Random Political Thread [Archive] - Page 3

Michael

Dec 3rd 2009, 01:52 PM

This one is priceless! :lol:

Al Franken fallout has GOP fuming

Republican senators feel burned by Al Franken — and not by his old jokes.

The Republicans are steamed at Franken because partisans on the left are using a measure he sponsored to paint them as rapist sympathizers — and because Franken isn’t doing much to stop them.

Source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30088.html)

Franken tabled an ammendment that gives rape-victims a basic right to justice, even if they are employed by military contractors.

A whole bunch of Republican senators voted against this ammendment (which did pass) and as such, many women's rights activists are using this to attack the Republican senators as rapist sympathizers (rightly so since they actually voted to support the corporate right to lock alleged rape victims in containers and deny them any rights at all).

Apparently the Republican senators think this is unfair to them.

Poor Republican senators - they are upset that someone is actually using their actual voting records against them?

:rofl:

Three cheers for Senator Al Franken. He's quickly becoming my favorite Senator. :thumbsup:

Zarquon

Dec 3rd 2009, 02:18 PM

This one is priceless! :lol:

Source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30088.html)

Franken tabled an ammendment that gives rape-victims a basic right to justice, even if they are employed by military contractors.

A whole bunch of Republican senators voted against this ammendment (which did pass) and as such, many women's rights activists are using this to attack the Republican senators as rapist sympathizers (rightly so since they actually voted to support the corporate right to lock alleged rape victims in containers and deny them any rights at all).

Apparently the Republican senators think this is unfair to them.

Poor Republican senators - they are upset that someone is actually using their actual voting records against them?

:rofl:

Three cheers for Senator Al Franken. He's quickly becoming my favorite Senator. :thumbsup:
Barney Frank is the man.

Michael

Dec 3rd 2009, 02:47 PM

Barney Frank is the man.
Yes, Barney Frank is certainly (and by far) the most respectable and most intelligent Senator of them all.

Michael

Dec 8th 2009, 12:48 PM

Surprise, surprise!

Infamous Acorn video turns out to be "heavily edited".

ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.

The report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, recommends nine steps for ACORN to take in order to regain public trust in the wake of the scandal, including that it return to its "core competency - community organizing and citizen engagement empowerment, with related services."

Source (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php)

Not only that, but one of the Acorn people filmed in the video actually did report the 'suspicious' act to the local police.

Why does it turn out that so many of these rightwing 'outrages' turn out to be based on fraudulent videos? I'm reminded of all the times that Fox News has been caught fabricating videos for their newscasts.

Americano

Dec 8th 2009, 07:50 PM

Surprise, surprise!

Infamous Acorn video turns out to be "heavily edited".

Source (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php)

Not only that, but one of the Acorn people filmed in the video actually did report the 'suspicious' act to the local police.

Why does it turn out that so many of these rightwing 'outrages' turn out to be based on fraudulent videos? I'm reminded of all the times that Fox News has been caught fabricating videos for their newscasts.

The mentality reminds me of the elderly teabagger screaming that he doesn't want government interfering with his health care.

Michael

Dec 8th 2009, 07:52 PM

The mentality reminds me of the elderly teabagger screaming that he doesn't want government interfering with his health care.

Indeed. To paraphrase my beloved Nietzsche, we are living now in a world that is beyond logic and reason.

Michael

Dec 15th 2009, 11:40 AM

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46911000/jpg/_46911423_af778a1c-bc69-40ce-95f7-0ec844bbf535.jpg

Mr Berlusconi, 73, suffered a broken nose, cuts and two broken teeth after being hit with a model of Milan cathedral after a rally in the city.

He is to leave hospital on Wednesday with orders to rest, his doctor said.

The prime minister's personal physician Alberto Zangrillo told journalists on Tuesday that Mr Berlusconi had been ordered not to carry out "important" public activities for two weeks.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8413402.stm)

While such tactics are unacceptable, I must admit that they couldn't have chosen a better target worthy of the honor.

Zarquon

Dec 15th 2009, 12:39 PM

While such tactics are unacceptable, I must admit that they couldn't have chosen a better target worthy of the honor.
I despise that fool with a passion.

Michael

Dec 15th 2009, 12:46 PM

Speaking of fools... there is Joe Lieberman.

Can't say I'm surprised. I argued that bastard should have been locked out of the Democratic caucus and stripped of all Committee memberships back in 2006. To do anything less than this was to guarentee a big problem down the road.

Well, now Joe being a big problem is here. Surprise, surprise.

Gotta wonder about Connecticut - they have two horrific Senators - both of which are an embarrassment.

Gotta wonder about Democratic Senate leadership that both of these idiots are very popular fellows.

Neither one has a hope in hell of getting re-elected.

Michael

Dec 15th 2009, 01:07 PM

This is for Daktoria:

The basic hypothesis is that, while the total supply of entrepreneurs varies among societies, the productive contribution of the society's entrepreneurial activities varies much more because of their allocation between productive activities, such as innovation, and largely unproductive activities, such as rent seeking or organized crime. This allocation is heavily influenced by the relative payoffs society offers to such activities. This implies that policy can influence the allocation of entrepreneurship more effectively than it can influence its supply.

Source (http://faculty.washington.edu/latsch/SISAF444_Baumol_Entrepreneurship.pdf)

I think this is a very good point about the nature of entrepreneurialism. Most of the true entreprenuers in America today seem to be into rent-seeking (on Wall Street) or crime.

Donkey

Dec 15th 2009, 03:43 PM

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46911000/jpg/_46911423_af778a1c-bc69-40ce-95f7-0ec844bbf535.jpg

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8413402.stm)

While such tactics are unacceptable, I must admit that they couldn't have chosen a better target worthy of the honor.
He's undoubtedly a douche-nozzle, but anyone who decides it's a good idea to lay the beat-down on an old man is equally a choch-basket.
Speaking of fools... there is Joe Lieberman.

Can't say I'm surprised. I argued that bastard should have been locked out of the Democratic caucus and stripped of all Committee memberships back in 2006. To do anything less than this was to guarentee a big problem down the road.

Well, now Joe being a big problem is here. Surprise, surprise.

Gotta wonder about Connecticut - they have two horrific Senators - both of which are an embarrassment.

Gotta wonder about Democratic Senate leadership that both of these idiots are very popular fellows.

Neither one has a hope in hell of getting re-elected.
Srsly. If he doesn't get on board with HRC they really need to kick him to the curb.

Americano

Dec 16th 2009, 09:27 PM

Gay mayor deep in the heart of Texas:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947909,00.html

A very successful campaign and I haven't read one word of it on a couple of forums with posters known to bash anyone but their definition of Real Americans (a tiny demographic).

So where does she politically go from there in that state without the backing of big oil and big ag?

Zarquon

Dec 16th 2009, 10:51 PM

Gay mayor deep in the heart of Texas:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947909,00.html

she won because of core competence/governing issues, her orientation was not highlighted until the end; this shows that pocketbook issues are still more important than the so-called moral or cultural issues. This certainly does not signify a groundswell of support for LGBT people, and big cities are more liberal than rest of US as it is.

Michael

Dec 17th 2009, 08:42 AM

Michael

Dec 18th 2009, 09:56 AM

This is disgusting. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Democrats were furious at the filibuster attempt on Pentagon funds. "They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war," Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday evening. "If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason."

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800241_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009121704805)

So Republicans in the Senate attempt to filibuster against funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to be normal business.

But of course, just a few short years ago, these same people screamed "treason" at anyone who even suggested doing that. And the Beltway media fell all over themselves piling on support for this.

But now when the Republicans do it, not a word from anyone. Apparently, this is normal business in the Senate. Gosh, what a surprise.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

Nothing in politics can annoy me more than this type of behavior.

Michael

Dec 18th 2009, 10:57 AM

And speaking of hypocrisy, on the other side of the aisle, we have a bunch of Democrats (and Democratic Party supporters) now making the argument that deficits don't matter.

These are of course the same people who sought to ridicule VP Dick Cheney when he made the same comment back in 2001.

These are of course the same people who screamed murder over GW Bush's deficit causing tax cuts.

This level of hyper-partisan bullshit is quite tiresome and very annoying. Deficits (like filibusters) are not bad or good depending upon which party is in power. That's nonsense.

Zarquon

Dec 18th 2009, 11:53 AM

Top Ten Stories you missed in 2009 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_top_10_stories_you_missed_in_2009)

Michael

Dec 18th 2009, 12:00 PM

Top Ten Stories you missed in 2009 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_top_10_stories_you_missed_in_2009)

I certainly didn't miss #1, #4, #5, #6 and #10.

#9 seems to be the most interesting 'non-covered' story.

#1 had wall-to-wall coverage up here and has for years.

Michael

Dec 21st 2009, 10:59 AM

Given that the US media won't stop talking about the need to address the US (fast-growing) deficit, here's a timely reminder of how insanely uninformed the public is about deficits and government spending...

The weekend before President Clinton's State of the Union Address, the Wall Street Journal assembled a focus group of middle-class white males to plumb the depth of their proverbial anger. These guys are mad as hell. They're mad at welfare, they're mad at special-interest lobbyists. "But perhaps the subject that produces the most agreement among the group," the Journal reports, is the view that Washington should stop sending money abroad and instead zero in on the domestic front. "Tells about a poll released last week by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland which stated that 75% of Americans believes that the US spends "too much" on foreign aid, and 64% want foreign aid spending cut. Apparently a cavalier 11% of Americans think it's fine to spend "too much" on foreign aid. Respondents were also asked, though, how big a share of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The median answer was 15%; the average answer was 18% the correct answer is less than 1%. A question about how much would be "too little" produced a median answer of 3%--more than three times the current level of foreign aid spending. This poll is less interesting for what it shows about foreign aid than for what it shows about American democracy. It's not just that Americans are scandalously ignorant. It's that they seem to believe they have a democratic right to their ignorance.

Source (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1995/02/06/1995_02_06_004_TNY_CARDS_000367681)

Indeed. The average American thinks that 'foreign aid' makes up some 15-18% of the federal budget. And they want 'foreign aid' spending reduced to an amount that is more than 300% higher than it presently is. :ummm:

Polls from last week show that the only area that (one-third of) the public supports cutting spending on is... you guessed it... "foreign aid".

Eliminating the foreign aid budget wouldn't even cover the interest payments on the Iraqi war debt, let alone cover off the loses from Bush's tax cuts.

So when politicians and/or media speak about the American public being concerned about spending or deficits, they are lying.

Btw, I wonder what would happen to those poll results when the public is informed that Israel is by far and away the largest recipient of US foreign aid (and always has been)?

Michael

Dec 21st 2009, 11:13 AM

Here's the source on the current opinion poll on cutting spending.

