PDA

View Full Version : "How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?"



ljb5
02-09-2010, 12:05 PM
"How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?"

- Sarah Palin

Wow! What better illustration could there be of three points I've made?


Republicans/Tea Partiers really are the most condescending people on the planet.
Their concept of 'Victory' is to create a problem so intractable that no one can solve it -- and then accuse someone else for failing to solve it.
If people are fed up with Obama, it's because he hasn't changed enough, and they want someone even less like Bush, McCain and Palin.

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 12:13 PM
he hasn't changed enough
he hasn't changed anything

ljb5
02-09-2010, 12:17 PM
he hasn't changed anything

Well, that's not quite true.... but let's pretend for a moment that you're correct.

Wouldn't that make you want to find someone even more radical and less like Bush and McCain?

Russ Feingold for 2012, perhaps?

TimH
02-09-2010, 12:19 PM
Jimmy Buffet for president 2012!!

hokiefan
02-09-2010, 12:23 PM
Jimmy Buffet for president 2012!!

Now thats change I could believe in!

"If we weren't all crazy, we'd all go insane."


Only if Guy Clark is his running mate. :D

Seriously, I watched an interview with Buffet and he said he became the leader of his post-high-scool band, because he was the only one who could get credit at the music store. Not a bad start toward a Presidency, if you ask me!

In one of his books he said he learned to play the guitar because the girls dug the guitar players. So he learned 3 chords and started to play. The rest, they say, is history. Isn't it amazing how often girls influence a young man's decisions? Actually, I guess it isn't amazing, they influence ALL of a young man's decisions.:D

Cheers,

Bobby

switters
02-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Well, that's not quite true.... but let's pretend for a moment that you're correct.

Wouldn't that make you want to find someone even more radical and less like Bush and McCain?

Russ Feingold for 2012, perhaps?

Feingold was the only senator (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) to vote against the Patriot Act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patriot_Act), which, he said, infringed upon citizens' civil liberties. Many at the time predicted his political career was over, but a majority of Wisconsin residents had little problem with his vote. (from wiki)

Other than giving up public option on the health care debate I don't see much wrong with him, but don't know much else about him either.

ljb5
02-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Feingold was the only senator (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) to vote against the Patriot Act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patriot_Act), which, he said, infringed upon citizens' civil liberties. Many at the time predicted his political career was over, but a majority of Wisconsin residents had little problem with his vote. (from wiki).

Yup, we're quite proud of him.

Feingold is a decent fellow, but I doubt the voters would ever embrace a twice-divorced Jew. Besides, the Republicans would sooner burn down the Capitol than pass any legislation he proposed.

More to the point: When Palin says "How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?", you can be sure she's actually suggesting less change, not more.

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 12:50 PM
More to the point: When Palin says "How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?", you can be sure she's actually suggesting less change, not more.No doubt, but then you're the one that brought up Obama.;)

FWIW, does anybody here on the forum seriously embrace Palin? She's freaking pathetic. (she's the main reason I was forced to vote for Obama)

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 12:50 PM
well, for many years we never believed that a 'black' man of muslim ancestry could ever become prezzy, so let's not dismiss the idea out of hand. :cool:lol:d

Pugwash
02-09-2010, 12:57 PM
FWIW, does anybody here on the forum seriously embrace Palin? She's freaking pathetic. (she's the main reason I was forced to vote for Obama)

I think Jack does, he's just too scared to admit it publicly. He's been saying things like
Palin doesn't frighten me. I doubt she's up to it, but I'll wait and see. The politics involved are brutal. You have to admit she ran Alaska fairly well. A gurl in the executive could be refreshing. It's not the beginning or ending of the world, Norm. It seems to me you give too much credence to a temporary office. for a long time now.

To be honest, if he still doesn't know and he's still waiting to see then I'm pretty sure he's going to vote for her just to see what happens.

:eek:

hokiefan
02-09-2010, 12:59 PM
No doubt, but then you're the one that brought up Obama.;)

FWIW, does anybody here on the forum seriously embrace Palin? She's freaking pathetic. (she's the main reason I was forced to vote for Obama)

I hear ya. Although I won't say she was my main reason, more like the deciding straw. I was leaning, but decidely undecided, till I learned a little about SP. After that it was a done deal.

Cheers,

Bobby

High C
02-09-2010, 01:20 PM
...She's freaking pathetic. (she's the main reason I was forced to vote for Obama)

Were there only two Presidential candidates on your ballot?

I've heard several people here say they voted for Obama because the McCain/Palin ticket was so unpalatable. But taking that as a reason to vote for someone who is your ideological opposite serves only to increase his victory margin and incorrectly makes it appear that he has a mandate if enough people do that.

Obama had no mandate. He backed in against pathetic opposition. As soon as he began to try to implement his agenda, his support plummeted.

When none of the above are acceptable, I suggest it's better to vote for some third party also ran candidate than to further strengthen an empty suit like Barack Obama.

TimH
02-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Her voice to me is like fingernails on a blackboard.

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 01:27 PM
I understand exactly where you're coming from High-C; and I thought seriosly about either not voting or voting third party. In the end I felt by voting Democratic I could send the strongest possible message to the Republican party about how displeased I was with Bush and with McCain/Palin.

Michael D. Storey
02-09-2010, 01:28 PM
Wow! What better illustration could there be of three points I've made?


Republicans/Tea Partiers really are the most condescending people on the planet.
Their concept of 'Victory' is to create a problem so intractable that no one can solve it -- and then accuse someone else for failing to solve it.
If people are fed up with Obama, it's because he hasn't changed enough, and they want someone even less like Bush, McCain and Palin.


Suggest point number four:
There are some people who have such a high degree of sloth or such a low degree of competence that they expect one man to fix it for them.
Remember, she quit. Could not do it. Too much. Might break a nail. Now she tinkles and whines about it not being done for her.
Dont get me started.

High C
02-09-2010, 01:36 PM
I understand exactly where you're coming from High-C; and I thought seriosly about either not voting or voting third party. In the end I felt by voting Democratic I could send the strongest possible message to the Republican party about how displeased I was with Bush and with McCain/Palin.

Well, I do understand that.

I think back to the Ross Perot candidacy as being a huge wake up call to the Reps. It was immediately followed by the 1994 Republican wave in the next election cycle. Republicans got the message then. They've since forgotten. :(

I suspect both major parties might start to get it if they saw their support slipping away to various "none of the aboves". What we're seeing right now is one of the majors, the Dems, living under the illusion that they have a popular mandate. They obviously don't, and they have no idea how to proceed.

I think it makes it a heck of a statement if enough people reject the inadequate candidates of the major parties, rather than settling simply because they've been told that to do otherwise is a "wasted vote"....as long as we don't accidentally elect a nut in the process!

John of Phoenix
02-09-2010, 01:38 PM
In the end I felt by voting Democratic I could send the strongest possible message to the Republican party about how displeased I was with Bush and with McCain/Palin.
That's why I left the Republican Party altogether - not only did I do it to send a message, I actually wrote a message and sent it to them. The response has been to chase other moderates out the door.

Ian McColgin
02-09-2010, 02:01 PM
I'd say Obama's taking what amounts to the PM's question session and his inviting everyone to a health care session is a step.

Bob Smalser
02-09-2010, 02:03 PM
What I love about Sarah Palin...and Glen Beck, Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh as well...is how well they keep the terminally obtuse occupied while the likes of John Thune, Paul Ryan, Bob McDonnell, Haley Barbour and Scott Brown slip up behind them with a big effing hammer.

Virginia....New Jersey....Massachusetts. Massachusetts?

Just keep on ranting about distractions, and we'll take care of the rest. ;)

Paul Pless
02-09-2010, 02:05 PM
Virginia....New Jersey....Massachusetts. Massachusetts?good point

Tom Montgomery
02-09-2010, 02:12 PM
Personally, I love it when Sarah talks that baby talk!

Bob Smalser
02-09-2010, 02:12 PM
And the NY 23rd? Far more significant... because it demonstrated just how damaging the effect of the 'I'm more right wing than you' phenomenon is.

It'll be hard, but I suspect we can live with 3 out of every 4.

ljb5
02-09-2010, 02:20 PM
We can live with 3 out of 4.

You do that, and we'll live with 59 out of 100 and 233 out of 435. :D

Pugwash
02-09-2010, 02:22 PM
Personally, I love it when Sarah talks that baby talk!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34&feature=related

:)

Dave Thibodeau
02-09-2010, 02:43 PM
luck Sarah

paul oman
02-09-2010, 02:58 PM
I don't know anyone personally that has had their situation improve during the Obama admin of the past year. I don't see anyone's lot improving anytime soon. If my business were bigger and I had employees, I would not hire anyone because of the uncertain but anti business views of the WH. My life and business was better under Bush.

My lefty sister-in-law in Houston is very pro Obama. She is a 30 year freelance graphic designer, now barely keeping her head above water. Obama has just gutted NASA and is going after the Oil Industry. These are the backbone of the Houston economy. I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded, the oil companies would be booming and looking for oil/gas and my sister in law would have lots of business (like she did under Bush).

Maybe I'm missing something, but more and more folks think like I do. Some of them call themselves Tea Party People, others Independents. I suspect that as long as we think Obama hates businesses and free enterprise (and is in power) unemployment and slow business will remain. The only fix will come with a change in the current government.

ccmanuals
02-09-2010, 03:02 PM
I don't know anyone personally that has had their situation improve during the Obama admin of the past year. I don't see anyone's lot improving anytime soon. If my business were bigger and I had employees, I would not hire anyone because of the uncertain but anti business views of the WH. My life and business was better under Bush.

My lefty sister-in-law in Houston is very pro Obama. She is a 30 year freelance graphic designer, now barely keeping her head above water. Obama has just gutted NASA and is going after the Oil Industry. These are the backbone of the Houston economy. I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded, the oil companies would be booming and looking for oil/gas and my sister in law would have lots of business (like she did under Bush).

Maybe I'm missing something, but more and more folks think like I do. Some of them call themselves Tea Party People, others Independents. I suspect that as long as we think Obama hates businesses and free enterprise (and is in power) unemployment and slow business will remain. The only fix will come with a change in the current government.

Paul, I'm thinking that the point is that the situation didn't get worse. That we came from the brink of complete financial breakdown and full depression to somewhat stable again.

Dave Wright
02-09-2010, 03:07 PM
.... My life and business was better under Bush.....




Could you explain this please? Maybe give some concrete examples of how your life and business have actually changed??

Bob Smalser
02-09-2010, 03:08 PM
My lefty sister-in-law in Houston is very pro Obama. She is a 30 year freelance graphic designer, now barely keeping her head above water. Obama has just gutted NASA and is going after the Oil Industry. These are the backbone of the Houston economy. I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded, the oil companies would be booming and looking for oil/gas and my sister in law would have lots of business (like she did under Bush).

Maybe I'm missing something....



No Paul, you aren't missing anything.



United States presidential election (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_by_County%2C_2 008.svg/200px-Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_by_County%2C_2 008.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Florida_Presidential_Election_Results_by_County%2C _2008.svg/250px-Florida_Presidential_Election_Results_by_County%2C _2008.svg.png

ljb5
02-09-2010, 03:12 PM
...I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded....

