened. Someone (geoff) noticed that the Dems are not a likely solution. Good.
Unfortunately he gets there not by noticing ACTIONS of the politicians, but by the silly use of polls... okay, same point: the Dems are nearly useless here, as they are bound by the same corporate whoredom.
The only point any of you actually address is fiscal responsibility, which is predictable. But look who has taken over your party: "So what about deficits. Big fucking deal. Speniding the money now for the government departmental reforms will save trillions in the future by making the Federal government "liberal" proof. "
Translation: the right wing is so stupid it believes that it is better to force the country into bankruptcy than allow any funding to be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. In other words, anything that impedes the flow of our tax money into elite private hands (and paying interest to foreign investors is just one example) is to be SHUNNED. There is nothing "liberal-proofed" about a massively deficit-spending govt. Bush is proving that. He can spend hundreds of billions on a whim -- though his preference is on political payback rather than results. It COULD be liberal, but it's just Tammany Hall style corruption. (This is the same gang that can't even supply the troops with armor. Can't even reimburse them when they buy their own armor!)
Last time I looked, the pork pounding project found that only Nancy Pelosi had offered to return any pork. Just listen to KJ: "you act like numerous right-wing bloggers aren't up in arms about the betrayal of the Republican party in financial matters. The difference is they are trying to work within the system ...
Just breaks your heart, doesn't it? Okay, pay attention now: name some REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS who are paying ANY ATTENTION to your rightwing bloggers.
Can you do it? No.
That's because you were bait-and-switched. You didn't elect conservatives. You were used.
And most of you are ready to pay for more of it, happily.
The terrorists hate us for our freedoms? Well let's just appease them by reducing our freedoms as fast as we can, shall we?
Unfortunately he gets there not by noticing ACTIONS of the politicians, but by the silly use of polls... okay, same point: the Dems are nearly useless here, as they are bound by the same corporate whoredom.
The only point any of you actually address is fiscal responsibility, which is predictable. But look who has taken over your party: "So what about deficits. Big fucking deal. Speniding the money now for the government departmental reforms will save trillions in the future by making the Federal government "liberal" proof. "
Translation: the right wing is so stupid it believes that it is better to force the country into bankruptcy than allow any funding to be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. In other words, anything that impedes the flow of our tax money into elite private hands (and paying interest to foreign investors is just one example) is to be SHUNNED. There is nothing "liberal-proofed" about a massively deficit-spending govt. Bush is proving that. He can spend hundreds of billions on a whim -- though his preference is on political payback rather than results. It COULD be liberal, but it's just Tammany Hall style corruption. (This is the same gang that can't even supply the troops with armor. Can't even reimburse them when they buy their own armor!)
Last time I looked, the pork pounding project found that only Nancy Pelosi had offered to return any pork. Just listen to KJ: "you act like numerous right-wing bloggers aren't up in arms about the betrayal of the Republican party in financial matters. The difference is they are trying to work within the system ...
Just breaks your heart, doesn't it? Okay, pay attention now: name some REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS who are paying ANY ATTENTION to your rightwing bloggers.
Can you do it? No.
That's because you were bait-and-switched. You didn't elect conservatives. You were used.
And most of you are ready to pay for more of it, happily.
The terrorists hate us for our freedoms? Well let's just appease them by reducing our freedoms as fast as we can, shall we?
Posted by: at October 01, 2005 09:20 AM (LEpXa)
45
"J Edgar Hoover couldn't dream of that power. Neither could Nixon."
No, but FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln - they did more than just dream of that power.
No, but FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln - they did more than just dream of that power.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:29 AM (QaHR7)
46
" name some REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS who are paying ANY ATTENTION to your rightwing bloggers."
McCain.
You are shrill and tiresome.
"better to force the country into bankruptcy"
Hee hee hee. Take an economics class or two, why dont'cha?
McCain.
You are shrill and tiresome.
"better to force the country into bankruptcy"
Hee hee hee. Take an economics class or two, why dont'cha?
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:31 AM (QaHR7)
47
Here's a juicy insight into the feverish mind of Bush-supporters:
"On a deeper level this is completely false. In reality we're looting the Japanese, PRC, etc treasuries. WE got the hard goods - roads, buildings, weapons, etc from spending their money. All they have in return is our promise to pay someday.
On a deeper level, if I borrow to the max on my credit cards, I'm looting the card companies. Right.
Just as important as the idiocy of not understanding T bonds (and that a portion of your tax dollars NOW goes to pay the interest on borrowed money), as indicated by Purple Avenger, is that we are NOT getting roads or buildings we need, any more than the troops are getting the armor they need. Bush admin has greatly increased non-defense spending, but do you see federal dollars rebuilding schools, bridges, highways at an increased rate? At a rate to keep up with deterioration? At a rate to keep US ahead in the first world?
Of course not. Do you see effective increased security around nuclear plants, chem plants, municipal water sites, containers unloaded from abroad?
No.
Economists are starting to talk about a possible recession, with consumer confidence & spending dropping, wages dropping, bankruptcies increasing, energy prices rising. The gas pedal of govt spending is already near the floor -- what's left to goose if the market goes bearish? Tax cuts? Been doing that, that's how we got here. Start a war to push a lot of public money into private sector? Been doing that. Keep interest rates low enough to spur spending on home equity loans? That's maxxed out too.
We're eating the seed corn now. US Higher Education, the model for the world for decades, is no longer attracting all the best from the rest of the world. ON all kinds of indicators of future economic growth, the US is in decline relative to other countries. And this administration would rather scare you with gay marriage or flag burning than address anything THAT serious.
"On a deeper level this is completely false. In reality we're looting the Japanese, PRC, etc treasuries. WE got the hard goods - roads, buildings, weapons, etc from spending their money. All they have in return is our promise to pay someday.
On a deeper level, if I borrow to the max on my credit cards, I'm looting the card companies. Right.
Just as important as the idiocy of not understanding T bonds (and that a portion of your tax dollars NOW goes to pay the interest on borrowed money), as indicated by Purple Avenger, is that we are NOT getting roads or buildings we need, any more than the troops are getting the armor they need. Bush admin has greatly increased non-defense spending, but do you see federal dollars rebuilding schools, bridges, highways at an increased rate? At a rate to keep up with deterioration? At a rate to keep US ahead in the first world?
Of course not. Do you see effective increased security around nuclear plants, chem plants, municipal water sites, containers unloaded from abroad?
No.
Economists are starting to talk about a possible recession, with consumer confidence & spending dropping, wages dropping, bankruptcies increasing, energy prices rising. The gas pedal of govt spending is already near the floor -- what's left to goose if the market goes bearish? Tax cuts? Been doing that, that's how we got here. Start a war to push a lot of public money into private sector? Been doing that. Keep interest rates low enough to spur spending on home equity loans? That's maxxed out too.
We're eating the seed corn now. US Higher Education, the model for the world for decades, is no longer attracting all the best from the rest of the world. ON all kinds of indicators of future economic growth, the US is in decline relative to other countries. And this administration would rather scare you with gay marriage or flag burning than address anything THAT serious.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 09:36 AM (LEpXa)
48
"Economists are starting to talk about a possible recession,"
Yup. Those happen every 4-8 years. The early oughts, the early nineties, the early eighties, several times in the seventies ...
"ON all kinds of indicators of future economic growth, the US is in decline relative to other countries."
Links? Facts? Figures? I await with bated breath ...
Yup. Those happen every 4-8 years. The early oughts, the early nineties, the early eighties, several times in the seventies ...
"ON all kinds of indicators of future economic growth, the US is in decline relative to other countries."
Links? Facts? Figures? I await with bated breath ...
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:41 AM (QaHR7)
49
Knemon: "" name some REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS who are paying ANY ATTENTION to your rightwing bloggers."
McCain."
Thanks for making my point. The powers that be in the Republican party pay almost zero attention to McCain. And that's the best you can do. McCain was viciously smeared by your own party, and is only useful for some PR stunts now.
Knemon, I didn't say the US was headed to bankruptcy, I said your party would rather that than use tax money wisely. But it's members of YOUR PARTY that have hinted that the US might default on T bonds, for the first time ever.
By measures used by many economists, the fiscal situation of the US is grave by third-world standards (not just deficit spending, but concentration of wealth). It's just that no one knows how long it can go on in a first-world country. Interesting times.
McCain."
Thanks for making my point. The powers that be in the Republican party pay almost zero attention to McCain. And that's the best you can do. McCain was viciously smeared by your own party, and is only useful for some PR stunts now.
Knemon, I didn't say the US was headed to bankruptcy, I said your party would rather that than use tax money wisely. But it's members of YOUR PARTY that have hinted that the US might default on T bonds, for the first time ever.
By measures used by many economists, the fiscal situation of the US is grave by third-world standards (not just deficit spending, but concentration of wealth). It's just that no one knows how long it can go on in a first-world country. Interesting times.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 09:44 AM (LEpXa)
50
"McCain was viciously smeared by your own party, "
By the whole party? In case you haven't noticed, McCain is running strong (though not out front) in '08 preference polls, and has rebuilt lots of his earlier-trashed rapport with Republicans.
"By measures used by many economists, the fiscal situation of the US is grave by third-world standards (not just deficit spending, but concentration of wealth). "
Concentration of wealth, I'll grant you. But third-world standards of deficit spending? Here's where I have to repeat: you don't know what you're talking about. We're running a budget deficit of appx. 15%, give or take a few points. Our accumulated debt is roughly equal (actually somewhat smaller) to our GNP. Neither of those qualifies as "third-world level."
Again, give some links or quotes to back up what you're saying, or shush.
Our economy's not a basket of roses, but we're better off than most other developed countries.
I'd like to see a different policy - raise the top rate a %point or two, maybe, and cut a whoooole lotta pork, and some actual beef, outta the budget. If a Democrat comes along (and actually gets nominated) with that platform, it'd be pretty attractive. Somehow I don't see it, but who knows?
By the whole party? In case you haven't noticed, McCain is running strong (though not out front) in '08 preference polls, and has rebuilt lots of his earlier-trashed rapport with Republicans.
"By measures used by many economists, the fiscal situation of the US is grave by third-world standards (not just deficit spending, but concentration of wealth). "
Concentration of wealth, I'll grant you. But third-world standards of deficit spending? Here's where I have to repeat: you don't know what you're talking about. We're running a budget deficit of appx. 15%, give or take a few points. Our accumulated debt is roughly equal (actually somewhat smaller) to our GNP. Neither of those qualifies as "third-world level."
Again, give some links or quotes to back up what you're saying, or shush.
Our economy's not a basket of roses, but we're better off than most other developed countries.
I'd like to see a different policy - raise the top rate a %point or two, maybe, and cut a whoooole lotta pork, and some actual beef, outta the budget. If a Democrat comes along (and actually gets nominated) with that platform, it'd be pretty attractive. Somehow I don't see it, but who knows?
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:51 AM (QaHR7)
51
"ON all kinds of indicators of future economic growth, the US is in decline relative to other countries."
Knemon asks for an education to back up my claim. I'll flesh out a little, then I'm off.
Indicators such as # patents and measures of commercialization, # grads in science and engineering, # grads staying, $ spent on R&D. US is losing supremacy in many areas. TR Reid's book, United States of Europe, is a pretty good intro, but a few dozen graphs could replace a couple hundred pages of anecdotes for someone like me. And his basis for comparison is too narrow.
Have fun, enjoy the sunshine. Rest up and get ready to work hard to fund the republican revolution.
And geoff, if you get this far... remember when I claimed that the Iraqi funding scandal was practice for NOLA? I was unfortunately right. No bid contracts of $2B, and hardly any housing so far. Ta ta!
Knemon asks for an education to back up my claim. I'll flesh out a little, then I'm off.
Indicators such as # patents and measures of commercialization, # grads in science and engineering, # grads staying, $ spent on R&D. US is losing supremacy in many areas. TR Reid's book, United States of Europe, is a pretty good intro, but a few dozen graphs could replace a couple hundred pages of anecdotes for someone like me. And his basis for comparison is too narrow.
Have fun, enjoy the sunshine. Rest up and get ready to work hard to fund the republican revolution.
And geoff, if you get this far... remember when I claimed that the Iraqi funding scandal was practice for NOLA? I was unfortunately right. No bid contracts of $2B, and hardly any housing so far. Ta ta!
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 09:54 AM (LEpXa)
52
Oh. Okay. So indicators like economic growth, employment, % of workforce employed in private vs. public sector - this is all meaningless?
We do need to worry about a "brain drain" effect, you're right. But we've heard this sky-is-falling, Japan-will-enslave-our-grandchildren talk before. Maybe this is the time. Maybe not.
We do need to worry about a "brain drain" effect, you're right. But we've heard this sky-is-falling, Japan-will-enslave-our-grandchildren talk before. Maybe this is the time. Maybe not.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:56 AM (QaHR7)
53
On a deeper level, if I borrow to the max on my credit cards, I'm looting the card companies. Right.
Yep. You got real goods, they just got your promise to pay. You can just go bankrupt to avoid the axe. Thousands do this every year.
Governments are more flexible - they can devalue currency and pay off the suckers with cheap money.
Apparently the PRC, Japan, etc don't feel we're even close to that point though - because they keep shipping us their cash.
Apparently they feel we are in a much better position to pay than most other countries - because they keep shipping us their cash.
Apparently they feel we are a lower risk for screwing them over with a devaluation than others - because they keep shipping us their cash.
So, if all these other countries have so much faith in the USA - faith they back up with cash, why is your faith so little?
What does Tubino know that the very best economists of all these other industrial countries don't?
Yep. You got real goods, they just got your promise to pay. You can just go bankrupt to avoid the axe. Thousands do this every year.
Governments are more flexible - they can devalue currency and pay off the suckers with cheap money.
Apparently the PRC, Japan, etc don't feel we're even close to that point though - because they keep shipping us their cash.
Apparently they feel we are in a much better position to pay than most other countries - because they keep shipping us their cash.
Apparently they feel we are a lower risk for screwing them over with a devaluation than others - because they keep shipping us their cash.
So, if all these other countries have so much faith in the USA - faith they back up with cash, why is your faith so little?
What does Tubino know that the very best economists of all these other industrial countries don't?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 09:58 AM (X+OCl)
54
"What does Tubino know that the very best economists of all these other industrial countries don't?"
He knows THE TRUTH, maaan.
He knows THE TRUTH, maaan.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:00 AM (QaHR7)
55
She's right about one thing. The current strategy is not working. I suggest they take a page from the happy warrior, Hubert H. Humphrey
Posted by: Duhggee at October 01, 2005 10:01 AM (a8OaC)
56
I've always been a HHH type myself. "Food not bombs?" No, food AND bombs. Grand tradition of JFK, Truman, FDR, Wilson, etc.
By modern Democratic standards, all 4 of them are fascist reactionary white supremacist warmongers. Surprised they still put pictures of 'em up at their conventions.
By modern Democratic standards, all 4 of them are fascist reactionary white supremacist warmongers. Surprised they still put pictures of 'em up at their conventions.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:02 AM (QaHR7)
57
Yep, JFK would be run out of town on a rail as a vicious warmongering neocon these days.
If you go back and read some of JFK's speeches, its obvious that W has borrowed numerous riffs from him.
The democrat party left me back around the early 80's, I didn't leave the democrats. I rather liked HHH -- who would be painted as a neocon these days too.
If you go back and read some of JFK's speeches, its obvious that W has borrowed numerous riffs from him.
The democrat party left me back around the early 80's, I didn't leave the democrats. I rather liked HHH -- who would be painted as a neocon these days too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 10:11 AM (X+OCl)
58
Hunter Thompson's description of HHH as a "gutless, treacherous, corrupt old ward-heeler" brought the man to the point of tears. A decent guy, the sort that has no place in politics. Especially these days.
tubino, if you're still around, what you fail to understand is that most Republicans aren't really huge fans of Bush except as a response to all the BDS ... do they think he's better than his opponents Gore & Kerry? Sure. Is he who they would pick if they had free choice? Probably not.