Data sure looks like there is a consensus for increasing spending on just about everything. :shrug:

And yes, almost one-third support cutting foreign aid and that's the highest support for any spending cut.

In my Forbes column this morning I criticize the budget commission being established by Congress as the price for raising the debt limit. Echoing what Stan has said earlier, I think such a commission will be ineffective because the American people are not yet ready for serious deficit reduction measures. I cite recent polls showing that while people say they want a balanced budget, they also want lower taxes and higher spending. The following table, which was left out of the column for some reason, illustrates this point. Pew asked people if they wanted higher spending. lower spending or no change for various budget items. As one can see, only foreign aid got as many as a third of people favoring a cut.

Source (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1336/more-budget-commission?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CapitalGainsAndGames+%28Capit al+Gains+and+Games+-+Wall+Street%2C+Washington%2C+and+Everything+in+Be tween%29)

Americano

Dec 21st 2009, 11:19 AM

Given that the US media won't stop talking about the need to address the US (fast-growing) deficit, here's a timely reminder of how insanely uninformed the public is about deficits and government spending...

Source (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1995/02/06/1995_02_06_004_TNY_CARDS_000367681)

Indeed. The average American thinks that 'foreign aid' makes up some 15-18% of the federal budget. And they want 'foreign aid' spending reduced to an amount that is more than 300% higher than it presently is. :ummm:

Polls from last week show that the only area that (one-third of) the public supports cutting spending on is... you guessed it... "foreign aid".

Eliminating the foreign aid budget wouldn't even cover the interest payments on the Iraqi war debt, let alone cover off the loses from Bush's tax cuts.

So when politicians and/or media speak about the American public being concerned about spending or deficits, they are lying.

Btw, I wonder what would happen to those poll results when the public is informed that Israel is by far and away the largest recipient of US foreign aid (and always has been)?

I wonder what that percentage goes up to if military items currently lumped under defense and state department spending are included. 156 permanent US foreign military bases, non-war zones, and the 250,000+ military personnel/contractors stationed there (which provide substantial economic benefits to host nations) should be a tidy sum.

Michael

Dec 22nd 2009, 10:18 AM

Zarquon

Dec 22nd 2009, 10:53 AM

All these efforts to paint Obama as 'blameless' for the debacle of healthcare reform are getting fucking tiresome. Do these pundits think we're stupid?

I'm perfectly aware of the institutional limitations on executive authority and the separations of powers in the US Constitution.

I'm also aware of the way Obama has served up the Republicans one of the sweetest freebees of all times - a tacit agreement not to pursue criminal charges against Bush Admin torture advocates.

Lets just say that Obama could have told the Republican Senators - "support healthcare" or "watch us empower investigations into torture permissions". Pick one.

But no, Obama didn't do that. Obama just gave the Republican minority everything they wanted on the torture issue and then caved in to Republican minority opposition to healthcare reform.

Obama never even tried. That's why he's being attacked and rightly so. It really is annoying having such an innocent rookie in the White House. Can't say I'm surprised, but don't tell me Obama couldn't have passed a fully robust public option. Hell, Obama could have put through single payer with that threat of judicial investigation (that the public fully suppported). Republicans may love their political grandstanding, but they love their own skins even more.
Its his personality; he tries to seek common-ground and consensus with almost everyone and tries real hard to please all sides, probably due to his multiple-identities/multicultural background and having moved around a lot which make him feel like the outsider and so he does the aforementioned to belong. And he's also deliberative, calm and rational. Input these, and you get a natural urge to reach a 'reasonable compromise' that will do 'justice' to all sides irrespective of the issue, except on those which he has made up his mind beforehand or the majority favor one option considerably.

Michael

Dec 22nd 2009, 01:59 PM

Its his personality; he tries to seek common-ground and consensus with almost everyone and tries real hard to please all sides, probably due to his multiple-identities/multicultural background and having moved around a lot which make him feel like the outsider and so he does the aforementioned to belong. And he's also deliberative, calm and rational. Input these, and you get a natural urge to reach a 'reasonable compromise' that will do 'justice' to all sides irrespective of the issue, except on those which he has made up his mind beforehand or the majority favor one option considerably.

I don't give a crap about his personality. I judge him by results and he's not getting very much of those - specifically because of his choices.

Good faith bargaining with Republicans in Congress is a fool's game. Obama is selling his majority down the river playing that game and he deserves every critique he gets for doing it.

Sending rookies to the White House is a bad strategy. I opposed Obama in the primary for exactly this reason.

I'm not surprised by Obama's actions at all. He's doing a whole lot better than I expected, but that doesn't say much since I don't expect Obama to succeed with anything.

Michael

Dec 23rd 2009, 09:24 AM

"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html?hpid=topnews)

Rookie politician Obama makes yet another stupid rookie mistake (I'm being charitable about that).

First law of politics - don't piss on your base.

I was disappointed with Obama yesterday. I'm fucking pissed at him today. Such fucking arrogance is very unbecoming of the President in this particular circumstance.

And the public record shows that Obama is playing semantics here (that's a polite way of saying that Obama is essentially lying).

Not fucking good.

Obama might have scored some points with a "mea culpa" here. But no, instead Obama goes on the attack. Very politically stupid move. That's the actions of a wounded ego, not a policy-oriented President.

Michael

Dec 23rd 2009, 09:36 AM

The Drunk Guy

Dec 24th 2009, 11:10 AM

Btw, just put this error into perspective - the last two days all I've been reading about is how the biggest danger to the Democrats on the Healthcare issue is to have a determined and hardcore faction of progressive activists playing out a guerilla war against the Democratic leadership for selling out on Healthcare over the next twelve months.

And so what does Obama do? He essentially waves a red flag in the face of exactly those people - practically daring them to do exactly that.

Shades of GW Bush's ill-fated boast to "bring'em on" here.

As I said, not fucking good at all.
I agree that he's royally fucked this bill up. Just when I thought this would be the only thing he would stand firm on this year, he flops over like a puppy dog and lets the insurance companies scratch his belly. What a pussy!

All I can say is, At least it's not McCain. :shrug:

Michael

Dec 24th 2009, 11:41 AM

I agree that he's royally fucked this bill up. Just when I thought this would be the only thing he would stand firm on this year, he flops over like a puppy dog and lets the insurance companies scratch his belly. What a pussy!
I can live with politicians caving to the wishes of corporate America. Heck, I'm quite used to that. I don't like it, but I'm not an idiot.

What I find really annoying here is the fact that Obama is making a big stink about denying that's what he's doing. That smells bad and is stupid politics. Obama is not saying "I tried, but this is the best deal we could get" which would be more honest or better politics. Instead, he's saying "the deal we got is exactly the one I wanted all along" - which is really stupid politics given the fact that this is a political lie and also a big chunk of his base is really pissed at what appears to be a significant political failure.

All I can say is, At least it's not McCain. :shrug:
McCain never stood a chance. The 2008 Presidential election was going Democratic no matter who the candidates were.

It was Hillary that was rejected in favor of Obama, not McCain.

And I'm not convinced at all that the electorate got the best candidate.

Americano

Dec 24th 2009, 12:08 PM

I can live with politicians caving to the wishes of corporate America. Heck, I'm quite used to that. I don't like it, but I'm not an idiot.

What I find really annoying here is the fact that Obama is making a big stink about denying that's what he's doing. That smells bad and is stupid politics. Obama is not saying "I tried, but this is the best deal we could get" which would be more honest or better politics. Instead, he's saying "the deal we got is exactly the one I wanted all along" - which is really stupid politics given the fact that this is a political lie and also a big chunk of his base is really pissed at what appears to be a significant political failure.

McCain never stood a chance. The 2008 Presidential election was going Democratic no matter who the candidates were.

It was Hillary that was rejected in favor of Obama, not McCain.

And I'm not convinced at all that the electorate got the best candidate.

I would have preferred Hillary just from the fact that the brightest US ex-president of modern times would have been advising her. Bill knew how to cut deals and that's how US government functions from obscure muni levels to the very top.

Obama's naive strategy of taking domestic issues to the general public is doomed to failure as it ignores the dominant issues of congressional corruption and greed taking precedent over all other governing considerations. He should have the payoffs in place before a bill ever comes to committee.

Michael

Dec 27th 2009, 09:29 AM

Hillary in her own right has proven to be very competent.

Her first engagement was the 1993 Hillarycare healthcare policy - which was a pretty damn good legislative initiative that was pretty much killed by Ted Kennedy (out of pique, jealousy or ego - probably all three).

When elected Senator, Hillary became one of the most effective and popular rookie Senators - proving herself a master of (arcane and complex) Senate procedures and playing the committee game.

Then as Secretary of State, I'm reading that Hillary's department is running very smoothly and Hillary is very popular. State department hasn't been this active and functional in decades.

All in all, Hillary seems to be quite a capable politician in her own right. She doesn't make stupid mistakes and that's a very important quality.

Having Bill around is just a big fat bonus. I have no doubt that if it were legal, Bill Clinton could beat Obama in a primary challenge for 2012 and win the general election.

Michael

Dec 27th 2009, 09:46 AM

An interesting case has been working its way through the Toronto courts.

Two years ago on Boxing Day, a half-dozen gangbangers had a little shoot-out on Yonge Street in broad daylight (amongst a crowd of Boxing Day shoppers). Lots of bullets were fired, but none of the participants were shot.

However, an innocent bystander (20yo girl) was hit by a stray bullet and killed.

Ballistics and forensics have been unable to positively identify the shooter of the gun that killed the bystander.

So far we've convicted two of them for 2nd degree murder (both got 25 years) and two more have yet to come up to trial.

Sweet news.

The law is arguing that it doesn't really matter which one of the gangbangers pulled that particular trigger - they are all participants in the act that killed the girl and are each being charged as if they were the shooter.

Good to see the law get aggressive here. I'm one who believes that when guns and gangbangers are involved, all legal rights should go out the window. Considering the trash that is the accused, they all deserve to do hard time anyway.

Anyway, I'm all for expanding the principle of collective guilt with respect to the law and crime. I think it is insane that sometimes a bunch of collectively guilty people are let go because the law can't prove which one is the 'most guilty'. In such cases, its good to see the law used in a clever way to nail their collective asses.

partofme

Dec 27th 2009, 04:07 PM

Looks like climate change legislation is going to be even more of a long shot than already though.
:mad::mad::mad:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30984.html

Michael

Dec 28th 2009, 09:02 AM

Looks like climate change legislation is going to be even more of a long shot than already though.
:mad::mad::mad:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30984.html

That particular source is extremely questionable. They have proven already in their short life that they will publish partsian propaganda and ignore factual accuracy if it suits their fancy.

In actuality, Politico is useful as a barometer for Republican plans or talking points. They have a business model that appears to be identical to Fox News.