With what money? :confused: Imaginary George Bush deficit dollars?

I personally know two people who say their lives have improved under Obama. Both stationed overseas (one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan), they no longer have the fear that they will be asked to torture a detainee. And they know that, if someone does ask them to do that, they can refuse the order without a moment of hesitation or fear or reprisal.

john l
02-09-2010, 03:44 PM
paul and bob - you guys need to get your eyes out of the rear view mirror and looking ahead. graphic design may be an indicator of the very present. you ought to look at industrial design. now there is a creative area that is a real
barometer of economic activity forecast. the work they do is 12-18 months ahead
of new tool orders. when these guys are busy the economy is looking good. why? corporations are investing to make new products and sales and they expect a return on this investment. now - let's dial back 10 years. how were companies improving on their bottom line? cutting overhead. and also cutting
potential for new revenue. it was a game played with most corps. you might even attribute some of this to gm demise.
i've worked in the industry for over 30 years and i've seen a 30 year pattern. our work slows down and we fully feel a soft economy before anyone else. in 2008 and early 2009 even the big - too big to fail design consultancies in boston and SF had to contract to survive. guess what mid 2009 and early 2010
sees them going gang busters again. why - corps are developing new products
and services that people want and need. why are they investing is such a soft economy? because they have seen the bottom and are expecting a bounce or going to be part of creating that bounce. the bounce is in the works. different folks and industries have felt the soft spots at different times. many of those folks warned of the pending problems during the B-admin, but were laughed off stage by those "who new better and what was good". had the B-admin not been so ideologically oriented they would have heard the warning signals.
hold the course guys, we are weathering the storm and about to pull the ship
out of harm. unless of course, you wish to turn the ship back to where we just
came from. have no fear of real fear. make no artificial fear to support your agenda. you don't need to be with us, just don't be against us. save this energy for real enemies and not self made ones.

JimD
02-09-2010, 05:03 PM
Palin: No Hope, No Change.

LeeG
02-09-2010, 05:17 PM
I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded, the oil companies would be booming and looking for oil/gas

doesn't the recession have something to do with that?

paul oman
02-09-2010, 07:04 PM
Paul Oman - reply

"That we came from the brink of complete financial breakdown and full depression to somewhat stable again."

I hear this over and over from the dems. But I didn't notice a financial breakdown or depression and my neighbors all had jobs... I did notice that my property value was down, but that is about it. I half think (like millions of Americans) that the breakdown and depression is a democratic myth (like the so called 'jobs saved' - a number than can never be computed but gets thrown around a lot.

I run a resin company. My bank account shows things were better when Bush was pres.
__________________

McMike
02-09-2010, 07:25 PM
Paul Oman - reply

"That we came from the brink of complete financial breakdown and full depression to somewhat stable again."

I hear this over and over from the dems. But I didn't notice a financial breakdown or depression and my neighbors all had jobs... I did notice that my property value was down, but that is about it. I half think (like millions of Americans) that the breakdown and depression is a democratic myth (like the so called 'jobs saved' - a number than can never be computed but gets thrown around a lot.

I run a resin company. My bank account shows things were better when Bush was pres.
__________________

Where have you been man? Disagree with Obama, fine, but blame him for the recession and job loss? I don't see it.:confused:

pipefitter
02-09-2010, 07:39 PM
Where have you been man? Disagree with Obama, fine, but blame him for the recession and job loss? I don't see it.:confused:


It goes back further than Bush, that's for sure, regardless of his administration being perhaps part of the final nail. Under the circumstances, who from the democratic party could have handled such inevitability much differently outside of the war debt? It certainly wasn't to be any part of a certain congressional majority containing brighter ideas that weren't born of obvious hindsight.

Dave Wright
02-09-2010, 08:02 PM
...I run a resin company. My bank account shows things were better when Bush was pres....



That kind of blanket reasoning makes you a fool. You compare 8 years of whittling away of national treasure to one year of trying to pick up the pieces?

Who could trust you to formulate resin with that kind of reasoning power? I'll buy my epoxy somewhere else, and I trust others will too, that's how capitalism works.

Paul Denison
02-09-2010, 08:06 PM
That kind of blanket reasoning makes you a fool. You compare 8 years of whittling away of national treasure to one year of trying to pick up the pieces?

Who could trust you to formulate resin with that kind of reasoning power? I'll buy my epoxy somewhere else, and I trust others will too, that's how capitalism works.


Real nice.

JimD
02-09-2010, 08:28 PM
I really don't want to know much about the politics of the people I buy stuff from. But if they're going to make a point of telling me, and it happens that I strongly disagree with them, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'll then make a point of shopping elsewhere.

johnw
02-09-2010, 08:30 PM
paul and bob - you guys need to get your eyes out of the rear view mirror and looking ahead. graphic design may be an indicator of the very present. you ought to look at industrial design. now there is a creative area that is a real
barometer of economic activity forecast. the work they do is 12-18 months ahead
of new tool orders. when these guys are busy the economy is looking good. why? corporations are investing to make new products and sales and they expect a return on this investment. now - let's dial back 10 years. how were companies improving on their bottom line? cutting overhead. and also cutting
potential for new revenue. it was a game played with most corps. you might even attribute some of this to gm demise.
i've worked in the industry for over 30 years and i've seen a 30 year pattern. our work slows down and we fully feel a soft economy before anyone else. in 2008 and early 2009 even the big - too big to fail design consultancies in boston and SF had to contract to survive. guess what mid 2009 and early 2010
sees them going gang busters again. why - corps are developing new products
and services that people want and need. why are they investing is such a soft economy? because they have seen the bottom and are expecting a bounce or going to be part of creating that bounce. the bounce is in the works. different folks and industries have felt the soft spots at different times. many of those folks warned of the pending problems during the B-admin, but were laughed off stage by those "who new better and what was good". had the B-admin not been so ideologically oriented they would have heard the warning signals.
hold the course guys, we are weathering the storm and about to pull the ship
out of harm. unless of course, you wish to turn the ship back to where we just
came from. have no fear of real fear. make no artificial fear to support your agenda. you don't need to be with us, just don't be against us. save this energy for real enemies and not self made ones.
I sure hope you're right.

I think a lot of people didn't vote for McCain because he clearly did not have a clue about economics. In the midst of a historic crisis, that meant he was not the man of the hour.

Here's a chart showing the rate of job losses from Jan. '08 to Jan. '10, taken from Washington Monthly:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/jobsjan09.png

Making things get worse more slowly, however, is not a great way to get re-elected. We've got to see some real job growth.

In terms of foreign policy, take a look at what happened to our "soft power:"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20120a87ff9b0970b-500wi

ljb5
02-09-2010, 08:39 PM
So, Dave Wright ... answer me/us this:



Neither you, your cronies, or lj seem to be able address the basic point ...

Again. What say you?

:)

I don't think you made a point worthy of a response. It was fact-free and superficial. So you voted for him, but now have second thoughts. Whatever. You have right to your opinion. Doesn't mean I have to comment every time you express your opinion. :rolleyes:

I voted for him and I'm okay with that. I'm sure glad I didn't vote for McCain and Palin. Both of them have gone way downhill in the last year. Did you hear Palin talk openly of invading Iran? :eek:

JimD
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
Blaming the current global economic situation on BO is among the dumbest things I've ever heard.

ccmanuals
02-09-2010, 09:16 PM
Blaming the current global economic situation on BO is among the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Oh, I'm sure someone will come up with one better. :D

LeeG
02-09-2010, 09:31 PM
come to think of it since Obama was elected there was an earthquake in Haiti.

LeeG
02-09-2010, 09:41 PM
Brad, you've gone from being enthusiastic and entertaining to just plain rude and hysterical.

Bob Smalser
02-09-2010, 09:53 PM
Blaming the current global economic situation on BO is among the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Yup. But working against recovery of employment is entirely BO's doing.

Small businesses like mine and my neighbors' are the main generator of jobs cumulatively, and they aren't going to hire if they are hunkered down waiting out the uncertainty of health care, energy and in some cases, union costs.

Screwing around with health insurance reform that adds entitlements for millions of people, increasing our energy costs with Cap and Trade, and abetting union membership at the expense of employee's rights with Card-Check may or may not be worthwhile goals....

...but attempting them in the middle of a recession is moronic. Businesses need to see stability in the near term to hire or rehire.

LeeG
02-09-2010, 10:02 PM
increasing energy costs is going to be a fact of life. At least Obama is addressing it where we have control, our use, as opposed to where we don't have control of the world supply.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Ene rgy

Bob Smalser
02-09-2010, 10:11 PM
increasing energy costs is going to be a fact of life. At least Obama is addressing it where we have control, our use, as opposed to where we don't have control of the world supply.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Ene rgy

Falling into the trap of a world-wide wealth-redistribution scheme at the expense of our economy is something to consider after the recovery from this recession. Before or during doesn't pass the common-sense test by any measure.

pipefitter
02-09-2010, 10:17 PM
Blaming the current global economic situation on BO is among the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Then it is nearly safe to say that if for some reason we see a significant turn around to the better in short order, we really can't credit him with that either. Bet it wouldn't work out that way if that is to be the case. "Inherited" will suddenly change to "invented".

ljb5
02-09-2010, 10:17 PM
So folks finally accepting responsibility for their own actions is superficial, eh ...lj?

Nah... I'm just saying that your interpretation of Obama's performance is fact-free and superficial.

He's the goddamn Commander in Chief of the United States Military and you keep saying vapid stuff like he's not taking taking responsibility.

That guy has more responsibility in his little finger than you've shown in your entire life.


You are a worthless superficial clown, yourself ...

Guys like you ruin converts like me ... you ruin your dim party by your blindness ... I GAVE you guys a chance ... but as my wife says, I wasted a vote for stupid, bleeding, libs ...

I HATE to say it, but she was correct!

Just remember, BO stinks! ;)

You do so much more damage to libs than good ... yet, you are too stupid to even realize it, lj. At your age, 33 or 34 ... you really ought to be smarter than you are ... :(

You had guys like me on your (voting) side ... and now, as quickly as you gained us, you (because of your stupid arrogance) have lost us ...

Let's see how it plays out next senate election ... and next prez election ...

You guys are TOO STUPID to even realize the MAJORITY you had ...

IDIOTS!!!

:D

Chill out, dude. You don't have to make everything personal.

LeeG
02-09-2010, 10:43 PM
Falling into the trap of a world-wide wealth-redistribution scheme at the expense of our economy is something to consider after the recovery from this recession. Before or during doesn't pass the common-sense test by any measure.

which world-wide wealth redistribution scheme are you speaking of? I was responding to your comment about waiting around for the uncertainty of energy costs. The 11Billion towards the smart grid is a much more needed investment in domestic security than the latest spin on the Future Combat System.

ljb5
02-09-2010, 11:13 PM
How much do the two of you contribute to the economy as a whole?

You would choke if you knew. :D

ljb5
02-09-2010, 11:25 PM
And we ALL KNOW that your contribution to the economy is not much ... let's not lie ... and let's not kid ourselves ...
:D

You don't know half the stuff you think you know.

Seriously.

You don't know anything about me. Don't waste your last few brain cells speculating.