He's a flawed, incompetent, muddling president. The latest in a long, long line of such.
tubino, if you're still around, what you fail to understand is that most Republicans aren't really huge fans of Bush except as a response to all the BDS ... do they think he's better than his opponents Gore & Kerry? Sure. Is he who they would pick if they had free choice? Probably not.
He's a flawed, incompetent, muddling president. The latest in a long, long line of such.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:19 AM (QaHR7)
59
Warden -
I still think you're an asshole, but ...
It is spiritually corrosive for anyone, left or right, to spend too much time following and arguing politics. If you spend all your time reading and commenting on political blogs, it changes your perspective and you forget the things that really matter in life.
There is a lot of wisdom in your comment.
I still think you're an asshole, but ...
It is spiritually corrosive for anyone, left or right, to spend too much time following and arguing politics. If you spend all your time reading and commenting on political blogs, it changes your perspective and you forget the things that really matter in life.
There is a lot of wisdom in your comment.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 01, 2005 10:22 AM (iPyTX)
60
it, is, alive.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 01, 2005 10:26 AM (gLReS)
61
Oh, tubino, Frist also goes in the anti-pork camp - in recent rhetoric, if not yet in substantive action.
Plus a whole buncha Representatives. Do they count?
Plus a whole buncha Representatives. Do they count?
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:26 AM (QaHR7)
62
Knemon sez, "By the whole party? In case you haven't noticed, McCain is running strong (though not out front) in '08 preference polls, and has rebuilt lots of his earlier-trashed rapport with Republicans."
Care to make a wager on McCain? I would wager a significant sum that ANY AMOUNT of popular support will count for NOTHING at the top party level.
NOTHING.
BTW, in this regard the dem party is almost as bad. Just not as disciplined and organized, but almost as afraid of a popular pol instead of a manufactured one. Remaking a New England-Yale elite with a fake Texas ranch, for example.
I never said the US had third-world level debt -- though the TREND is moving that way, thanks to the Bush Admin. I was trying to say you CANNOT just look at that. I'm well aware of the ratio of GDP to debt, and have posted links to the graphs many times in comments here. (though no one here was willing to discuss the implications of when the debt was incurred!)
You have to look at household debt, poverty rates, health care and the stratification of society to see what puts the US apart from other developed countries.
--------------------
I'm sure just a few more tax cuts, and the market will straighten it all out.
/rightwing moron
Care to make a wager on McCain? I would wager a significant sum that ANY AMOUNT of popular support will count for NOTHING at the top party level.
NOTHING.
BTW, in this regard the dem party is almost as bad. Just not as disciplined and organized, but almost as afraid of a popular pol instead of a manufactured one. Remaking a New England-Yale elite with a fake Texas ranch, for example.
I never said the US had third-world level debt -- though the TREND is moving that way, thanks to the Bush Admin. I was trying to say you CANNOT just look at that. I'm well aware of the ratio of GDP to debt, and have posted links to the graphs many times in comments here. (though no one here was willing to discuss the implications of when the debt was incurred!)
You have to look at household debt, poverty rates, health care and the stratification of society to see what puts the US apart from other developed countries.
--------------------
I'm sure just a few more tax cuts, and the market will straighten it all out.
/rightwing moron
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 10:27 AM (LEpXa)
63
"Care to make a wager on McCain? "
Nope. I'm a Rudy kinda guy myself. Just pointing out that he is, in fact, a prominent and popular Republican. Keep moving those goalpoasts, though - it keeps this interesting.
"You have to look at household debt, poverty rates, health care and the stratification of society to see what puts the US apart from other developed countries."
Okay. Which developed countries do you claim have rosier economic vistas? You could argue the UK ... after that?
Which direction is the net flow of immigration moving in? There you go.
Nope. I'm a Rudy kinda guy myself. Just pointing out that he is, in fact, a prominent and popular Republican. Keep moving those goalpoasts, though - it keeps this interesting.
"You have to look at household debt, poverty rates, health care and the stratification of society to see what puts the US apart from other developed countries."
Okay. Which developed countries do you claim have rosier economic vistas? You could argue the UK ... after that?
Which direction is the net flow of immigration moving in? There you go.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:31 AM (QaHR7)
64
Here's the $64 question: "So, if all these other countries have so much faith in the USA - faith they back up with cash, why is your faith so little?"
The question isn't about my faith, but how long the faith of others (foreign investors) holds out?
Nothing crazy in the question. It's on the business pages every week. Can you guess how the discussion goes? What happens as investors prefer other investments?
See why thinking the US might be facing just another cyclical recession is being a little bit blind?
Believe what you want, but reality has a way of not caring about our beliefs...
The question isn't about my faith, but how long the faith of others (foreign investors) holds out?
Nothing crazy in the question. It's on the business pages every week. Can you guess how the discussion goes? What happens as investors prefer other investments?
See why thinking the US might be facing just another cyclical recession is being a little bit blind?
Believe what you want, but reality has a way of not caring about our beliefs...
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 10:37 AM (LEpXa)
65
Oh, and if the Democrats really do want to take this populist shtick for more than the briefest of test-drives, it would be helpful to take positions that are actually popular. All those dread "wedge issues" (i.e. issues on which appx. half the Democratic voters agree with nearly all the Republicans, like the death penalty ...)
Economics alone can't get you elected.
Economics alone can't get you elected.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:39 AM (QaHR7)
66
Okay. Which developed countries do you claim have rosier economic vistas? You could argue the UK ... after that?
Most of the euros have double digit unemployment. Some (like France) have idiotic unions who feel that strikes in dire times are the right answer.
Last year we saw how effective their governments were in dealing with "natural disaster" "emergency" - 10's of thousands dead because they couldn't handle working around a hot summer.
We see governments that are compelled to subsidize industry to levels unheard of here in the US just to try and keep them competitive.
We may stumble around like the Kansas City Royals, but everyone else is behaving like the Devil Rays single-A farm team.
Most of the euros have double digit unemployment. Some (like France) have idiotic unions who feel that strikes in dire times are the right answer.
Last year we saw how effective their governments were in dealing with "natural disaster" "emergency" - 10's of thousands dead because they couldn't handle working around a hot summer.
We see governments that are compelled to subsidize industry to levels unheard of here in the US just to try and keep them competitive.
We may stumble around like the Kansas City Royals, but everyone else is behaving like the Devil Rays single-A farm team.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 11:03 AM (X+OCl)
67
it would be helpful to take positions that are actually popular
I've been saying for years the dems need to thow the moonbats overboard.
The problem has gotten to the point now where the "base" isn't really a base at all anymore - its a disjoint collection of narrow interest moonbats the threatens the dem leadership with implosion whenever any hints at moving toward the electoral center are whispered.
They're already crucifying Hillary for her political makover attempt. I hate to say it, but she's the only high profile dem these days with any political sense at all. The rest are just suicidal maniacs.
I've been saying for years the dems need to thow the moonbats overboard.
The problem has gotten to the point now where the "base" isn't really a base at all anymore - its a disjoint collection of narrow interest moonbats the threatens the dem leadership with implosion whenever any hints at moving toward the electoral center are whispered.
They're already crucifying Hillary for her political makover attempt. I hate to say it, but she's the only high profile dem these days with any political sense at all. The rest are just suicidal maniacs.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 11:12 AM (X+OCl)
68
With a majority of the country opposed to
Bush's policies
Odd. He was reelected just 11 months ago. He collected more votes than any previous president.
I hope you're getting help for those delusions.
Bush's policies
Odd. He was reelected just 11 months ago. He collected more votes than any previous president.
I hope you're getting help for those delusions.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at October 01, 2005 11:29 AM (Gn9tM)
69
tubino
Your comments have a similar apocalyptic flavor to the "rivers of blood" Kos diary. You are telling us that the US is a sinful society that is going to meet its reckoning. What exactly is our sin? Well, electing George Bush, for one.
You are essentially adopting a loser attitude towards the United States, and this is one reason why the Democrats are losing elections. This is your message in a nutshell: "Were such losers having elected Bush and not having implemented national healthcare that China's gonna kick our ass in a couple of decades, but elect people who think like me and we will make the United States adopt a crouching position so we don't get hurt too bad when the ass-kicking starts."
You think this is a political winner? Here's a hint for you. The stuff you are peddling is essentially what Jimmy Carter was peddling. Our moment in the sun is over. Japan's gonna kick our ass because their government spends more intelligently. We shouldn't fight terrorists or evil empires but negotiate with them. We're running out of oil. We're in debt. We lost in Vietnam and will never win again. All that military money would be better spent at home.
Reagan came along and said, "Nope. No way. I'm not buying any of this." He was elected in a landslide as an optimist in a much darker time, and the Republic endured.
Your comments have a similar apocalyptic flavor to the "rivers of blood" Kos diary. You are telling us that the US is a sinful society that is going to meet its reckoning. What exactly is our sin? Well, electing George Bush, for one.
You are essentially adopting a loser attitude towards the United States, and this is one reason why the Democrats are losing elections. This is your message in a nutshell: "Were such losers having elected Bush and not having implemented national healthcare that China's gonna kick our ass in a couple of decades, but elect people who think like me and we will make the United States adopt a crouching position so we don't get hurt too bad when the ass-kicking starts."
You think this is a political winner? Here's a hint for you. The stuff you are peddling is essentially what Jimmy Carter was peddling. Our moment in the sun is over. Japan's gonna kick our ass because their government spends more intelligently. We shouldn't fight terrorists or evil empires but negotiate with them. We're running out of oil. We're in debt. We lost in Vietnam and will never win again. All that military money would be better spent at home.
Reagan came along and said, "Nope. No way. I'm not buying any of this." He was elected in a landslide as an optimist in a much darker time, and the Republic endured.
Posted by: caspera at October 01, 2005 11:30 AM (jylGY)
70
The question isn't about my faith, but how long the faith of others (foreign investors) holds out?
Until such time as they think investing in nations with double digit inflation, catatonic economies, and massive welfare obligations has a big uptick, I'd have to say the answer will be its going to hold out for a LONG LONG TIME.
Socialist economies have traditionally been a pretty poor investment unless they're sitting on some massive natural resources that, even ineptly managed, will be winners.
Until such time as they think investing in nations with double digit inflation, catatonic economies, and massive welfare obligations has a big uptick, I'd have to say the answer will be its going to hold out for a LONG LONG TIME.
Socialist economies have traditionally been a pretty poor investment unless they're sitting on some massive natural resources that, even ineptly managed, will be winners.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 11:36 AM (X+OCl)
71
Robert Crawford - please, Bush is an incredibly unpopular president, it's not really debatable.
And don't forget, John Kerry ALSO collected more votes than any previous president (candidate).
And don't forget, John Kerry ALSO collected more votes than any previous president (candidate).
Posted by: izzadem at October 01, 2005 11:43 AM (d3G0S)
72
do you see federal dollars rebuilding schools, bridges, highways at an increased rate? At a rate to keep up with deterioration?
Well, yes, I sure do. Here in Colorado we're building roads and schools at a tremendous rate, and it's partly funded by federal dollars.
Do you see effective increased security around nuclear plants, chem plants, municipal water sites, containers unloaded from abroad?
Well, yes, I sure do. This from the Jan '05 GAO report on Wastewater Facilities:
In December 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7), which established a national policy for federal departments and agencies to identify and set priorities for the nation’s critical infrastructures and to protect them from terrorist attacks. HSPD-7 established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the lead federal agency to oversee the security of the water ector, both drinking water and wastewater.
Then from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we have:
Details of the specific actions are sensitive, but for facilities such as power reactors, they generally include:
* increased patrols,
* augmented security forces and capabilities,
* additional security posts,
* installation of additional physical barriers,
* vehicle checks at greater stand-off distances,
* enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities;
* more restrictive site access controls for all personnel; and
* expanded, expedited, and more thorough employee background checks.
For power reactors and fuel fabrication facilities having significant quantities of nuclear material, facility owners were required in April 2003 to revise the physical security plans, guard training and qualification plans, and contingency plans. The NRC reviewed these plans and the owners implemented them by October 2004.
Once again, a little fact checking immediately undermines Little Tub's blind assertions.
Well, yes, I sure do. Here in Colorado we're building roads and schools at a tremendous rate, and it's partly funded by federal dollars.
Do you see effective increased security around nuclear plants, chem plants, municipal water sites, containers unloaded from abroad?
Well, yes, I sure do. This from the Jan '05 GAO report on Wastewater Facilities:
In December 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7), which established a national policy for federal departments and agencies to identify and set priorities for the nation’s critical infrastructures and to protect them from terrorist attacks. HSPD-7 established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the lead federal agency to oversee the security of the water ector, both drinking water and wastewater.
Then from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we have:
Details of the specific actions are sensitive, but for facilities such as power reactors, they generally include:
* increased patrols,
* augmented security forces and capabilities,
* additional security posts,
* installation of additional physical barriers,
* vehicle checks at greater stand-off distances,
* enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities;
* more restrictive site access controls for all personnel; and
* expanded, expedited, and more thorough employee background checks.
For power reactors and fuel fabrication facilities having significant quantities of nuclear material, facility owners were required in April 2003 to revise the physical security plans, guard training and qualification plans, and contingency plans. The NRC reviewed these plans and the owners implemented them by October 2004.
Once again, a little fact checking immediately undermines Little Tub's blind assertions.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 12:03 PM (pSxN9)
73
Toob, you are doing what every liberal does when s/he is losing an argument: throw insults and write incoherently.
You wrote:
Translation: the right wing is so stupid it believes that it is better to force the country into bankruptcy than allow any funding to be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
Dood, you're not even trying to being intellectually honest, anymore.
First, the country isn't going bankrupt. It is foolish to suggest the U.S. is going bankrupt. Second, you're implying we are not spending ANY money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That claim is dishonest, and you know that. The truth is we are spending shitloads of money on those items. Shitloads.
Yes, as a conservative, I want to spend, -- make that WASTE -- less money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. I'm confident the spending spree is O-V-A, over. For example, we are over the hump in Iraq and New Orleans won't see those billions of dollars to rebuild. It's a waste of money to rebuild a city below sea-level and in a few months noone except Mary Landrieau and Ray Nagin will be complaining. And who's going to listen to them?
You brought up the lack of funding of Healthcare on a conservative blog. That's the funniest shit I've seen all day.
Ha Ha. Like any of us give a fuck about funding another person's healthcare. And by "other person's", I mean able-bodied people who desire and/or leach off government sponsored healthcare.
Too bad you proved to be a typical Lib, Toob, by showing us how elite you are.
You wrote:
Translation: the right wing is so stupid it believes that it is better to force the country into bankruptcy than allow any funding to be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
Dood, you're not even trying to being intellectually honest, anymore.
First, the country isn't going bankrupt. It is foolish to suggest the U.S. is going bankrupt. Second, you're implying we are not spending ANY money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That claim is dishonest, and you know that. The truth is we are spending shitloads of money on those items. Shitloads.
Yes, as a conservative, I want to spend, -- make that WASTE -- less money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. I'm confident the spending spree is O-V-A, over. For example, we are over the hump in Iraq and New Orleans won't see those billions of dollars to rebuild. It's a waste of money to rebuild a city below sea-level and in a few months noone except Mary Landrieau and Ray Nagin will be complaining. And who's going to listen to them?
You brought up the lack of funding of Healthcare on a conservative blog. That's the funniest shit I've seen all day.
Ha Ha. Like any of us give a fuck about funding another person's healthcare. And by "other person's", I mean able-bodied people who desire and/or leach off government sponsored healthcare.
Too bad you proved to be a typical Lib, Toob, by showing us how elite you are.
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 12:06 PM (FBeiQ)
74
Bush is an incredibly unpopular president, it's not really debatable.
Gosh, no reason to debate this then, I'm convinced that this loser's observation based on almost no historical context.
Gosh, no reason to debate this then, I'm convinced that this loser's observation based on almost no historical context.