That being said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that anti-climate change legislation is going to be politically difficult for just about every national legislature.

Zarquon

Dec 28th 2009, 10:46 AM

did anyone hear about this attempted terror attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26plane.html?th&emc=th)?

Michael

Dec 28th 2009, 10:49 AM

did anyone hear about this attempted terror attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26plane.html?th&emc=th)?

Sure. Seems like another lone-operating amateur. :shrug:

Society is never going to be able to eliminate (or even predict) that kind of random attacker.

Zarquon

Dec 28th 2009, 03:21 PM

Sure. Seems like another lone-operating amateur. :shrug:

Society is never going to be able to eliminate (or even predict) that kind of random attacker.
:erm:
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claims responsibility for attempted Christmas airline attack in U.S.Source:CNN breaking news(e-mail alert).
and read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/world/middleeast/28yemen.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1).

Donkey

Dec 28th 2009, 03:32 PM

Yeah, but who the fuck is "al-qaeda?"

Michael

Dec 29th 2009, 08:23 AM

Yeah, but who the fuck is "al-qaeda?"

Is apparently the name applied to anyone who hates the USA. :shrug:

The Drunk Guy

Dec 29th 2009, 09:09 AM

Is apparently the name applied to anyone who hates the USA. :shrug:

Imagine that infamous scene in Sparticus..."I'm al Qaeda!" "No. I'm al Qaeda."

:D

Michael

Dec 29th 2009, 12:24 PM

Note to media pundits: the people who are dumping on Obama from the left over the healthcare issue were NOT part of the Obamamaniac faction.

Indeed, the biggest critiques of Obama's handling of the healthcare issue are coming from notable supporters of Edwards and Hillary who all expressed strong reservations about Obama. Kos, Greenwald and Hamsher (three of the most vocal anti-healthcare deal exponents were all core supporters for Edwards in the primary and all very lukewarm Obama supporters).

I'm getting tired of reading about how all the critiques of Obama right now are coming from those who worshipped him and are 'rebounding' now. That is nonsense-drivel (US media seems to prefer to project their own biases and make that the story instead of actually investigating/reporting on the issue).

The Obama worshippers are still worshipping Obama. It is the moderates and independents that signed on to support him after their favored candidates dropped out that are pointing out Obama's flaws now (same flaws they pointed during the primary I might add - Obama is turning out to be exactly what was expected of him - a neophyte rookie without liberal principles).

Michael

Dec 30th 2009, 04:00 PM

Just when I thought the Republicans couldn't get any worse (with the teabaggers, death-panels, etc)... they manage to raise their game a notch.

The criticism against Obama for his "handling" of the xmas day 'underwear bomber' is completely over the top, without merit and entirely hypocritical. Par for the course I guess.

I suppose I'm a bit surprised that the Republicans are so willing to go this low. I'm not surprised that the US media is enabling/supporting this and not doing any fact checking at all against these absurd claims.

Btw, for anyone curious, President Bush waited six days before publicly mentioning the 'shoe bomber' fellow back in 2003 - and even then the reference was only in passing. But apparently Obama's 72 hour delay somehow made America unsafe. :ummm:

This is evolving from comical to pathetic. I don't know what's worse - the asinine Republicans or the media that encourages/enables/rewards/supports them?

Btw, the media seems to be rather remiss in pointing out how the Republicans opposed funding of airport security techniques that might have caught this bomber when Republicans claim to be horrified by the event. That is a relevant political fact that every Republican ought to be forced to wear like an albatross around their necks. But the media never does that with Republicans, so the game goes on.

Michael

Dec 30th 2009, 04:31 PM

For anyone who remembers ancient history (like 2003) back when the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed by GW Bush coming from Texas... do you remember the nuclear-level hissy fit that Republican party had over that and how the US media wouldn't shut up about it?

Well... brace yourselves for the deafening silence that ensues...

"I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist.
"(Former Chinese leader) Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."

Source (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/nugent-obama-should-be-jailed_1126877)

That comment is materially more obnoxious than the comment from the Dixie Chicks that got concerts cancelled and their removal from US radio and record stores.

Something tells me that we won't hear a peep from Republicans and the media will defend Nugent's right of free speech (if it the issue ever gets mentioned).

And just to make my point clear, I don't care what the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent have to say about US politics. I do care about how the US media and US politics treats these two identical events in very different ways. That is interesting and significant (and very typical).

Donkey

Dec 30th 2009, 06:00 PM

The Nuge is such a jerkoff. There is one line of one of his songs that I like. The rest is shit, including, apparently, his political views.

Michael

Dec 30th 2009, 06:57 PM

There is one line of one of his songs that I like...

"Now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch" ? :D

(that's probably the only lyric from any Ted Nuggent song that I actually know!)

The Drunk Guy

Dec 30th 2009, 07:23 PM

"Now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch" ? :D

(that's probably the only lyric from any Ted Nuggent song that I actually know!)
That's not Nugent. That's Nazereth. Hair of the Dog, to be precise.

"Here I come again, baby, like a dog in heat." - Stranglehold The Nug at his finest. ;)

Americano

Dec 30th 2009, 09:08 PM

The Nuge is such a jerkoff. There is one line of one of his songs that I like. The rest is shit, including, apparently, his political views.

He has about as much political validity as Chuck Norris.

Lily

Dec 31st 2009, 01:44 AM

Ted Nugent? One of more entertaining shows I've seen was the episode of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations, where Tony visited Ted at his Waco, Texas compound. Ted pulled out his arsenal of automatic weapons, cooked some game he'd shot on his private reserve and spouted a whole lot of right-wing rhetoric. Tony alternately looked frightened, confused and awe-struck.

Here's a clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_aSglGw88U)

Donkey

Dec 31st 2009, 02:05 AM

"Now you're messing with a son-of-a-bitch" ? :D

(that's probably the only lyric from any Ted Nuggent song that I actually know!)
Naw, "Got you in a stranglehold baby. You best get out of the way."

For no particular reason. *shrug*

The Drunk Guy

Dec 31st 2009, 09:15 PM

2010 is just around the corner and that means that soon we'll be announcing when Ted will be returning to the stage to provide us with the rockouts we crave!
Source (http://www.tednugent.com/)

partofme

Dec 31st 2009, 09:59 PM

I absolutely hate Ted Nuggent. I remember he used to be a regular on politically incorrect and he was so arrogant yet stupid at the same time.

Americano

Dec 31st 2009, 10:08 PM

I absolutely hate Ted Nuggent. I remember he used to be a regular on politically incorrect and he was so arrogant yet stupid at the same time.

Careful......Real Americans will ostracize you.

Zarquon

Jan 1st 2010, 03:48 AM

Michael

Jan 1st 2010, 12:49 PM

Israeli theocrats more assertive (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122102989)
What would you expect, honestly, from a country surrounded by such hostile neighbors, where said idiots are given state sanction. and where they also have higher birth rates than the secular population?

Jews have been living surrounded by hostile neighbors for the last six centuries or so. Nothing new there at all. And the idiots have always had state sanction. Agan, nothing new there.

But I sure don't like the way the political winds are blowing in Israel for the last twenty years or so. Trend seems quite firmly established now. Don't know where it will lead, but its not likely to be pretty.

Americano

Jan 1st 2010, 08:14 PM

Israeli theocrats more assertive (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122102989)
What would you expect, honestly, from a country surrounded by such hostile neighbors, where said idiots are given state sanction. and where they also have higher birth rates than the secular population?

I liked the closing paragraph:

""In Jerusalem, you have segregated buses for men and women, and they are talking about segregating mental institutions. What is the difference between them and Iran?" Livneh says."

Zarquon

Jan 2nd 2010, 02:24 AM

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law)
WTF is wrong with Europe these days?

Michael

Jan 2nd 2010, 08:34 AM

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law)
WTF is wrong with Europe these days?

I guess we're going to see what the Irish Courts are made of now aren't we?

I can't imagine any law like that standing under Canadian or US law - that law would be struck down on the first major challenge.

And yes, this kind of law is just a gift for radical Muslims.

Zarquon

Jan 2nd 2010, 10:07 AM

I guess we're going to see what the Irish Courts are made of now aren't we?

I can't imagine any law like that standing under Canadian or US law - that law would be struck down on the first major challenge.

And yes, this kind of law is just a gift for radical Muslims.
given that this has been enacted in the backdrop of the Catholic priests' child-abuse scandal is truly remarkable and doubly exasperating.

Americano

Jan 2nd 2010, 10:45 AM

Blasphemy a criminal act. Pathetic, though I'm sure American Christians lust to bring back dunking chairs and would sacrifice others to make Papal edicts US law. I hope that atheist group pounds supporters of such crap into the ground.

Greendruid

Jan 2nd 2010, 11:07 PM

I wonder if this new law applies to Irish pagans? Doubtful.

Michael

Jan 3rd 2010, 10:17 AM

I wonder if this new law applies to Irish pagans? Doubtful.

That would probably be the best court-challenge. Find some member of the Irish Catholic establishment who has said something nasty about Irish druidism (shouldn't been too difficult to find) and sue them for it.

That would show what the law is really made of. :D

Donkey

Jan 3rd 2010, 12:56 PM

That would probably be the best court-challenge. Find some member of the Irish Catholic establishment who has said something nasty about Irish druidism (shouldn't been too difficult to find) and sue them for it.

That would show what the law is really made of. :D
Well it would have to be after the law was implemented, yeah? Assuming Irish law works like US law.

But still probably wouldn't be very difficult.

Donkey

Jan 4th 2010, 02:18 PM

Michael

Jan 4th 2010, 02:50 PM

!!!!!

I just saw something that blew me away: a commercial paid for by the Corn Refiners Association, or something, trying to "dispel" the "myths" about high fructose corn syrup!

Does this mean they are running a little bit scared? :)
Dispel myths? That would require the facts about HFCS to be mythical in the first place.

Rather, they are running PR (aka propaganda) in order to counter 'facts' with 'lies' which are way more profitable.

They have some important and massive tax-subsidized profits to protect!

(and yes, you are certainly correct - the Corn Refiners would not be wasting their precious tax-subsidized profits on useless propaganda - if they are running it, they are concerned)

Donkey

Jan 4th 2010, 03:02 PM

Hence my use of quotation marks around "myths." ;)

Michael

Jan 4th 2010, 03:05 PM

Hence my use of quotation marks around "myths." ;)

But that's what was confusing. "quotes" denote quotations or citations.

'quotes' denote questionable words. US pop-culture has fucked this up badly (they always use two-fingers to make 'scare-quotes' that should have only single quotes).

And since I'm nit-picking, I hate US style custom of putting that period inside the quote. That is silly. I try to be able to switch back and forth between British and American style English but that blasted punctuation inside the quote rule for US English is just one I hate too much to comply with! :D

The Drunk Girl

Jan 4th 2010, 04:16 PM

But that's what was confusing. "quotes" denote quotations or citations.