Harbormaster
02-09-2010, 11:35 PM
Time to let this go poof.

Tom Montgomery
02-09-2010, 11:47 PM
"Hopey-Changey"

Precious!

Sarah sure knows how to utilize those sexy winks, wiggles, and cutesy talk to keep her fanboys excited!

Am I right, Ish?

W Grabow
02-10-2010, 12:10 AM
Who could trust you to formulate resin with that kind of reasoning power? I'll buy my epoxy somewhere else, and I trust others will too, that's how capitalism works.

No, that is not how capitalism works. In capitalism you buy from the person who can get you the best resin on the best schedule at the best price while obeying all laws. Capitalists do not require philosophical uniformity and allow others to disagree with them without wanting them to lose their livelihood.

Buying elsewhere out of spite, even though it may be an inferior product, is something that a liberal would typically do. That is why they make such lousy decisions.

johnw
02-10-2010, 12:24 AM
You are truly a kid ... or stupid, lj ... what a shame that you continue to deflect competence ... ironic, is it not?!

BTW- leeg ... no one cares what your bitter self thinks, either!

How much do the two of you contribute to the economy as a whole?

Oops ... just what I thought.

You are BOTH nothing but hot air!

:D

Carry on with your meaningless rationalizations ... :)
Man, this is getting irritating. All you're doing is name-
calling. Chill out. Obama's just a politician. He can't wave a wand and make everything better. Maybe you thought he could, but I didn't. He's having about the same difficulties I thought he would. I'm not sure who you're mad at. You're just lashing out. Maybe life's not so good right now? You're writing like a guy on the edge of a breakdown. Get a good night's sleep and go easy on the coffee.

David G
02-10-2010, 01:10 AM
Were there only two Presidential candidates on your ballot?

I've heard several people here say they voted for Obama because the McCain/Palin ticket was so unpalatable. But taking that as a reason to vote for someone who is your ideological opposite serves only to increase his victory margin and incorrectly makes it appear that he has a mandate if enough people do that.

Obama had no mandate. He backed in against pathetic opposition. As soon as he began to try to implement his agenda, his support plummeted.

When none of the above are acceptable, I suggest it's better to vote for some third party also ran candidate than to further strengthen an empty suit like Barack Obama.

High-C,

I'm one of those folks. You misunderstand when you assume that - because I was considering voting for McCain, that Obama was my ideological opposite. For me, McCain was a bit to my right, and Obama... I wasn't sure but maybe a bit to my left.

For me it wasn't about the ideology. It was me looking for someone who had the wisdom and perspective to recognize where we were historically, and the guts to takes the painful steps that were going to be necessary to begin a recovery.

The ideology just gets in the way. In fact, way too many folks have ideological blinders on these days, and refuse to recognize what's being done correctly and well... and what's not -- no matter who it is and what party they're from.

I was interested in McCain because his history suggested that he might have balls enough to go against his "base" and do what was right. A Rep would be - in some ways - better placed to do so than a Dem. Just as Nixon could pull off his overtures to Red China, when a Democrat would have been pilloried. Just as FDR "saved capitalism from itself." My main concern about Mac was whether he had enough left in the tank - at his age, and after all the injuries he'd valiantly suffered - to stay a "maverick" and sustain it against the inevitable opposition from both sides.

Obama, OTOH, seemed as if he might already be more amenable to the sort of Keynesian policies that would be required. He also seemed generally competent - but then again, so did McCain. My concern about O was experience and guts. It wasn't clear to me that he had suffient of either. As it turns out, I have a developing sense that he just may have the guts. I'm still not sure he has the experience to pull it off.

My decision was made for me as soon as McCain chose Palin as his Vice. That was my signal that he was desperate enough, or cynical enough, to cave in to Rovian strategists and neo-Bush policies. Game over.

Why? Well... I've said it before, but here it is again. We are at a place in the cycles of economic history where it's time to reel in the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and swing the pendulum the other way. At the time of the election, the pendulum had not swing as far to the extreme as it did prior to the Great Depression... but it showed every sign of doing so unless dampened. See Post # 75 from this February '08 thread:

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1772737

From the Post --

To elaborate: market capitalism is a very efficient system for fostering innovation, accumulating capital, and developing economies. This powerful engine is driven by a particular side of human nature: the ceaseless dynamo of human need and human greed. Don't think I'm condemning. I'm not. For the most part market capitalism does a great job of channeling this drive into productive avenues.

However, it is also true that - left unchecked - market capitalism has some built-in destructive tendencies. Historically, the continued accrual of more & more capital & power into fewer & fewer hands has led to an inefficient functioning of the economy. More speculative bubbles. More oscillations. Eventual instability. One example is the Great Depression. Hoover was an absolute True Believer in the notion that "The business of America is business". He thought the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer was good for the country. He was not the only one. The process began before him. He was just the Final Fool before the fall in that particular episode of the drama.

High C
02-10-2010, 09:13 AM
Thanks for taking the time to post that, David, but I challenge your fundamental sense that Obama, and Keynesian economics, are not far left opposites of conservatism. Granted, they are not necessarily opposites of McCain's positions, but McCain has often been in trouble within his own party for leaning to the left, the "maverick" reputation.

Obama's predictable Keynesian approach has led to deficits three and four times as great as those that Democrats screamed bloody murder about under his predecessor. I hope the United States survives them. While private sector unemployment has sky rocketed, Obama's government has grown. The pay and benefit differential between the private and government sectors has now grown to an obscene all time high.

While I do well understand the inadequacies of the 2008 GOP ticket (could not bring myself to vote for it), it's clear that the alternative has acted quite far to the left in terms of spending and government growth.

ljb5
02-10-2010, 09:33 AM
why does he keep blaming
everything on the " previous administration or previous decade then"?

I disagree with your premise that he has tried to blame "everything" on the previous administration.

I realize that's a very popular right-wing talking point, but it mostly seems to be coming from his opponents, not from him.

On the other hand, it's certainly, inarguably, obviously true that a huge part of our current situation is attributable to the previous administration. Remember for a moment that Bush started two wars, the AIG bailout, the automakers' bailout, the Insurance bailout and the bank bailouts and unemployment skyrocketed before Obama ever took the oath of office.


Ive NEVER seen a president of either party so shamelessly try and duck their responsibility for the current state of the country.

Pish. I've seen much worse.

Bush started a war and then pretended he didn't know the intelligence was bad and blamed the CIA and FBI and British Intelligence for the failings. He obstructed the 9/11 investigation and then tried to blame Clinton. He ignored Katrina, then tried to blame local officials. He authorized torture, then let privates take the fall. He sat by and did nothing as the economy fell off the cliff and never took any responsibility for that at all.

His father led us into a recession and then refused to even acknowledge that there was a recession. Reagan traded arms for hostages and then tried to pretend that he had no idea what his own administration was doing.

paul oman
02-10-2010, 11:36 AM
Nasty people! lighten up...
I like my friends, but I like the people who disagree with me just as much or more. And, even though I have a mess of college letters after my name, I'm the first to admit I'm often wrong and sort of stupid.

Of course, anyone who is divorced has to admit that they too were 100% wrong about something they 100% believed in. But instead of discounting divorced people I find most of them are nice folks. I also think the folks on this forum are all nice folks (we all love wooden boats) - but lighten up! It is a wonderful thing we live in a place where we can disagree. Dislike my views but don't hate me. That is the sign of a Great Person.

After the Civil War General Lee NEVER let anyone say anything bad about General Grant in his presence. Grant offered Lee terms that sparked Lee's great respect for his primary foe. These are great people that disagreed with each other at the point of a gun (and 600K k/w/missing - something like 9 million in today's numbers). Lift ourselves out of the gutter to something better in our personalities (Like Lee and Grant) and enjoy agreeing to disagree. The wit and outlandish views expressed are wonderful to enjoy.

Friends, you're all always welcome to visit my tiny camp in NH on a 95 acre lake and enjoy a Sat. /Sun. of kayaking and swimming. The water is a bit Hard right now.... A nice detour on your way to the WoodenBoat show in Maine.

elf
02-10-2010, 12:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_02102010_520.gif

Rick-Mi
02-10-2010, 01:08 PM
"How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?"

Not very well for people with their eyes open.


Obama Approval Ratings Nosedive to New Low


President Barack Obama's overall approval rating has hit a new low. According to the results of the Marist College survey released Monday, independent voters are particularly fed up with the job he has been doing.

Obama's overall approval among all registered voters has hit a new low of 44 percent, which is the lowest of any poll to date that uses people to survey voters. Among independents, his job approval rating has sunk to to just 29 percent, and his disapproval rating is almost double that at 57 percent.





Similar excerpts flood the net from many such commentaries, this one happened to be the Cleveland Leader.

SMARTINSEN
02-10-2010, 01:11 PM
Tom Toles is one of our great political cartoonists.

David G
02-10-2010, 01:58 PM
Thanks for taking the time to post that, David, but I challenge your fundamental sense that Obama, and Keynesian economics, are not far left opposites of conservatism. Granted, they are not necessarily opposites of McCain's positions, but McCain has often been in trouble within his own party for leaning to the left, the "maverick" reputation.

Obama's predictable Keynesian approach has led to deficits three and four times as great as those that Democrats screamed bloody murder about under his predecessor. I hope the United States survives them. While private sector unemployment has sky rocketed, Obama's government has grown. The pay and benefit differential between the private and government sectors has now grown to an obscene all time high.

While I do well understand the inadequacies of the 2008 GOP ticket (could not bring myself to vote for it), it's clear that the alternative has acted quite far to the left in terms of spending and government growth.

High-C,

Again, you misapprehend me. Did you read the post #75 from '08? I would not argue the leftness or rightness of Obama, McCain, et.al. I would argue that it is beside the point.

I agree with you that minimally-regulated laissez-faire capitalism is at the far end of a spectrum from socialism. I don't care who is the Rep & who the Dem. I don't care who calls themselves a liberal and who a conservative. What I care about is who has the insight to recognize where we are on the spectrum, and what it means in terms of public policy.

Where we seem to be missing, you and I - in our attempts at a meeting of the minds - is the ideology. I would suggest that neither l-f capitalism nor socialism are inherently, totally, wrong. I would argue that our economy tends to swing from one to the other, that policy prescriptions based upon either can be highly effective, disasterous, or anything in between. It depends upon where we currently are.

At the moment, there's no question in my mind that we've swung a bit too far toward l-f capitalism. It's time to rein it back in. That means re-regulation of problem areas (eg. financial markets). It also - unfortunately - means invoking Keynes, in order to keep the Bust (which was the inevitable result of allowing the pendulum to swing so far) from spiraling downward into another Great Depression.

From your previous response, I suspect two things. First, that you understand Keynesian economics and the rationale behind it. Is that true? Second, you are having trouble stepping outside of the typical Rep/Dem, Liberal/Conservative model. I won't ask if that's true, because it's very hard to know such a thing from inside your own skull. Just know that it might be worth considering.

So... I've given you my theoretical construct, which is the underpinning for my belief that the proper policy prescription - at the moment - is Keynesian.

You seem to disagree. So let me ask you: what is your theoretical construct? How does it lead you to different conclusions? What are those conclusions? What, then, is suggested as a policy model?