Posted by: JFH at October 01, 2005 12:36 PM (arxyn)
75
Warden -
I still think you're an asshole...
Well, Bill, I don't think you're an asshole, at least not all the time. What I think you are is a very sharp guy who tends to let his ego take over his arguments.
I think you'd be a lot more convincing if you'd just leave Bill out of it, and make your arguments with the relentless logic of which I know you're capable. You'd be more effective, and stir up a lot less animosity.
Just my two cents.
I still think you're an asshole...
Well, Bill, I don't think you're an asshole, at least not all the time. What I think you are is a very sharp guy who tends to let his ego take over his arguments.
I think you'd be a lot more convincing if you'd just leave Bill out of it, and make your arguments with the relentless logic of which I know you're capable. You'd be more effective, and stir up a lot less animosity.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: The Warden at October 01, 2005 12:43 PM (cZGnO)
76
we are not spending ANY money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That claim is dishonest, and you know that. The truth is we are spending shitloads of money on those items. Shitloads.
"shitloads" == ~3X-5X per student what the euros do in fact.
Q: are we getting any value for this shitload of money?
A: no, we obviously pay more and get less for it than other industrialized nations.
Contrary to what the liberals whine about, lack of money is clearly NOT the "problem" with US education.
"shitloads" == ~3X-5X per student what the euros do in fact.
Q: are we getting any value for this shitload of money?
A: no, we obviously pay more and get less for it than other industrialized nations.
Contrary to what the liberals whine about, lack of money is clearly NOT the "problem" with US education.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 12:45 PM (X+OCl)
77
My arguments are based around "me" mostly only as much as they are my opinions. Ego has less to do with it than you might project, in MY opinion.
See? There, I did it again.
Ego really comes into play primarily when people (many on this site) attack me personally, at which point I let my inner mean son of a bitch out of its cage (which isn't really as much a cage as a well-apportioned pet carrier with no door). If you might recall, I never had any dust-ups over here until the Terri Schiavo affair. I wonder why that is ... must be my ego, which was somehow diminished last year.
PS - Me, me, me and me.
See? There, I did it again.
Ego really comes into play primarily when people (many on this site) attack me personally, at which point I let my inner mean son of a bitch out of its cage (which isn't really as much a cage as a well-apportioned pet carrier with no door). If you might recall, I never had any dust-ups over here until the Terri Schiavo affair. I wonder why that is ... must be my ego, which was somehow diminished last year.
PS - Me, me, me and me.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 01, 2005 12:54 PM (XZ2+l)
78
Bill, you do whatever you like. I'm simply noting what I observe. You can tell me I'm projecting if that's what makes you feel better.
My question is this: What is it you are seeking to accomplish by blogging and commenting on other people's posts? If it's about letting off steam or having a few laughs, then I certainly can't fault you.
But if your goal is to influence opinion, then my position is that anything you do to that strays from this goal is unavoidably about ego.
I'm not up there preaching from the mountain to you about this, Bill. I'm down here preaching from the valley. Every time I play a game of hold'em, I have to ask myself at regular intervals if a particular play I'm making is about maximizing my return on investment or about soothing my ego.
Too often, I realize, I make ego plays. I'm mad that someone pushed me out of a pot or I want to dazzle others with my nuanced play or I'm bored because I haven't gotten a hand....yada yada yada. When I see myself doing this, I try to correct it immediately as it is destructive to my stated goal of making money (or, more specifically, playing to the best of my ability)
What I see in you Bill, is someone who has the tools to shape opinion. People like you are a rarity, and I think you waste your abilities when you stray into flame wars and general shit stirring.
My question is this: What is it you are seeking to accomplish by blogging and commenting on other people's posts? If it's about letting off steam or having a few laughs, then I certainly can't fault you.
But if your goal is to influence opinion, then my position is that anything you do to that strays from this goal is unavoidably about ego.
I'm not up there preaching from the mountain to you about this, Bill. I'm down here preaching from the valley. Every time I play a game of hold'em, I have to ask myself at regular intervals if a particular play I'm making is about maximizing my return on investment or about soothing my ego.
Too often, I realize, I make ego plays. I'm mad that someone pushed me out of a pot or I want to dazzle others with my nuanced play or I'm bored because I haven't gotten a hand....yada yada yada. When I see myself doing this, I try to correct it immediately as it is destructive to my stated goal of making money (or, more specifically, playing to the best of my ability)
What I see in you Bill, is someone who has the tools to shape opinion. People like you are a rarity, and I think you waste your abilities when you stray into flame wars and general shit stirring.
Posted by: The Warden at October 01, 2005 01:38 PM (cZGnO)
79
Warden, may I call you Dr. Phil?
Dr. Phil, I suppose Bill is here for the same reasons you and I are here.
For the Ace Oh Spades T-shirts, baby!
Dr. Phil, I suppose Bill is here for the same reasons you and I are here.
For the Ace Oh Spades T-shirts, baby!
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 02:22 PM (ba829)
80
Tubino...
I have to ask. Are you clueless,? Have you not read thoroughly the details of the PA provisions you spoke of? Or are you assuming that, like so many on the Left, we're all a bit clueless here and will accept as gospel truth your claims?
The way you framed the situations you mentioned were wrong at best, purposely dishonest at worse. You seem to purposely focus on the unpleasant appearances of such occurrences – staying away completely from the one thing critical to facilitate those things ever happening.
An intelligent person wouldn’t fixate so much on the acts - and exploit how they may appear - the intelligent person would want to know that preceding every act the government takes against person or property. That due process was observed.
Bush cant snap his fingers and make any of what you described happen. 1st someone must present a judge or grand jury with evidence enough to justify the issuance of a warrant. At which point the judge will issue one. Stipulating who its for and what specifically it covers. Due process.
What all that implies is that there exists enough evidence to suggest you are involved in something that merits the cops taking a closer look. Don’t like that? Then don’t leave your bong out on the kitchen table or mirror and razor blade on your front seat and no one will suspect you have anything to do with narcotics. Get it?
Or are you telling us that they’ve done away with due process. The judges, all other associated agencies, prosecutors as well as every individual sitting on a grand jury are corrupt and in cahoots with Bush on these matters.?
Two words – Seek Help.
Please, someone invent the cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome.. For the love of God, I’m begging ya. I just don’t see how I can deal with another three years of this. Then another 4 years potentially after that if a repub wins the big chair again. Because you know no matter who it is. The moonbats will do and say exactly the same crap they're puling now. I mean we all know this psychotic temper tantrum has nada to do with who or what Bush is in the contemporary political sense. It’s who – or better yet – what he and any other republican represents as an archetype within Leftist mythology.
M
I have to ask. Are you clueless,? Have you not read thoroughly the details of the PA provisions you spoke of? Or are you assuming that, like so many on the Left, we're all a bit clueless here and will accept as gospel truth your claims?
The way you framed the situations you mentioned were wrong at best, purposely dishonest at worse. You seem to purposely focus on the unpleasant appearances of such occurrences – staying away completely from the one thing critical to facilitate those things ever happening.
An intelligent person wouldn’t fixate so much on the acts - and exploit how they may appear - the intelligent person would want to know that preceding every act the government takes against person or property. That due process was observed.
Bush cant snap his fingers and make any of what you described happen. 1st someone must present a judge or grand jury with evidence enough to justify the issuance of a warrant. At which point the judge will issue one. Stipulating who its for and what specifically it covers. Due process.
What all that implies is that there exists enough evidence to suggest you are involved in something that merits the cops taking a closer look. Don’t like that? Then don’t leave your bong out on the kitchen table or mirror and razor blade on your front seat and no one will suspect you have anything to do with narcotics. Get it?
Or are you telling us that they’ve done away with due process. The judges, all other associated agencies, prosecutors as well as every individual sitting on a grand jury are corrupt and in cahoots with Bush on these matters.?
Two words – Seek Help.
Please, someone invent the cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome.. For the love of God, I’m begging ya. I just don’t see how I can deal with another three years of this. Then another 4 years potentially after that if a repub wins the big chair again. Because you know no matter who it is. The moonbats will do and say exactly the same crap they're puling now. I mean we all know this psychotic temper tantrum has nada to do with who or what Bush is in the contemporary political sense. It’s who – or better yet – what he and any other republican represents as an archetype within Leftist mythology.
M
Posted by: Mike at October 01, 2005 03:07 PM (QgkR8)
81
I don't think it is just BDS. These hypocrites have been bleating for years before Bush came on the scene. They would really be dangerous is they truly put their own money in their mouths and walked the walk of their preaching. But they don't want to make sacrifices themselves. Other people have to make said sacrifices.
Posted by: Maranna at October 01, 2005 03:19 PM (gAT+n)
82
at which point I let my inner mean son of a bitch out of its cage
at which point you ban somebody and delete their post ...
... for saying really bigoted stuff like commies wanted to take over the world
at which point you ban somebody and delete their post ...
... for saying really bigoted stuff like commies wanted to take over the world
Posted by: boris at October 01, 2005 04:02 PM (S+qVM)
83
This is the true face of the American Left. Read "The Venona Tapes" sometime; this kind of crap has been going on for a long time. It is their real agenda.
Posted by: robert108 at October 01, 2005 04:14 PM (lZtLM)
84
" I never had any dust-ups over here until the Terri Schiavo affair. I wonder why that is ... "
Because you were an insufferable prick about the whole thing?
/sniping from the peanut gallery
Because you were an insufferable prick about the whole thing?
/sniping from the peanut gallery
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 05:41 PM (QaHR7)
85
geoff, now you're getting really really FUNNY. You quote some nice self-serving policy paper that claims lots of nice results.
Confuse POLICY with ACTION much? Talk with reality? Look it happens ALL OVER now.
I can give you many many high-level assertions that the Iraqi forces are getting stronger -- all of which are blown out of the water by Rumsfeld's admission that the # of self-sufficient battalions went down from 3 to 1, and the whole shebang is suspect because insurgents have infiltrated. But that doesn't stop those pretty assertions that it's ALL GETTING BETTER. Nice, pretty, self-serving papers that assert something, but give no means to verify. Dig up something on containers from abroad, if you can. That should be amusing. You're still smarting from your uncritical use of Stuart Bowen's loophole-laden line to defend the $8.8B, aren't you? Heh heh.
From above: "We shouldn't fight terrorists or evil empires but negotiate with them. "
Reagan negotiated with Iran to sell them weapons for hostages. The Bush admin is negotiating with terrorists right now. The Bush admin is using the military to push Iraq into the constitution vote that IRAN, axis of evil, wants. The problem with the rightwingnuts, as usual, is taking the spin/propaganda/talk for the reality.
Reality vs talk. YOu guys still don't get it.
"Or are you telling us that they’ve done away with due process. "
Habeas corpus? Legal counsel? Damn right I'm telling you that due process is no longer required. Of course I'm telling you that. And so far, the Supreme Court is buying it.
Confuse POLICY with ACTION much? Talk with reality? Look it happens ALL OVER now.
I can give you many many high-level assertions that the Iraqi forces are getting stronger -- all of which are blown out of the water by Rumsfeld's admission that the # of self-sufficient battalions went down from 3 to 1, and the whole shebang is suspect because insurgents have infiltrated. But that doesn't stop those pretty assertions that it's ALL GETTING BETTER. Nice, pretty, self-serving papers that assert something, but give no means to verify. Dig up something on containers from abroad, if you can. That should be amusing. You're still smarting from your uncritical use of Stuart Bowen's loophole-laden line to defend the $8.8B, aren't you? Heh heh.
From above: "We shouldn't fight terrorists or evil empires but negotiate with them. "
Reagan negotiated with Iran to sell them weapons for hostages. The Bush admin is negotiating with terrorists right now. The Bush admin is using the military to push Iraq into the constitution vote that IRAN, axis of evil, wants. The problem with the rightwingnuts, as usual, is taking the spin/propaganda/talk for the reality.
Reality vs talk. YOu guys still don't get it.
"Or are you telling us that they’ve done away with due process. "
Habeas corpus? Legal counsel? Damn right I'm telling you that due process is no longer required. Of course I'm telling you that. And so far, the Supreme Court is buying it.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 05:48 PM (LEpXa)
86
Bill's an asshole? When did he get upgraded?
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at October 01, 2005 05:50 PM (ipjUv)
87
Then you guys get so twisted up you wind up making my points for me.
Purple Avenger works from someone's misrepresentation of me to yank this out:
"A: no, we obviously pay more and get less for it [health care] than other industrialized nations."
Yup, that's true, but you've got a few key points missing.
Yes, the US spends more on healthcare and covers fewer people, but it's not Fed $ that are most inefficiently spent. Biggest diff is the percent spent on administration, which is highest in market (insurance companies) portion, lowest in govt-run portion. These are simple verifiable facts. US spends much more on healthcare ADMINISTRATION, which is intuititively obvious if you have spent times with filing, rebutting, challenging, correcting insurance claims and payments.
Ah well. Such a happy bunch you are, so content with the status quo of a republican-controlled government. Soon Dear Leader's tax cuts will spur unparalleled growth, if only we have faith.
geoff is confident in the assertions of the govt's planning for nuclear plants, assertions of planning that pale in comparison with the lovely assertions about the federal planning for natural disasters in the National
Response Plan... Yes, oh yes, we are ready. Oh so ready. We just must have faith.
Purple Avenger works from someone's misrepresentation of me to yank this out:
"A: no, we obviously pay more and get less for it [health care] than other industrialized nations."
Yup, that's true, but you've got a few key points missing.
Yes, the US spends more on healthcare and covers fewer people, but it's not Fed $ that are most inefficiently spent. Biggest diff is the percent spent on administration, which is highest in market (insurance companies) portion, lowest in govt-run portion. These are simple verifiable facts. US spends much more on healthcare ADMINISTRATION, which is intuititively obvious if you have spent times with filing, rebutting, challenging, correcting insurance claims and payments.
Ah well. Such a happy bunch you are, so content with the status quo of a republican-controlled government. Soon Dear Leader's tax cuts will spur unparalleled growth, if only we have faith.
geoff is confident in the assertions of the govt's planning for nuclear plants, assertions of planning that pale in comparison with the lovely assertions about the federal planning for natural disasters in the National
Response Plan... Yes, oh yes, we are ready. Oh so ready. We just must have faith.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 05:58 PM (LEpXa)
88
A: no, we obviously pay more and get less for it [health care] than other industrialized nations."
Yup, that's true, but you've got a few key points missingI was talking about EDUCATION SPENDING you batshit crazy blind idiot.
I have a real problem with people flat out lying and making shit up like this. You are entitled to an opinion, crazed as it may be, but you are NOT entitled to misquote and make shit up.
Yup, that's true, but you've got a few key points missingI was talking about EDUCATION SPENDING you batshit crazy blind idiot.
I have a real problem with people flat out lying and making shit up like this. You are entitled to an opinion, crazed as it may be, but you are NOT entitled to misquote and make shit up.
Posted by: Purple Avender at October 01, 2005 06:03 PM (X+OCl)
89
YOU FUCKING WINGNUTS ARE SO BRAINWASHED YOU DONT EVEN CARE THAT WE DONT HAVE GUARDS STATIONED OUTSIDE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARMED WITH GLOCK 21s THE FUCKING PISTOLS THAT ARE THE PERFECT COMBINATION OF RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY THEIR HIGH-TECH ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CREATE A HANDGUN THAT CAN STAND UP TO MORE PUNISHMENT THAN EVEN THE MOST UNFORGIVING CONDITIONS AND INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATIONS CAN GENERATE I KNOW YOURE NOT VERY BIG ON INESTIGATIONS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS BUT WHEN YOU INVESTIGATE THE INDIVIDUAL ADVANTAGES OF GLOCK YOULL SEE THAT ITS PERFECT FOR SNIPING FOR WINDOWS IT WILL OUTPERFORM WHAT EVER YOURE SHOOTING NOW AND IS AVAILABLE AT PRICES THAT ALLOW YOU TO OWN A QUALITY HANDGUN WITOUT LOOTING YOUR TREASURY.
Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at October 01, 2005 06:06 PM (Pt3Le)
90
"Soon Dear Leader's tax cuts will spur unparalleled growth, if only we have faith."
Um, they did.
Um, they did.
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 06:08 PM (3DDTX)
91
DWR=LOL
Don't ever change.
PA: tubino's a liberal, lying is part of the definition. Luckily they're on their way to extinction. The closer they get to the cliff, the more they howl.
Don't ever change.
PA: tubino's a liberal, lying is part of the definition. Luckily they're on their way to extinction. The closer they get to the cliff, the more they howl.
Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at October 01, 2005 06:23 PM (ipjUv)
92
Strange rightwing notion from above: "Grand tradition of JFK, Truman, FDR, Wilson, etc.
By modern Democratic standards, all 4 of them are fascist reactionary white supremacist warmongers."
How many Democrats voted against giving Bush power to invade Iraq? Or subsequent appropriations?
You're COMPLETELY out of touch with reality, aren't you.
Speaking of war, the US military is coming around to talk of withdrawing. Logistically, it's the only possibility -- unless Operation Yellow Elephant immediately succeeds in getting College Republicans to sign up in droves.
Go find some more pretty lies to stave off reality.
By modern Democratic standards, all 4 of them are fascist reactionary white supremacist warmongers."
How many Democrats voted against giving Bush power to invade Iraq? Or subsequent appropriations?
You're COMPLETELY out of touch with reality, aren't you.
Speaking of war, the US military is coming around to talk of withdrawing. Logistically, it's the only possibility -- unless Operation Yellow Elephant immediately succeeds in getting College Republicans to sign up in droves.
Go find some more pretty lies to stave off reality.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 06:24 PM (LEpXa)
93
DONT YOU FUCKING CHICKENHAWKS EVER READ KEVIN DRUM???????
Posted by: DEAL WITH REALITY at October 01, 2005 06:32 PM (Pt3Le)
94
Enuff of this bullshit. I'm going out right now to buy a Glock and protect our nukular reactors.
Yes, a Glock and some Halloween candy, wholesale, of course.
Yes, a Glock and some Halloween candy, wholesale, of course.
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 06:36 PM (ar/qQ)
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 06:38 PM (ar/qQ)
96
Tubino:
If you did any research and actually bothered to understand the mechanics of the federal government, you'd know that the responsibility for security for nuclear power plants, municipal water and water treatment centers, and chemical plants lies locally. The federal government is responsible for assessment, education and coordination of security efforts.
If you survey high-risk sites individually, you can find out more precisely what each has done to increase security. But the quote concerning nuclear power plants was discussing the actual types of improvements accomplished - ahead of the schedule defined by the government.
So this is 'action' not merely 'policy.'
Subsequently you, as usual, spray the thread with a variety of subjects, substantiated by partisan sources.
You also never understood the Halliburton/KBR procurements or contract administration, but that's a topic for another thread.
If you did any research and actually bothered to understand the mechanics of the federal government, you'd know that the responsibility for security for nuclear power plants, municipal water and water treatment centers, and chemical plants lies locally. The federal government is responsible for assessment, education and coordination of security efforts.
If you survey high-risk sites individually, you can find out more precisely what each has done to increase security. But the quote concerning nuclear power plants was discussing the actual types of improvements accomplished - ahead of the schedule defined by the government.
So this is 'action' not merely 'policy.'
Subsequently you, as usual, spray the thread with a variety of subjects, substantiated by partisan sources.
You also never understood the Halliburton/KBR procurements or contract administration, but that's a topic for another thread.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 06:45 PM (pSxN9)
97
Purple Avenger gets all bent out of shape:
"I have a real problem with people flat out lying and making shit up like this. You are entitled to an opinion, crazed as it may be, but you are NOT entitled to misquote and make shit up."
Okay. Now go back and look at the quote you quoted: "we are not spending ANY money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That claim is dishonest, and you know that. The truth is we are spending shitloads of money on those items. Shitloads."
Those weren't my words. No one said no money was spent, so you start off by quoting a LIE right there. Which is about healthcare too. But you respond to a crazy falsehood to begin with.
Jeez. Then you don't bother to point out the sources of education funding, or to tell if you're comparing primary, secondary, or higher ed. So your figure is useless anyway.
And you're on your high horse now? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
-------------
Bart sez:
"Soon Dear Leader's tax cuts will spur unparalleled growth, if only we have faith."
Um, they did.
----------------
Cool! When do you announce this to the job markets, the stock market, the dropping wages, and the CBO that projects a record deficit of over $400B? Cuz they really ought to be informed of this fabulous news.
For all the hundreds of billions added to spending by our Dear Leader, we sure haven't got a lot of economic stimulation to show for it. And if you kids ever manage to get your anti-pork program heard by your political party (hee hee), even that will be toned down. A nice present for the next admin, I guess.
"I have a real problem with people flat out lying and making shit up like this. You are entitled to an opinion, crazed as it may be, but you are NOT entitled to misquote and make shit up."
Okay. Now go back and look at the quote you quoted: "we are not spending ANY money on education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That claim is dishonest, and you know that. The truth is we are spending shitloads of money on those items. Shitloads."
Those weren't my words. No one said no money was spent, so you start off by quoting a LIE right there. Which is about healthcare too. But you respond to a crazy falsehood to begin with.
Jeez. Then you don't bother to point out the sources of education funding, or to tell if you're comparing primary, secondary, or higher ed. So your figure is useless anyway.
And you're on your high horse now? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
-------------
Bart sez:
"Soon Dear Leader's tax cuts will spur unparalleled growth, if only we have faith."
Um, they did.
----------------
Cool! When do you announce this to the job markets, the stock market, the dropping wages, and the CBO that projects a record deficit of over $400B? Cuz they really ought to be informed of this fabulous news.
For all the hundreds of billions added to spending by our Dear Leader, we sure haven't got a lot of economic stimulation to show for it. And if you kids ever manage to get your anti-pork program heard by your political party (hee hee), even that will be toned down. A nice present for the next admin, I guess.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 06:50 PM (LEpXa)
98
I can give you many many high-level assertions that the Iraqi forces are getting stronger -- all of which are blown out of the water by Rumsfeld's admission that the # of self-sufficient battalions went down from 3 to 1, and the whole shebang is suspect because insurgents have infiltrated.
Wow, if you read the entire text of the interview, you come away with an entirely different impression than the one you're trying to foist off on us. That's a very dishonest misrepresentation using selective quotes.
Wow, if you read the entire text of the interview, you come away with an entirely different impression than the one you're trying to foist off on us. That's a very dishonest misrepresentation using selective quotes.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 06:57 PM (pSxN9)
99
geoff sez:
"You also never understood the Halliburton/KBR procurements or contract administration, but that's a topic for another thread."
The Halliburton contracts have almost nothing to do with the disbursement of DFI funds. I'm assuming you're mixed up still about the $8.8 billion? You're the guy who thought it was all cleared up by quoting Bowen that no US tax dollars were misappropriated by the US military -- when that was an obvious smokescreen, as I explained. Did you ever actually read the report?
"You also never understood the Halliburton/KBR procurements or contract administration, but that's a topic for another thread."
The Halliburton contracts have almost nothing to do with the disbursement of DFI funds. I'm assuming you're mixed up still about the $8.8 billion? You're the guy who thought it was all cleared up by quoting Bowen that no US tax dollars were misappropriated by the US military -- when that was an obvious smokescreen, as I explained. Did you ever actually read the report?
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 06:58 PM (LEpXa)
100
I'm going out right now to buy a Glock
Avoid the 23's they're known dogs. The 19's and 17's are fairly reliable and can fire a manually breach loaded .380 round if you ever get in a real pinch.
Avoid the 23's they're known dogs. The 19's and 17's are fairly reliable and can fire a manually breach loaded .380 round if you ever get in a real pinch.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 07:05 PM (X+OCl)
101
I got my red roses wholesale.
Posted by: Tarb at October 01, 2005 07:07 PM (Pt3Le)
102
Tubine spuriously blurts: Okay. Now go back and look at the quote you quoted...
I was responding to the "shitloads" remark. Very CONVENIENT of you to omit that eh?
Give it up you pathetic fraud. This kind of drivel only works when there is no written record only a few posts above. You need to save this kind if drivel for spoken situations.
I was responding to the "shitloads" remark. Very CONVENIENT of you to omit that eh?
Give it up you pathetic fraud. This kind of drivel only works when there is no written record only a few posts above. You need to save this kind if drivel for spoken situations.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 07:10 PM (X+OCl)
103
job markets
Unemployment is 4.9% - it was 4.7% when Bush was inaugurated.
the dropping wages
Avg. US wage, all labor categories
1997 $15.09
1998 $15.72
1999 $15.36
2000 $15.80
2001 $16.23
2002 $17.18
2003 $17.75
More made up crap.
stock market
Dow Jones was about 10,700 at Bush's inauguration - it was 10,553 yesterday.
Unemployment is 4.9% - it was 4.7% when Bush was inaugurated.
the dropping wages
Avg. US wage, all labor categories
1997 $15.09
1998 $15.72
1999 $15.36
2000 $15.80
2001 $16.23
2002 $17.18
2003 $17.75
More made up crap.
stock market
Dow Jones was about 10,700 at Bush's inauguration - it was 10,553 yesterday.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 07:12 PM (pSxN9)
104
I remember 15 years ago when economists were saying the US's structural unemployment rate would be around 5%.
We are there. It can't get much better than this unless population and industry grow roots and stop moving around geographically.
We are there. It can't get much better than this unless population and industry grow roots and stop moving around geographically.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 07:16 PM (X+OCl)
105
Did you ever actually read the report?
If you go back to the previous time this subject came up, you'll find that I read the report as well as the supporting testimonies and original audit reports. The Waxman (extremely partisan, as reflected in this and many previous reports) sifted through the orginal reports and reported the most damning results without context. If you read the original reports you'll see that it is not nearly as dire, nefarious, or criminal as you have made it out to be.
If you go back to the previous time this subject came up, you'll find that I read the report as well as the supporting testimonies and original audit reports. The Waxman (extremely partisan, as reflected in this and many previous reports) sifted through the orginal reports and reported the most damning results without context. If you read the original reports you'll see that it is not nearly as dire, nefarious, or criminal as you have made it out to be.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 07:18 PM (pSxN9)
106
Toobeeno, allow me to sort out this mix-up.
You wrote:
he right wing is so stupid it believes that it is better to force the country into bankruptcy than allow any funding to be used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
You wrote:
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 07:21 PM (QQcMI)
107
"Wow, if you read the entire text of the interview, you come away with an entirely different impression than the one you're trying to foist off on us. That's a very dishonest misrepresentation using selective quotes."
Okay, I misrepresented it. In reality, it's worse. Read this.
Excerpt (my emphasis):
Casey did not fully explain why the number of combat-ready units has declined despite continued training efforts.
Casey and Abizaid told lawmakers that training Iraqis to take over for US and allied troops remains a struggle.
''We fully recognize that Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time, because they don't have the institutional base to support them," Casey said.
He also said the new Iraqi government was recently unable to pay some of the 67,000 Iraqi police because of a breakdown in Iraqi government operations in some areas, such as Fallujah, where the insurgent presence is heavy. There are a total of 192,000 US-trained Iraqi forces, including police, soldiers, and border patrol, according to Pentagon figures.
Some lawmakers raised concerns about the loyalties of those Iraqi security forces, citing reports that insurgents have been infiltrating the Iraqi forces in significant numbers. There are ''continuing reports that the Iraqi police and security forces we're training are substantially infiltrated by insurgents," Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in questioning Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld responded, ''It's a problem that's faced by police forces in every major city in our country, that criminals infiltrate and sign up to join the police force."
However, the top US intelligence official said yesterday that the make-up and organization of the increasingly violent Iraq insurgency remains a puzzle to US officials 2 1/2 years after the US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
Some of the deadliest attacks are attributed to Islamic terrorists from across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. But a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concluded the insurgency is primarily made up of Iraqi Sunnis who supported Hussein and fear a loss of power to the Shias, and other Iraqi nationalists who see the new government as a US puppet.
John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, acknowledged yesterday that no one knows for sure, saying there is a ''feeling that much more could be still done in terms of finding out now what the nature of that insurgency is."
--------------------------------
Look, I've been through the lies with Central America and elsewhere, so I read this stuff with much more skepticism than you, geoff. I have been lied to too much. You think my representation is dishonest, but the kind of reading I'm doing has proven to be dead-on month after month of this Iraq war too.
By comparison you're a trusting soul regarding your govt's claims. Haven't you been lied to enough, yet?
Okay, I misrepresented it. In reality, it's worse. Read this.
Excerpt (my emphasis):
Casey did not fully explain why the number of combat-ready units has declined despite continued training efforts.
Casey and Abizaid told lawmakers that training Iraqis to take over for US and allied troops remains a struggle.
''We fully recognize that Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time, because they don't have the institutional base to support them," Casey said.
He also said the new Iraqi government was recently unable to pay some of the 67,000 Iraqi police because of a breakdown in Iraqi government operations in some areas, such as Fallujah, where the insurgent presence is heavy. There are a total of 192,000 US-trained Iraqi forces, including police, soldiers, and border patrol, according to Pentagon figures.
Some lawmakers raised concerns about the loyalties of those Iraqi security forces, citing reports that insurgents have been infiltrating the Iraqi forces in significant numbers. There are ''continuing reports that the Iraqi police and security forces we're training are substantially infiltrated by insurgents," Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in questioning Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld responded, ''It's a problem that's faced by police forces in every major city in our country, that criminals infiltrate and sign up to join the police force."
However, the top US intelligence official said yesterday that the make-up and organization of the increasingly violent Iraq insurgency remains a puzzle to US officials 2 1/2 years after the US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
Some of the deadliest attacks are attributed to Islamic terrorists from across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. But a recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concluded the insurgency is primarily made up of Iraqi Sunnis who supported Hussein and fear a loss of power to the Shias, and other Iraqi nationalists who see the new government as a US puppet.
John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, acknowledged yesterday that no one knows for sure, saying there is a ''feeling that much more could be still done in terms of finding out now what the nature of that insurgency is."
--------------------------------
Look, I've been through the lies with Central America and elsewhere, so I read this stuff with much more skepticism than you, geoff. I have been lied to too much. You think my representation is dishonest, but the kind of reading I'm doing has proven to be dead-on month after month of this Iraq war too.
By comparison you're a trusting soul regarding your govt's claims. Haven't you been lied to enough, yet?
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 07:21 PM (LEpXa)
108
And I've served in the military, and the actions and explanations of General Casey about the readiness evaluations of Iraqi troops make more sense to me than the cherry-picked quotes the left is seizing upon.
When they say: Casey did not fully explain why the number of combat-ready units has declined despite continued training efforts.
Perhaps there's some waffle room in the word 'fully,' but Casey and Rumsfeld spent a substantial amount of time explaining the readiness numbers. That quote is a very nearly an out-and-out lie.
And I've served in the military, and the actions and explanations of General Casey about the readiness evaluations of Iraqi troops make more sense to me than the cherry-picked quotes the left is seizing upon.
When they say: Casey did not fully explain why the number of combat-ready units has declined despite continued training efforts.
Perhaps there's some waffle room in the word 'fully,' but Casey and Rumsfeld spent a substantial amount of time explaining the readiness numbers. That quote is a very nearly an out-and-out lie.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 07:27 PM (pSxN9)
109
Forgot to point out the obvious: the bold part by Rumsfeld above is, uh, not CONFIDENCE-INSPIRING, is it???? This guy thinks that insurgents in the Iraqi army is comparable to the problem of criminals signing up for police work.
----------------------
geoff calmly informs us, "If you read the original reports you'll see that it is not nearly as dire, nefarious, or criminal as you have made it out to be."