'quotes' denote questionable words. US pop-culture has fucked this up badly (they always use two-fingers to make 'scare-quotes' that should have only single quotes).

And since I'm nit-picking, I hate US style custom of putting that period inside the quote. That is silly. I try to be able to switch back and forth between British and American style English but that blasted punctuation inside the quote rule for US English is just one I hate too much to comply with! :D

Looks like I will be cutting back on my usage. ;)

I agree with the period inside the quote being silly. I never quite got that, but it was relentlessly instilled in my brain throughout school with marks on my papers.

Americano

Jan 4th 2010, 07:19 PM

!!!!!

I just saw something that blew me away: a commercial paid for by the Corn Refiners Association, or something, trying to "dispel" the "myths" about high fructose corn syrup!

Does this mean they are running a little bit scared? :)

I don't know if there's any relation but sodas made in Mexico such as Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper using real sugar have made big sales inroads in states bordering Mexico and states bordering those border states. The taste difference is reportedly far superior to sodas made with FCS and they come in the old-fashioned bottles.

As Michael correctly points out, US corn producers are awash in massive public subsidies dating back to the 1930s when a major portion of the US economy was based on small farm agriculture. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.

Donkey

Jan 4th 2010, 07:25 PM

I don't know if there's any relation but sodas made in Mexico such as Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper using real sugar have made big sales inroads in states bordering Mexico and states bordering those border states. The taste difference is reportedly far superior to sodas made with FCS and they come in the old-fashioned bottles.

As Michael correctly points out, US corn producers are awash in massive public subsidies dating back to the 1930s when a major portion of the US economy was based on small farm agriculture. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms.
Oh I don't need any convincing on the evils of Corn!

And yes, having had soda with cane sugar and corn sugar, the former kicks the living sweet shit out of the latter.

Americano

Jan 4th 2010, 08:20 PM

Oh I don't need any convincing on the evils of Corn!

Ethanol for fuel was one of the most successful non-defense lobbying efforts I can remember. A brand new, enormous big ag subsidy; the gift that keeps on giving.

And yes, having had soda with cane sugar and corn sugar, the former kicks the living sweet shit out of the latter.

Michael

Jan 4th 2010, 10:25 PM

Ethanol for fuel was one of the most successful non-defense lobbying efforts I can remember. A brand new, enormous big ag subsidy; the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, that one blew me away completely. I do hesitate to pin the blame on GW Bush for it - sure he signed it, but it had pretty damn strong 'bipartisan' support in the Senate. Indeed, Obama himself was a big supporter of it at the time.

No doubt Obama already had his eye on Iowa's primary even then. That was always going to be a big weakspot for Hillary - the Clintons may not have been much of an enemy of big-ag, but they've never been friends with it. Bill was definitely a 'coastal' type, not a 'hinterland' type. Hillary was surprisingly good with the 'blue collar set' but she had an uphill battle in Iowa right from the get-go.

To win the Presidency, one MUST pander to Iowa's subsidy-addicted farmers. This rule apparently applies to both parties. It is an ugly rule, but it seems to be a strong one (it put Obama in the WH instead of Hillary).

Michael

Jan 5th 2010, 09:27 AM

And just to keep one's perspective when reading all these "2009 in review" articles, let it be said that the rightwing still has a long way to go to reach the depths to which they achieved during the Clinton Admin for mindless and baseless attacks against the Presidency.

Obama hasn't been directly accused of murder yet, so there is still quite a bit of ground for the teabaggers to cover before they start hitting 1990's era obnoxiousness.

And that strategy paid dividends for the GOP in 2000 (with a big help from idiots like Gore who adopted Republican framing of Clinton's Administration and ran against it - don't forget who Gore chose to be his running mate either!).

The Drunk Girl

Jan 5th 2010, 04:10 PM

I don't know if there's any relation but sodas made in Mexico such as Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper using real sugar have made big sales inroads in states bordering Mexico and states bordering those border states. The taste difference is reportedly far superior to sodas made with FCS and they come in the old-fashioned bottles.

Possibly a marketing motivator for the Throwback Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and Dr. Pepper that is currently floating around?:shrug: They have old-school cans and bottles, flashing that these sodas are made with real sugar.

These just hit here a few months ago, at least from what I remember and pay attention to. I bought a 12 pack of the Throwback Pepsis and I can actually tell a difference in how it tastes. There is a more distinct taste difference with the Mountain Dew.

Zarquon

Jan 6th 2010, 03:16 AM

Senator Christopher J. Dodd Will Not Seek Re-election, Democrats Say

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the embattled Connecticut
Democrat who was facing an increasingly tough bid for a sixth
term in the Senate, has decided to step aside and not seek
re-election, Democrats familiar with his plans said on
Wednesday
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06dodd.html?hp)
This is better for him and the party.

Zarquon

Jan 6th 2010, 06:55 AM

Right-wing populist movement/teabaggers unseat Florida Republican Party Chairman. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/tea-partiers-bag-another-one.html)

Zarquon

Jan 6th 2010, 08:14 AM

PC drivel in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/prejudiced-danes-kurt-westergaard-cartoons)
That just drove me mad.:mad:
Which makes it very satisfying to see the columnist pounded in the comments section

Zarquon

Jan 6th 2010, 08:21 AM

Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/uganda/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s capital to give a series of talks.
or three days, according to participants and audio recordings (http://publiceye.org/multimedia/public/kapya-audio-files.zip), thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.
One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 (http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf), which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html)
This is absolutely sickening and even more infuriating.

Michael

Jan 6th 2010, 08:35 AM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html)
This is absolutely sickening and even more infuriating.

Well, I guess if you can't impose your will at home, imposing your will upon some foreigners is the second best option!

I believe that it is the "will to impose their will" that is the driving force here.

Michael

Jan 7th 2010, 11:06 AM

Just a helpful reminder for some context when it comes to the 'underpants bomber' and the obsessive/neurotic coverage of it in US political media.

I don't know what kind of contacts the failed airplane bomber did or didn't have with Al-Qaeda Central or Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and neither does anybody else who has commented since it happened. The extent of such contacts will be mildly interesting, but it surprises nobody working on CT issues that there are still people swimming in the AQ milieu who want to hit the United States, whether on their own or with support from some AQ affiliates. One of the real stories here, which has gone largely unremarked in the coverage I've seen, is that the Arab media generally couldn't care less. Today's news and opinion is dominated by Gaza -- an issue which commands far more popular outrage, anger, and politically mobilized attention than does anything to do with al-Qaeda.

In most of the Arab newspapers which I follow on a daily basis, the failed airplane plot didn't even make the front page -- or, at best, got a small and vague story. Gaza dominates the headlines, as it often does.

Source (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/27/whether_its_aq_or_not_nobody_in_arab_media_cares)

Zarquon

Jan 12th 2010, 04:17 AM

High cost of leaving ultra-orthodox Judaism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8435275.stm)

Michael

Jan 12th 2010, 10:10 AM

Gitmo opened eight years ago today.

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/gitmo0111-thumb-440x286.jpg

Close the fucking thing already! Those two visual images in the picture are beginning to meld into one symbol and that ain't pretty.

Zarquon

Jan 12th 2010, 10:27 AM

The Federal Reserve made a profit of $52.1bn (£84bn) in 2009, a rise of 47% over the previous year.
The sum allowed the central bank to pay a record $46.1bn to the US Treasury last year.
That was the largest amount ever paid by the central bank since its creation in 1914.
The record figure was largely thanks to its attempts to support the financial system throughout the ongoing financial crisis.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8454535.stm)

Zarquon

Jan 13th 2010, 04:34 AM

Google Threatens Pullout From China After E-Mail Accounts Are Hacked

Google threatened to end its operations in China after it
discovered that the e-mail accounts of human rights activists
had been breached.

The company said it had detected a "highly sophisticated and
targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating
from China." Google says further investigation revealed that
"a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail
accounts of Chinese human rights activists." Google did not
specifically accuse the Chinese government. But the company
added that it is "no longer willing to continue censoring our
results" on its Chinese search engine, as the government
requires. Google says the decision could force it to shut
down its Chinese site and its offices in the country.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/asia/14beijing.html?hp)
Now that would be a wrong-headed move(business-wise), won't it?

Michael

Jan 13th 2010, 09:28 AM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/asia/14beijing.html?hp)
Now that would be a wrong-headed move(business-wise), won't it?

Hard to say. Google took a huge hit when it agreed to serve China's official censor board. That pissed off a lot of people and showed that Google was just another corporation like every other one.

Though, quiting that deal is unlikely to get people to embrace Google.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what Google does or doesn't do here - doesn't matter to anything actually except Google's own bottom line.

The Drunk Guy

Jan 14th 2010, 07:09 AM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/asia/14beijing.html?hp)
Now that would be a wrong-headed move(business-wise), won't it?
I'm curious as to the back story. Yeah, sure, it sounds like Google grew a heart, but I don't buy that. Something else is going on for Google to play this game with the PRC.

Michael

Jan 14th 2010, 10:47 AM

If the special election in Massachusetts is anything to go by, the Democrats are in for some serious tough times in November.

Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat normally is about as safe as any seat can be in the Senate. Fact is, the Democrats are sending pleading letters from the Kennedy widow, bringing in Bill Clinton and the SEIU is running a major ad campaign all to support the no-name nobody they nominated to replace Kennedy and is dangerously close to losing the seat.

What the fuck is up with that? Democrats should have every advantage here and yet they are apparently fighting uphill battles on their hometurf. That says quite a bit about how badly the Democratic party has been managed over the past year or so.

Michael

Jan 14th 2010, 11:00 AM

And what's up with this Herold Ford fellow? Is he sane?

He's a very conservative Democrat from Tennessee who is now running a (carpetbagger) primary challenge for Hillary's old NY-Senate seat.

This guy is pretty solidly at the furthest fringes of 'rightwing' for a Democrat. He's anti-choice, anti-stimulus, anti-heathcare reform and vows not to toe the line for the Democratic party in the Senate. And the guy has zero presence in the state other than a recent job at NY State University.

I'm not even going to mention his idiotic comments about his helicopter flyover of NY City.

And this is going to help you win election as a Democrat in NY State? :ummm:

Gotta wonder if anyone is home there.

Michael

Jan 15th 2010, 04:20 PM

Here's a picture taken at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission hearings this week where several well known bankers and derivatives traders and one surprise guest took the oath.

http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac74/JacksonBrown/Jabba2.jpg

Credit to driftglass @ Kos.

Michael

Jan 17th 2010, 08:48 AM

Just thought I'd share this zinger!