In other words -- what do you think we should be doing, and why? What evidence - theoretical, or practical - supports your ideas?

JimD
02-10-2010, 04:20 PM
Then it is nearly safe to say that if for some reason we see a significant turn around to the better in short order, we really can't credit him with that either.

I think he would try to take more credit than he deserved, claiming it was directly the result of his policies. Predictably, his opponents would argue otherwise, most likely along the lines that recovery would have occured sooner and more robustly without him. Cynically, Obama needs a strong recovery as 2012 approaches for obvious reasons. Realistically, it will likely take that long anyway, political opportunism notwithstanding.

High C
02-12-2010, 12:24 PM
... I've given you my theoretical construct, which is the underpinning for my belief that the proper policy prescription - at the moment - is Keynesian.

You seem to disagree....

Indeed I do. I don't think we're anywhere near the extreme of laissez faire capitalism that you perceive, and I have no faith that there is any validity to Keynesianism.

The problems in the banking sector have not been caused by laissez faire DEregulation. The bankers have done a superb job of staying a step ahead of the regulators by creating new products and finding new ways of doing business that have gotten them, and us, into trouble. Further, they were pushed over the brink by meddlesome politicians who used their influence to have lending standards lowered to an absurd place for the sake of popularity with certain constituency groups. This was not a case of deregulation, it was in fact the opposite...regulators forcing their way on lenders, who left to their own devices, would have behaved more cautiously.

I don't pretend to have the answers. Clearly no one has that magic bullet. But by now it should be obvious that simply printing unbacked trillions of new dollars that will ultimately be repaid with inflation devalued dollars has not been the answer.

marshcat
02-12-2010, 01:48 PM
Further, they were pushed over the brink by meddlesome politicians who used their influence to have lending standards lowered to an absurd place for the sake of popularity with certain constituency groups. This was not a case of deregulation, it was in fact the opposite...regulators forcing their way on lenders, who left to their own devices, would have behaved more cautiously.

Are you referring to CRA legislation, that was passed almost 30 years prior to the current crisis (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)), is responsible for only about 6% of the subprime market (which is 20% of the total mortgage market) (link (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/community_reinvestment_emerging_from_housing_crisi s.pdf#page=3)), and does not apply to the majority of the specialty mortgage brokers that originated most of the subprime loans (link (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown.pdf#page=3))?

When I reread this, it sounds pretty snarky, but I am genuinely curious if you are referring to the 'CRA Caused the Crisis' theory, or something else. As I understand it, that theory has been debunked, but I would welcome links that show evidence to the contrary.

High C
02-12-2010, 02:01 PM
...are referring to the 'CRA Caused the Crisis' theory, or something else. As I understand it, that theory has been debunked, but I would welcome links that show evidence to the contrary.

Note the word "further", and the absence of the word "exclusively".

Prior to the bit you quoted, I spoke of other causes, specifically of creative new banking and financial products and the regulators inability to stay ahead of that "creativity". By no means did I intend to suggest a single cause, but it must be acknowledged that lowered lending standards contributed to the massive default rate of those loans. There's no way to "debunk" that with a straight face.

marshcat
02-12-2010, 02:14 PM
I still don't understand if you mean that CRA was part of the cause or not? It seems like political influence on CRA legislation has been good for some (From the OCC Hurricane Fact Sheet (http://www.occ.gov/cdd/Hurricane_Fact_Sheet.pdf)):

“Under recent revisions to the CRA, the OCC may favorably consider activities that revitalize or stabilize designated disaster areas for three years following the disaster designation. … Specific to the recovery effort from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, OCC Bulletin 2008-24 extended the period during which banks may receive positive CRA consideration for recovery efforts for an additional three years…"

High C
02-12-2010, 02:19 PM
I still don't understand if you mean that CRA was part of the cause or not? It seems like political influence on CRA legislation has been good for some...

Yes, I am saying that CRA was part of the cause. Are you saying that it wasn't? :eek:

The fact that some people benefited from CRA has no bearing on whether or not it contributed to the banking crisis.

marshcat
02-12-2010, 02:31 PM
Yes, I am saying that CRA was part of the cause. Are you saying that it wasn't? :eek:

Yes, I am saying that it wasn't (although it is logically impossible to prove a negative). I am basing my position on the same research that led Ben Bernanke to say (http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/112508ResponsefromBernankeonCRA.pdf) in November 2008:

"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

What are you basing your position on? Links would be great.

High C
02-12-2010, 02:40 PM
Yes, I am saying that it wasn't (although it is logically impossible to prove a negative). I am basing my position on the same research that led Ben Bernanke to say (http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/112508ResponsefromBernankeonCRA.pdf) in November 2008:

"Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."

What are you basing your position on? Links would be great.

It's an active debate. Big names can be quoted on both sides of the issue.

You really need links to know this? Try Wikipedia for a tip of the iceberg starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financ ial_crisis

ljb5
02-12-2010, 02:43 PM
Nicely done, marshcat. :)

Good luck getting High C to come clean on this one. He still thinks there are WMDs in Iraq. ;)

High C
02-12-2010, 02:51 PM
Nicely done, marshcat. :)

Good luck getting High C to come clean on this one. He still thinks there are WMDs in Iraq. ;)

You won't be able to prove that, Mr. Competent.

marshcat
02-12-2010, 02:53 PM
Yes, I am saying that CRA was part of the cause.


It's an active debate..


Got it.

High C
02-12-2010, 02:59 PM
Got it.

You clearly don't. I have expressed an opinion that comes down on one side of a debate. You have come down on the other side of the debate and claimed that the debate doesn't exist.

There is no debate. Where have I heard that one before? :D

High C
02-12-2010, 03:03 PM
Here's a 2003 article about Freddie and Fannie that foretold the disaster we saw come true in 2008.

http://www.mtgprofessor.com/A%20-%20Secondary%20Markets/what_do_fannie_and_freddie_do.htm

marshcat
02-12-2010, 03:11 PM
You clearly don't. I have expressed an opinion that comes down on one side of a debate.

I agree with that statement. I think my position is more strongly supported by current research.


You have come down on the other side of the debate and claimed that the debate doesn't exist.

No I didn't. I said:


As I understand it, that theory has been debunked.

If you want to quote me, feel free, but there is no need to put words in my mouth.

David G
02-12-2010, 03:37 PM
My construct is more Friedmanian.
.

BW,

I wondered if, perhaps, High-C was gonna mention monetarism. The monetarist position, as it relates to our current situation, deserves a serious response. I'll see if I can spare some time this weekend to draft one.

Meantime - remember that we are actually discussing two different continuum's.

The first has textbook socialism at one end and pure laissez-faire capitalism at the other.

This is where my prime argument lies - that we've recently had the pendulum swing too far toward l-f capitalism, and it's time for a correction. I suspect that this is one legitimate role for government. I suspect that when our economy swings too far toward either end of that spectrum, and government begins corrective actions, there's disruption, inefficiency, and confusion in the markets. Government intervention can be slow, and have unintended consequences. However, I also suspect that... overall... the dislocations are less dramatic than if we allow the pendulum to swing until there is a market correction. The market tends to wait longer, and crash harder... as it has now.

That is the theoretical construct I was referring to. The notion that - historically - our economy tends to swing first toward one end of this spectrum then toward the other. We can argue about what reverses the swing (markets, public policy, external factors etc.) and academics make their careers doing so. But what I was asking was whether High-C (or you, or anyone) agrees with that construct and therefore mostly wants to discuss policy matters (monetarism, keynes, anarchy, etc.)... or whether he had a different construct to offer up for consideration. I don't know if you've already perused it, but here's a longer sketch of what I'm suggesting - post #75:

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1772737

The second continuum - though by now it may have achieved the status of Grand Dichotomy - has less to do with a larger overall view of the economy over time, and more to do with the policy prescriptions which are appropriate at various stages in the pendulum swing. This is where we can discuss what policy prescriptions are appropriate for our present situation. This is where your mention of Mr Friedman becomes germane. But... it's a lot easier to essay an attempted solution if we can first agree what the problem is. It's also a lot easier to understand where the disagreements are springing from if we know from the start that we disagree on the theoretical model.

ljb5
02-12-2010, 03:56 PM
[I]Every time they attack her, mock her or belittle her, she only gets more popular.

Oh, that's just silly. She gets more popular than what?

Her approval ratings are consistently negative (http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm) and most people (including a majority of Republicans) think she's unqualified to be president.

john l
02-12-2010, 04:31 PM
why don't you just face the same reality that palin did when whe quit as governor. it was her only way to keep a political future alive - "a hail mary pass"
so to speak. she wouldn't have to answer ethic charges or address antagonistic
politicians that might cut her down to size and she could make some money in the process. she thought it was "a pretty good idea - oli." from where i'm sitting that pass looks like it's falling short. no arm- so to speak.

Captain Blight
02-12-2010, 06:10 PM
Palin's bad enough. But I'm pretty sure it's going to be Tim Pawlenty (http://www.timpawlenty.com/?ref=googletpaw&gclid=CKe2xcj17Z8CFRMhDQodHA8hYg) on the ballot in '12, and if you think labor's been gutted already, wait until there's a former labor Law attorney in the White house.


Uh-uh. No way, Jose; not on my watch. I've seen what he's done here, and he would be terrible as a president. He's electable, certainly; but he'd soon come to have the same deer-in-the-headlights look Mr Obama used to show.

perldog007
02-14-2010, 12:12 AM
With what money? :confused: Imaginary George Bush deficit dollars?

I personally know two people who say their lives have improved under Obama. Both stationed overseas (one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan), they no longer have the fear that they will be asked to torture a detainee. And they know that, if someone does ask them to do that, they can refuse the order without a moment of hesitation or fear or reprisal.

Actually, I think it would be imaginary McCain deficit dollars as opposed to the imaginary 'Obama Money' we are using now.


You are correct, the prisoner will be rendered to a real undisclosed location and the folks on that end will handle the torture just like in the last adminstration.

This is a hard thing to grasp when you spend so much time on campus deriding the people who actually do stuff, but when your mates are getting hurt you need people to order you not to torture prisoners if you think what they know can make the difference.

It's apparent that you already puffed more than your share, go ahead and pass that to the left. If you really think that an executive order will really stick in the heat of battle all the time without exception, let it go by on the next round. You've had enough.

As for the premise of your O.P.; yep, that was arrogant and condescending. But the former governor has a long ways to go before she matches the sheer ignorance one encounters in some venues :rolleyes:

perldog007
02-14-2010, 12:14 AM
Well, that's not quite true.... but let's pretend for a moment that you're correct.

Wouldn't that make you want to find someone even more radical and less like Bush and McCain?

Russ Feingold for 2012, perhaps?

I wouldn't hesitate to vote for the only Senator who voted agains the patriot act. He's got my support if he runs. ( _ducks_)

ljb5
02-15-2010, 10:00 AM
Actually, I think it would be imaginary McCain deficit dollars as opposed to the imaginary 'Obama Money' we are using now.

That's the point. Obama cut the funding, but Paul said McCain wouldn't have cut it.

His exact words:

...I believe that if Obama had not won, NASA would be fully funded...

So he's complaining that Obama cut the funding and saying McCain would have spent the money.... and you turn around and say that Obama is spending the money.