Excuse me, but HOLY SHIT geoff. If you don't think it's far worse than I made it out to be, then I have to say really really nasty things about your ability to read. If you think extremely rushed (world record) disbursal of BILLIONS in WEEKS, virtually unaudited, with witnesses saying that duffel bags of CASH were handed out from the back of trucks with no receipts...
If you think that's really not too bad a way to handle Iraq's assets that were needed for crucial rebuilding, to support the US mission and build confidence on the part of the Iraqis, you are ready to accept ANYTHING. I can't imagine anything you would not accept. How could it have been worse? Remember that Waxman had no subpoena powers etc. But good GOD what he DID find! For you newcomers, I'll post the link and you can make up your OWN mind.
----------------------
geoff calmly informs us, "If you read the original reports you'll see that it is not nearly as dire, nefarious, or criminal as you have made it out to be."
Excuse me, but HOLY SHIT geoff. If you don't think it's far worse than I made it out to be, then I have to say really really nasty things about your ability to read. If you think extremely rushed (world record) disbursal of BILLIONS in WEEKS, virtually unaudited, with witnesses saying that duffel bags of CASH were handed out from the back of trucks with no receipts...
If you think that's really not too bad a way to handle Iraq's assets that were needed for crucial rebuilding, to support the US mission and build confidence on the part of the Iraqis, you are ready to accept ANYTHING. I can't imagine anything you would not accept. How could it have been worse? Remember that Waxman had no subpoena powers etc. But good GOD what he DID find! For you newcomers, I'll post the link and you can make up your OWN mind.
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 07:34 PM (LEpXa)
110
Ah, I see the problem - the Globe is quoting from the Congressional transript, while I was using the briefing to the press.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 07:41 PM (pSxN9)
111
As I said before, Tubino, this is not the thread to discuss the DFI money.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 07:43 PM (pSxN9)
112
"Perhaps there's some waffle room in the word 'fully,' but Casey and Rumsfeld spent a substantial amount of time explaining the readiness numbers. That quote is a very nearly an out-and-out lie."
You're confusing WHAT (the numbers) with WHY (why they are not what was projected, even with receding goalposts). They didn't explain why.
Now match that up with the admission about infiltration by insurgents, and the admission that they really don't know much about the insurgents. Think about what that means.
With which sect are the units going to function effectively? Against which will it function effectively?
Honestly sometimes I long for your pollyannish view. I think the stakes are much higher in the case of Iraq's stability than with Vietnam. A shakeup in Saudi Arabia, or in Turkey, as a result of Sunni or Kurdish separatism or unrest... oh it's late and I'm going to bed. Good night all. Hope there's no blood in the streets in your dreams.
Oh and I was probably wrong about the health care vs education deal above. You meant education, PA. I should have realized that.
I still don't know how to make sense of it as you stated it, though -- primary? secondary? what funding source? how to calibrate to compare currencies?
You're confusing WHAT (the numbers) with WHY (why they are not what was projected, even with receding goalposts). They didn't explain why.
Now match that up with the admission about infiltration by insurgents, and the admission that they really don't know much about the insurgents. Think about what that means.
With which sect are the units going to function effectively? Against which will it function effectively?
Honestly sometimes I long for your pollyannish view. I think the stakes are much higher in the case of Iraq's stability than with Vietnam. A shakeup in Saudi Arabia, or in Turkey, as a result of Sunni or Kurdish separatism or unrest... oh it's late and I'm going to bed. Good night all. Hope there's no blood in the streets in your dreams.
Oh and I was probably wrong about the health care vs education deal above. You meant education, PA. I should have realized that.
I still don't know how to make sense of it as you stated it, though -- primary? secondary? what funding source? how to calibrate to compare currencies?
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 07:49 PM (LEpXa)
113
"As I said before, Tubino, this is not the thread to discuss the DFI money."
Fair enough. I was traveling on business for a few days there, and admittedly didn't get back to that other thread. But WTF do Halliburton contracts have to do with how the CPA did or didn't fulfill its obligation to audit etc.???
Fair enough. I was traveling on business for a few days there, and admittedly didn't get back to that other thread. But WTF do Halliburton contracts have to do with how the CPA did or didn't fulfill its obligation to audit etc.???
Posted by: tubino at October 01, 2005 07:52 PM (LEpXa)
114
Talk about willing to accept anything. Tub, you remind me of a friend we jokingly call "tinfoil-hat- boy."
There isn't a single conspiracy theory involving either Bush or the Joos, (or Bush AND the Joos), that he doesn't accept as fact.
Are we pollyannish? Maybe, but I'd rather be the way I am than the way you are.
But you kow what tells me that the trend in Iraq is positive for the Iraqis and ultimately us? The fact that our MSM isn't bombarding us with footage and stories about the so-called awful conditions in Iraq. The fact is that businesses are up and running, commerce is generating a sound economy, the electricity is on, the water is flowing, the kids are in school, the falafels are tasty and plentiful, the oil is bubbling, and the new government is taking shape.
Every day that Iraq is Westernized and tastes freedom and democracy is progression towards a new Iraq that will not revert back to the old ways. Yeah, I'm optimistic. But I believe the Iraqis will say "fuck off, homey" to the Islamic fundamentalists and fight for their future of freedom -- which is not too foreign to some Iraqis. Iraq and Iran was secular and Western not too long ago and the reign of terror imposed by the Islamofascists faces extinction.
The way I see it you have only a few choices:
a) Tell us how you are really a conservative but this BUSH has made you see the light for liberalism and we should too.
b) Call us bigots, homophobes, and racists and run away.
c) Yell "Haliburton" and run away.
d) Keep entertaining, er, I mean enlightening, us with your comments.
There isn't a single conspiracy theory involving either Bush or the Joos, (or Bush AND the Joos), that he doesn't accept as fact.
Are we pollyannish? Maybe, but I'd rather be the way I am than the way you are.
But you kow what tells me that the trend in Iraq is positive for the Iraqis and ultimately us? The fact that our MSM isn't bombarding us with footage and stories about the so-called awful conditions in Iraq. The fact is that businesses are up and running, commerce is generating a sound economy, the electricity is on, the water is flowing, the kids are in school, the falafels are tasty and plentiful, the oil is bubbling, and the new government is taking shape.
Every day that Iraq is Westernized and tastes freedom and democracy is progression towards a new Iraq that will not revert back to the old ways. Yeah, I'm optimistic. But I believe the Iraqis will say "fuck off, homey" to the Islamic fundamentalists and fight for their future of freedom -- which is not too foreign to some Iraqis. Iraq and Iran was secular and Western not too long ago and the reign of terror imposed by the Islamofascists faces extinction.
The way I see it you have only a few choices:
a) Tell us how you are really a conservative but this BUSH has made you see the light for liberalism and we should too.
b) Call us bigots, homophobes, and racists and run away.
c) Yell "Haliburton" and run away.
d) Keep entertaining, er, I mean enlightening, us with your comments.
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 08:01 PM (Fgn2Z)
115
You're confusing WHAT (the numbers) with WHY (why they are not what was projected, even with receding goalposts). They didn't explain why.
What projections? And they did explain why the numbers of Category 1 Iraqi battalions had dropped. And why the number of Category 2 battalions had increased. Here's General Casey:
GEN. CASEY: Remember we started this in May. Okay? We didn't have a readiness assessment reporting on the Iraqis until May. So the first one we did, we said, all right, let's get it out there and let's have people try it. We knew it was going to take several iterations for everyone to understand the standards properly and to report accurately. So the very first one came back and we got three. There were three in there. And we looked at that, and we answered their questions from the field, and we adjusted the standards and things so it was all more understandable, and then they came back and it was one. And it was actually different units. The three that were there was one brigade and two battalions. They dropped out, and the second time it was different units.
The mere fact that they've gone to a more rigorous assessment system speaks for increasing expectations for the Iraq military.
What projections? And they did explain why the numbers of Category 1 Iraqi battalions had dropped. And why the number of Category 2 battalions had increased. Here's General Casey:
GEN. CASEY: Remember we started this in May. Okay? We didn't have a readiness assessment reporting on the Iraqis until May. So the first one we did, we said, all right, let's get it out there and let's have people try it. We knew it was going to take several iterations for everyone to understand the standards properly and to report accurately. So the very first one came back and we got three. There were three in there. And we looked at that, and we answered their questions from the field, and we adjusted the standards and things so it was all more understandable, and then they came back and it was one. And it was actually different units. The three that were there was one brigade and two battalions. They dropped out, and the second time it was different units.
The mere fact that they've gone to a more rigorous assessment system speaks for increasing expectations for the Iraq military.
Posted by: geoff at October 01, 2005 08:22 PM (pSxN9)
116
Boy, I love how Tubino likes to address the subject at hand without flailing azbout wildly to change the subject to whatever is on his tiny mind.
That way, he doesn't have to get his own god damn fucking blog or worry about the quality of his logic drawing readers and furthering discussion. Because he would have a hell of a time doing that on his own.
That way, he doesn't have to get his own god damn fucking blog or worry about the quality of his logic drawing readers and furthering discussion. Because he would have a hell of a time doing that on his own.
Posted by: Sortelli at October 01, 2005 08:30 PM (tHvzT)
117
The fact that our MSM isn't bombarding us with footage and stories about the so-called awful conditions in Iraq.
That they feel compelled to do yet another tedious AG rehash is rather telling. They're desperate now.
The DPRK thing is a diplomatic success. Everyone (at least I did) knew it was a garden variety aid shakedown right from the start. The DPRK will get their reactor and a fat aid package from the us and the other 4 countries involved in the 6-way talks and things will quite down again rather quickly.
Another success, the recent Afgan election (largely ignored) went off as cleanly as could be expected.
Zarquawi's #2 got himself dead. The Saudi's popped a bunch of AQ. And another Iraqi vote is due soon.
The Katrina MadMax reporting has become a proven fraud.
And worst of all - Bush's ratings have bumped 5 points.
The dems and media are desperate and grasping at straws now. AG v1.0 played well, so they think there might be one more dance left in the old gal.
That they feel compelled to do yet another tedious AG rehash is rather telling. They're desperate now.
The DPRK thing is a diplomatic success. Everyone (at least I did) knew it was a garden variety aid shakedown right from the start. The DPRK will get their reactor and a fat aid package from the us and the other 4 countries involved in the 6-way talks and things will quite down again rather quickly.
Another success, the recent Afgan election (largely ignored) went off as cleanly as could be expected.
Zarquawi's #2 got himself dead. The Saudi's popped a bunch of AQ. And another Iraqi vote is due soon.
The Katrina MadMax reporting has become a proven fraud.
And worst of all - Bush's ratings have bumped 5 points.
The dems and media are desperate and grasping at straws now. AG v1.0 played well, so they think there might be one more dance left in the old gal.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 08:37 PM (X+OCl)
118
There is a new NYT piece refuting everything I recently wrote about the conditions in Iraq. I can't link it because it contains the word "b-l-a-n-k" and, apparently, "b-l-a" is not suitable content to be posted at this fine site.
Oh well. Anyway the article is interesting because of it's obvious contradictions and the questions it raises -- like, why do they stay if it as bad as they say it is, and why do insurgents pay rent?
Oh well. Anyway the article is interesting because of it's obvious contradictions and the questions it raises -- like, why do they stay if it as bad as they say it is, and why do insurgents pay rent?
Posted by: Bart at October 01, 2005 09:07 PM (Fgn2Z)
119
"How many Democrats voted against giving Bush power to invade Iraq?"
Slightly less than half the Senators, rather more than half the Representatives.
As a general observation on your tone:
What is wrong with you? Acid rage hisses from every word you write. You and the "rivers of blood" diarist are singing in the same key, even if your lyrics are edited for prime-time.
Slightly less than half the Senators, rather more than half the Representatives.
As a general observation on your tone:
What is wrong with you? Acid rage hisses from every word you write. You and the "rivers of blood" diarist are singing in the same key, even if your lyrics are edited for prime-time.
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:49 PM (QaHR7)
120
THIS ONE?
Its an interesting piece - describing an Iraqi family that is behaving like a bunch pussies.
I can say this - if terrorists were tromping across my lawn and launching mortars in my back yard, they would be shot dead on the spot and summarily pitched into the canal across the street. Case closed.
That neighborhood needs to get some spine and start fighting back. Others have done it with great success.
That being said, I do understand their fear and we might be a bit more sophisticated in handling it by setting up a dead-drop/cutout system so people like this could drop annonymous tips without risking walking into police station or talking to a soldier in the street.
Its an interesting piece - describing an Iraqi family that is behaving like a bunch pussies.
I can say this - if terrorists were tromping across my lawn and launching mortars in my back yard, they would be shot dead on the spot and summarily pitched into the canal across the street. Case closed.
That neighborhood needs to get some spine and start fighting back. Others have done it with great success.
That being said, I do understand their fear and we might be a bit more sophisticated in handling it by setting up a dead-drop/cutout system so people like this could drop annonymous tips without risking walking into police station or talking to a soldier in the street.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 09:53 PM (X+OCl)
121
Hey tubino: you really *don't* understand the first thing about economics, do you? What is "growth" when speaking economically? Does it have *anything* to do with the tourette's-swarm of grief you spew in the exchange below?
Hint: national economic "growth" is not a measure of employment, nor is it directly tied to the level of the stock market. And, outside of people's republics, it is thankfully altogether independent from the government's budget sheet.
What is it a measure of, sweetheart?
[Bonus points for immediately shouting "THE SURPLUS LABOR OF THE PROLETARIAT, DICKHEAD!!!"]
<>
Hint: national economic "growth" is not a measure of employment, nor is it directly tied to the level of the stock market. And, outside of people's republics, it is thankfully altogether independent from the government's budget sheet.
What is it a measure of, sweetheart?
[Bonus points for immediately shouting "THE SURPLUS LABOR OF THE PROLETARIAT, DICKHEAD!!!"]
<>
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 09:54 PM (QaHR7)
122
Q: How does a leftist produce an economy with modest growth?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: Start with one that has exceptional growth.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: Start with one that has exceptional growth.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 10:01 PM (X+OCl)
123
"As I said before, Tubino, this is not the thread to discuss the DFI money"
But don't you SEE!?!! It's all CONNECTED!!! The DFI money served as baksheesh to facilitate the Kurds' smuggling heroin to the Contras (through a time-portal) under the supervision of Arnold "Commando" Schwarzenegger to pay for the depleted uranium decontamination in East Timor which -
... oh, it's too complicated, just go to copvcia.com
/my former, moonbattier self
But don't you SEE!?!! It's all CONNECTED!!! The DFI money served as baksheesh to facilitate the Kurds' smuggling heroin to the Contras (through a time-portal) under the supervision of Arnold "Commando" Schwarzenegger to pay for the depleted uranium decontamination in East Timor which -
... oh, it's too complicated, just go to copvcia.com
/my former, moonbattier self
Posted by: Knemon at October 01, 2005 10:01 PM (QaHR7)
124
copvcia.com
That's some high quality PRISON PLANET grade stuff.
I'm impressed. We're getting ready to nuke the DPRK and Iran now too...TRUST ME my sources are unimpeachable...really.
That's some high quality PRISON PLANET grade stuff.
I'm impressed. We're getting ready to nuke the DPRK and Iran now too...TRUST ME my sources are unimpeachable...really.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 01, 2005 10:27 PM (X+OCl)
125
Knemon, there are many many ways to measure economic health. In the past decade or so, some economists have noted that the economic activity spurred by, say, a natural disaster, or theft, measures the same in traditional metrics as real market-driven growth. Or that spending of borrowed money vs earned money can look the same. But the underlying story is much different.
So there are new collections of metrics to show what is going on at different levels of society, to distinguish replacement from renewal, etc., and to distinguish spending $100B of govt money vs $100B of investment by business in R&D. All GDP is not the same! And as I've pointed out many times, there IS an effect on the GDP to borrowing several hundred billion per year to inject it in the economy. The economists will tell you it is not self-sustaining growth, esp. when the "market demand" is a war.
I guess these alternative measures began with the 1970s "misery index", which adds inflation to the jobless rate. New measures take into account energy prices, etc. to describe the squeeze on working families.