With polling showing Sens. David Vitter and John Ensign both re-electable, Tom Jensen of Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling observes: "Cheating on your wife is a deal breaker for Republican voters -- but only if you're a Democrat."

Zarquon

Jan 19th 2010, 03:55 AM

Krugman on BHO's first year (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html?em)

Americano

Jan 19th 2010, 10:14 AM

Krugman on BHO's first year (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html?em)

Didn't really say much.

Michael

Jan 22nd 2010, 01:51 PM

Random political thought of the day...

Sarah Palin is just George W. Bush in drag. :rofl:

That is just so true it is hilarious!

(I'd give credit, but I don't remember where I picked this up from!)

Zarquon

Jan 23rd 2010, 04:30 AM

Random political thought of the day...

Sarah Palin is just George W. Bush in drag. :rofl:

That is just so true it is hilarious!

(I'd give credit, but I don't remember where I picked this up from!)
Pentecostal's are crazier than Methodists; so, NO.

Michael

Jan 23rd 2010, 09:26 AM

Americano

Jan 23rd 2010, 09:58 AM

I'm reading lots of buzz about how Ben Bernanke's re-appointment as Chair of the Federal Reserve may be in trouble.

I agree that Obama's nomination of Bernanke was a stupid and unexpected move, but what is surprising is that it looks like increasing numbers of Democrats are going to vote against this. There already are some Republicans that will vote against Bernanke just because it was Obama that is nominating him and thus it won't take many Democratic 'no' votes to sink this appointment.

I admit that would be a sweet victory to see Bernanke unceremoniously fired. He certainly deserves it. If we could get his house into foreclosure would be even better, but that's not in the cards here! :lol:

I'm just concerned that this is yet another political failure of judgement on Obama's part. Did he even bother to survey Democrats in Congress before he went and re-nominated Bernanke? It looks like he didn't.

If Bernanke goes down, I'll be happy, but that will be just another major political defeat for Obama and he's taking a lot of those lately and that's not good politics at all.

I don't know if anyone else noticed but Paul Volcker was standing by Obama when he made his intent to increase bank regulation announcement. I read that Obama leans heavily on Volcker for economic advice and Volcker did work with Geithner and Summers putting together administration's current plan to revisit bank regulation.

I'm not suggesting Volcker replace Bernanke but Volcker has been a very strong voice in re-drawing the line between commercial and investment banks. The Fed (Bernanke) would despise the thought of investment banks no longer receiving the public subsidy of FDIC protection as it (the Fed) is making a lot of money on doing overnights for all banking entities.

At this point I don't think it makes much difference who is Fed chief.

Americano

Jan 23rd 2010, 10:30 AM

Forgot a link and got caught by the ten minute edit rule:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204348.html

Zarquon

Jan 24th 2010, 07:02 AM

Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists? (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_are_politicians?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Michael

Jan 24th 2010, 09:33 AM

At this point I don't think it makes much difference who is Fed chief.
Given that any alternative appointee is going to follow the exact same Wall Street-friendly policy line as Bernanke, you are entirely correct.

Americano

Jan 24th 2010, 09:58 AM

Given that any alternative appointee is going to follow the exact same Wall Street-friendly policy line as Bernanke, you are entirely correct.

Geithner & friends have successfully removed Fed exposure to the impact of toxic bank assets by treasury funding Fannie and Freddy to hold banking's bad paper serving as securities collateral. Helicopter Ben or anyone else in that slot is a Wall Street puppet, nothing more.

wphelan

Jan 25th 2010, 05:00 PM

I don't know if anyone else noticed but Paul Volcker was standing by Obama when he made his intent to increase bank regulation announcement. I read that Obama leans heavily on Volcker for economic advice and Volcker did work with Geithner and Summers putting together administration's current plan to revisit bank regulation.

I'm not suggesting Volcker replace Bernanke but Volcker has been a very strong voice in re-drawing the line between commercial and investment banks. The Fed (Bernanke) would despise the thought of investment banks no longer receiving the public subsidy of FDIC protection as it (the Fed) is making a lot of money on doing overnights for all banking entities.

At this point I don't think it makes much difference who is Fed chief.

I tend to agree with your last line there. I would like to see Bernanke go though because I just don't like him on a personal level. He's got such a smug attitude for being so wrong on so many things.

Americano

Jan 25th 2010, 06:27 PM

I tend to agree with your last line there. I would like to see Bernanke go though because I just don't like him on a personal level. He's got such a smug attitude for being so wrong on so many things.

Smug and wimpy. I personally think current administration became too wrapped up in putting on a stable face for the public. After a year I'd like to see some blood in the halls including Emanuel and Napolitano.

Donkey

Jan 25th 2010, 06:31 PM

Smug and wimpy. I personally think current administration became too wrapped up in putting on a stable face for the public. After a year I'd like to see some blood in the halls including Emanuel and Napolitano.
I'd be thrilled to see Napolitano go.

Americano

Jan 25th 2010, 06:42 PM

I'd be thrilled to see Napolitano go.

She's definitely a continuation of Bush era police state tactics with, from what I gather, no ability to control the multitude of agencies reporting to HLS or respect for civil rights.

Michael

Jan 25th 2010, 08:17 PM

I tend to agree with your last line there. I would like to see Bernanke go though because I just don't like him on a personal level. He's got such a smug attitude for being so wrong on so many things.
As I noted above, any replacement is going to act the same, so dumping Bernanke won't change anything policywise.

That being said, it sure would be nice to restore some accountability to the elite ruling class since they pretty much have none. They've been promoting failures for too long - none of these high-flying millionaires ever pays a price for their failures, so I think it would be salutary to publicly dump/humiliate some of them from time to time. Bernanke seems particularly worthy of the honor.

Smug and wimpy. I personally think current administration became too wrapped up in putting on a stable face for the public. After a year I'd like to see some blood in the halls including Emanuel and Napolitano.

She's definitely a continuation of Bush era police state tactics with, from what I gather, no ability to control the multitude of agencies reporting to HLS or respect for civil rights.

Couldn't care less about Napolitano. That monstrosity of a department is going to make anyone look bad. And the really ugly civil rights stuff is coming out of the White House. Homeland Security just follows [political] orders from the top. :shrug:

Besides, Napolitano is a 'big name'. Throwing here under the bus will just draw media attention and it won't be pretty. The teabaggers will smell redmeat if you throw them that particular name.

Now Rahm Emmanuel, there's a fellow who's been at the core of all the worst WH business, a senior-ranked advisor for the one area where the WH has suffered the most spectacular failures - Congress. Emanuel is perfect for being sacrificial lamb because 'Main Street USA' doesn't know who he is at all. Emmanuel is only really known by political insiders and political fanatics - and that is one of the key constituencies Obama is in deep trouble with, so it makes sense to throw him under the bus.

But all that is moot. I really don't think that Emmanuel will be thrown under the bus because that would mean that Obama was wrong with his earlier policy and that's just not something I can see Obama admitting at this point in time. I see Obama bunkering down and closing in with his inner circle, doubling down on their chosen strategy. That's what US Presidents always do when facing stiff criticism and opposition (except Bill Clinton of course!).

A couple years out of office and Obama might admit being wrong, but I certainly doubt you will see any sign of that while he's in the WH.

Zarquon

Jan 26th 2010, 02:25 AM

Obama Seeks 3-Year Freeze in Spending on Many Domestic Programs

President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending
on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than
inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his
seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration
officials said Monday.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html?hp)
Why not cut 'defense' spending instead?

Americano

Jan 26th 2010, 09:14 AM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html?hp)
Why not cut 'defense' spending instead?

The US military-industrial complex has spread 'defense' (how does one call 11 carrier battle groups, etc. defense) contractors, sub-contractors and military installations over a wide variety of states politically dominated by both democrats and republicans to ensure harsh bipartisan political resistance to any such move. Many of those politicians are dependent on federally funded defense industry spending/jobs and subsequent economic flow-through for their political existence.

Add that to a majority of Americans being convinced through propaganda that some Western Asia countries (formerly the ME) hate the US for its standard of living and freedoms (both in serious trouble from domestic policies) for an effective political block to any reduction in defense spending.

Michael

Jan 26th 2010, 10:36 AM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html?hp)
Why not cut 'defense' spending instead?

Perhaps because he loves his wife and children and would like to survive his first term in office? :shrug:

Michael

Jan 26th 2010, 03:09 PM

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)

I think Bob Herbert of the NYTimes hits the nail on the head with this critique.

I've been thinking along the same lines but not nearly so eloquently put as this. :)

Michael

Jan 26th 2010, 07:51 PM

The US military-industrial complex has spread 'defense' (how does one call 11 carrier battle groups, etc. defense) contractors, sub-contractors and military installations over a wide variety of states politically dominated by both democrats and republicans to ensure harsh bipartisan political resistance to any such move. Many of those politicians are dependent on federally funded defense industry spending/jobs and subsequent economic flow-through for their political existence.
...

Speaking of Carrier Groups... (war porn!)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg/800px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg
Abraham Lincoln Battlegroup in 2000

In the photo above, that Carrier Group appears to be supplemented by a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) which consists of three big amphibious landing ships and about 2200 Marines (with armor vehicles). The Marines have seven of these groups.

For those who may be unfamiliar, a US Carrier Strike Group (aka Carrier Battle Group) usually consists of:

The flagship supercarrier (CX)
A carrier air wing - consists of roughly 60-65 aircraft
One or two Cruisers (CG) - with AEGIS air defenses (Ticonderoga class)
Two or three Destroyers (DDG) - with AEGIS (Arleigh Burke class)
One or two Attack Submarines - nuclear subs designed to seek out and attack enemy ships (Los Angeles class)
One or two logistics/support/supply ships

(info from Wikipedia)

According to my rough estimate, that represents about fifteen to twenty billion dollars just for the cost of building these ships plus another three to five billion for the air wing. And the US Navy operates eleven of these Carrier Strike Groups (it was recently approved to drop the number to ten).

I've been trying to get an estimate on the operational cost of these ships, but that's tricky information. My best guess is that each Carrier Group costs about $5 billion per year in operational expenses (personel, ammunition, fuel, repairs, etc) - including the air wing. These Carrier Groups represent about 40% of all the ships in the US Navy.

Btw, just as an aside here, the lifespan of a warship is 25 to 30 years - and the vast majority of the present US fleet was built during the 'Reagan defense boom' of the 1980s. That means that a huge number of these ships are due to be retired over the next ten eight years - a topic I've touched on in some other threads a few times. ;)

Americano

Jan 26th 2010, 09:14 PM

Declining empires always feed the war machine until civil disruption gets their attention. By then, way too late.

Americano

Jan 26th 2010, 09:44 PM

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=opinion)

I think Bob Herbert of the NYTimes hits the nail on the head with this critique.