Please follow along more carefully.

(also, I haven't been on a campus in years, I don't smoke anything and I'm damn sure I contribute more to the real economy than you do.)

David G
02-15-2010, 11:04 AM
BW,



Meantime - remember that we are actually discussing two different continuum's.

The first has textbook socialism at one end and pure laissez-faire capitalism at the other.

This is where my prime argument lies - that we've recently had the pendulum swing too far toward l-f capitalism, and it's time for a correction. I suspect that this is one legitimate role for government. I suspect that when our economy swings too far toward either end of that spectrum, and government begins corrective actions, there's disruption, inefficiency, and confusion in the markets. Government intervention can be slow, and have unintended consequences. However, I also suspect that... overall... the dislocations are less dramatic than if we allow the pendulum to swing until there is a market correction. The market tends to wait longer, and crash harder... as it has now.

That is the theoretical construct I was referring to. The notion that - historically - our economy tends to swing first toward one end of this spectrum then toward the other. We can argue about what reverses the swing (markets, public policy, external factors etc.) and academics make their careers doing so. But what I was asking was whether High-C (or you, or anyone) agrees with that construct and therefore mostly wants to discuss policy matters (monetarism, keynes, anarchy, etc.)... or whether he had a different construct to offer up for consideration. I don't know if you've already perused it, but here's a longer sketch of what I'm suggesting - post #75:

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1772737




Big Woody, High-C, and all,

So... I didn't get a chance to put together comments on how Friedman's approach relates to our present situation. This week doesn't look good for such an effort, either. Luckily, I think we're not quite ready for that portion of the discussion yet anyway.

I think the first thing is to discuss the model we believe forms the backdrop for... and, inevitably, shapes... such policy level discussions. Do any of y'all have thoughts on the socialism/l-faire capitalism continuum I postulated, and on the pendulum swing mechanism I described (both mentioned above) as typical of how our economy has functioned historically? Agree? Disagree? Alternative models to put forth?

I hope I'm not proposing a discussion that's too arcane to be of interest. I hope - even more - that people would prefer such a discussion to the more typical Loud Baseless Assertions, followed by Name Calling, spiraling down into Motive/Character Questioning.

perldog007
02-15-2010, 10:13 PM
This Administration is spending more imaginary money than any other. I know a few folks who are involved in our current conflicts, including my son. Never heard a comment about not having to torture detainees any more. CIA case officers normally would handle that according to my kid who has three tours in Iraq under his belt.

TMny
02-15-2010, 11:02 PM
> "How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?"

listening for an echo , as ...

'Why sheeeeeeeeeeeeeit , hun , how's that Starvie Beastie one doing?'

Supposing it'd be too much to have public personas identify deliberate and cooperate analysing a Vast problem to which Both parties have contributed {cf Peter Peterson , 'Running on Empty'} , and which the economics profession is largely 'tone deaf' respecting, (excepting as Simon Johnson et al .....)

perldog007
02-15-2010, 11:29 PM
http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww264/perldog007/brown-sign.jpg

from a Massachusetts lawn, it's a fair question.

ljb5
02-16-2010, 09:23 AM
Never heard a comment about not having to torture detainees any more. CIA case officers normally would handle that according to my kid who has three tours in Iraq under his belt.

Lyndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005 of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She received a dishonorable discharge and a three year prison sentence.

She held the rank of Specialist in the Army, not in the CIA.

...oh, and by the way.... Dick Cheney is still saying we ought to be torturing people!

perldog007
02-16-2010, 11:02 AM
Lyndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005 of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She received a dishonorable discharge and a three year prison sentence.

She held the rank of Specialist in the Army, not in the CIA.

...oh, and by the way.... Dick Cheney is still saying we ought to be torturing people!

yep, he and a bunch of others still favor enhanced interrogation. Which they found a bunch of lawyers to agree was not torture. By the way,your boy Obama is still torturing people too, rendering them just like W did.

Lindie's job wasn't to interrogate those folks according to what I heard from her trial, and I don't know of anybody in uniform or otherwise employed by the US of A who has been asked to torture detainees. If it was determined that anybody had asked Lindie to 'torture' those prisoners it sure didn't come out in the trial.

So I still think your statement about folks deployed being happy that nobody can order them to torture a detainee is a bit bogus. But whatever you have to tell yourself to stay in denial over the folks who count in elections ( reasonable people in the middle who don't let others think for them ) are starting to think they may have bought a lemon.

Keep bailing, that levee will hold. :rolleyes:

ljb5
02-16-2010, 11:13 AM
If it was determined that anybody had asked Lindie to 'torture' those prisoners it sure didn't come out in the trial.

Either she did it at the behest of someone else (as she claims), or she did it in the absence of clear and effective guidance from her superiors.

Either way, it happened, but should not have.

ccmanuals
02-16-2010, 12:47 PM
Either she did it at the behest of someone else (as she claims), or she did it in the absence of clear and effective guidance from her superiors.

Either way, it happened, but should not have.

I think it's already been established that the policy of torture came directly from the WH. The Junior enlisted person got 2 years and the people that created the policy get to be on TV rewriting history.

Pugwash
02-16-2010, 01:07 PM
Lindie's job wasn't to interrogate those folks according to what I heard from her trial, and I don't know of anybody in uniform or otherwise employed by the US of A who has been asked to torture detainees. If it was determined that anybody had asked Lindie to 'torture' those prisoners it sure didn't come out in the trial.


Was a "request" necessary?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/02/science/conv.190.2.jpg

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Doesn't human nature just suck?

Anyway, we all know Peppermint Patty was just going along with Charles Graner.

:rolleyes:

Chip-skiff
02-16-2010, 09:56 PM
Cheney the Zombie ex-Veep just said it on national TV: despite the evidence, we're at war and he's still in favor of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. (Oh, and Nixon wasn't really a criminal.)

One is tempted to ask Ms. Palin how that rogue maverick governor thing worked out (oops). Or that rogue maverick VP candidate thing (blew it).

She's obviously not much of a writer. What's next?

The Fox News boneyard.

John Smith
02-17-2010, 07:30 AM
he hasn't changed anything
I'm not so sure that's true.

He's only got a year under his belt, and most presidents have tough first years.

Let's be a bit more patient and see what comes down the road.

Meanwhile, it's pretty hard to get a whole lot done if everything is going to need 60 votes in the senate.

Art Read
02-17-2010, 09:10 AM
Overheard recently... "Of COURSE Socialism is the best form of government. The only thing wrong with it is that people are so damn selfish and lazy that it'll NEVER work... We should just pass a law!!"

Said with a straight face... Sigh.:(

"Socialism: A "great" idea that... JUST... DOESN'T... WORK"!!

Phillip Allen
02-17-2010, 09:15 AM
TELL me where Cheney is saying this ... please, lj ...please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously ... SHOW ME where he is 'SAYING' this ... oops ...

WE will all accept your apology now!

:D

are you kidding? that guy is constantly wrong and NEVER apologizes...EVER! (if he ever does he is likely to shrivel up into a little wadded up sandwich bag)

Art Read
02-17-2010, 09:18 AM
Just curious. Is it "torture" when done to our own troops as part of evasion and survival training. Is THAT okay?

Chip-skiff
02-17-2010, 11:15 AM
TELL me where Cheney is saying this ... please, lj ...please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously ... SHOW ME where he is 'SAYING' this ... oops ...



New York Times, Feb. 15, 2010, p. A10

John Smith
02-17-2010, 11:26 AM
Overheard recently... "Of COURSE Socialism is the best form of government. The only thing wrong with it is that people are so damn selfish and lazy that it'll NEVER work... We should just pass a law!!"

Said with a straight face... Sigh.:(

"Socialism: A "great" idea that... JUST... DOESN'T... WORK"!!
Which of the socialist ideas in this country don't work? Resevoirs? Sewage systems? Police? Firefighters? courts? Parks? Libraries? Satellites? Medicare? Social security?

No offense, the concept that private industry does everything well and government does everything poorly are both BS. Each does some things better than the other. The trick is to know which does which best.

John Smith
02-17-2010, 11:27 AM
Huh?

He said it just this past Sunday, on one of the talk shows.... he specifically and explicitly said that he endorsed the use of waterboarding and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' when he was Veep, and that he still does.

Charming guy, that Dick! :)
Yes. I can vouch for that. I saw him say it.

johnw
02-17-2010, 01:56 PM
Just curious. Is it "torture" when done to our own troops as part of evasion and survival training. Is THAT okay?
Yes. We are training our troops to resist torture. We started doing that after the North Koreans started torturing our troops during the Korean war.

johnw
02-17-2010, 02:15 PM
By the way,your boy Obama is still torturing people too, rendering them just like W did.


I don't believe this is true. We still have rendition, but not extraordinary rendition, which was the version where we sent people to countries where we knew they would be tortured.

ljb5
02-17-2010, 04:00 PM
TELL me where Cheney is saying this ... please, lj ...please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously ... SHOW ME where he is 'SAYING' this ... oops ...

WE will all accept your apology now!

:D

Chip, Norman and John answered this.

It is now time for you to apologize to me.

johnw
02-17-2010, 04:18 PM
And here's some video:

http://current.com/items/92141547_cheney-i-heart-torture-there-ive-said-it.htm

Kaa
02-17-2010, 05:22 PM
I don't believe this is true. We still have rendition, but not extraordinary rendition, which was the version where we sent people to countries where we knew they would be tortured.

How do you know?

Kaa

johnw
02-17-2010, 05:43 PM
I read the newspapers. Have you seen evidence that this has not happened?

David G
02-17-2010, 07:20 PM
Socialist have an inaccurate view of basic human nature as it actually manifests itself. Their system does not work for humans. We are all born with a basically selfish nature. The Bible got it right.
capitalism appeals to our selfish nature, and works because it is reality based. Socialism fails to work because it is designed to harness an altruism and self sacrificing that pales in comparison to our innate selfishness.
Capitalism is the best working model we have. any step towards socialism however well intentioned is a step in the wrong direction from a purely economic standpoint IMHO. And in my opinion charity is not the business of government, but of religion and individuals. When the government started doing charity, they trampled the "separation of church and state" and usurped the church on their own turf. We are all created of equal worth to God. Any governmental attempt to level us is just a negative incentive to personal achievement and responsibility, and restricts the work of actual charity. That being said, I do think the government itself should endeavor to keep the rule of law impartial and equal to all.
If I had my way the federal government would control our military, our federal law enforcement, shared infrastructure, and not too much else. Much more of government would be controlled at a more local level. The states would truly be the laboratories of democracy.

BW -

Interesting take - but I wasn't asking if anyone thought socialism or laissez-faire capitalism was the best approach.

Here's what I asked (underlines added for clarity):

Do any of y'all have thoughts on the socialism/l-faire capitalism continuum I postulated, and on the pendulum swing mechanism I described (both mentioned above) as typical of how our economy has functioned historically?

I was asking if folks agreed with the model I described, not asking for a diatribe concerning the merits of either extreme of the continuum.

FWIW, I'll say again - both extremes of this spectrum contain inherent flaws. Socialism, as you've described. LF capitalism as I described in my '08 post.