Somewhat similarly, geoff cites deceptive statistics about wages above. It's sort of like what the Prez did with his tax cuts: average the cuts for the top 1% in with the rest, and come up with an average that is way way way off the mark for most people. What is the average income of folks at your local bar -- AFTER Bill Gates walks in?
Also sort of connected, is the citation of jobless rates. geoff has to be smart enough to know that that data does not count those unable to find work after 18 months, and that the number in the pipeline, falling off the charts after 18, was extremely high for a sustained period. The point is simple: a record number of people are unreported, because they "gave up." The corrected figure may be 2 percentage points higher.
It's weird. I mention stuff that's doesn't raise an eyebrow in a story in the Wall Street Journal, but in this forum a bunch of you assume it is far-out leftist rhetoric.
What a gullible bunch. You imagine you are debunking the more detailed or historical or contextual view by just repeating the conventional wisdom. SUCKERS.
So there are new collections of metrics to show what is going on at different levels of society, to distinguish replacement from renewal, etc., and to distinguish spending $100B of govt money vs $100B of investment by business in R&D. All GDP is not the same! And as I've pointed out many times, there IS an effect on the GDP to borrowing several hundred billion per year to inject it in the economy. The economists will tell you it is not self-sustaining growth, esp. when the "market demand" is a war.
I guess these alternative measures began with the 1970s "misery index", which adds inflation to the jobless rate. New measures take into account energy prices, etc. to describe the squeeze on working families.
Somewhat similarly, geoff cites deceptive statistics about wages above. It's sort of like what the Prez did with his tax cuts: average the cuts for the top 1% in with the rest, and come up with an average that is way way way off the mark for most people. What is the average income of folks at your local bar -- AFTER Bill Gates walks in?
Also sort of connected, is the citation of jobless rates. geoff has to be smart enough to know that that data does not count those unable to find work after 18 months, and that the number in the pipeline, falling off the charts after 18, was extremely high for a sustained period. The point is simple: a record number of people are unreported, because they "gave up." The corrected figure may be 2 percentage points higher.
It's weird. I mention stuff that's doesn't raise an eyebrow in a story in the Wall Street Journal, but in this forum a bunch of you assume it is far-out leftist rhetoric.
What a gullible bunch. You imagine you are debunking the more detailed or historical or contextual view by just repeating the conventional wisdom. SUCKERS.
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 03:41 AM (LEpXa)
126
Tubino:
You, like most liberals, never dig any deeper after hearing what you want to hear. And having heard it, you immediately consign it to fact.
Somewhat similarly, geoff cites deceptive statistics about wages above.
Then give us your statistics and be more precise in your claims. You said wages were falling. I pulled up the average wage history from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and showed that it was not. I'm being deceptive?
The point is simple: a record number of people are unreported, because they "gave up." The corrected figure may be 2 percentage points higher.
Again, do you have a cite for the 'extremely high' rate of people 'falling off the charts?' Everytime I've seen it referenced, the supporting data has been very weak. When I look at the percentage of people employed in the population (giving the inverse of the unemployment/discouraged worker/marginally attached group) it was 63.2% in August, and 63.7% when Bush was inaugurated.
It's weird. I mention stuff that's doesn't raise an eyebrow in a story in the Wall Street Journal, but in this forum a bunch of you assume it is far-out leftist rhetoric.
The WSJ has long been known for its schizophrenic nature - the news crew is quite liberal while the op-ed team is conservative.
You, like most liberals, never dig any deeper after hearing what you want to hear. And having heard it, you immediately consign it to fact.
Somewhat similarly, geoff cites deceptive statistics about wages above.
Then give us your statistics and be more precise in your claims. You said wages were falling. I pulled up the average wage history from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and showed that it was not. I'm being deceptive?
The point is simple: a record number of people are unreported, because they "gave up." The corrected figure may be 2 percentage points higher.
Again, do you have a cite for the 'extremely high' rate of people 'falling off the charts?' Everytime I've seen it referenced, the supporting data has been very weak. When I look at the percentage of people employed in the population (giving the inverse of the unemployment/discouraged worker/marginally attached group) it was 63.2% in August, and 63.7% when Bush was inaugurated.
It's weird. I mention stuff that's doesn't raise an eyebrow in a story in the Wall Street Journal, but in this forum a bunch of you assume it is far-out leftist rhetoric.
The WSJ has long been known for its schizophrenic nature - the news crew is quite liberal while the op-ed team is conservative.
Posted by: geoff at October 02, 2005 05:04 AM (pSxN9)
127
geoff goes off the deep-end: "The WSJ has long been known for its schizophrenic nature - the news crew is quite liberal while the op-ed team is conservative."
How about: the news articles show little spin, as they are depended upon by decision-makers, while the Op-Ed pieces are often landmarks of rightwing insanity.
Whatever you think of the op-ed pieces, you find in WSJ and Financial Times a relatively unvarnished presentation of the situation in Iraq, for example. Investors need to know something close to the truth in order to make decisions.
There have been some lengthy articles on the record ratio of those in the 12-18 month area of the jobless charts. No, I'm not going to find one. I'm sure you can if you want to, and you'll see that we are in uncharted waters, in conditions not predicted when the system for measurement was set up. And it's ignorant to pretend the EU system of measurement is directly comparable. But....
Look, you're a guy who can read the account of $8.8 billion, including the KPMG bit and Stuart Bowen's recommendations, and come away saying it's not so bad.
Apparently you think no investigation is warranted.
You can make yourself believe ANYTHING. ANYTHING. Which queen in Alice in Wonderland can believe several impossible things before breakfast? You've got her beat, hands down.
Real buying power has dropped for working-class families, and gone up for the information-manager types (which happens to include me). The average of the two is not useful. Stats on this appear at least monthly in the business press. What's the big deal?
How about: the news articles show little spin, as they are depended upon by decision-makers, while the Op-Ed pieces are often landmarks of rightwing insanity.
Whatever you think of the op-ed pieces, you find in WSJ and Financial Times a relatively unvarnished presentation of the situation in Iraq, for example. Investors need to know something close to the truth in order to make decisions.
There have been some lengthy articles on the record ratio of those in the 12-18 month area of the jobless charts. No, I'm not going to find one. I'm sure you can if you want to, and you'll see that we are in uncharted waters, in conditions not predicted when the system for measurement was set up. And it's ignorant to pretend the EU system of measurement is directly comparable. But....
Look, you're a guy who can read the account of $8.8 billion, including the KPMG bit and Stuart Bowen's recommendations, and come away saying it's not so bad.
Apparently you think no investigation is warranted.
You can make yourself believe ANYTHING. ANYTHING. Which queen in Alice in Wonderland can believe several impossible things before breakfast? You've got her beat, hands down.
Real buying power has dropped for working-class families, and gone up for the information-manager types (which happens to include me). The average of the two is not useful. Stats on this appear at least monthly in the business press. What's the big deal?
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 05:45 AM (LEpXa)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 02, 2005 05:47 AM (Layja)
129
How about: the news articles show little spin, as they are depended upon by decision-makers, while the Op-Ed pieces are often landmarks of rightwing insanity.
That explains why you regard Eric Alterman as a voice of reason.
No, I'm not going to find one.
Typical.
Look, you're a guy who can read the account of $8.8 billion, including the KPMG bit and Stuart Bowen's recommendations, and come away saying it's not so bad.
Apparently you think no investigation is warranted.
I'm all for rational investigation - I just don't like hack jobs like the pitiful Waxman report.
That explains why you regard Eric Alterman as a voice of reason.
No, I'm not going to find one.
Typical.
Look, you're a guy who can read the account of $8.8 billion, including the KPMG bit and Stuart Bowen's recommendations, and come away saying it's not so bad.
Apparently you think no investigation is warranted.
I'm all for rational investigation - I just don't like hack jobs like the pitiful Waxman report.
Posted by: geoff at October 02, 2005 06:18 AM (pSxN9)
130
Oh, and Bush lied.. No, really.
So getting back to the topic of this post... is violence the only way to bring about change in this corrupt, power-mad, lying administration?
I don't think so -- but I have zero confidence in the capacity of Bush's base 35% to ever face reality.
But I have to admit, I'm kinda looking forward to hearing the latest desperate attempt to reconcile the facts in the Plame case with the belief that Bush didn't lie BIG TIME.
How much traitorship and lying for a (failed) partisan cause can you justify?
Also, I noticed no one is touching the admission that insurgents are infiltrating the Iraqi army. The insurgents, you may have noticed, are currently operating independently of the US army. Only one Iraq battalion (1,000 soldiers) can say the same. Read Tom Friedman's article about traveling in Iraq recently?
I'd say the odds for a civil war are going up by the month. You reality-deniers better get ready -- you've got your work cut out for you. Do the math -- the insurgency is now likely to have ten years of life in it.
So getting back to the topic of this post... is violence the only way to bring about change in this corrupt, power-mad, lying administration?
I don't think so -- but I have zero confidence in the capacity of Bush's base 35% to ever face reality.
But I have to admit, I'm kinda looking forward to hearing the latest desperate attempt to reconcile the facts in the Plame case with the belief that Bush didn't lie BIG TIME.
How much traitorship and lying for a (failed) partisan cause can you justify?
Also, I noticed no one is touching the admission that insurgents are infiltrating the Iraqi army. The insurgents, you may have noticed, are currently operating independently of the US army. Only one Iraq battalion (1,000 soldiers) can say the same. Read Tom Friedman's article about traveling in Iraq recently?
I'd say the odds for a civil war are going up by the month. You reality-deniers better get ready -- you've got your work cut out for you. Do the math -- the insurgency is now likely to have ten years of life in it.
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 06:25 AM (LEpXa)
131
Well, tubino, most of your sources seem to be left-liberal standards like Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly blog and the Boston Globe, so I can understand why the WSJ's op-ed page might strike you as "right wing insanity" and their reuters-and-AP-dependent (like all the others) news section as being "spin free."
Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 02, 2005 06:30 AM (p5tFN)
132
And now you link to lefty sites like "Think Progress" (oh come on, really), and reliably liberal papers like the WAPO, and tell us to read Tom Friedman. And you actually think calling this administration "corrupt, power-mad, lying" is anything but hysterical ranting. You know, Reynolds makes this extra-strong baking foil... you can line your whole apartment (or refrigerator crate, wherever it is you happen to live) with the stuff and it will keep out all those Karlrovian Mind-Rays, pinkie swear.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 02, 2005 06:34 AM (p5tFN)
133
geoff sez: "I'm all for rational investigation - I just don't like hack jobs like the pitiful Waxman report."
geoff, this is simple. Waxman pulled together testimony, audits, the easy-to-get paper trail. That's all a minority party member can do when the majority party opposes the whole venture. Democrats cannot initiate an investigation. All they can do is make the case, without subpoena powers etc, that an investigation is warranted.
An investigation is clearly warranted. And it's just as clear that the corrupt partisan folks in charge will not allow it.
And it's just as clear that while you bloggers might make some noises about fiscal responsibility, no one on the right is going to say PEEP about this $8.8B.
And it's just as clear that our MSM will not give it 1% of the space of a missing white woman in Aruba. The SCLM won't push this, and 99% of the US will assume all is just peachy. Look what I had to do to even get you to look at the evidence! Your first reaction was to dismiss it based on one deceptive line from another fake watchdog appointed from industry (Bowen).
How do you explain the absence of mention of the $8.8 from the SCLM? It makes the Bush admin look terrible, and it is terrible news about Iraq. Isn't that supposed to be the sort of thing the SCLM loves to highlight?
Eric Alterman is right. Hurts, doesn't it?
Nice piece from Jane Harmon, based on her observations in Iraq.
geoff, this is simple. Waxman pulled together testimony, audits, the easy-to-get paper trail. That's all a minority party member can do when the majority party opposes the whole venture. Democrats cannot initiate an investigation. All they can do is make the case, without subpoena powers etc, that an investigation is warranted.
An investigation is clearly warranted. And it's just as clear that the corrupt partisan folks in charge will not allow it.
And it's just as clear that while you bloggers might make some noises about fiscal responsibility, no one on the right is going to say PEEP about this $8.8B.
And it's just as clear that our MSM will not give it 1% of the space of a missing white woman in Aruba. The SCLM won't push this, and 99% of the US will assume all is just peachy. Look what I had to do to even get you to look at the evidence! Your first reaction was to dismiss it based on one deceptive line from another fake watchdog appointed from industry (Bowen).
How do you explain the absence of mention of the $8.8 from the SCLM? It makes the Bush admin look terrible, and it is terrible news about Iraq. Isn't that supposed to be the sort of thing the SCLM loves to highlight?
Eric Alterman is right. Hurts, doesn't it?
Nice piece from Jane Harmon, based on her observations in Iraq.
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 06:46 AM (LEpXa)
134
Andrea,
So your view is that Bush meant it when he said he was determined to get to the bottom of the Plame affair?
Can you show any factual errors in the WaPo piece?
Do you realize that the WaPo piece shows the contradictions in the words of the WH spokesman and the later testimony?
--------------------
With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.
His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.
Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.
In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."
--------------------------------------
Well, like I said, there are some who will never face the reality of the folks they voted into office. Involvement was denied, now it is undeniable.
Unless you're a rightwing robot.
So your view is that Bush meant it when he said he was determined to get to the bottom of the Plame affair?
Can you show any factual errors in the WaPo piece?
Do you realize that the WaPo piece shows the contradictions in the words of the WH spokesman and the later testimony?
--------------------
With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.
His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.
Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.
In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."
--------------------------------------
Well, like I said, there are some who will never face the reality of the folks they voted into office. Involvement was denied, now it is undeniable.
Unless you're a rightwing robot.
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 07:29 AM (LEpXa)
135
I'd say the odds for a civil war are going up by the month. You reality-deniers better get ready --
If you are right, will it make you happy?
It's hysterical comments like this one that makes the left-wingers so despicable. They want: jobs to be lost, soldiers to die, black people dragged, schools to deteriorate, kids to be stupid, companies to go bankrupt, the polar ice caps to melt, and over-all embarrassment for the U.S. just to be proved right.
You and your ilk have no ideas, no solutions.
You offer nothing but gloom and doom and criticism and 20/20 hindsight. You are America's pains in the ass. All you crave is power to be in your mandibles.
Think about a Dennis Kucinich or a Cynthia McKinney presidency and a Congress full of Kennedys and Jim McDermott for a moment. Do you think America could last four years with these people in power?
Really. Try to imagine a liberal in the Oval Offiice.
Tell me what you think they would do in four years to improve America and the current situations we face.
If you are right, will it make you happy?
It's hysterical comments like this one that makes the left-wingers so despicable. They want: jobs to be lost, soldiers to die, black people dragged, schools to deteriorate, kids to be stupid, companies to go bankrupt, the polar ice caps to melt, and over-all embarrassment for the U.S. just to be proved right.
You and your ilk have no ideas, no solutions.
You offer nothing but gloom and doom and criticism and 20/20 hindsight. You are America's pains in the ass. All you crave is power to be in your mandibles.
Think about a Dennis Kucinich or a Cynthia McKinney presidency and a Congress full of Kennedys and Jim McDermott for a moment. Do you think America could last four years with these people in power?
Really. Try to imagine a liberal in the Oval Offiice.
Tell me what you think they would do in four years to improve America and the current situations we face.
Posted by: Bart at October 02, 2005 07:35 AM (pyIgl)
136
I trust the reports from people like Michael Yon over some idiot like Harmon who breezes in for a few days of dog/pony show.
If you asked Florida Power and Light customers if they were dissatisfied with the electric service in FL, a 97% figure would not be suprising. I am unhappy with FPL service. Some days the power goes out 5 or 6 times.
That 97% is a number without context - rendering it meaningless.
If you asked Florida Power and Light customers if they were dissatisfied with the electric service in FL, a 97% figure would not be suprising. I am unhappy with FPL service. Some days the power goes out 5 or 6 times.