I've been thinking along the same lines but not nearly so eloquently put as this. :)

I agree with Herbert's analysis. In my opinion Obama came into office saying hunker down, we're in for some very rough times but I'm going to get you through it. That lasted all of three months as the general public quickly turned surly when hearing reality from leadership with nothing else to blame but themselves.

I don't know who's advising him, but feel he headed in the opposite direction from his original plan. By now even the lowest on the food chain know the US economy is going to get far worse, not better. If he's going to be a populist, the good old boys will rip him to shreds on results.

Michael

Jan 27th 2010, 09:47 AM

Charlie Crist (Florida Governor-R) looks like he's in trouble in his bid to become Florida's next Senator as he's involved in a fierce primary battle that he's quite likely to lose.

Interestingly enough, according to dKos polling (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/19/806058/-FL-Sen:-Bombshell-results) Crist's best chance to become Florida's next Senator is to become a Democrat.

Donkey

Jan 27th 2010, 12:48 PM

I do wonder if this will turn out like the NY 23...

(Also, fricken' conservative Cubans!)

Americano

Jan 27th 2010, 01:00 PM

Michael

Jan 27th 2010, 01:12 PM

Is anyone watching tonight's state of the union speech? I personally consider watching or listening to politicians similar to someone forcing large wooden splinters under my fingernails, preferring after the fact analysis.

I'll read it tomorrow morning. :)

You can't pay me to watch politics on television - that's just torture with all the bloviating talking heads.

Michael

Jan 27th 2010, 01:13 PM

Is it just me, or are all those pronouncements about the 'historic' passage of healthcare reform beginning to look like Bushie's "Mission Accomplished" bullshit claim?

Lots of parallels there...

Donkey

Jan 27th 2010, 01:48 PM

Is anyone watching tonight's state of the union speech? I personally consider watching or listening to politicians similar to someone forcing large wooden splinters under my fingernails, preferring after the fact analysis.
I'll probably watch it. We're kind of on the edge of our seats to see if he'll mention CIR as a priority.

Michael

Jan 28th 2010, 08:45 AM

Today's odd political thought...

Why is it that a majority of ads found at commerical political blogs are from charities?

What's up with charities doing advertising? That strikes me as weird and reinforces my opinion that charities are often little more than employment vehicles for the people who control them.

Advertising is all about seeking to create demand for a product or service.

I'd never give a penny to a charity that engages in media advertising campaigns. That's a business, not a charity.

Michael

Jan 28th 2010, 08:51 AM

Will someone please inform the media that the only people who use Twitter are other members of the media.

Twitter as such is nothing more than a giant echo chamber for media conventional wisdom.

That Twitter is popular with media shouldn't surprise anyone - it is made for soundbites with zero context and minimal information - exactly what the media specializes in.

But the way they talk about Twitter all the time like it is some fantastic new technological tool makes them look like idiots. Twitter works in a way similar to list-servers from the 1970s and 1980s did with - but stripped of all the context and information. That's a nice and convenient toy, but it doesn't represent anything significant.

Americano

Jan 28th 2010, 11:50 AM

Today's odd political thought...

Why is it that a majority of ads found at commerical political blogs are from charities?

What's up with charities doing advertising? That strikes me as weird and reinforces my opinion that charities are often little more than employment vehicles for the people who control them.

That's an accurate observation.

Advertising is all about seeking to create demand for a product or service.

I'd never give a penny to a charity that engages in media advertising campaigns. That's a business, not a charity.

The Drunk Girl

Jan 28th 2010, 11:48 PM

My random thought of the day and in the words of Pink Floyd:

Hey you Whitehouse, ha ha, charade you are

Zarquon

Jan 29th 2010, 05:26 AM

Senate reconfirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/economy/29fed.html?scp=2&sq=Federal%20Reserve&st=cse) Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman, 70-30.

Michael

Jan 29th 2010, 08:31 AM

Senate reconfirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/economy/29fed.html?scp=2&sq=Federal%20Reserve&st=cse) Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman, 70-30.

Good to know that in Washington, failure is still rewarded handsomely. :rolleyes:

Michael

Jan 29th 2010, 12:26 PM

The Senate voted on extending the federal debt ceiling without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no. These 40 Republican Senators essentially voted for the US to engage sovereign default (a formal declaration of bankruptcy).

The Senate also voted on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for (PayGo Rules). All 40 Republicans voted no.

Hard to take these clowns seriously. They have no integrity at all.

Americano

Jan 30th 2010, 12:04 PM

Here's an interesting article on James O'Keefe (Acorn pimp/hooker scam and now under arrest for attempting to tamper with the telephone system in Mary Landrieu offices):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32138.html

I'm surprised Fox news isn't heralding him as a Real American.

What's interesting to me is the amount of money being raised to support GOP nutcases such as O'Keefe on US college campuses.

Zarquon

Jan 31st 2010, 03:15 PM

Michael

Feb 6th 2010, 06:33 PM

And Michael asks whats wrong with religion?:mad:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Lancaster-Mayor-Wants-Jesus-Prayers-and-Christian-Community-83161862.html
Well, for one thing, its a bullshit institution that seeks to undermine and takeover every other institution.

Civil competition between institutions is a good thing in my liberal opinion. In the conflict between them lies the best safety for liberty.

I welcome religion's attempt to re-enter the political sphere on civil terms. Let them seek rulership all they want. I am confident they will fail.

Non Sequitur

Feb 7th 2010, 02:10 AM

Civil competition between institutions is a good thing in my liberal opinion. In the conflict between them lies the best safety for liberty.

I welcome religion's attempt to re-enter the political sphere on civil terms. Let them seek rulership all they want. I am confident they will fail.

:lol: i have never laughed so hard in my life. The non believer says the entry of the church into the government might be ok and the Christian thinks it's wrong. The world is strange place.

Zarquon

Feb 7th 2010, 04:57 AM

Michael

Feb 7th 2010, 08:03 AM

He's very much in the minority on that:(, especially among those not inhabiting gentle countries like Canada.

Liberalism is under seige everywhere, but there is no need to surrender to authoritarianism or reactionary politics.

Liberalism is always the best defense.

Michael

Feb 7th 2010, 08:06 AM

:lol: i have never laughed so hard in my life. The non believer says the entry of the church into the government might be ok and the Christian thinks it's wrong. The world is strange place.
I would fight tooth and nail against the church entering government as I am a strong believer in separation of church and state.

But I respect the principle that they may seek their own destiny. That destiny must be defeated honestly and democratically.

Religion must not be banned or proscribed as that poses a far greater danger to the state and liberty of individuals.

Zarquon

Feb 7th 2010, 12:00 PM

Interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/economy/07view.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y) on median voter theorem.

Americano

Feb 7th 2010, 07:34 PM

I would fight tooth and nail against the church entering government as I am a strong believer in separation of church and state.

But I respect the principle that they may seek their own destiny. That destiny must be defeated honestly and democratically.

Religion must not be banned or proscribed as that poses a far greater danger to the state and liberty of individuals.

In the US, using Zarquon's news post, that would mean you're advocating use of time and resources to defy or amend the constitution, which does separate church and state.

Non Sequitur

Feb 7th 2010, 10:46 PM

I would fight tooth and nail against the church entering government as I am a strong believer in separation of church and state.

But I respect the principle that they may seek their own destiny. That destiny must be defeated honestly and democratically.

Religion must not be banned or proscribed as that poses a far greater danger to the state and liberty of individuals.

I agree completely, I was just enjoying the role reversal :)

Michael

Feb 8th 2010, 08:57 AM

In the US, using Zarquon's news post, that would mean you're advocating use of time and resources to defy or amend the constitution, which does separate church and state.
Actually, the US constitution is rather ambiguous on the separation of church and state. It only proscribes against establishment.

That prohibition against establishment doesn't seem to stop Congress from giving money or special favors to religious groups, doesn't stop the official Congressional prayers, prayer sessions in the White House or official prayers for inauguration ceremonies or the existence of military chaplains.

US has way more religion in government than most countries that don't even have a formal separation of church and state (like Canada or UK for example).

Americano

Feb 8th 2010, 11:02 AM

Actually, the US constitution is rather ambiguous on the separation of church and state. It only proscribes against establishment.

That prohibition against establishment doesn't seem to stop Congress from giving money or special favors to religious groups, doesn't stop the official Congressional prayers, prayer sessions in the White House or official prayers for inauguration ceremonies or the existence of military chaplains.

US has way more religion in government than most countries that don't even have a formal separation of church and state (like Canada or UK for example).

I shudder to think of the power religion would gain without that ambiguity. Fundamentalists would willingly take the US back to the dark ages.

Michael

Feb 8th 2010, 12:52 PM

So the teaparty convention was this past weekend. They managed to scrounge up 600 delegates.

The media sent roughly 200 reporters to cover it.

That's your liberal media at work...

Gosh, I wonder how many media figures showed up to cover all those anti-Iraq war rallies that attracted hundreds of thousands of citizens and never made the front page?

Michael

Feb 8th 2010, 07:32 PM

Interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/economy/07view.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y) on median voter theorem.

I think this is the kind of post that gets 'lost' in this thread and should have its own thread. :)

There's a gold mine of discussion issues buried in this topic.

Donkey

Feb 8th 2010, 09:40 PM

I think this is the kind of post that gets 'lost' in this thread and should have its own thread. :)

There's a gold mine of discussion issues buried in this topic.
Cut it out into its own thread, and we can all solemnly swear to let this thread pass?

Zarquon

Feb 12th 2010, 08:54 AM

fucking bastards (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all#)

Americano

Feb 12th 2010, 09:51 AM

fucking bastards (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all#)

Considering it is Texas I don't find it surprising. Sick as hell, but not surprising. One sentence in that excellent article seemed to sum up Texas's education textbook direction to mate religion and state:

“It is the most crazy-making thing to sit there and watch a dentist and an insurance salesman rewrite curriculum standards in science and history".

Donkey

Feb 12th 2010, 01:10 PM

fucking bastards (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all#)
Good God.

This is How Democracy Dies, part II.

Zarquon

Feb 15th 2010, 12:41 PM

Senator Evan Bayh(D-IN) not running (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bayh-decides-against-re-election-bid/?emc=na) for re-election.
And look at the attachment (Pre-Bayh pullout from 538.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)), midterms not looking good for the democrats.

Zarquon

Feb 25th 2010, 02:17 PM

Govt funding for Christian Youth Centre in Winnipeg? (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/youth-centre-sparks-dispute-84764682.html)
Bad month for Canada, huh?

Michael

Feb 25th 2010, 04:40 PM

Govt funding for Christian Youth Centre in Winnipeg? (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/youth-centre-sparks-dispute-84764682.html)
Bad month for Canada, huh?
Fairly typical stuff. Harper is a hardcore evangelical type. That he favors evangelical type relgious charity ought not to be surprising.