But... again... that's not what I was asking. I was asking if people agreed with the model I presented... the mechanism I described. That's the starting point, as I see it, for any rational exploration of the policy issues that every one seems so intent on getting to.

Perhaps I've been inept at getting my inquiry across to you. Or, perhaps you believe that my query - as stated - does not get to the core of the matter. Or perhaps you disagree about the methodology I propose (first reach agreements or define areas of disagreement about the underlying mechanism before attempting to address policy prescriptions). Perhaps you're too ignorant to engage in that particular discussion. Perhaps you're perfectly capable, but are being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps you're not interested in discussion, but are instead merely seeking opportunities to post rants and score ideological points. At any rate... you are failing to address the point I am raising. For that, I'm sorry.

johnw
02-17-2010, 07:35 PM
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Carl Sagan
We had plenty of evidence under the previous administration. The current administration says they've stopped extraordinary rendition, and nothing has come to light indicating that they lied about that. I'd say if there is no such evidence, we start with the assumption that they said they stopped it because they were stopping it. If evidence to the contrary comes up, we can re-examine this assumption.

Kaa
02-17-2010, 08:56 PM
I'd say if there is no such evidence, we start with the assumption that they said they stopped it because they were stopping it.

"Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" -- Mandy Rice-Davies :D

Kaa

Pugwash
02-17-2010, 09:26 PM
God had to strike them dead to keep the others in fear

Sounds like the capitalism I know...

There might not be a lot of "fatal" smoting these days, but being smote by interest rates, by recission, by processing fees, by premium increases and loss of recourse. Certainly makes a person humble.

Praise the lord, for he is benevolent and rewardeth the money changers in the temple for they are righteous.

Amen.


Douch*cough*ebag.

JimD
02-17-2010, 09:31 PM
...Socialism fails to work because it is designed to harness an altruism and self sacrificing ....

Nice try, but that's not why socialism fails.

Dave Wright
02-17-2010, 10:56 PM
..... Capitalism is the best system based upon how God has told us that we are....


I'd be happy to agree if you'd be willing to add just one word to the above sentence and drop the reference to god. Would that be OK by you?

i.e.... REGULATED capitalism is the best system.

Otherwise, I just don't know of any instance where unregulated capitalism doesn't degenerate into looting.

Looting, defn: to rob especially on a large scale, and usually by violence or corruption.

oznabrag
02-17-2010, 11:49 PM
"Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" -- Mandy Rice-Davies :D

Kaa

Sooooo.........Because Bushco's guilty, Obama's guilty?

Get yer grip on, y'ol' snake............................................. .................


:rolleyes:



It's too damned bad there's not a 'dead-eyes' smiley. :)

johnw
02-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Cheney is going around saying Obama's making us all less safe because he's not torturing. So, he's bad because he's not torturing, but he's really torturing? Can't conservatives get their stories straight?

ljb5
02-18-2010, 01:52 PM
TELL me where Cheney is saying this ... please, lj ...please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously ... SHOW ME where he is 'SAYING' this ... oops ...

WE will all accept your apology now!

:D

Hey, brad? You there?

You owe me an apology.

isla
02-18-2010, 01:53 PM
God can pull off communism, humans aren't so good at it. If you read about the early churches "communism" you find that it was immediately tested by Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, and that God had to strike them dead to keep the others in fear so that the system would not fall into its inevitable default where nobody works hard, and everybody complains they don't get enough.
While trying not to be sacrilegious, it becomes apparent that when God himself has to kill people to instill enough fear to make the system work, that the system is not safe to be run by humans.

So let me see if I understand this..God intended/planned/designed a communist society, but the people couldn't make it work. So he killed some of them to try and knock some sense into them. But they still couldn't make it work, so God said 'bloody sod the lot of you then', and left us to our own devices, and we invented capitalism. Is that about right?

bobbys
02-18-2010, 01:57 PM
Pelosi: 'Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?'


WASHINGTON, May 18 /PRNewswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
spoke this morning on the House floor to ask Americans how they have fared
under President Bush and the Republican Congress. Other House and Senate
Democrats will ask similar questions this week. Below are Pelosi's remarks.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the question that President-to-be Ronald
Reagan made famous in a debate in 1980: 'Are you better off today than you
were four years ago?'
"And the answer, for most Americans, is no. Under President Bush and the
Republican Congress, most Americans have suffered.
"If you are a taxpayer, you are not better off. We went from a budget
that was in balance -- in 1999 the deficit was zero -- and on a path to a $5.6
trillion surplus, to one now that is half a trillion dollars in debt this year
alone.
"If you are a senior, you are not better off because prescription drug
costs for seniors have skyrocketed 44 percent in the last four years. And
what do they get: a hoax of a prescription drug bill?
"If you are student, you are not better off because the Bush
Administration has underfunded the No Child Left behind Act by $27 billion
since 2001, and wants to cut funding for higher education by $1.3 billion
while college tuition has increased by 28 percent.
"If you are a worker, you are not better off because 2.2 million jobs have
been lost and the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, one third higher than the
4.2 percent when President Bush took office.
"And workers are not better off because wages have failed to keep pace
with inflation, rising a mere nickel between March and April.
"If you are a consumer, you are not better off because gas prices have
increased from $1.26 a gallon to a record $2.01 a gallon since President Bush
took office.
"In the next few days, we will offer a further list of grievances of the
reckless policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.
"Clearly, we are not better off than when President Bush took office."


SOURCE Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

TomF
02-18-2010, 02:03 PM
...If you read about the early churches "communism" you find that it was immediately tested by Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, and that God had to strike them dead to keep the others in fear so that the system would not fall into its inevitable default .... Let's see here ...
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died...So where's the punishment for communism? If the story's true, God "smote" Ananias and Sapphira because they sold property, pretended to share the money communally, but lied about it ... to God. A cautionary tale, to be sure, but not about the evils of communism.
In Acts 6 again you see the Greek widows claiming that the Hebrews were not giving them their fair share.Yes, the Greek converts complained that the Hebrew Christians weren't sharing the goods well enough to look after their widows properly. And the Apostles' solution wasn't to repudiate the notion of sharing equally, but to admit their own time management skills sucked. They chose 7 people who were acceptable to everyone, and delegated the equal distribution task to them. In Acts 6:5, we hear that "5This proposal pleased the whole group."

You've doubtless heard the story about how in Heaven and Hell, both places have a feast spread out on a huge banquet table? And everybody's got a spoon with a handle too long to be able to feed themselves? In Heaven, people happily fed each other; in Hell, they fought and spoiled the feast, staying hungry, as each tried to feed only themselves anyway.

This is a vision of communism, as utopian as Marx could have imagined it to be. The great failing of Marxism isn't the vision, or the analysis of the problem ... it's the failure to recognize that we're self-motivated rather than other-motivated. That becoming otherwise may be what we're here to learn, but it surely isn't our starting place.

I, Rowboat
02-18-2010, 04:07 PM
If I had my way the federal government would control our military, our federal law enforcement, shared infrastructure, and not too much else.

What a socialist! All of those functions could and should be conducted in the private sector by corporations legally bound to maximize quarterly profits. It's the American Way, and backed by His Word(tm)! :mad:

JimD
02-18-2010, 07:41 PM
What a socialist!
It was only a matter of time before he showed his true colours. Personally, I never trusted the guy. Not from the beginning. Something not quite right there, I said to myself...

oznabrag
02-18-2010, 09:28 PM
Good man, Brad.

ljb5
02-18-2010, 09:41 PM
When I am wrong, at least I admit it! :)

So do I.

ljb5
02-18-2010, 10:12 PM
Brad, your apology contained an under-handed insult... and then you followed it up with a lie.

You were wrong, I was right... .and you attacked me for it.

I'm glad you apologized, but you it would have been better if you'd said nothing at all, rather than attacking me, admitting you were wrong and then attacking me again.

In this case, you were the one who was wrong, not me... so you don't get to lecture me about how you're superior. Eat your crow and deal with it.

ljb5
02-18-2010, 10:15 PM
We all know that you do not EVER acknowledge, at least on this forum, when you are incorrect.

You're wrong again, Brad.... and you owe me an apology for that one too.

ljb5
02-18-2010, 11:38 PM
How silly of me to think you'd admit when you're wrong. :rolleyes:

You just attack, attack, attack. Grow up.

You were wrong. Take your lumps like a man and stop trying to make it my fault that you were wrong.

bobbys
02-18-2010, 11:55 PM
Come on guys.

Group hug!!!

bobbys
02-19-2010, 12:53 AM
How silly of me to think you'd admit when you're wrong. :rolleyes:

You just attack, attack, attack. Grow up.

You were wrong. Take your lumps like a man and stop trying to make it my fault that you were wrong..

O come on, Now is your chance to be the bigger man and accept his apologize while hes sleeping!:D

Art Read
02-19-2010, 09:58 AM
February 19, 2010
Excuses for Obama's Failure to Lead
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

It's 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health care reform -- lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer.

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties ... with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.

Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. ... And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."

Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically to block one Bush (43) judicial nomination after another. Back then, Democrats touted it as an indispensable check on overweening majority power. Well, it still is. Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: "Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama's (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. ... But in this case there's a simpler explanation: Barack Obama's job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed."

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise -- expanded coverage at lower cost -- led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections -- Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That's not a structural defect. That's a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself -- despite the special interests -- through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

ccmanuals
02-19-2010, 10:30 AM
I think that during the Reagon and Clinton years there wasn't a clear and stated goal of the opposition for the other party and it's President to fail in everything they propose. Or, more recently to oppose even initiatives that all parties support.

I, Rowboat
02-19-2010, 11:05 AM
Absolutely no group hug with that worthless POS ... INSANE lj girl!

:D

Just got up again to check on the dog ...

NIGHT, NIGHT!!

Brad

Just a little third-party perspective here, but perhaps you need a break from the Bilge. When you get up from bed to just "check on the dog" and simply can't resist straying over to the computer to see what others are saying about your little mini-drama with LJ, it might be time to walk away for a bit. Maybe look at some other websites. Hey, here's one with adorable kittens! (http://www.cutelittlekittens.com/) Not only are kittens adorable, they're also lovable. Just sayin'.

ljb5
02-19-2010, 06:31 PM
Obama had a filibuster proof majority and still couldn't get his ultra left wing agenda passed, because even his own party was afraid of how far left it was.

That's an inaccurate statement.

Health care reform did pass the Senate with sixty votes, and the House with 220.

Every single senator in the Democratic party voted in favor of the bill, as did more than 90% of the Representatives in the party. You cannot say his own party was against it.

It's true that it did encounter some resistance, but there was just as much from people who wanted it to be even more left-wing. A lot of people in the party felt that it was too far to the right because it didn't include a public option and gave too much to the insurance companies.

ljb5
02-20-2010, 09:48 PM
So, I apologize to you because I was incorrect ... and yet you want another apology?

Well sure. You apologized, then immediately insulted me and said something that isn't true. You ought to apologize for each and every false statement you make.


Give us some examples of you apologizing ... or EVEN admitting when you were wrong (several hundred times over the years ...).

Wouldn't it be more logical for you to provide some evidence of where I have been wrong?

If I do dig up a time when I admitted I was wrong, will you shut up for a while... or will you just keep attacking and attacking and attacking?