That 97% is a number without context - rendering it meaningless.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 02, 2005 07:56 AM (X+OCl)
137
And now you link to lefty sites like "Think Progress" (oh come on, really), and reliably liberal papers like the WAPO, and tell us to read Tom Friedman.
They'll be citing prison planet next...
They'll be citing prison planet next...
Posted by: at October 02, 2005 08:05 AM (X+OCl)
138
Perple A wrote:
Its an interesting piece - describing an Iraqi family that is behaving like a bunch pussies.
Yep, that's the one.
If I lived there I would pack up and get the fuck out of Dodge. Except, I'd leave the retard that plays video games all day.
At least the insurgents are paying rent, who knew.
Its an interesting piece - describing an Iraqi family that is behaving like a bunch pussies.
Yep, that's the one.
If I lived there I would pack up and get the fuck out of Dodge. Except, I'd leave the retard that plays video games all day.
At least the insurgents are paying rent, who knew.
Posted by: at October 02, 2005 08:06 AM (pyIgl)
139
Tricky Dick had the play to quiet the Angry Left.
History remembers the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami as peaceful and well-organized, even while the Left was even angrier and violent than today. Why?
If you were in Florida at the time, and of a anti-war persuasion, you may have noticed that beginning a few weeks prior to the convention, the state was suddenly awash in cheap, pharmaceutical Qualudes.
Flood the college towns and liberal bastions with cheap, aphrodisiacal sedatives and all this talk of violence will subside to a dull mumble quickly.
Unlike electroshock therapy or Haldol, they will eat up Qualudes voluntarily and at their own expense!
Think I'm joking?
History remembers the 1972 Republican National Convention in Miami as peaceful and well-organized, even while the Left was even angrier and violent than today. Why?
If you were in Florida at the time, and of a anti-war persuasion, you may have noticed that beginning a few weeks prior to the convention, the state was suddenly awash in cheap, pharmaceutical Qualudes.
Flood the college towns and liberal bastions with cheap, aphrodisiacal sedatives and all this talk of violence will subside to a dull mumble quickly.
Unlike electroshock therapy or Haldol, they will eat up Qualudes voluntarily and at their own expense!
Think I'm joking?
Posted by: Whitehall at October 02, 2005 09:04 AM (GjkR4)
140
Moonbat angst street of blood
Insanity fused brain of mush
Screams from void echo hollow
*click*
*bang*
Sun rises on a new day
Insanity fused brain of mush
Screams from void echo hollow
*click*
*bang*
Sun rises on a new day
Posted by: at October 02, 2005 09:12 AM (X+OCl)
141
It was bound to come. Bart asks,
"If you are right, will it make you happy?"
No. If I had wanted to lead the US into a disastrous situation, I would have been FOR the war.
It makes me fuming mad that this predictable FUBAR is even worse than I thought it would be, due to the unprecedented greed, corruption and incompetence of the civilian leadership.
And it makes me fuming mad that those who supported this disaster are so much in denial of their responsibility.
No, it doesn't make me happy.
Friedman supported the war from before the invasion. At least his recent trip there is getting him to start facing reality, if not responsibility.
Where's the accountability? The Bush admin is still all about getting rid of truth-tellers and whistleblowers, and zero about replacing incompetents with competents.
It pisses me off that the media let the Bush admin get away with revisionism over and over that are variations on:
NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED...
* that OBL would use plans to attack in the US
* that occupation of Iraq would lead to an insurgency
* that the military wouldn't be able to control a country the size of Iraq with fewer than 150K troops
* that a civil war was a likely outcome of a US occupation of Iraq
* that the humiliation techniques used at Gitmo would be exported to Iraq
* that the torture techniques used by the CIA in Central America would resurface in Gitmo etc.
* that putting FEMA under DHS would reduce its effectiveness
* that promotion of political hacks into positions of responsibility might not work out
* that extended no-bid contracting would lead to the abuses documented by Bunnatine Greenhouse
* that a policy of punishing whistleblowers like Greenhouse would stifle more from coming forward
* that increased document classfication and secrecy would lead to more cover-ups
-----------
Of course it all makes sense if you change NO ONE PREDICTED ... to "everyone who took a look at the evidence DID predict...."
---------------
They get away with this over and over.
I could add a dozen more, so could you. Gotta run, soccer game coming up.
"If you are right, will it make you happy?"
No. If I had wanted to lead the US into a disastrous situation, I would have been FOR the war.
It makes me fuming mad that this predictable FUBAR is even worse than I thought it would be, due to the unprecedented greed, corruption and incompetence of the civilian leadership.
And it makes me fuming mad that those who supported this disaster are so much in denial of their responsibility.
No, it doesn't make me happy.
Friedman supported the war from before the invasion. At least his recent trip there is getting him to start facing reality, if not responsibility.
Where's the accountability? The Bush admin is still all about getting rid of truth-tellers and whistleblowers, and zero about replacing incompetents with competents.
It pisses me off that the media let the Bush admin get away with revisionism over and over that are variations on:
NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED...
* that OBL would use plans to attack in the US
* that occupation of Iraq would lead to an insurgency
* that the military wouldn't be able to control a country the size of Iraq with fewer than 150K troops
* that a civil war was a likely outcome of a US occupation of Iraq
* that the humiliation techniques used at Gitmo would be exported to Iraq
* that the torture techniques used by the CIA in Central America would resurface in Gitmo etc.
* that putting FEMA under DHS would reduce its effectiveness
* that promotion of political hacks into positions of responsibility might not work out
* that extended no-bid contracting would lead to the abuses documented by Bunnatine Greenhouse
* that a policy of punishing whistleblowers like Greenhouse would stifle more from coming forward
* that increased document classfication and secrecy would lead to more cover-ups
-----------
Of course it all makes sense if you change NO ONE PREDICTED ... to "everyone who took a look at the evidence DID predict...."
---------------
They get away with this over and over.
I could add a dozen more, so could you. Gotta run, soccer game coming up.
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 09:35 AM (LEpXa)
142
You're a funny guy.
Posted by: Knemon at October 02, 2005 09:43 AM (QaHR7)
143
Andrea, if tubino can bother itself at all to cite any source to back up an assertion, it will be one that has no credibility.
Which is why lauraw is right. You can't teach it anything. It does not reason. I can't recognize a fact.
Let it starve.
Which is why lauraw is right. You can't teach it anything. It does not reason. I can't recognize a fact.
Let it starve.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 02, 2005 10:27 AM (qqZJq)
Posted by: Megan at October 02, 2005 10:46 AM (RPC3I)
145
Okay, Tube, it won't make you happy. But it will give you a lot of satisfaction and permit you to gloat if your dire predictions come true.
I have to think that because you have avoided my challenge and give me no reason to believe you exist on this earth solely to be an angry, paranoid leftist.
Here's the challenge again in a nutshell:
You and your ilk have no ideas, no solutions.
You offer nothing but gloom and doom and criticism and 20/20 hindsight.
Think about a Dennis Kucinich or a Cynthia McKinney presidency and a Congress full of Kennedys and Jim McDermott for a moment. Do you think America could last four years with these people in power?
Really. Try to imagine a liberal in the Oval Offiice.
Tell me what you think they would do in four years to improve America and the current situations we face.
This is your time to shine, Toob. I have a feeling, however, you'll come up with no solutions and offer more hindsight criticism. Let 'er rip!
I have to think that because you have avoided my challenge and give me no reason to believe you exist on this earth solely to be an angry, paranoid leftist.
Here's the challenge again in a nutshell:
You and your ilk have no ideas, no solutions.
You offer nothing but gloom and doom and criticism and 20/20 hindsight.
Think about a Dennis Kucinich or a Cynthia McKinney presidency and a Congress full of Kennedys and Jim McDermott for a moment. Do you think America could last four years with these people in power?
Really. Try to imagine a liberal in the Oval Offiice.
Tell me what you think they would do in four years to improve America and the current situations we face.
This is your time to shine, Toob. I have a feeling, however, you'll come up with no solutions and offer more hindsight criticism. Let 'er rip!
Posted by: Bart at October 02, 2005 10:55 AM (z2Jhf)
Posted by: at October 02, 2005 10:56 AM (X+OCl)
147
P.S. Toob, I want to give you a chance to get your lies straight. Surely, you did not mean to add this:
* that increased document classfication and secrecy would lead to more cover-ups
You don't want to drag Sandy Berger and the previous Clinto Admin into this because that will only show us you admit that they are the ones who put US into the FUBAR in the first place.
* that increased document classfication and secrecy would lead to more cover-ups
You don't want to drag Sandy Berger and the previous Clinto Admin into this because that will only show us you admit that they are the ones who put US into the FUBAR in the first place.
Posted by: Bart at October 02, 2005 10:59 AM (z2Jhf)
148
Well, I've said it before and hopefully this time I'll stick to it. I'm done responding to Tubino's unsourced/poorly sourced Gatling gun of ever-evolving accusations. I've tried pinning him down to complete a discussion on a single point, but somehow I always end up in a morass of off-topic distractions, often involving Central America during the Reagan administration. It's a waste of time, research, and good will.
Posted by: geoff at October 02, 2005 11:17 AM (pSxN9)
149
Yes, geoff, I have the feeling you've just put your finger on the reason posters of tubino's ilk post these long screeds with a dozen bullet points. It's like the hydra: lop off one head, and two more grow.
I've found the only way to have a real debate with someone with whom you disagree is to narrow the argument to the smallest possible datum, and argue only that datum. More often than not, it turns out that we cannot agree on the nature of one small, discrete, basic fact, so the larger points are never going to reconcile.
Throw a whole plate of spaghetti at the wall, and it all seems to stick.
I've found the only way to have a real debate with someone with whom you disagree is to narrow the argument to the smallest possible datum, and argue only that datum. More often than not, it turns out that we cannot agree on the nature of one small, discrete, basic fact, so the larger points are never going to reconcile.
Throw a whole plate of spaghetti at the wall, and it all seems to stick.
Posted by: S. Weasel at October 02, 2005 11:57 AM (6ed4W)
150
" often involving Central America during the Reagan administration"
Which stands as a pretty clear index of his age. I could be wrong, and knowing him he'll insist I am either way, but it marks him as much more of a GenXBat than an OM (Original Moonbat) holdover from "the sixties."
The OMs are rapidly approaching a mode age of, say, 56, 57, that neighborhood. They have aching prostates, wrinkled (or suspiciously un-wrinkled) mugs and pharmaceutical smorgasbords in the bathroom - for maintenance purposes, not fun, this time around. And for them, Viet Nam is the alpha & omega of geopolitics.
The GXBers, on the other hand, are about 10-15 years younger. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, rather than an explosive cultural liberation happening to coincide with their own (thereby interminably prolonged) adolescence, was a pre-existing, often traumatizing template.
So they're one up on their predecessors, because they see the latter's mistakes. And their understanding of the world and its ways is indeed closer to reality. The conspiratorial copvcia "BushCo" worldview is an improvement on "New Left" Kindgergarten Rousseavianism - its understanding of motives and possibilities is way off, but it's a start.
But unlike the OMs' triumph w/r/t Vietnam, the GXMs were unable to help communism make itself
at home in the contested area of their moment. And it rankles. Oh, how it rankles, that all the handwoven Guatamalan Rigoberta Menchuin Camper Van Bheetovenin they could muster wasn't enough.
And me? Just a smug twit whose first fuzzy political awareness came during the 88 campaign. And I'm talking *fuzzy* - although, having sensibly liberal parents, I already knew who The Bad Guys were.
My parents fell between these two generational hiccups, though, just as we (we don't have a name yet - and if you say "Generation Next" I will hit you) fell between the wretched Generation Formerly Known as "X"and the endless tide of Reagan Babies.
Which reminds me, gotta get back to grading Regan Baby-authored essays. You'd hate these kids, tubino - smart, non-aggrieved, interested in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, politically for the most part apathetic or conservative. (These are Berkeley kids, no less!) Most of 'em didn't know of Indiana Jones. The humanity ...
**
"rightwing robots." Well fuck you too, sugar.
Which stands as a pretty clear index of his age. I could be wrong, and knowing him he'll insist I am either way, but it marks him as much more of a GenXBat than an OM (Original Moonbat) holdover from "the sixties."
The OMs are rapidly approaching a mode age of, say, 56, 57, that neighborhood. They have aching prostates, wrinkled (or suspiciously un-wrinkled) mugs and pharmaceutical smorgasbords in the bathroom - for maintenance purposes, not fun, this time around. And for them, Viet Nam is the alpha & omega of geopolitics.
The GXBers, on the other hand, are about 10-15 years younger. Sex, drugs and rock and roll, rather than an explosive cultural liberation happening to coincide with their own (thereby interminably prolonged) adolescence, was a pre-existing, often traumatizing template.
So they're one up on their predecessors, because they see the latter's mistakes. And their understanding of the world and its ways is indeed closer to reality. The conspiratorial copvcia "BushCo" worldview is an improvement on "New Left" Kindgergarten Rousseavianism - its understanding of motives and possibilities is way off, but it's a start.
But unlike the OMs' triumph w/r/t Vietnam, the GXMs were unable to help communism make itself
at home in the contested area of their moment. And it rankles. Oh, how it rankles, that all the handwoven Guatamalan Rigoberta Menchuin Camper Van Bheetovenin they could muster wasn't enough.
And me? Just a smug twit whose first fuzzy political awareness came during the 88 campaign. And I'm talking *fuzzy* - although, having sensibly liberal parents, I already knew who The Bad Guys were.
My parents fell between these two generational hiccups, though, just as we (we don't have a name yet - and if you say "Generation Next" I will hit you) fell between the wretched Generation Formerly Known as "X"and the endless tide of Reagan Babies.
Which reminds me, gotta get back to grading Regan Baby-authored essays. You'd hate these kids, tubino - smart, non-aggrieved, interested in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, politically for the most part apathetic or conservative. (These are Berkeley kids, no less!) Most of 'em didn't know of Indiana Jones. The humanity ...
**
"rightwing robots." Well fuck you too, sugar.
Posted by: Knemon at October 02, 2005 01:24 PM (QaHR7)
151
Be honest, how many of you would trade Tubbie for Cedarford? :>)
Posted by: Michael at October 02, 2005 01:38 PM (pRtzm)
152
Wow. Read Whose Fault is Pork? Figures that it takes a so-called liberal organ like WaPo to state a few simple truths.
--------------------
If Congress serves up wasteful bills, the president can veto them.
Mr. Bush has been too cowardly to do that. He is the first president since John Quincy Adams to have served a full term without once exercising his veto, and his second term has so far been no different. This summer Mr. Bush promised to veto the transportation bill if it cost more than $256 billion. His threat brought the bill's size down quite a bit, but in the end he caved and signed a package that cost $295 billion. Why did he blink? Doesn't his administration pride itself on defending the power and prerogatives of the presidency? Mr. Bush's father had the courage to veto 44 bills in four years, and President Ronald Reagan once vetoed a transportation bill because it contained about 150 pork projects. But the bill that Mr. Bush just signed contained at least 6,000 pork projects.
The president's defenders plead that it's hard to veto bills when his own party controls Congress. But as the conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett points out, this defense is nonsense. President Franklin D. Roosevelt held office at a time of huge Democratic Party majorities in Congress, but that didn't stop him from vetoing a record 635 bills. Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter also coexisted with large Democratic majorities, yet Kennedy vetoed 21 bills during his short presidency, Johnson vetoed 30 and Carter vetoed 31.
---------------------------
--------------------
If Congress serves up wasteful bills, the president can veto them.
Mr. Bush has been too cowardly to do that. He is the first president since John Quincy Adams to have served a full term without once exercising his veto, and his second term has so far been no different. This summer Mr. Bush promised to veto the transportation bill if it cost more than $256 billion. His threat brought the bill's size down quite a bit, but in the end he caved and signed a package that cost $295 billion. Why did he blink? Doesn't his administration pride itself on defending the power and prerogatives of the presidency? Mr. Bush's father had the courage to veto 44 bills in four years, and President Ronald Reagan once vetoed a transportation bill because it contained about 150 pork projects. But the bill that Mr. Bush just signed contained at least 6,000 pork projects.