There is no law against it, and I'm not aware of any reason to object to it.

No different than similar programs run by the Anglican or Catholic Churches.

Anything that can prevent Winnipeg from turning into an American-style ghetto is worth trying. :shrug:

Americano

Feb 25th 2010, 07:51 PM

Fairly typical stuff. Harper is a hardcore evangelical type. That he favors evangelical type relgious charity ought not to be surprising.

There is no law against it, and I'm not aware of any reason to object to it.

No different than similar programs run by the Anglican or Catholic Churches.

Anything that can prevent Winnipeg from turning into an American-style ghetto is worth trying. :shrug:

Winnipeg is facing social and economic problems?

Michael

Feb 25th 2010, 07:59 PM

Winnipeg is facing social and economic problems?
Like you wouldn't believe. Over the last thirty years the city has lost about 30-40% of its population and it ain't pretty.

As large portions of the city have become abandoned, lots of natives have been moving in (its cheap!).

The historical pattern isn't difficult to understand - the city was overbuilt during the 19th and early 20th century agriculture boom times. As agriculture changed over the course of the 20th century (and dropped to present micro-small employment levels), they didn't need a big urban market-entrepot on the prairies to organize/supply it. The place is rather isolated vis-a-vis all the traditional market-population concentrations in North America.

One might also add that the city was built beside a swamp and thus is mosquito-city. Traditionally, they sprayed the swamps with DDT every year and that took care of the problem. Around 1980 they banned DDT and the wealthy bailed out immediately and the city has been nosediving ever since.

Americano

Feb 25th 2010, 08:11 PM

Like you wouldn't believe. Over the last thirty years the city has lost about 30-40% of its population and it ain't pretty.

As large portions of the city have become abandoned, lots of natives have been moving in (its cheap!).

The historical pattern isn't difficult to understand - the city was overbuilt during the 19th and early 20th century agriculture boom times. As agriculture changed over the course of the 20th century (and dropped to present micro-small employment levels), they didn't need a big urban market-entrepot on the prairies to organize/supply it. The place is rather isolated vis-a-vis all the traditional market-population concentrations in North America.

One might also add that the city was built beside a swamp and thus is mosquito-city. Traditionally, they sprayed the swamps with DDT every year and that took care of the problem. Around 1980 they banned DDT and the wealthy bailed out immediately and the city has been nosediving ever since.

Sounds like Detroit's experience with a single industry economic base. To say nothing of thousands of former US company towns hoping to land a prison. Here's what we Americans see and hear (http://www.wimp.com/citymayor/) about Canada.

Zarquon

Feb 26th 2010, 03:39 AM

non-theist groups to meet with Obama aides on White House grounds (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/25/1500604/obama-aides-to-meet-with-atheists.html)
very hush-hush and he's not attending personally, but quite a remarkable gesture, huh?
I wonder what the motive is.

Michael

Feb 26th 2010, 09:16 AM

Sounds like Detroit's experience with a single industry economic base. To say nothing of thousands of former US company towns hoping to land a prison. Here's what we Americans see and hear (http://www.wimp.com/citymayor/) about Canada.
Don't get me started on that fucking old bitch Hazel!

She's a corrupt monster who has achieved her goals by sucking on preferential tax subsidies and a policy of "screw thy neighbor".

Fact is, she's still in office and has to stay in office until she dies in order to continue blocking all the investigations into corruption. Otherwise the floodgates of investigations would put her and members of her family in jail pretty damn quick.

And the town she is mayor of is routinely ridiculed as the penultimate in boring suburbs with endless miles of down-market subdivisions planted on farm fields. When people like me rail about how awful suburbia is, it is Mississauga that is the prototype of all 'suburbia'.

partofme

Feb 28th 2010, 11:47 AM

I sort of thought Ron Paul was the sort of candidate tea party types wanted in office. I guess this shows their true colors.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/28/tea-party-inspired-candidates-target-ron-paul-in-upcoming-primary/

Donkey

Feb 28th 2010, 01:13 PM

Americano

Feb 28th 2010, 01:33 PM

Ron Paul isn't willing to beat the war drum.

He's also against all foreign aid, which doesn't really amount to much until the military aid is included (ie: Israel), which really upsets necons and the MIC.

Michael

Mar 1st 2010, 08:45 AM

He's also against all foreign aid, which doesn't really amount to much until the military aid is included (ie: Israel), which really upsets necons and the MIC.
Actually, foreign aid money is a very useful metric for figuring out who is knowledgeable and thoughtful and who's just a 'deficit peacock'.

According to consistent polls, cuts to foreign aid spending is the number one supported spending cut.

According to these same polls, the average voter believes somewhere between 15% and 25% of US budget is spent on foreign aid. According to the polls, these voters would be much happier if this was cut down to 3% to 5% range (which would entail a 300% to 500% increase in foreign aid spending!).

Actual US foreign aid spending is about 1%. And the lion's share goes to Israel. Egypt and Pakistan also receive big chunks. Not much else in that budget at all.

Same three receive US military aid money as well under the DND budget.

Thus, anyone who thinks US foreign aid ought to be cut doesn't have a clue and is just a deficit peacock.

Margot

Mar 1st 2010, 11:49 AM

Americano

Mar 1st 2010, 12:14 PM

Sarah Palin, New Apostolic Reformation, America and YOU (http://www.alternet.org/story/145796/heads_up%3A_prayer_warriors_and_sarah_palin_are_or ganizing_spiritual_warfare_to_take_over_america_)

Sarah Palin is on the move again.

*sigh*

That prayer warriors salute, the outstretched arm, strongly reminds me of a very dark era marked by genocidal governments from the last century.

Non Sequitur

Mar 1st 2010, 01:13 PM

Sarah Palin, New Apostolic Reformation, America and YOU (http://www.alternet.org/story/145796/heads_up%3A_prayer_warriors_and_sarah_palin_are_or ganizing_spiritual_warfare_to_take_over_america_)

Sarah Palin is on the move again.

*sigh*

Funny enough, there is an actual heresy for stuff like this. It's called Americanism.

Greendruid

Mar 1st 2010, 10:30 PM

Like you wouldn't believe. Over the last thirty years the city has lost about 30-40% of its population and it ain't pretty.

As large portions of the city have become abandoned, lots of natives have been moving in (its cheap!).

The historical pattern isn't difficult to understand - the city was overbuilt during the 19th and early 20th century agriculture boom times. As agriculture changed over the course of the 20th century (and dropped to present micro-small employment levels), they didn't need a big urban market-entrepot on the prairies to organize/supply it. The place is rather isolated vis-a-vis all the traditional market-population concentrations in North America.

One might also add that the city was built beside a swamp and thus is mosquito-city. Traditionally, they sprayed the swamps with DDT every year and that took care of the problem. Around 1980 they banned DDT and the wealthy bailed out immediately and the city has been nosediving ever since.

Michael forgot to mention that it is also one of the coldest cities in the world. For cities over 600,000 it is THE coldest city on earth. Hence its nickname Winterpeg. My mum is from there originally - moved as a teen in the mid-50s when agriculture was dying there - and the influx of Aboriginal residents is not entirely new. The Cree and later the Métis have always had a presence there as it was founded on the old Red River Colony, a fur-trading post originally. Nonetheless, the economic decline has indeed made housing more affordable for all kinds of folks already down on their luck. I've never been to a city with more tunnels connecting buildings. It's bloody cold there!

Americano

Mar 2nd 2010, 09:25 AM

Michael forgot to mention that it is also one of the coldest cities in the world. For cities over 600,000 it is THE coldest city on earth. Hence its nickname Winterpeg. My mum is from there originally - moved as a teen in the mid-50s when agriculture was dying there - and the influx of Aboriginal residents is not entirely new. The Cree and later the Métis have always had a presence there as it was founded on the old Red River Colony, a fur-trading post originally. Nonetheless, the economic decline has indeed made housing more affordable for all kinds of folks already down on their luck. I've never been to a city with more tunnels connecting buildings. It's bloody cold there!

While I can understand cheap housing being an attraction for those down on their luck, how are they earning a living moving to a city in economic decline?

Michael

Mar 2nd 2010, 09:30 AM

While I can understand cheap housing being an attraction for those down on their luck, how are they earning a living moving to a city in economic decline?
We are talking about aboriginal peoples here. :shrug:

Paychecks come in the mail.

Americano

Mar 2nd 2010, 09:57 AM

We are talking about aboriginal peoples here. :shrug:

Paychecks come in the mail.

Ah, public assistance?

Michael

Mar 3rd 2010, 01:01 PM

One of the truly galling Republican political maneuvers over the last 10 years is to go from squandering a huge budget surplus, racking up trillions in debt, ballooning the deficit, and leaving the next Democratic administration with an economy in shambles -- then as soon as the Democrats are in charge refashioning themselves as budget hawks. You might even think they're setting the Democrats up to fail. I know, hard to believe.

Why Republicans aren't simply laughed off the stage at this point when they try to argue against budget deficits says a lot about Democratic ineptness, media collusion, and short political memories. But I still find it amazing.

Source (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/why_the_big_secret.php?ref=fpblg)

Indeed. What can one say about this that I haven't already said? :shrug:

Michael

Mar 8th 2010, 02:06 PM

This comic seems to sum up the entirety of Washington politics. It would be much more funny and amusing if this comic wasn't totally true.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Cagle_Republicans.jpg

Americano

Mar 8th 2010, 02:15 PM

Sure would be interesting to hear GOP solutions for 2010 other than their usual lower taxes for the rich, less entitlement spending, protectionism and a much larger military to cope with the resultant civil unrest.

Lily

Mar 9th 2010, 06:23 AM

When Sarah Palin wrote a few notes on her hand during her speech to a tea party convention last month, she was ridiculed by bloggers, comedians and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/gibbs-mocks-palin-and-writes-shopping-list-on-hand.php). This weekend, she defended the notes (http://www.mediaite.com/online/palin-defends-writing-on-hand-god-did-it-too/) at an Ohio pro-life fund-raiser, saying she was in good company.

A fan, she said, had sent her a biblical passage. Isaiah 49:16 reads: "See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me."

"Hey, if it was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it's good enough for me, for us. He says, in that passage he says, I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you. And I'm like OK, I'm in good company," Palin said to laughter.

Source (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/palin-on-her-palm-notes-god-did-it-too.php?ref=mp)

Really? She and God. Really? The woman is totally bonkers.

Michael

Mar 9th 2010, 09:37 AM

Note to Obama: One of the most horrific examples of bad goverment under the Bush Administration was the way Karl Rove tried to run the Justice Department as the political wing of the White House.

Having Rahm Emanuel seeking to play the same game for the Obama Administration is not an improvement at all.

"Change we can believe in" has turned into the signature definition of 'epic fail'.