Go ahead ... call me some personal insult ... bring up my past from years ago ...

No personal insults and nothing about your past. This is about your recent behavior.

ljb5
02-20-2010, 11:30 PM
I will hush up about that particular infraction, to be sure!

Which infraction?

Do you have a specific incident in mind, or are you just randomly attacking, hoping that something will stick?

ljb5
02-21-2010, 12:47 AM
OF course, I do ... as do many around here ... but perhaps, you have just forgotten!

Feel free to remind me. Anytime.

Seriously, dude, what the heck are you talking about?

You were mistaken. A whole bunch of people called you out. You eventually apologized. Fine. Good. It should have ended right there.

But now you're off on some ridiculous tangent about some other incident at some other time which you can't even specify.

What the heck are you talking about?

You were wrong. You apologized. Leave it at that.

And now you're trying to change the subject to what you think you contribute to the economy? Huh?

Give it a rest.

bobbys
02-21-2010, 02:59 AM
Does anyone else see the Brad / ljb5 banter looking like Kirk trying to argue logic with Spock? :).

I dunno but i have finally met people more stubborn then me:)

David G
02-21-2010, 01:31 PM
Perhaps you're figuring it out. But I'll make a brief attempt to let you know my view on your spectrum and pendulum swings. Unlike Obama and many in politics, I admit to having an ideology and being an ideologue. One wonders why those without strong fundamental convictions would work so hard to be in politics? :D (it must pay better than the published salary.)
I don't care to argue the fix with someone from another ideology as it can be tiresome and we will most likely not agree. and it is doubtful if this forum discussion will result in any real action being taken by those who need to take it. Feel free to post what you think the fix is however and I'll give you my two cents.

Anyhow, I don't see a capitalism/communism linear spectrum. I see a point called truth and any direction away from it is called error. According to my understanding that point is very near to capitalism.
I have witnessed the pendulum swing as those in error get control and are repeatedly unable to make their erroneous theories produce the expected results, they are then debunked temporarily in the short memory of the electorate and media. However in a three dimensional world the pendulum may not swing back and stop at the truth point, but is just as likely to swing around truth in a circular pattern of repeated and new errors. Also sometimes when the party closer to truth or error is in power, many opportunists from all directions join up with them and pull things toward their own particular direction of error, blurring everything.

I see capitalism and communism as two separate and logical beliefs both of which are based on a group of assumptions. I believe some of the assumptions underlying communism are wrong. I think most people try to combine the two or co-opt parts they like from both and fail to realize that the two different sides require different assumptions and that to combine parts from both is to adopt a viewpoint that has its own internal conflict of logic. Most people believe things which conflict at their very basis. some acknowledge this, some don't even realize it. Very few people right or wrong can argue politics at any length without finding themselves on both sides of the coin, and many fail to realize that on certain coins both sides can't be right. Truth is a point. Some erroneous views have merit, but only so much as the basic truth they got right. Being close by coincidence or by trial and error is not the same as knowing. So while the pendulum swings back and forth and all around truth has never moved. Due to ignorance we are doomed to repeat history, for if we were at least observant we could come close to the truth just by the trial and error of years gone by. The big swings and gradual tilts are just the unnecessary tangents brought about by the unstoppable power of ignorance. :D The truth has been where it is for all eternity. And strangely enough the truth seems to have a bit of repulsive force, as people would prefer to believe a lie. For surely if the truth was not repulsive we all would have settled on it in agreement in generations long ago and found no reason to deviate from it.

BW,

I'm afraid your brief attempt failed.

Instead, you chose to go on another rant - celebrating your ignorance, intolerance, and lack of reading comprehension.

How, ignorance? It's clear by now that (despite my urgings) you have no comprehensive view of the economy to offer up... simply your scantly-informed opinions. Would that you had said that from the first... rather than responding to my attempts at dialogue with useless diatribes.

How, intolerance? Your comment is illustrative, "I don't care to argue the fix with someone from another ideology as it can be tiresome and we will most likely not agree." Discussing things with people who disagree is the only way to move forward. Discussing civic issues only with those who agree with you is insufficient.

How, lack of reading comprehension? One example is that I did not postulate a continuum with laissez-faire capitalism at one end, and communism at the other. If you look again, you'll see that I was talking about LFC and socialism. OTOH, perhaps you equate socialism and communism. If so - it again illustrates your ignorance.

So I'm left with the sad conclusion that it was a waste of time trying to hold a productive discussion with you. That you are too ill-informed, yet opinionated, to contribute much to such an effort. That you insist on clinging to your insecurely grasped but rigidly held beliefs despite not being able to defend them.

This does not present the positions you espouse in a good light.

Frankly, it confounds me. I would think that - as a matter of civic responsibility and personal pride - people would want to be informed voters. One does not get to that position by hewing strictly to one's own existing opinions - no matter how hearfelt. One achieves knowledge and wisdom by gathering all of the facts and opinions available, from as wide a range of sources as possible, then using your own brain to form opinions. Cleaving to one particular dogma is nothing more than a comfortable, easy, way to avoid the hard work of thinking clearly, and to abstain from the responsibilities of a citizen and a human being.

There's nothing wrong with being where you are. We all have come to a certain view of the world, and measure new information and current events against that standard.

The key, though, is not to succumb to the conceit that we have all the information necessary to totally grasp the any given issue. We need to hold open - at the very least - a sliver of opportunity to admit to ourselves that we may be wrong. There might be critical information that we do not yet have. We could even be dramatically wrong. That missing information could change the whole complexion of the situation. If we're not willing to be as critical of our own notions as we are the opinions of others, we're not being honest with ourselves or others.

High C
02-21-2010, 06:20 PM
....celebrating your ignorance, intolerance, and lack of reading comprehension....you have no comprehensive view of the economy to offer up... simply your scantly-informed opinions....responding to my attempts at dialogue with useless diatribes.....it again illustrates your ignorance....I'm left with the sad conclusion that it was a waste of time trying to hold a productive discussion with you....you are too ill-informed, yet opinionated, to contribute much to such an effort....you insist on clinging to your insecurely grasped but rigidly held beliefs despite not being able to defend them....

I bet you have a hard time getting the other boys and girls to play with you, huh? :rolleyes:

This is why I didn't take your bait in this "discussion". It was obvious from the get go that you were itching to unleash this very sort of sanctimonious diatribe. You have serious social issues, dude.

David G
02-21-2010, 08:31 PM
I bet you have a hard time getting the other boys and girls to play with you, huh? :rolleyes:

This is why I didn't take your bait in this "discussion". It was obvious from the get go that you were itching to unleash this very sort of sanctimonious diatribe. You have serious social issues, dude.

High-C,

No problems with my social life, thanks.

I wonder why you put "discussion" in quotes?

I was "itching" to unleash a diatribe, you say? That's interesting, since I did not join this thread till after nearly 60 posts. It's particularly funny because I only joined in response to you misrepresenting my position as a potential McCain voter. See post #59. Seems like I was perfectly reasonable in my tone while doing so.

That's what you call "itching"?

It's interesting too, since I wrote several lengthy, perfectly civil, and articulate (if I do say so myself) posts attempting to frame a discussion, and get other folks agreement or disagreement (I didn't really care which) to the way I framed it. I seem to remember 3 - 4 perfectly civil posts attempting to solicit opinions from you, BW, or anyone else who cared to chime in.

Is that what you call "itching"?

What I got back each time was another helping of dogma. Then I wrote another post which was mostly civil, with a small bit of testiness at the end (beginning to lose patience). What'd I get back? More unresponsive ideological ranting.

Is that what you call "itching"?

Then the post you quoted. It was, indeed, a bit of a diatribe. I was tired of respectfully soliciting dialogue and receiving back mere cant.

I admit - responses such as mine rarely serve any useful purpose. And yet... would you care to refute my assertions of ignorance, intolerance, and lack of reading comprehension? Can you really not grasp my frustration with BW? Do you really think I drafted all those early posts just to set up a chance to unleash a bit of snarkiness on BW? Really?


Oh, and BTW, looking at your post above, I wonder -- where did your snarkiness come from?

oznabrag
02-21-2010, 09:18 PM
HEY BRAD!

WHY DON'T YOU PUT LJ ON IGNORE????

IN FACT, I THOUGHT YOU HAD HIM ON IGNORE!

If you keep on with this, I'm gonna be forced to the conclusion that you is a fweek, dude.

You're bein' 'That Guy', Brad. Juss chill. :)

Captain Blight
02-21-2010, 09:40 PM
How about all us idiots shut the hell up for a minute, huh?

oznabrag
02-21-2010, 09:54 PM
How about all us idiots shut the hell up for a minute, huh?

Hey man!

It's good to see ya!

I noticed a bunch of your posts missing, and thought you mighta been poofed!

I was pretty worried. :D

I thought I may have to cope with these RWZs by myself!

Glen Longino
02-21-2010, 10:35 PM
"I thought I may have to cope with these RWZs by myself!"

Never! Not a Chance!:)

ljb5
02-21-2010, 10:52 PM
You HAVE NOT EVER admitted that you were incorrect!

There have been a few times. I'm not often wrong, so I don't often have anything to admit.

You think I've been wrong? Prove it. (Not mere accusations... actual proof... just like you demanded way back in post #102)

You demanded proof and several of us showed it to you. Now, I request the same.

As it stands now, you've been wrong twice on this thread and I haven't. Doesn't look to good for you.

Maybe you should just let it drop.

Glen Longino
02-21-2010, 10:57 PM
If El Jay has ever been wrong I must have missed it.
On the other hand, everytime he pisses somebody off I've seen it!

Captain Blight
02-21-2010, 10:58 PM
"I thought I may have to cope with these RWZs by myself!"

Never! Not a Chance!:)
NEVER LEAVE A MAN BEHiND!

Glen Longino
02-21-2010, 11:01 PM
NEVER LEAVE A MAN BEHiND!

:):)Especially if it's John T!!!

oznabrag
02-21-2010, 11:03 PM
:D:D:D

redeye1962
02-22-2010, 12:07 AM
FYI, I saw the bumper sticker today. That did not take long but it does make a good sticker. not as good as wheres the beef?:D

John P Lebens
02-22-2010, 01:33 AM
I just love this stuff...





More Palin Hypocrisy: Tripp Has Government Provided Health Insurance


The dangers of "death panels" were explained to Americans on Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Oh, sweet Lord, she must not sleep at night...her grandson could be the next victim of "socialized medicine".

Recently released documents from the custody battle show clearly Tripp Palin Johnston has socialized health care through Indian Health Services and the Alaska Native Medical Center.

Palin's family has federally funded health care afforded to them...but if you had it Barack Obama might kill you. Put this on the list of Palin's Greatest Hypocritical Hits...volume 97.

David G
02-22-2010, 12:54 PM
BW,

...........

So I'm left with the sad conclusion that it was a waste of time trying to hold a productive discussion with you. That you are too ill-informed, yet opinionated, to contribute much to such an effort. That you insist on clinging to your insecurely grasped but rigidly held beliefs despite not being able to defend them.

This does not present the positions you espouse in a good light.