The president's defenders plead that it's hard to veto bills when his own party controls Congress. But as the conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett points out, this defense is nonsense. President Franklin D. Roosevelt held office at a time of huge Democratic Party majorities in Congress, but that didn't stop him from vetoing a record 635 bills. Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter also coexisted with large Democratic majorities, yet Kennedy vetoed 21 bills during his short presidency, Johnson vetoed 30 and Carter vetoed 31.
---------------------------
Posted by: tubino at October 02, 2005 01:41 PM (LEpXa)
153
Butters asked: "Be honest, how many of you would trade Tubbie for Cedarford?"
I never wanted Cedarford banned in the first place. :/ He was a loony anti-Semetic whackjob but at least he argued in good faith.
I never wanted Cedarford banned in the first place. :/ He was a loony anti-Semetic whackjob but at least he argued in good faith.
Posted by: Megan at October 02, 2005 01:47 PM (RPC3I)
154
Tub, you're all done. You're a pabulum puking punk.
Morton Downey Jr. wouldn't wipe his ass with you.*
You offer absolutely nothing to this blog. Nothing.
You're not funny, witty, clever, nor informative.
I will now ignore you forever.
*Hey, speaking of what era we come from, remember the Morton Downey Jr. show? What a nut!
Morton Downey Jr. wouldn't wipe his ass with you.*
You offer absolutely nothing to this blog. Nothing.
You're not funny, witty, clever, nor informative.
I will now ignore you forever.
*Hey, speaking of what era we come from, remember the Morton Downey Jr. show? What a nut!
Posted by: Bart at October 02, 2005 01:58 PM (OXPEM)
155
Pork is quite plainly the voter's fault.
Voters have a chence every two years to vote in a legislature that would stop creating it -- yet the ability to bring home the pork is what gets votes.
People naturally vote for their own local greed rather than in the national best interest.
The only thing that will change this is for the level of pain (i.e. taxes) to grow to the point where the voters are unwilling to accept the burden. Then the voters will elect low-pork, small government candidates.
We are not even close to that point yet -- indeed may NEVER get there due to the progressive tax system. With the tax burden being so low on the bottom half, it would take some pretty outlandish tax increases before the bulk of the population truly feels any (federal) tax burden pain.
Voters have a chence every two years to vote in a legislature that would stop creating it -- yet the ability to bring home the pork is what gets votes.
People naturally vote for their own local greed rather than in the national best interest.
The only thing that will change this is for the level of pain (i.e. taxes) to grow to the point where the voters are unwilling to accept the burden. Then the voters will elect low-pork, small government candidates.
We are not even close to that point yet -- indeed may NEVER get there due to the progressive tax system. With the tax burden being so low on the bottom half, it would take some pretty outlandish tax increases before the bulk of the population truly feels any (federal) tax burden pain.
Posted by: Tony at October 02, 2005 02:32 PM (X+OCl)
156
According to Wikipedia, 43 state governors have a line item veto (as did the President of the Confederacy). But the federal courts ruled that a line item veto for the President is unconstitutional. Until we amend the Constitution to permit a line item veto, the blame for pork falls squarely on Congress.
Posted by: Michael at October 02, 2005 02:48 PM (pRtzm)
157
the blame for pork falls squarely on Congress.
Who elects congress?
Bottom line is the bulk of the public LIKES PORK.
The threshold of pain for the typical voter is almost nil -- progressive taxation guarantees this.
Who elects congress?
Bottom line is the bulk of the public LIKES PORK.
The threshold of pain for the typical voter is almost nil -- progressive taxation guarantees this.
Posted by: Tony at October 02, 2005 02:56 PM (X+OCl)
158
"Be honest, how many of you would trade Tubbie for Cedarford?"
Same $hit, different delusions.
Later,
bbeck
Same $hit, different delusions.
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at October 02, 2005 03:10 PM (qF8q3)
159
To be fair, Tubbie's last comment makes a valid point (and a single point, for a change, supported by facts).
Bush's reticence to exercize his veto power has been shameful, in my opinion, and an abdication of the leadership we expected from him.
Bush's reticence to exercize his veto power has been shameful, in my opinion, and an abdication of the leadership we expected from him.
Posted by: Michael at October 02, 2005 03:19 PM (pRtzm)
160
Bush's reticence to exercize his veto power has been shameful, in my opinion, and an abdication of the leadership we expected from him.
I really have mixed feelings about this. I'm a Ronald Reagan conservative who believes government is the problem, not the solution and the only way to control that beast is to starve it. However, I'm also a realist and understand there are only so many political battles you can wage simultaneously. I can't fault W's selection of which of those battles need all of his political capital (GWOT) right now.
I really have mixed feelings about this. I'm a Ronald Reagan conservative who believes government is the problem, not the solution and the only way to control that beast is to starve it. However, I'm also a realist and understand there are only so many political battles you can wage simultaneously. I can't fault W's selection of which of those battles need all of his political capital (GWOT) right now.
Posted by: BrewFan at October 02, 2005 03:26 PM (EzjjU)
161
Reagan approved a lot of crap spending, too...but then, he was dealing primarily with DEMOCRATS under him and he had to compromise somewhat.
I'm not cheesed at Bush for signing bills with Republican pork...I'm cheesed that the pork is getting that far in the first place. Congress needs to STOP IT instead of placing the onus on a single man who's already standing up against his enemies; he doesn't need to catch any flak from his allies, too.
Later,
bbeck
I'm not cheesed at Bush for signing bills with Republican pork...I'm cheesed that the pork is getting that far in the first place. Congress needs to STOP IT instead of placing the onus on a single man who's already standing up against his enemies; he doesn't need to catch any flak from his allies, too.
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at October 02, 2005 04:08 PM (qF8q3)
162
Congress needs to STOP IT...
But they won't -- indeed they can't, if they want to keep getting elected - which for pol is the end-game.
Its the fundamental nature of pork -- trying to rob your neighbor so you have more for yourself.
Tip O'Neill was absolutely correct in saying all politics is local. At least WRT congress.
I'm convinced it is the progressive tax system that enables the electorate to maintain a pro-pork mentality. With a vast number of workers paying little or no federal income tax anyway, why would they NOT be pro-pork? Free money for their districts? Hell yea! Bring it on baby...
Until such time as the sting of pork costs is felt among the lower wage earners, they're not going to be interested in reducing it at all.
I'm not the least bit suprised that the Pork Busting blog effort is getting a chilly or non-existent response from a majority of pols that have been contacted so far. Other than in a very very few districts, the blogosphere dweller demographic isn't even close to that districts overall demographic.
The electorate likes to complain (vaguely) about pork, but nobody wants theirs taken away. The politicians are just obliging those who vote them into office.
But they won't -- indeed they can't, if they want to keep getting elected - which for pol is the end-game.
Its the fundamental nature of pork -- trying to rob your neighbor so you have more for yourself.
Tip O'Neill was absolutely correct in saying all politics is local. At least WRT congress.
I'm convinced it is the progressive tax system that enables the electorate to maintain a pro-pork mentality. With a vast number of workers paying little or no federal income tax anyway, why would they NOT be pro-pork? Free money for their districts? Hell yea! Bring it on baby...
Until such time as the sting of pork costs is felt among the lower wage earners, they're not going to be interested in reducing it at all.
I'm not the least bit suprised that the Pork Busting blog effort is getting a chilly or non-existent response from a majority of pols that have been contacted so far. Other than in a very very few districts, the blogosphere dweller demographic isn't even close to that districts overall demographic.
The electorate likes to complain (vaguely) about pork, but nobody wants theirs taken away. The politicians are just obliging those who vote them into office.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 02, 2005 04:29 PM (X+OCl)
163
To be fair, Tubbie's last comment makes a valid point (and a single point, for a change, supported by facts).
Don't give him a pass, it was a point that he made in order to dodge everything people were giving him in reply to everything else. The fact that this one turd he flung had some corn in it does not make him a fine chef.
Pin him on anything and he changes the subject.
Don't give him a pass, it was a point that he made in order to dodge everything people were giving him in reply to everything else. The fact that this one turd he flung had some corn in it does not make him a fine chef.
Pin him on anything and he changes the subject.
Posted by: Sortelli at October 02, 2005 05:50 PM (tHvzT)
164
US Higher Education, the model for the world for decades, is no longer attracting all the best from the rest of the world.
American universities have always been good for science and engineering, and still are. (And the humanities don't matter and never did.)
American schools (primary and decades) have sucked for decades. Probably since the thirties, maybe longer.
American universities have always been good for science and engineering, and still are. (And the humanities don't matter and never did.)
American schools (primary and decades) have sucked for decades. Probably since the thirties, maybe longer.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 02, 2005 08:04 PM (QriEg)
165
I guess I should feel flattered by the attention, but the remarkable thing is how hard most of you work to discuss ME instead of any ideas.
Geoff wonders why I toss out so many ideas, which is pretty rich after a half dozen of you demand that I provide a thesis on economic metrics, a plan for the Middle East, an explanation of an election platform I would endorse, etc etc. Admittedly I brought in Reagan’s policy in Central America, but originally that was in the context of pointing out that the “revolution” you’re getting now is just the logical continuation of the same basic policy. Even the torture and humiliation techniques used at Gitmo and Abu Gharaib are chillingly similar to what was SOP in Guatemala and elsewhere. (In both cases you have trained US guys directing others. Difference is that there, the practitioners were usually locals, often grads of the School of the Americas, but now it’s our own soldiers.)
You all ask me a lot of questions. Let me point out some that YOU have not answered. I asked how many really believe that the Bush tax cuts will lead to the projected tax revenue increases and halving of deficit (as Bush claims). I asked you all what you projected the 2006 deficit to be. It seemed very few believe your own arguments.
In this very thread I asked how YOU would bring about the change that the KOS diarist was talking about. No one could manage a coherent answer to that one.
I challenge you to name prominent republicans who are serious about fiscal responsibility, and all I get is McCain.
I challenge you to explain the NYT’s repeated publication of Judith Miller’s anonymously-sourced [cough cough Chalabi cough cough] drivel about WMD in Iraq, and no one even attempts it.
I challenge you to explain the almost complete absence of followup reporting on the $8.8B, and no one can. Some suggest there’s no story, but of course they haven’t read what there is.
Geoff complains that I don’t give enough good sources. No, I don’t think it’s reasonable that I provide you with links to points that have been made at least once per month in the business press, if not in the major dailies, about such matters as wages sinking. The one point I made that was NOT readily available was about the $8.8B, so I gave you extensive sources – enough that you grudgingly admitted an investigation was warranted. BrewFan decided he had lost the point, I guess? But can’t admit it. Whatever.
Bart wants to know how a guy like me would fix the problems that his party created.
Okay. Let's just take Iraq, instead of the entire world and all domestic policy to start. The best argument I've read recently about what to do in Iraq was the one that Juan Cole advanced. He argues that the US should begin withdrawal of ground troops, but has an obligation to maintain an air presence to prevent war-scale maneuvers of any parties.
So, it’s only fair for me to ask: what is YOUR plan for Iraq?
For the rest of domestic issues, I’m extraordinarily ordinary. According to most polls, I’m squarely in the mainstream. I believe that what has been shown to work, still works: investment in education, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal responsibility, progressive taxation. It worked for the US in the 50s, it’s working where applied in other countries around the world, and it would still work here.
Geoff wonders why I toss out so many ideas, which is pretty rich after a half dozen of you demand that I provide a thesis on economic metrics, a plan for the Middle East, an explanation of an election platform I would endorse, etc etc. Admittedly I brought in Reagan’s policy in Central America, but originally that was in the context of pointing out that the “revolution” you’re getting now is just the logical continuation of the same basic policy. Even the torture and humiliation techniques used at Gitmo and Abu Gharaib are chillingly similar to what was SOP in Guatemala and elsewhere. (In both cases you have trained US guys directing others. Difference is that there, the practitioners were usually locals, often grads of the School of the Americas, but now it’s our own soldiers.)
You all ask me a lot of questions. Let me point out some that YOU have not answered. I asked how many really believe that the Bush tax cuts will lead to the projected tax revenue increases and halving of deficit (as Bush claims). I asked you all what you projected the 2006 deficit to be. It seemed very few believe your own arguments.
In this very thread I asked how YOU would bring about the change that the KOS diarist was talking about. No one could manage a coherent answer to that one.
I challenge you to name prominent republicans who are serious about fiscal responsibility, and all I get is McCain.
I challenge you to explain the NYT’s repeated publication of Judith Miller’s anonymously-sourced [cough cough Chalabi cough cough] drivel about WMD in Iraq, and no one even attempts it.
I challenge you to explain the almost complete absence of followup reporting on the $8.8B, and no one can. Some suggest there’s no story, but of course they haven’t read what there is.
Geoff complains that I don’t give enough good sources. No, I don’t think it’s reasonable that I provide you with links to points that have been made at least once per month in the business press, if not in the major dailies, about such matters as wages sinking. The one point I made that was NOT readily available was about the $8.8B, so I gave you extensive sources – enough that you grudgingly admitted an investigation was warranted. BrewFan decided he had lost the point, I guess? But can’t admit it. Whatever.
Bart wants to know how a guy like me would fix the problems that his party created.
Okay. Let's just take Iraq, instead of the entire world and all domestic policy to start. The best argument I've read recently about what to do in Iraq was the one that Juan Cole advanced. He argues that the US should begin withdrawal of ground troops, but has an obligation to maintain an air presence to prevent war-scale maneuvers of any parties.
So, it’s only fair for me to ask: what is YOUR plan for Iraq?
For the rest of domestic issues, I’m extraordinarily ordinary. According to most polls, I’m squarely in the mainstream. I believe that what has been shown to work, still works: investment in education, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal responsibility, progressive taxation. It worked for the US in the 50s, it’s working where applied in other countries around the world, and it would still work here.
Posted by: tubino at October 03, 2005 02:02 AM (LEpXa)
166
" asked how many really believe that the Bush tax cuts will lead to the projected tax revenue increases "
The projected increases? No. Increases? Yes, it's already happened. Deficit cut in half? Probably not. Is a running 10-15% deficit the end of the world? Nope.
" it’s working where applied in other countries around the world, "
Sorry, where? France? Sweden? One question you never answered was which nations, precisely, are doing better economically.
The projected increases? No. Increases? Yes, it's already happened. Deficit cut in half? Probably not. Is a running 10-15% deficit the end of the world? Nope.
" it’s working where applied in other countries around the world, "
Sorry, where? France? Sweden? One question you never answered was which nations, precisely, are doing better economically.
Posted by: Knemon at October 03, 2005 05:52 AM (QaHR7)
167
Fear our mighty papier-mache puppet heads, our inflatable scrota, our hirsute manatees!
Forward to Washington!
Forward to Washington!
Posted by: Ken at October 03, 2005 05:53 AM (6W2zl)
168
You can't kill the pork bills with vetos. They have crushing bipartisan support in the legislature and a veto overide is guaranteed. The only ones who can kill those wretched things would be we, the people. As long as we reward the guys bringing home our slab of the pig, the pork bills will continue to pass.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 03, 2005 08:08 AM (gjy1/)
169
Good riddance to him. His site blew anyway!
Posted by: Skeets at October 05, 2005 03:09 PM (IpfGt)
170
If you’re a basketball player or basketball fan, I think you must have a good jordan shoes(or called air jordan shoes). The reason is known to everybody, not only beacause jordands shoes is a famous brand all over the world, but also there are many kinds cheap air jordans at the shop. At the same time, the cheap jordans are all good quality and beautiful. Mainly because cheap jordan shoes are also popular around the youngers. So, do not hesitate go to buy cheap jordans for yourself.
Posted by: jordan at November 20, 2009 01:47 AM (lX/Zk)
210kb generated in 0.2061 seconds; 50 queries returned 301 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