Michael

Mar 11th 2010, 09:05 AM

Obama's falling popularity spin fail

It seems the Democrats and the leftwing blogs are all pumping a particular line that explains Obama's falling approval numbers as based on the unemployment rate.

Apparently, the theory here is that Presidential approval numbers track to the unemployment rate and that's why Obama's numbers are down, and so, no need to worry or question Obama's brilliance and/or leadership.

But the fact is that this is pure bullshit as anyone who witnessed the George Bush phenomena can see. Back in 2002 the US hit a recession and unemployment was rising - yet Bush's approval numbers hit record highs. Then, through the 2004-2007 period, with the US economy in a boom-cycle and unemployment went very low, Bush's approval numbers started to fall.

In other words, the idea that presidential approval numbers track closely to the unemployment rate is just 'conventional wisdom', unsupported by actual fact.

Btw, I'm getting bored of watching the Democrats work so hard to spin their failures as successes. Its very tedious.

Perhaps they should try having some 'successes' instead?

Zarquon

Mar 13th 2010, 11:11 AM

Shame on Texas, and self-styled conservatives (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general)
This bit in particular:
Cynthia Dunbar (http://www.cynthiadunbar.com/), a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/thomas_jefferson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Calvin? that life-negating fool?
What a puerile bitch! :mad:
I hope future generations will look back at these idiots with revulsion and a "never-again" attitude.

Americano

Mar 13th 2010, 11:20 AM

Shame on Texas, and self-styled conservatives (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general)
This bit in particular:

Calvin? that life-negating fool?
What a puerile bitch! :mad:
I hope future generations will look back at these idiots with revulsion and a "never-again" attitude.

Breeding them out of the gene pool is the only sure way of discharging their verbal tripe.

Michael

Mar 13th 2010, 11:25 AM

"Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board..."

Indeed, that says it all. The fickle fancy of ideologues rules the roost.

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2010, 11:40 AM

Americano

Mar 13th 2010, 12:15 PM

What's wrong with John Calvin :confused:???

His adamant support of theocracies with clergy throughout government should be enough.

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2010, 12:25 PM

His adamant support of theocracies with clergy throughout government should be enough.

Oh please, Geneva was no more a theocracy than any other government in Europe at the time. The Consistory (ecclesiastical court) actually had no civil jurisdiction at all. Civil Jurisdiction was reserved for the City Government. Eventually the city government took the power of excommunication, but that was move Calvin did not approve of. The whole Servetus incident, while horrible, would have happened with any other Christian group in Europe. Lutherans wanted Servetus dead, Catholics wanted him dead, and the rest of the reformed world wanted him dead.

Plus, the people of Geneva ASKED Calvin to set up things the way they were.

Americano

Mar 13th 2010, 12:35 PM

Oh please, Geneva was no more a theocracy than any other government in Europe at the time. The Consistory (ecclesiastical court) actually had to civil jurisdiction at all. Civil Jurisdiction was reserved for the City Government. Eventually the city government took the power of excommunication, but that was move Calvin did not approve of. The whole Servetus incident, while horrible, would have happened with any other Christian group in Europe. Lutherans wanted Servetus dead, Catholics wanted him dead, and the rest of the reformed world wanted him dead.

Didn't seem like a Christian thing to do and Calvin led the charge. What do Christians call elimination of dissidents?

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2010, 01:16 PM

Didn't seem like a Christian thing to do and Calvin led the charge.

Yep, a very unchristian thing to do. Not even the Reformed branch of Christianity would dispute that. But we have to remember, Heretics were not just a religious threat, but a threat to the state as well. The modern day equivalent is terrorists. That doesn't excuse him, but in the history of the Christian church there is only one person who has acted in a completely Christian manner, Jesus. Luther was an anti-semite, Calvin executed a guy. They all have flaws.
What do Christians call elimination of dissidents?
Excommunication typically :lol:

My real point tis that the idea that Calvin's Geneva was a total theocracy with Calvin as some kind of Medieval Christian Ayatollah is a huge exaggeration of the facts.

Michael

Mar 13th 2010, 01:54 PM

My real point tis that the idea that Calvin's Geneva was a total theocracy with Calvin as some kind of Medieval Christian Ayatollah is a huge exaggeration of the facts.
I'll certainly agree with this. :)

But I do agree with the original point. How is 'Swiss' Calvin more relevant to an American history textbook than Thomas Jefferson? :eek:

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2010, 02:48 PM

I'll certainly agree with this. :)

But I do agree with the original point. How is 'Swiss' Calvin more relevant to an American history textbook than Thomas Jefferson? :eek:

true enough and while I could see Calvin getting some passing mention, I don't quite understand the thinking of making him a major figure.

Zarquon

Mar 14th 2010, 05:23 AM

What's wrong with John Calvin :confused:???
Predestination is a vile(because it negates pretty much everyone's existence) and arrogant concept if you ask me.

Non Sequitur

Mar 14th 2010, 01:32 PM

Predestination is a vile(because it negates pretty much everyone's existence) and arrogant concept if you ask me.

hmmm how does it "negate" people's existence? Calvin is under the impression it's the most comforting doctrine in all of Protestantism. I don't agree with him, but what negates existence?

Zarquon

Mar 15th 2010, 03:18 AM

hmmm how does it "negate" people's existence? Calvin is under the impression it's the most comforting doctrine in all of Protestantism. I don't agree with him, but what negates existence?
First of all Christianity says that man and this world are fallen, and only Christ can redeem you, etc, etc and then it promises an afterlife contingent upon that redemption, basically denigrating earthly life. But anyone can save him/herself by taking a few steps, and avoid hell, so at least that's a comfort:rolleyes:
On top of this, Calvin says that only a few people will go to heaven, while the majority of people will go to hell, and that this is pre-determined!:eek:
that pretty much negates anything you do in life, doesn't it?:shrug:
Suppose you tell me that earthly life is a test, and I need to do 'x' for passing it; that's Chistianity.
But along comes Calvin to say that, this test really can't be passed/I will fail but you should do 'x' anyway.
How would you expect me to feel?:(
(I'm referring to predestined damnation)

Zarquon

Mar 15th 2010, 03:33 AM

And regardless of the merits of Calvinism, the fact remains that:
*Denying that all religions(and none) have equal protection under the Constitution;
*throwing out Jefferson and Separation of Church and State;
*Meddling with geology and biology;
*Glorifying Reagan even more while refusing to add anything about Edward Kennedy;
*Adding self-aggrandizing nonsense about a conservative "resurgence" and the evangelical movement while ignoring Clinton, the Bush debacle, the Democratic "resurgence", the Obama phenomenon, and the whole LGBT movement; and
*the whole business of partisan, well-moneyed, non-teachers, non-historians and non-scientists meddling with curriculum(which will affect other states as well, since Texas is the largest buyer of textbooks and publishers sell the same books elsewhere instead of modifying them)
is unequivocally outrageous and dishonest.

Lily

Mar 15th 2010, 05:06 AM

Didn't seem like a Christian thing to do and Calvin led the charge. What do Christians call elimination of dissidents?

What are the "Inquisitions," Alex? Do I get a prize?

Americano

Mar 15th 2010, 08:53 AM

What are the "Inquisitions," Alex? Do I get a prize?

Your choice of torture or burning. Unless you rat out other heretics.

Michael

Mar 15th 2010, 09:55 AM

What are the "Inquisitions," Alex? Do I get a prize?
No prize.

The Protestants didn't have the Inquisition. Calvin would have had to have been turned over to some enemy Catholic regime for that to have happened.

Non Sequitur

Mar 15th 2010, 10:36 AM

First of all Christianity says that man and this world are fallen, and only Christ can redeem you, etc, etc and then it promises an afterlife contingent upon that redemption, basically denigrating earthly life. But anyone can save him/herself by taking a few steps, and avoid hell, so at least that's a comfort:rolleyes:
On top of this, Calvin says that only a few people will go to heaven, while the majority of people will go to hell, and that this is pre-determined!:eek:
that pretty much negates anything you do in life, doesn't it?:shrug:
Suppose you tell me that earthly life is a test, and I need to do 'x' for passing it; that's Chistianity.
But along comes Calvin to say that, this test really can't be passed/I will fail but you should do 'x' anyway.
How would you expect me to feel?:(
(I'm referring to predestined damnation)

Eh, you're right that this isn't the time or place to debate the merits of Calvinism.

Plus, I don't really agree with predestinarian Calvinism.

Michael

Mar 15th 2010, 10:43 AM

Plus, I don't really agree with predestinarian Calvinism.
I don't see how anyone can. To agree with that just shoots down the whole 'God' or 'religion' thing entirely.

If everything was written in stone millenia ago, then nothing you say or do has any effect on anything, so why bother with anything at all?

Indeed, predestination essentially eliminates the idea of 'redemption'.

Non Sequitur

Mar 15th 2010, 11:03 AM

I don't see how anyone can. To agree with that just shoots down the whole 'God' or 'religion' thing entirely.

If everything was written in stone millenia ago, then nothing you say or do has any effect on anything, so why bother with anything at all?

well there's a very neat little trick. The explanation goes that if you don't try at all then you are obviously not part of elect (those predestined for salvation). Only God really knows who is predestined for what so you have to show your self to be a member. This is my biggest problem with the concept. It turns into a back door for a theology of works.

On a side not, don't get the concept of the "elect" to mixed up with predestination. I don't agree with double predestination (some are predestined for heaven others predestined for hell) but the concept of the elect is straight out of scripture.

Indeed, predestination essentially eliminates the idea of 'redemption'.

well, not quite. It means that you were redeemed from before time despite yourself and all that God knew you were going to do. This is why Calvin thinks its a comforting doctrine.

P.S. if any one is wondering why I am suddenly defending Calvinism, I am finishing up at Calvin College.

Lily

Mar 15th 2010, 01:13 PM

No prize.

The Protestants didn't have the Inquisition. Calvin would have had to have been turned over to some enemy Catholic regime for that to have happened.

Pfft. I was only responding to the Jeopardy question under the general catagory "Christians." ;)

By the way, some believe Calvin did just that, ratting out his rival in the Reformation, Michael Servetus, to the Catholics.

Michael

Mar 15th 2010, 01:23 PM

Pfft. I was only responding to the Jeopardy question under the general catagory "Christians." ;)
Jeopardy doesn't make mistakes like that. ;)

By the way, some believe Calvin did just that, ratting out his rival in the Reformation, Michael Servetus, to the Catholics.
I'm sure the Catholics knew exactly who and what Calvin was. And if he ever stepped foot in a Catholic country, he could have been in trouble.

Its all about jurisdiction here. Every protestant reformer risked being put on the rack - they were safe as long as they stayed in Protestant state jurisdictions. A little tourist trip over to Italy or Austria would have been the death of them.