Frankly, it confounds me. I would think that - as a matter of civic responsibility and personal pride - people would want to be informed voters. One does not get to that position by hewing strictly to one's own existing opinions - no matter how hearfelt. One achieves knowledge and wisdom by gathering all of the facts and opinions available, from as wide a range of sources as possible, then using your own brain to form opinions. Cleaving to one particular dogma is nothing more than a comfortable, easy, way to avoid the hard work of thinking clearly, and to abstain from the responsibilities of a citizen and a human being.

There's nothing wrong with being where you are. We all have come to a certain view of the world, and measure new information and current events against that standard.

The key, though, is not to succumb to the conceit that we have all the information necessary to totally grasp the any given issue. We need to hold open - at the very least - a sliver of opportunity to admit to ourselves that we may be wrong. There might be critical information that we do not yet have. We could even be dramatically wrong. That missing information could change the whole complexion of the situation. If we're not willing to be as critical of our own notions as we are the opinions of others, we're not being honest with ourselves or others.


I read a column in todays paper that describes this same phenomenon:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/21/1492484/facts-no-longer-mean-what-they.html


A snippet --

You see, like me, she can remember a time when facts settled arguments. This is back before everything became a partisan shouting match, back before it was permissible to ignore or deride as ``biased'' anything that didn't support your worldview.
If you and I had an argument and I produced facts from an authoritative source to back me up, you couldn't just blow that off. You might try to undermine my facts, might counter with facts of your own, but you couldn't just pretend my facts had no weight or meaning.

But that's the intellectual state of the union these days, as evidenced by all the people who still don't believe the president was born in Hawaii or that the planet is warming.

I could send him more proof, I suppose.But those are facts, and the whole point here is that facts no longer mean what they once did. I suppose I could also ignore him. But you see, Ken Thompson is not just some isolated eccentric. No, he is the Zeitgeist personified. To listen to talk radio, to watch TV pundits, to read a newspaper's online message board, is to realize that increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth. We admit no ideas that do not confirm us, hear no voices that do not echo us, sift out all information that does not validate what we wish to believe.

I submit that any people thus handicapped sow the seeds of their own decline; they respond to the world as they wish it were rather to the world as it is.

But objective reality does not change because you refuse to accept it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a wall does not change the fact that it's a wall.

And you shouldn't have to hit it to find that out.

oznabrag
02-22-2010, 01:08 PM
...increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth. We admit no ideas that do not confirm us, hear no voices that do not echo us, sift out all information that does not validate what we wish to believe.

...
[/I]

These are the characteristics of the RWZs.

I know they're self-destructing, I just hope they can do so wthout taking the rest of the %@# *$#% world with them!

David G
02-22-2010, 01:34 PM
These are the characteristics of the RWZs.

I know they're self-destructing, I just hope they can do so wthout taking the rest of the %@# *$#% world with them!

Oz - I believe you are substantially correct. It seems the folks that I run into here who exhibit this cluster of dysfunctional behaviors mostly hail from the Right side of the spectrum.

But... it's not purely that simple. I've certainly seen folks on the Left exhibit the same sort of single-minded goofiness. Just not so much lately.

Remember also that historically, the Right has made substantial, beneficial contributions to the public discourse. You are right to note that that's not as true lately. The commentary from that side seems, regrettably, to be dominated by loud, no-nothing, clowns like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck.

These people can not be ignored, however. They are having too much of an impact on public opinion to be dismissed casually.

Remember, too, that there are still legitimate conservatives out there. Ones who do think, can reason, and actually have something of substance to say. But one does have to look harder these days to find them. These people should not be dismissed, either. They provide an important counterweight. Here in the Bilge, you might think of C. Ross as an example of such.

Believe me when I say - neither side has a monopoly on smart, public-spirited activists and politicians. Likewise - neither side has a monopoly on fools, demagogues, and sell-outs.

Right now, I'd argue that most folks recognize we've gone too far toward laissez-faire capitalism (typically the territory of the Right). The True Believers (have you ever read Eric Hoffer?) that remain as cheerleaders for LFC have already self-selected for irrationality. That colors our view of the Right at the moment, but shouldn't overshadow the larger view.

oznabrag
02-22-2010, 02:10 PM
Oz - I believe you are substantially correct. It seems the folks that I run into here who exhibit this cluster of dysfunctional behaviors mostly hail from the Right side of the spectrum.

But... it's not purely that simple. I've certainly seen folks on the Left exhibit the same sort of single-minded goofiness. Just not so much lately.

Remember also that historically, the Right has made substantial, beneficial contributions to the public discourse. You are right to note that that's not as true lately. The commentary from that side seems, regrettably, to be dominated by loud, no-nothing, clowns like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck.

These people can not be ignored, however. They are having too much of an impact on public opinion to be dismissed casually.

Remember, too, that there are still legitimate conservatives out there. Ones who do think, can reason, and actually have something of substance to say. But one does have to look harder these days to find them. These people should not be dismissed, either. They provide an important counterweight. Here in the Bilge, you might think of C. Ross as an example of such.

Believe me when I say - neither side has a monopoly on smart, public-spirited activists and politicians. Likewise - neither side has a monopoly on fools, demagogues, and sell-outs.

Right now, I'd argue that most folks recognize we've gone too far toward laissez-faire capitalism (typically the territory of the Right). The True Believers (have you ever read Eric Hoffer?) that remain as cheerleaders for LFC have already self-selected for irrationality. That colors our view of the Right at the moment, but shouldn't overshadow the larger view.

Oh I agree completely, David, about the fact that political Zombieism isn't confined to the Right. Also that the Right has, historically, provided much that is meaningful and accurate to our political discourse.

And certainly Mr. Ross is a standout representative for the Right, and for rational, civil debate in general (Kudos, Cris!)

I agree also that the RWZs are potentially dangerous to the foundations of democracy in this country.

I call them zombies because it doesn't matter how many times you utterly refute their irrational blather, they get up and try to eat your brain again!

They have completely abandoned any semblance of political discourse, and merely bleat their talking points ad infinitum.

This makes them utter failures as citizens. We must rise above their mucking, brainless mewling if we are to clear the reefs ahead.

I say rise above, because it is abundantly clear they are incapable of even the most rudimentary reasoning.

It's pretty frustrating!:D

David G
02-22-2010, 09:46 PM
Oz,

I call them zombies because it doesn't matter how many times you utterly refute their irrational blather, they get up and try to eat your brain again!

That's a funny and pithy way to put it.

This is the part in the whole dynamic that winds me up. I'm not prejudiced against liberals, nor against conservatives. But whenever someone of either stripe starts with this behavior, I find myself feeling irked. It may be because most of my prior political and philosophical riposte and repartee has been in the academic setting. For all the cattiness and competitiveness that can exist there, the forms are typically observed. If not, one loses points, and professional esteem. One stays at least nominally rational, fair, and reasonable. If an opposing point is made - it is acknowledged. You may then try and work around it, or disprove it. With facts. With reasoned argument. The nominal goal is truth and greater understanding. And - except for a few feuds here and there - that still mostly obtains. I find less of that approach here, and I regret the fact.

oznabrag
02-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Oz,

I call them zombies because it doesn't matter how many times you utterly refute their irrational blather, they get up and try to eat your brain again!

That's a funnyand pithy wayto put it.

This is the part in the whole dynamic that winds me up. I'm not prejudiced against liberals, nor against conservatives. But whenever someone of either stripe starts with this behavior, I find myself feeling irked. It may be because most of my prior political and philosophical riposte and repartee has been in the academic setting. For all the cattiness and competitiveness that can exist there, the forms are typically observed. If not, one loses points, and professional esteem. One stays at least nominally rational, fair, and reasonable. If an opposing point is made - it is acknowledged. You may then try and work around it, or disprove it. With facts. With reasoned argument. The nominal goal is truth and greater understanding. And - except for a few feuds here and there - that still mostly obtains. I find less of that approach here, and I regret the fact.

Thanks, David.

I feel that, if they weren't following the Goebbels Playbook, the whole RWZ thing would be good theater, but this type of jingoistic demagoguery has a nasty track record for successfully undermining political process.

"We must be eternally vigilant" (Who was that? TJ? BF? Wunna those guys!:D).

Further, we must be vigilant that the process does not become elitist. The anti-elitism/anti-intellectualism cudgel is one of its most effective weapons against a functioning democracy.

Philip Allen will be along shortly to reinforce this assertion! :D

Take it away Phil! :D:D:D

David G
02-23-2010, 09:13 PM
BW,

I applaud your willingness to stick you nose back into the arena. I further applaud your (somewhat) reasonable tone. I hope you read and took to heart my mea culpa about losing patience with you.

I'm tempted to respond to your most recent post - point by point - but I find that you are off base in so many ways, and are misrepresenting or are unresponsive to my prior comments on so many fronts, that I hardly know where to start. Further, I have little faith at this point that you're actually looking for the same sort of discussion that I am. I'm forced to stick with my prior conclusion regarding the utility of attempting a rational discussion with you.

I wonder if you looked at the magazine article I linked to. My impression is that it fits you quite well.

High C
02-23-2010, 10:24 PM
Congratulations, Woody...you're unworthy! :D

John P Lebens
02-23-2010, 11:47 PM
BW,

You are right about one thing...

"narrow minded ideological hacks like myself"

bobbys
02-24-2010, 12:32 AM
Yep! It doesn't get any better than this. :)

I think living in the shadow of mount Hood has got David down. (pretend empathy ;)).

He should have come down to Seaside a few days ago, Everybody was on the beach sunbathing!:)

offshoreafflicted
02-24-2010, 02:00 AM
What bothers me is that we live in the greatest country on earth, we have the most successfull, brightest and talented people in the world living right here and the best we can come up with is this pathetic group of clowns we have in DC representing us? Not just now but for years and years and years, this is getting embarrasing. We have to do better or we are doomed no matter which party is in power. What happened to men like George Washington, Ben Franklin and Abraham Lincoln? We need change, problem is the morons in office are too busy trying to get re-elected to care.

Is it too late to form my own state and withdraw from the republic?

Captain Blight
02-24-2010, 03:34 AM
Leaving the jingoism out of the above, I agree whole-heartedly. Where are the statesmen? Who shall be our, next, Disraeli?

johnw
02-24-2010, 04:13 PM
The hour produces the man. Apparently, we have no time for the likes of Disraeli.

oznabrag
02-24-2010, 09:21 PM
...

I don't recall who said it, but in a democracy the side with the most fools always wins. :)

Saudi Arabia for you, dude!

They do things the way you like 'em done, and none of that pesky democracy, either!

David G
02-25-2010, 10:14 PM
Yep! It doesn't get any better than this. :)

I think living in the shadow of mount Hood has got David down. (pretend empathy ;))

No... living is Portland is nice. Living near Mt. Hood is outstanding. With our recent nice weather, I drove over the Fremont Bridge one afternoon, and got to see Hood, St. Helens, and Adams... all in one large vista. Simply exquisite.

What got me down slightly was trying to hold an intelligent discussion with a pair of numbskulls, and having them play the fool. Offering up opinions in a civil tone and repeatedly getting back what was primarily dogma and cant was less than pleasant.

Ah well... live and learn. I try and approach interactions with people I don't know well with the assumption that they are competent, and of good heart, even if they disagree with me. Sometimes I learn differently.